Hypothesis .. Raising GPE without using Law of Levers ? ..

[Robinhood46]

Not having our biases doesn't mean it is unbiased.
You can discuss the bias of AI with it, it will acknowledge that it can't think anywhere near as unbiased as we are being led to believe. It just has different biases, it doesn't have the typical human biases.
It would have been just as stupid as the rest of us when we thought the earth was flat, because of it's biases.

[daxwc]

JB: For this reverse version , the result is that the work done equals the change in total kinetic energy 1st leg and 2nd leg.

eta ,1kg each and pushed with -5 nm , to clarify with reverse i mean , instead of starting with B1 and attaching B2 to B1 later, B2 starts attached to B1 and is released from B1 later.

You lost me. Why wouldn’t momentum just keep them together?

Maybe I don’t understand. So it is B1 + B2 tethered then you untether B2 in motion long after the impulse?

[johannesbender]

JB: For this reverse version , the result is that the work done equals the change in total kinetic energy 1st leg and 2nd leg.

eta ,1kg each and pushed with -5 nm , to clarify with reverse i mean , instead of starting with B1 and attaching B2 to B1 later, B2 starts attached to B1 and is released from B1 later.

You lost me. Why wouldn’t momentum just keep them together?

Maybe I don’t understand. So it is B1 + B2 tethered then you untether B2 in motion long after the impulse?

Fletcher's example starts with B1 being pushed with -5nm , and when B1 reaches the length of the rope B2 gets tugged along and then move together , and the work done for leg1 is equal to the total KE , but after leg2 the work done is greater than the total KE.

In the example i show , B1 and B2 start with the distance equal to the length of the rope 0.7m , and B1 is pushed with -5nm , so they move together from the get go , but B2 detaches when B1 reaches x=-0.7 by means of the rope becoming de-active , however here the work done equals the total KE leg1 and leg2.

[daxwc]

So Its like towing another truck behind you and coasting. If you cut the rope nothing happens. The distance will keep the same till both trucks coast to a stop.

Whatever is going on it is from the point of rope going tight and having to overcome inertia in B2 in Fletchers example. The transfer of momentum to energy to inertia.

[johannesbender]

So in this one i tried doing the same thing Fletcher did , but instead of pulling B2 with B1 , i tried pushing B2 with B1.
B1 is located at x=0 , B2 located at x=-1.4 , A separator link links B1 and B2 with a length of 0.7 .
B1 is pushed by -5 nm until the separator reaches 0 length , which then pushes B2 along with B1 .

For the 1st leg the total KE of B1 is equal to the work done by the -5nm pushing B1.
For the 2nd leg the total KE of B1+B2 is less than the work done by the -5nm pushing B1+B2.

So the same result as Fletcher's example , but by a push.

eta, think 2 train carts 1 standing still , 1 pushing towards the second and then they come together ...

[spinner361]

So are you saying that it takes less work, or are you saying that it diminishes into infinitum? I really have a lot to learn.

[Fletcher]

So there is a loss of capacity to do work and also unused potential that is wasted somewhere?

Hey spinner .. take a look at this 4 minute video titled " Work - Kinetic Energy Theorem " - what is presented is absolutely typical of these videos on the subject and what is institutionally taught .. perhaps then the thread purpose and direction will be more insightful ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZJB2uBP94s

..............

Hey Roxaway .. perhaps load your sim into your thread or start a new one and I can take a look into your sim - cheers ..

[daxwc]

I will make it a little easier for you Spinner and lay out the landscape. The discussion right now is about missing energy in the system of the SIM that is one way. What is coming is wheter this represents real-life phenomenon or if it's due to a coding error in the SIM.

[Fletcher]

... What is coming is whether this represents real-life phenomenon or if it's due to a coding error in the SIM.

Personally I don't believe there is any major fault in the sim coding ..

To reach a rock-solid conclusion it would be necessary to repeat the sim experiment in real-life ( or as close to the experimental setup as can be managed ) ..

.. The sim and its momentum and kinetic energy results as they stand are predicated on giving the control "cart" and the "truck and trailer" equal impulses - the sim predicts a large quanta of vanished "energy" ( wrt. Work - Energy Theorem ) - this is in the context of where the motion is induced by a given impulse to the truck and 'following-on' trailer, as per the sim ..

.. Real-world impulse examples are well known and to name a few, a bat hitting a ball, a soccer ball being kicked, a basketball dropped and bouncing back up, a pendulum clock escapement ..

ETA .. a Bessler runner was a simple idea and device, and a mechanical enigma to science ( until it is known ) - I am attempting to shift the dial on how we think about what we are taught ..

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher, yes I will dig those sims out and post them on my topic.

I'm guessing that you are heading towards one of two things.

1) The laws of physics are not quite right and Bessler exploited a loop hole.
2) The laws of physics are correct and Besslers wheel stole energy.

If its the second one my money would be on the earths rotational energy.

There is enough kinetic energy in the earths rotation to give us energy for the next 444 million years.

Graham

[spinner361]

Thank you, guys, for explaining it in simpler terms.

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher, ..

