Gravity assisted Normal Energy

[KAS]

Some photos of the inverted reset

[AB Hammer]

KAS

That is an interesting device. A bit better than a one side weighted gear.

[Fletcher]

I see where you are coming from Fletch about the weight of the supporting arc. I had the same thoughts which made me seek extra light materials. I can see why you wanted to mitigate this variable.

This had no effect on the quite forceful Ke produced and I assure you it's the weight that doing all the work as it remains Oob of the rolling pivot area (where the straps cross) at a ramp angle of 30deg or more.

As you said earlier, it must be the mass acting relative to its connection point to the ramp - the "chasing the inverted pendulum" analogy.

That it can gain substantial KE effectively moving sideways with next to no loss of system GPE is what is astounding to me. To do that with any other ordinary lateral translation device requires an additional force (energy) to enter the picture. In this case, if your numbers and theory are correct, no extra external energy is required for the lateral translation and gain in KE but the Nf must be harnessed. But next to no GPE is lost.

It's astounding when it can be made to go full circle.

I'll try a simulation: I also do think the path is a cycloid and hypothesize the light-weight-arc is the cause for overbalance - and thus the system looses GPE.

The main question: Does it matter in this case.

As long as the KE gained (and that includes frictional losses) is in excess of the GPE lost then this constitutes a very interesting device and potential discovery, IMO.

... Haven't given much thought of the practical applications of such a device on a rotating system and I am open to ideas. Please ask as many questions as you like.

I don't think it matters at this stage KAS. Just need to quantify things, such as actual weight path - relative velocity and KE to GPE loss (if any) etc.

If you have real KE gain form a pseudo force (previously unusable perhaps) with no extra recognized external energy input then that IMO questions CoE for a start.

If you have usable KE then that can be redirected to do Work - such as impacting a hanging pendulum lever for example - it in turn swings outwards (and is latched/ratcheted) creating torque to turn the wheel structure, and then hangs beneath the pivot point of the lever weight until required again etc.

There ought to be plenty of mechanical ways to create the secondary system to give OOB wheel torque, once a Prime Mover is found.

[ME]

I've got a WM2D-simulation.
-To emphasize: it's how I currently interpret this mechanism, but I guess the action is almost representative -

A ramp (light blue) at 30°,
A main-weight (Blue), 1 kg
The arc is replaced by a weightless sphere (radius 0.5 m, perhaps a bit large), having a red weight at/and representing the arc's CoM - So one half is just there for no other reason than easiness of sim.
A green horizontal line is just aesthetics but represents the horizon the blue weight should ride on.
A graph shows an exaggerated deviation from that horizon during rotation;
The blue line shows it for the blue main-weight, a grey line shows it for the combined mass, the red line shows the CoM of the arc (and scaled by 25%)

When the arc does not have any mass, the system doesn't move or starts to slide because it looses friction - so instead of a jacobs-track I ramped up that friction factor.
A mass of 0.045 kg was chosen for the arc to make it just go off-balance and complete its rotation: a ratio of 1:22 compared to the main-weight.

--
As can be seen in the animation, the blue main-weight almost remains on the horizontal line. The exaggerated-graph shows the system looses GPE, gains a bit, and looses it again.
---
Some points of interest:
The main-mass starts at -60° (angle compared to the horizon).
As it speeds-up the main-mass dips below the horizon until at -34.3°.
Then it slows down when the main weight is at +34.4° and about 9° short of being over the CoM of the arc. Its distance above the horizon is half of the distance below when at -34.4°.
Then it shoots of as the main-mass reaches an overbalance position.
When the main-mass is at 69.5° it dips as below the horizon as it did at 34.3°.
At 93.3° (after rotating 153.3°) it reaches the previous maximum velocity it reached at -34.3°.
---

The fact that it slightly looses some gravitational potential shouldn't exclude things right away. It depends on the reset action (isn't it always) if the loss of GPE is negligible and gain in KE sufficient enough.

[KAS]

Thanks for the model ME. I am not sure what your sim depicts happens in reality.
The Ke generated is quite powerful and noticeable with no slow down or brake in the moment as your data suggests. I fully understand that the arc (rocker) has some weight and that a small loss to Gpe and friction would be evident. But I believe this to be insignificant in the scheme of things.
I too tried to build models on Wmd but doubted the data of the sims I produced which led me to build prototypes with various materials. Wmd is notorious for inaccuracies and I gave up trusting it years ago when I was convinced I produced a working system turned out that wmd couldn't cope with the dynamics. I don't have access to wmd anymore as I dont own a PC now.

