Another claim to a working device...

[Grimer]

Grimer,

First let me say I prefer locking the pendulum after each half swing. After the swing, the pendulum is caught in a catch, and the counter weight takes over lifting the pendulum back to it's initial position, then the pendulum is released and the process repeats itself. Doing this brings out the problem with the 2SO as I will try to describe below.

In my tests with a standard Milkovic style 2SO, the pendulum never returned to the same drop height relative to the pendulum pivot point, and I believe it is because the pivot point accelerates downward, due to the CF of the swinging pendulum bob.

This led me to performing a simple pendulum drop experiment in an elevator. The pendulum always returned to the drop height even though the elevator was moving down. I have to assume it was due to the elevator moving downward at a "constant" velocity. If we can find a replacement for the main bar (perhaps some type of linkage) so the pivot point can move downwards but not accelerate, then the bob would return to the initial drop height, relative to the pivot point, then as I mentioned above, the pendulum would be caught at the end of the swing, and the counter weight would lift the pendulum back to it's initial position.

Congratulations on a brilliant experiment, zoelra. It may be, it just may be, the key to Bessler's secret.

In the simple two radian pendulum swing the jerk energy is suppressed. Put in another way, the pendulum attempts to drag its pivot down with the ersatz gravity force but it can't because the pivot is rigid. The force acts but it doesn't move through a distance so it doesn't do any work. The jerk energy is buried in material strain energy. As similar situation occurs with the Roberval balance as Cloud Camper explained in one of his posts.

To unlock the simple pendulum jerk energy it's necessary to move the pivot along a path so that the bob follows the brachistochrone. This allows the 3rd derivative energy, suppressed in the circular swing, to be manifest as angular momentum.

Some time ago, in a PM, Cbucket suggested that it might be an idea to have pendulums on cross bars which are set swinging as they passed the wheel zenith. At the time I didn't place any value in the suggestion since I couldn't see the significance of the combined swing of the bob and vertical motion of the pivot.

But a few days ago I realised that the net effect of this combined motion could well mean the path of the bob was being moved from circular to brachistochrone with consequent release of jerk energy ( = 3rd derivative energy = angular momentum).

Could you let us have more details of your lift experiment, please? Measurements and photos would be nice. A video would be even better.

Once again, congratulations on your imaginative experiment. I would click your greenie - but I see I already have.

[zoelra]

Grimer,

When you say "Could you let us have more details of your lift experiment", do you mean the experiment I performed in the elevator, or my 2SO experiments?

For the longest time I thought acceleration was the "evil root" that Bessler mentioned. It still may be, but my thoughts have shifted somewhat after 0ystein's release of information, well I am at least second guessing myself.

P.S. I will be going back to the same hotel (in December) with the open glass elevator and will perform other experiments if I can get the equipment ready in time.

[zoelra]

Here is something else I believe.

There are two basic types of 2SO. The traditional Milkovic type and the type where the pendulum swings on a fixed pivot point and the bob is allowed to drop via a spring mechanism. The problem I have with the second type is the moment of inertia increases (the length of the pendulum increases) and so the swing speed is affected (slowed) to conserve momentum. IMO, the first option seems to be the better choice.

As previously mentioned, if you can keep the pivot point from accelerating downward, the bob will return to its initial drop height relative to the pivot point. The pendulum (now caught in the horizontal position) just has to be raised by the counter weight.

You still need the pivot point to drop, just not accelerate downward. The drop is what lifts the opposite end of the main lever and thus the counter weight.

[Grimer]

Grimer,

When you say "Could you let us have more details of your lift experiment", do you mean the experiment I performed in the elevator, or my 2SO experiments?

For the longest time I thought acceleration was the "evil root" that Bessler mentioned. It still may be, but my thoughts have shifted somewhat after 0ystein's release of information, well I am at least second guessing myself.

P.S. I will be going back to the same hotel (in December) with the open glass elevator and will perform other experiments if I can get the equipment ready in time.

LOL. We call them lifts in Britain. You've got to admit it's more economical in syllables than elevator. :-)
However I'd be most interested in both your "elevator" experiments and any other stuff you might like
to offer.

Err? "Oystein's release of information..... "
I must admit I normally ignore stuff which tries to decode Bessler. I'll have to take another look.

[Grimer]

Here is something else I believe.

There are two basic types of 2SO. The traditional Milkovic type and the type where the pendulum swings on a fixed pivot point and the bob is allowed to drop via a spring mechanism. The problem I have with the second type is the moment of inertia increases (the length of the pendulum increases) and so the swing speed is affected (slowed) to conserve momentum. IMO, the first option seems to be the better choice.

As previously mentioned, if you can keep the pivot point from accelerating downward, the bob will return to its initial drop height relative to the pivot point. The pendulum (now caught in the horizontal position) just has to be raised by the counter weight.

You still need the pivot point to drop, just not accelerate downward. The drop is what lifts the opposite end of the main lever and thus the counter weight.

I agree.

Edit: On second thoughts I'm not sure I do agree. But you've given me something to think about.

[Grimer]

...

In the simple two radian pendulum swing the jerk energy is suppressed. Put in another way, the pendulum attempts to drag its pivot down with the ersatz gravity force but it can't because the pivot is rigid. The force acts but it doesn't move through a distance so it doesn't do any work. The jerk energy is buried in material strain energy. As similar situation occurs with the Roberval balance as Cloud Camper explained in one of his posts.

To unlock the simple pendulum jerk energy it's necessary to move the pivot along a path so that the bob follows the brachistochrone. This allows the 3rd derivative energy, suppressed in the circular swing, to be manifest as angular momentum.