I'm guessing that you are heading towards one of two things.

1) The laws of physics are not quite right and Bessler exploited a loop hole.

2) The laws of physics are correct and Besslers wheel stole energy.

If its the second one my money would be on the earths rotational energy.

There is enough kinetic energy in the earths rotation to give us energy for the next 444 million years.

Graham

Yes Graham .. I personally think option 2 is almost 100% guaranteed to be the correct option - there are some anecdotal things said and done by B. that in my mind seal-the-deal for option 2. that I've talked about often - quickly, for example that the runner had quick acceleration, had asymmetric ( excess ) torque, and gained fundamental angular momentum - surmising that the energy output of his runners was sequestered energy input from a hard-connection to a revolving and wobbling earth surface, manifested via a special positive feedback outcome between an OOB arrangement and a Prime Mover apparatus all in constant but at times opposing motion to liberate that usable energy ..

.. fwiw he said in print, paraphrased, that it could be found in nature .. children played with his superior force ( mine .. impulse ) in the streets ..

JC's AP pg 246 .. Almost from the beginning of time people sought the secret of perpetual motion. Much time has been spent in vain trying to produce it, but Nature has now magnanimously sent it into the world.

JC's AP pg 267 .. XX. After these solace-giving thoughts had been digested, I became a new man! I brushed aside all notions about public office, and strengthened my religious faith. I would have success in my project! The right path is there - the thing is somewhere in Nature's laws. So I continued to put my trust in God. All the time I was building away - and looking with cunning at every idea to see if it was possible or impossible. I developed the skills to calculate, to devise and make critical judgements.

In every example known his runners were firmly secured from floor to ceiling with sturdy support posts and bolts - presumably to limit "sway" - what they weren't and is inexplicable to me was runners in moveable crate supports resting on the floor, or put into a cart and via a belt drive making a self moving cart, or self-moving lake punt for example when turning a screw or paddle arrangement ..

eta .. B. shows an Archimedes water screw lift in his Kassel wheel engravings in DT - being mechanically minded and skilled he could not have willingly missed the opportunity to self-propel a craft on water, or cart on land, of some sort or another - the enormous marketing and promotional opportunity to spruik his wheels potential to do Work, and to sell it, would have been priceless - unless his PM principle required that the wheel supports were as they were i.e. rigidly anchored .. imo ..

There are probably other worthy examples - the upshot is that based on balance of probabilities I think option 2. is the way forward - so it might be described as a loophole or workaround and that is why I am labouring the point that classical physics may have weaknesses or mechanical situations where there are exceptions to the "rule" - the Laws aren't wrong because Nature allows a runner imo ..

.. fwiw - the difference between a Theorem and a Law is that a Law has never been experimentally invalidated - a Theorem has a lesser status than a Law - if a theorem can be experimentally invalidated to prove it should not be a Law ( or thought of as a Law ) then that 'weakness' in institutional reasoning and learning may be the pry-bar that gains us entry into the world of a runner ..

................

[daxwc]

Fletcher: "In every known example, his runners were firmly secured from floor to ceiling with sturdy support posts and bolts, presumably to limit 'sway.' What is inexplicable to me is that the runners were not placed in moveable crate supports resting on the floor, or put into a cart and via a belt drive making a self-moving cart, or a self-moving lake punt, for example, when turning a screw or paddle arrangement."

I not so sure that is on solid assumption ground:

1)As additionally, he had a submarine prototype and a ship, which further complicates the understanding of his design choices. The complications of sway, waves, and water movement could significantly impact the stability and functionality of his designs, making it challenging to achieve the envisioned outcomes.

2)Also a boat would mean direction/orientation it sits seems to not not be a total problem.

3) There was a table top version of a 3ft wheel. Why bother to say it sat on the table if it was secured at the roof.

[daxwc]

There is a significant loss in the roller racers' energy, as demonstrated in the Rolling Racers also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roll ... nertia.ogv
If you measured the impacts at the flag, each racer would have different energies due to the v^2 term in the acceleration equation. Despite this, they all require the same energy to raise up, having the same potential energy at the top of the ramp.

The AI's say that all the missing energy is in the rotating mass. While some of it is, we need to think more critically. The Roller Racers are not spinning faster; they are rolling on their rims. The reason is there is no way for the v^2 term to linearly ramp up because they are covering the same distance. The point of mass is essentially doing a backward calculation, which doesn't account for the observed energy discrepancies.

All of the moment of inertia calculations have come about by experiments. There isn’t any of them that accounts for every atom under one formula. I guess one could make an estimation of the missing energy by the time differences at the flag. So I await Fletcher’s idea as how we are not thinking about energy or momentum and conservation. I think Julius Sumner Miller hinted at this but just decided to leave momentum, inertia and energy separate rather than explain it at 3:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lC2bzXZq7I.

[daxwc]

My biggest point is missing though. That is if I stopped the hoop just before impact at the flags at the bottom where is the missing energy? Where is it physically? Energy in a closed system is conserved. There is no "energy well" to put it in under todays physics. It is not all spinning. It is just missing due to V^2 term.