One thing to note which I am sure you and Fletcher may find interesting is that there is no horizontal recoil felt when the moment of inertia starts. I found this difficult to comprehend as it appears it doesn't comply with Newtons 3rd law.
It's as if you dropped the weight from you hand. No upward reaction force is felt by the hand when you do this.
This is where I believe that it's Nf that's being captured here because Nf would roll with the arc contact area perpendicular to the ramp and separated from the Oob weight being pulled vertically by gravity. The mathematics of a rolling mass on a ramp is well known and is all over YouTube, but unlike this concept, these models all assume the Nf acts where the descending weight makes contact with the ramp. That doesn't happen with this design.

[KAS]

Forgot to add, please feel free to knock up a prototype yourselves.
They can be produced relatively cheaply and in no time at all.
The lightest material I found for the arc rocker is thin plastic down pipe (bigger diameters are better). Try it out for yourselves. It will have you scratching your head though.

Below is a suggestion on how a number of these systems could be utilised in a rotation system. In this case a static anvil is struck by the weights on the ascent together with the weights displacing their horizontal position during rotation causing oob profile.

Just a thought

[ME]

My pleasure. Just see it as an attempt, not a verdict...

In WM2D I use an accuracy at least a 100-fold beyond 'standard', even though it then doesn't do things in 'real-time'. But that makes things more close to manual calculus but still faster. (indeed, that doesn't make it right and perfect by def.)
Maybe a manual solution is possible, but as far as I can see there's no horizontal path for a circular motion on a ramp... (It can be made close though)

* I am not sure what your sim depicts happens in reality
I'm not sure either, but it is about what a circular motion does on a ramp.
The height-'wobble' you see in the graph is about 1/20th of the diameter.
The arc-weight is about 1/22th of the main weight (as light -weight as I could make it), but I'll have to check at what radius your main-weight operates. I used a CoM-radius of about 60% of the outer radius (that volume has to fit inside the arc)
Anyway those 5% deviations are almost negligible -but I suspect needed- values.

* No recoil is felt by hand:
As you say by Newton 3rd: It is expected that there should exist a reaction force somewhere, somehow.
As an idea: Perhaps the easiest way is for an attempt in visualizing (perhaps measure) is to create a 30° solid ramp, and place it on a field of ball-bearings. Let the arc be held upwards by some thin yarn -like a single pulley, and then release or burn that yarn.

Still a fascinating thing you have there, nicely build too.

[Fletcher]

@ ME ..

This morning I tried to mock up a sim of your sim.

Hint: You can select the blue mass>window>appearance>track center of mass.

[This will track on screen the CoM of the Blue mass for you.]

Basically, it did what I would expect WM to do (still working on it for now).

The parts able to move were summed into a combined GPE value - then zeroed out to give a datum for GPE.

I then created Outputs for both the Blue mass velocity and KE, plus the Total System Kinetic Energy.

I created Inputs for Static Friction 0.3 and Kinetic Friction 1.00 so that there was no slippage between ramp and background wheel of mass 0.001 kg.

So far, the KE of the Blue mass is slightly below the loss in system GPE. Normal Newtonian physics would predict this.


But .. KAS is no fool - if he says there is no N3 reaction and importantly that the velocity and the KE of the Blue mass is substantial - well, it's hard to put that down to excitement or confirmation bias (though it could be I suppose) - he has been a member here a long time and working on this idea for some time.

IMO, its worth giving him the benefit of the doubt until a better explanation or information comes along, or hopefully someone here will replicate his design and post their results, preferably with a video etc.

[ME]

>window>appearance>track center of mass.

Ah, there it is: Thanks, I couldn't find it (even though it's next to the "orientation" I cleared).

I'm interested in your sim, plus what you initially expected.

- - - = = = - - -
An unnecessary addition

Edit: blanked out (Ctrl+A to read)

But .. KAS is no fool - if he says there is no N3 reaction and importantly that the velocity and the KE of the Blue mass is substantial - well, it's hard to put that down to excitement or confirmation bias (though it could be I suppose) - he has been a member here a long time and working on this idea for some time.

IMO, its worth giving him the benefit of the doubt until a better explanation or information comes along

I respond to this:

If someone can tell me where this kinetic energy is coming from other than Nf I am prepared to listen. It has foxed me!

I tried, and found GPE and showed that motion. Perhaps not perfect, all explaining, or even wrong: but it's a start, right?

