NEWS FLASH!! Fcdriver has a working wheel!!!!

[eccentrically1]

Ii think Frank keeps referring to derivatives of position or displacement as energy derivatives if I'm remembering right. But they're not. The first derivative of position is speed , the second is acceleration, the third is acceleration of acceleration , or jerk. So if you were riding a roller coaster that was accelerating linearly, if at the same time the ride enters a turn, then you feel the additional acceleration to the center of the turn as a jerk - away from the center, because you are not providing the centripetal acceleration. The sharper the turn, the higher the jerk.
As far as I'm aware, energy isn't referred to this way.

[Fcdriver]

Hmm, so the accelerating arm on the downstroke, accelerates the wheel, which the wheel continuing forward jerks, or accelerates the arm in the other direction as lift, for the lifting stroke? Would that not be the same? But because the lift stroke is slower, there Less directional force?

[eccentrically1]

A wheel and whatever weights , arms , etc., are inside it all have to turn at the same rate. So the downstroke and the lift stroke as you call them, finish each rotation together.
Forget the wheel framework. See if you can build just two mechanisms onto an axle that will self rotate. The wheel framework isn't necessary.

[Fcdriver]

That is what I did, and no the lifting of the arms happen 1/4 speed, compared to drop. The arms are NOT inside the wheel, one full rotation for lift, or as close as possible. Like I have said the wheel is only a transfer method.

[Fcdriver]

A wheel and whatever weights , arms , etc., are inside it all have to turn at the same rate. So the downstroke and the lift stroke as you call them, finish each rotation together.
Forget the wheel framework. See if you can build just two mechanisms onto an axle that will self rotate. The wheel framework isn't necessary.

guess you have not been paying attention

[Grimer]

Ii think Frank keeps referring to derivatives of position or displacement as energy derivatives if I'm remembering right. But they're not. The first derivative of position is speed , the second is acceleration, the third is acceleration of acceleration , or jerk. So if you were riding a roller coaster that was accelerating linearly, if at the same time the ride enters a turn, then you feel the additional acceleration to the center of the turn as a jerk - away from the center, because you are not providing the centripetal acceleration. The sharper the turn, the higher the jerk.
As far as I'm aware, energy isn't referred to this way.

There are lots of different ways of referring to energy, heat, light and sound to mention just a few. All derivatives of mass position with respect to time are energy, not just the second, kinetic energy.

You are correct in stating that energy is not generally referred to in this way - but this is supposed to be a forum where we are attempting to do things which are not generally looked at as being possible so we have to start looking at things in a way that they are not generally looked at, dont we!

[Grimer]

A wheel and whatever weights , arms , etc., are inside it all have to turn at the same rate. So the downstroke and the lift stroke as you call them, finish each rotation together.
Forget the wheel framework. See if you can build just two mechanisms onto an axle that will self rotate. The wheel framework isn't necessary.

Absolutely correct.

A lever has a pivot by definition and has masses on it - again by definition. Those masses are describing an arc which is an element of circular motion. It doesn't have to be the full circle as you point out.

If masses are moving on levers at different speeds at the same radii or at the same speed at different radii then we have a jerk, a 3rd derivative energy.
If we manipulate these levers in the correct fashion we have a continuous/discontinuous source of energy from the NG/EG field interaction. If FcDriver's claim is true then he has found how to do this. All he needs to do now is demonstrate it. I don't think anybody (apart from me :-) ...) is going to understand until he does.

[Tarsier79]

NO, They are not all forms of energy. Acceleration requires energy. Changing acceleration requires energy. Acceleration is not an energy. "Third derivative energy" is a nonsensical term that belongs in a JK Rowling novel.

[Grimer]

NO, They are not all forms of energy. Acceleration requires energy. Changing acceleration requires energy. Acceleration is not an energy. "Third derivative energy" is a nonsensical term that belongs in a JK Rowling novel.

A mass on a rotating wheel is accelerating towards the centre. Does that acceleration require energy to maintain it? - No!