Some time ago, in a PM, Cbucket suggested that it might be an idea to have pendulums on cross bars which are set swinging as they passed the wheel zenith. At the time I didn't place any value in the suggestion since I couldn't see the significance of the combined swing of the bob and vertical motion of the pivot.

But a few days ago I realised that the net effect of this combined motion could well mean the path of the bob was being moved from circular to brachistochrone with consequent release of jerk energy ( = 3rd derivative energy = angular momentum).
...

One of the simplest examples of the release of angular momentum energy ( = 3rd derivative energy = jerk energy) is the falling chimney behaviour which many of you will no doubt have seen on YouTube.

This phenomenon can be illustrate with a modified falling stick experiment.

If the stick is strong then it will fall as a whole. The bending moment and consequent bowing induced by gravity will be below the threshold of perception and the stick will rotate to the ground in one piece






If on the other hand the stick is very weak then it will break in two at some point and the angular momentum energy will be manifest in the relative rotation between the two parts.



Shades of that Chinese energy researcher, whose name I have forgotten, who was always talking about "bringing things out".
Maybe this is what he meant.

If a pendulum arm is incapable of storing bending energy - if it's a string in other words - then it can be induced to follow a brachistochrone path and give a clock where the period of swing is constant over a wide angle, something not possible with a rigid pendulum arm.

I'll look up the reference to that for my next post.

[Grimer]

If a simple pendulum is suspended from the cusp of an inverted cycloid, such that the "string" is constrained between the adjacent arcs of the cycloid, and the pendulum's length is equal to that of half the arc length of the cycloid (i.e., twice the diameter of the generating circle), the bob of the pendulum also traces a cycloid path. Such a cycloidal pendulum is isochronous, regardless of amplitude.

[Grimer]

I've found how to release bending energy induced into a pendulum arm by the falling stick mechanism.

Sending a bob along a circular path from 8 to 6 during which it builds up bending energy and then along a cycloid path from 6 to 4 during which it releases that bending energy gives an increase in gravitational potential.

Proof of principal has been reached.

Graphs to follow.

[Tarsier79]

Proof of principal has been reached.

What exactly does that mean? you have built a working POP that increases PE? or you have designed a POP test to investigate your theory?

[Grimer]

I'm knackerd.

I'll explain it all in the morning.

[Grimer]

I've reposted the stuff that was here in the 9.20 pm post.

[Tarsier79]

In your deleted post, and elsewhere, you keep referring to the cycloid path as having higher derivative energy. Please back this up mathematically.

[Grimer]

It's the other way around. It's the circular path which has the higher derivative energy.

Somewhere in the forums you will find a discussion between me and Fletcher where we go into all this.
I'll go through it all again since things are crystal clear now.

Below is the second post I deleted.

**************************************************

Interestingly enough I was heading in this direction earlier in the year as you can see from the post below.

Above is a diagrammatic representation of the jointed pendulum experiment.

The pendulum is allowed to swing from 3 o'clock to 6 where it comes up against a rigid stop just above the aerial hinge. The lower half of the pendulum arm continues to rotate about this new axis until it reaches the limbo bar.

The height it reached was, within limits of experimental error, the same as the pendulum with a locked hinge and no stop.

So my hope that jerk energy would lead to a rise higher than the starting point was dashed and my previous claim that the experiment had proved a point of principle was false.

But licking my wounds I suddenly realised that the experiment had thrown up evidence of something even better.

It shows how to achieve a continuously out of balance wheel.

The jerk action pulls the weight in with no expenditure of energy.

To get the same effect with second order force x distance energy by pulling the weight in towards the main axis one would have to do work.

In jerking the weights in from 6 to 9 one unbalances the system since weights on a noon to 6 leg are further from the axis than weights on the 6 to midnight leg.

Second derivative energy (force x distance) (dx/dt)•(dx/dt)•(dx)
Third derivative energy (jerk x time) (dx/dt)•(dx/dt)•(dx/dt)•(dt)

Third derivative energy is transduced to second derivative by cancelling out the red dt's.

I'm fortunate I was forced into a minimalist approach to this problem by my very limited apparatus and experimental skills. It's like someone with only one digit who has to use the superior binary system of reckoning.

I also took courage from Penny's example:

In July of 1946 he was invited to be present at the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands and wrote the after action reports on the effects of the two A-Bomb detonations His reputation was further advanced when , after the sophisticated test apparatus of the Americans failed, he was able to determine the blast power using observations from his specially placed piles of discarded oil drums.

It's ironic that primemignonite titled the thread:

Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-Set!!!

They certainly are. 8-)

[Fletcher]

Grimer .. your deleted post showed a picture where there was a net gain in height [PE] IIRC, from following the cycloid path.

AFAIK experiments show that any impediment to swing such as following a curved surface [the cycloid] or intercepting a stationary pin does not result in a gain in height from starting height, using gravity only.

I guess you have retracted that ?

Nevertheless IINM, you now make the point that whilst there is no gain in height & PE a bob weight can be moved laterally with no Work Energy Input AND still maintain height & PE, within experimental limits.

AND that has potential to lead to continuous sate of Out of Balance.

I guess that if no gain in PE can be had then the next step with your understanding is to show how a continuous OOB can arise from this observation which leads to a device that does not keel & has surplus momentum & KE each revolution.

[Mark]

131013 green energy.jpg

I'm knackerd.

I'll explain it all in the morning.

???

EDIT -- Okay, I just noticed that you re-edited your post 4 times, the last one was about 1 1/2 hours ago.
Never mind.