And no, he's not given the benefit of the doubt ! - I think such wouldn't help him, besides his ego perhaps.
(sorry Kas! But you deserve a green-dot anyway).
The reason he's a long-time member is precisely the reason: it's not an attack (although that seems trendy).

- - - = = = - - -

But .. KAS is no fool

Sure he's not. I'm not aware I'd imply such a thing.
And I thought I had that covered with the words: "interpretation", "attempt", "fascinating", "nice" etc. Words used as they're usually meant.

To clarify (hopefully unnecessary, I might as well put it here as any other place):
My intent on this forum is to show what I understand or is generally understood (or at least how I understand that general thing or how I deviate).
I'm not here to show how mistaken someone else might be: How would I know, there's always some information missing somewhere - I consider such a fruitless waste of my effort (unless it teaches me something else).
What you see is just a result of the way I learn and my attempt to understand.
I can put it in some folder and never look at it again, or just dump it here: perhaps someone else benefits, or show me how mistaken I am in case I'm wrong.
I consider such a win-win either way. And if neither, then we'll just have to life with it (The red dot can be found somewhere around line 6 or 7).

May the force lift your weight
- I don't care what force that might be, where it comes from, and what kind of heavy weight one carries: The only way is up!

[Fletcher]

ME .. you miss-understand my last post from which you quote. It was not an attack on you or KAS.

I know very well that you are objective and reasoned.

That you will follow evidence rather than emotion.

Others here do that also. Some do not for their own reasons.

I'm simply pointing out that if I imagine what WM would show before the build then there would be no big surprise in terms of LESS KE than GPE lost. Best case scenario (usually) is KE<=GPE lost.

But, if KAS is sure there is special interest in a real build of his device then I would not slavishly hold on to a sim result as the 'gold standard' and right it or him off as (insert what you like).

[ME]

Ah well Fletch, I sometimes have my days I guess... Sorry for that. Blanked it out/still there.
And yeah, a real build is always superior to a sim; But it tells you where to look.

[Fletcher]

I'll post up my sim of your sim ME when I'm finished playing with it - not entirely happy with it yet and busy on others things to boot.

And then I'll try and sim KAS's device, as closely as I can (angles, placements, relative masses) - then we can discuss the variables - like what happens when a Jacob's Ladder belt is replaced by something else.

And more importantly why the sim should behave differently than a real world counterpart (assuming it does).

P.S. WM follows Newtonian rules, and math - but from what KAS suspects these might have to be thrown out the door for his device.

One thing I really like about his device is that I haven't seen an idea that is based almost exclusively on a childs game in a long time.

Wouldn't that be a laugh if it turns out to be the long sort after and never found Prime Mover.

[KAS]

Thank you both and other members of this forum for your help with this.
All I can say to ME and Fletch on this is "Don't trust WM". There are sound reasons for this and all too often my over trust in this software has caused expensive mistakes and unnecessary builds. And here's where I think this system falls down in this case:
You both (like me) had To enter a friction value to prevent the arc from slipping on the ramp. In reality, this is vertually non existent. This is because there is no contact between the arc and the ramp, just as there is no contact between the segments of a Jacobs ladder toy. The ramp is used solely to hold the straps straight to gain valuable data. The straps rest on the ramp and curls around the arc tugging on the bottom of the arc during descent.
In fact, it works pretty well without the ramp with the straps anchored off under tension. I struggled for a long time to simulate this on WM which eventually led me to abandon it.
The only friction on this system (other than air resistance) is in the flexibility of the strapping and its ability to flex around the arc. Utilising different strapping material, I have found that the thinner this is, the lower the friction.
All I can say is am I glad I lost trust in WM and built physical models or I might have missed something important here.
Fletch, ME, just out of interest, could you obtain some Ke against GPe values with the ramp angles between 30 and 35deg. I know there would be loss of Gpe but I am not sure how the Ke responds to this.

[Fletcher]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarrus_linkage

I found this from the days when Tinhead was an active member - thought I'd post it for no particular reason.

What I was really looking for (and can't remember the name of) was a sort of linear bearing that composed at least one floating disk wrapped by a sort of 'S' shaped strapping (kinda like the Jacob's Ladder straps but a single one in a casing).

Anyways, the length of the strapping did not alter but the disk(s) could move horizontally within it. I'd provide some sort of pic but it won't come into focus from the subconscious.

Can anybody help me out ? It might be an alternative for KAS.

[Fletcher]

Rolamite Bearings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-1Drlfuoi4

https://www.google.com/search?q=rolamit ... gC#imgrc=_