That acceleration is a store of energy.

The first derivative, linear momentum is likewise a store of energy.
Does it require energy to maintain it? - No!

If the momentum is destroyed by the mass hitting a brick wall then the energy is transduced into higher derivative forms of energy such as heat light and sound.

Jerk, the 3rd derivative, is a form of energy, just like all those higher derivatives (4th, 5th ....Nth) which incidentally are also manifest in the pendulum since we are dealing with an infinite series, as ME has pointed out, though their manifestation is not as obvious as that of the 3rd.

Edit: You say, correctly, that change in acceleration requires energy.

Bravo!

It does indeed require energy - and what energy does it require?
It requires change in acceleration energy.
And what is change in acceleration energy?
Change in acceleration energy is Jerk energy, 3rd derivative energy.

[nicbordeaux]

Sorry to jump in on this thread whilst not having time to read it from the beginning. Are we talking about an actual build here, something that will perform a full cycle be that a rotation or a number of degrees of an arc or else with no loss of height of mass (that'd already be a gain given all that entropy stuff), or a "it is going to work" one ? A bit blunt as far as questions go, I do apologise about that .

[Grimer]

Sorry to jump in on this thread whilst not having time to read it from the beginning. Are we talking about an actual build here, something that will perform a full cycle be that a rotation or a number of degrees of an arc or else with no loss of height of mass (that'd already be a gain given all that entropy stuff), or a "it is going to work" one ? A bit blunt as far as questions go, I do apologise about that .

In the Patent pending thread on the Community Buzz Forum Ovyyus asked the same question. Below is Fc Driver's reply.

see picture above does it look like I'm just working on a plan of future events? Shall I call you Wagner? I don't like showing the work product, because of the markings from other attempts, before I show a video, I want to replace some nasty looking parts, that are on what I call my test bed. Too many extra holes, and rough cuts. as I replace parts, and paint it, I'll show it off.

I would say that is a claim for a working wheel, wouldn't you, Nic.

[ME]

since we are dealing with an infinite series, as ME has pointed out

oh..ok, I guess that's my call...

"Infinite series": I don't know if one could pluck some fraction out of a continuous Taylor-series-function (ie: trigonometric) and then apply it somewhere else. And how would you filter it out?

Basically the 3rd derivative could have its mathematical influence:

Position: x[t] = x[0] + v[0]*t + (1/2)*a[0]*t^2 + (1/6)*j[0]*t^3 + (1/24)*s[0]*t^4
Velocity: v[t] = v[0] + a[0]*t + (1/2)*j[0]*t^2 + (1/6)*s[0]*t^3
Acceler.: a[t] = a[0] + j[0]*t + (1/2)*s[0]*t^2
Jerk: j[t] = j[0] + s[0]*t

We can derive this stuff and write it most inconveniently as:
1. Momentum is a change in Position over time (or Center of mass) because of Velocity: p = m*(dx/dt) = m*v
2. Force is a change in Momentum over time because of Acceleration: F = m*(dv/dt) = m*a = m*d(dx/dt)/dt = m*(ddx/dt^2)
3. Yank is a change in Force over time because of Jerk: Y = m*(da/dt) = m*j = m* d(dv/dt)/dt = m* (ddv/dt^2) = m* d(d(dx/dt)/dt)/dt = m*(dddx/dt^3)

As a side note - a most interesting question: what would the zeroth be, and still make some sense:
Mass distribution = m*x [use: CoM= (m1*x1+m2*x2)/(m1+m2), Torque=F*x= a*(m*x), Inertia=(m*x)*x ]
0. a DoM (Distribution of Mass) is a change(or difference) over time because of Space?: DoM = m*(1/dt) = m*x, where (1/dt) comes out of nowhere (thus nonsense);
0. a DoM is a change(or difference) because of Space?: DoM = m*(dx*dt/dt) = m*dx, where (dx*dt/dt) is a change in position over time for a certain duration... (most puzzling :-)
...anyway,

I don't see any primary source for a 3rd derivative, as I hope there will be no change in gravitational acceleration.
A secondary source could be a collision while accelerating, because a collision causes a change in velocity (thus acceleration )- on top of some current acceleration. But during such collision this Jerk-action is only temporary (duration of collision) - but useful enough?
Perhaps a useful 'jerk' can only be (fictitiously) induced inside a rotating frame of reference, but does things change when simply standing in front of such action?

but this is supposed to be a forum where we are attempting to do things which are not generally looked at as being possible so we have to start looking at things in a way that they are not generally looked at, dont we!

True.

[Fcdriver]

So the changing from a direct downward force against the wheel to a indirect force lifting causing a slower rate or acceleration, is not a third?

[Grimer]

since we are dealing with an infinite series, as ME has pointed out

oh..ok, I guess that's my call...

"Infinite series": I don't know if one could pluck some fraction out of a continuous Taylor-series-function (ie: trigonometric) and then apply it somewhere else. And how would you filter it out?

Basically the 3rd derivative could have its mathematical influence:

Position: x[t] = x[0] + v[0]*t + (1/2)*a[0]*t^2 + (1/6)*j[0]*t^3 + (1/24)*s[0]*t^4
Velocity: v[t] = v[0] + a[0]*t + (1/2)*j[0]*t^2 + (1/6)*s[0]*t^3
Acceler.: a[t] = a[0] + j[0]*t + (1/2)*s[0]*t^2
Jerk: j[t] = j[0] + s[0]*t

We can derive this stuff and write it most inconveniently as:
1. Momentum is a change in Position over time (or Center of mass) because of Velocity: p = m*(dx/dt) = m*v
2. Force is a change in Momentum over time because of Acceleration: F = m*(dv/dt) = m*a = m*d(dx/dt)/dt = m*(ddx/dt^2)
3. Yank is a change in Force over time because of Jerk: Y = m*(da/dt) = m*j = m* d(dv/dt)/dt = m* (ddv/dt^2) = m* d(d(dx/dt)/dt)/dt = m*(dddx/dt^3)

As a side note - a most interesting question: what would the zeroth be, and still make some sense:
Mass distribution = m*x [use: CoM= (m1*x1+m2*x2)/(m1+m2), Torque=F*x= a*(m*x), Inertia=(m*x)*x ]
0. a DoM (Distribution of Mass) is a change(or difference) over time because of Space?: DoM = m*(1/dt) = m*x, where (1/dt) comes out of nowhere (thus nonsense);
0. a DoM is a change(or difference) because of Space?: DoM = m*(dx*dt/dt) = m*dx, where (dx*dt/dt) is a change in position over time for a certain duration... (most puzzling :-)
...anyway,

I don't see any primary source for a 3rd derivative, as I hope there will be no change in gravitational acceleration.
A secondary source could be a collision while accelerating, because a collision causes a change in velocity (thus acceleration )- on top of some current acceleration. But during such collision this Jerk-action is only temporary (duration of collision) - but useful enough?
Perhaps a useful 'jerk' can only be (fictitiously) induced inside a rotating frame of reference, but does things change when simply standing in front of such action?

but this is supposed to be a forum where we are attempting to do things which are not generally looked at as being possible so we have to start looking at things in a way that they are not generally looked at, dont we!

True.

The source is internal and below the threshold of perception, i.e. it is within the internal stress changes in the pendulum arm. The pendulum arm is not a rigid body which is the implicit assumption made. You should read the papers on my web site. You are one person who should be capable of understanding them, albeit not agreeing with them since the cognitive dissonance will be too great. ;-)

[Grimer]

since we are dealing with an infinite series, as ME has pointed out

...
As a side note - a most interesting question: what would the zeroth be, and still make some sense:
...

The zeroth would be stationary relative to the CG of the universe - unless you believe in all that general relativity bollocks.