Design Status Update

[Fletcher]

snip ..

3. The original design is started by gravity alone. The motion wheel, because it IS balanced, must be given an initial push.

4. I have designs with and without springs...they all work.

Yes, because it is balanced it must get a push start - it is how you do that which is important. It should imitate real world as far as possible.

Other elements can act like springs also because sometimes they have elasticity quotients to deal with. Try replacing them with generic cord-to-cord and look in >Properties. A dampener is usually required.

Usually I use either a weight pinned to it to induce torque which then falls off - using say a rod connection - in Properties>Active When uncheck this box and put in an equation t<0.5 which means time is less than 0.5 seconds. It will disengage after half second and fall away.

Or I add a force vector element (constraint) and do the same with the Active When box.

I think the point is in the Energy Budget scenario.

If it is balanced and stationary, and you have accounted for any and all PE's, then that is the start condition. Add to that the RKE/momentum, whatever given and it should at best maintain that oscillation speed.

IF it accelerates then things get more interesting - because if it accelerates it has more RKE of KE Translational or whatever - if this is GREATER than the ACTIVATION Energy given it to start movement then it is officially a weird result *grin*.

Good luck, look like such a simple concept needs a quick real world build if it passes muster with the usual sim idiosyncrasies covered.

[Silvertiger]

All it needs is an intial velocity in the negative Y direction.

I can take elasticity to zero and it works. Like I said, I have designs where I replaced all contacting bodies with linkages instead, including rods and dampeners.

A pinned weight rolling off for a push start is no different than an initial velocity. I have done both. Initial V is quicker.

Energy budget is bypassed as I have a very specific reset. Additional energy expended on a load just zaps the cycle of energy quicker, making the resets come more often.

All initial kinetic conditions are always set to zero, with the exception of a starting velocity.

Oh...it accelerates quite nicely.

Take a look here.

[Fletcher]

Then the only thing I can suggest is you build 2 side by side mechs (ones a control) and alter the masses etc in the second. Change variables etc.

Does the 2nd behave the same as the control ? If not why not ? If so why ?

I know you said it looked like 'Motion from Motion' (aka an inertia drive) but I'll address the elephant - what do you think causes the acceleration to happen (which manifests as faster resetting and higher velocities and KE's, over and above starting Impulse given ?

Does that mean that current Physics can explain the result you are observing ? If so, where is the energy coming from in a conservative gravity field ?

[sleepy]

The fact that you are changing parameters (air resistance,elasticity.etc.) and it does not affect the outcome is cause for concern.

[Silvertiger]

Not really...it's no different than adding passengers to a car and driving up a mountain. The car will still make it. More fuel will be consumed, but the outcome will be the same.

[Silvertiger]

1. Then the only thing I can suggest is you build 2 side by side mechs (ones a control) and alter the masses etc in the second. Change variables etc.

2. Does the 2nd behave the same as the control ? If not why not ? If so why ?

3. I know you said it looked like 'Motion from Motion' (aka an inertia drive) but I'll address the elephant - what do you think causes the acceleration to happen (which manifests as faster resetting and higher velocities and KE's, over and above starting Impulse given ?

4. Does that mean that current Physics can explain the result you are observing ? If so, where is the energy coming from in a conservative gravity field ?

1. For a physical experiment I would do that. In sim, I can just change the current drawing., which I have done many times.

2. Of course not. Any modifications to the load, the driving mass, the lever arm length, etc., will change the behavior of the mech, specifically the time between resets relative to the rate of energy expenditure, but the outcome will be the same.

3. I can't tell you, at least not on here. Nonspecifically, there is a certain bias I discovered which causes it...a certain mechanical advantage that can be defined within the law of levers.

4. Yes. The energy comes from a bias, and that bias must be cycled as well. It is cycled when the reset occurs. I cannot go into details about the type of bias, except for what I said in no.3.

[Fletcher]

Well, if you are convinced of the integrity of your sim then a real world build it is for you I guess - best of luck and let;s hope the real world delivers same as the sim.

[Silvertiger]

It makes me a bit nervous to mention this, as this is the first time that I have mentioned it to anyone other than my best friend, but I will nonetheless. So, to be even more specific, I will tell you that the nature of the bias is, in this case, an undiscovered law of levers. In actuality there are TWO, as I have found: a fourth AND fifth law of levers. I have already tested and verified the fifth law, which I found in a thought experiment. I drew another design of a completely different arrangement based on this law...and it worked. And the fifth law verifies the fourth...so it is not an "anomoly;" for if the fourth law did not work, then neither would the fifth, as is true for the other three laws. Any arrangement other than one that meets the requirements of these laws does not work. I have tried...hundreds of times.These are my findings based on math and simulations alone. Anyone may disagree...and they should. If I was the one outside looking in, I would have no choice but to disagree as well, as it would be the prudent thing to do.

[Silvertiger]

Here is a video of the fifth law in action.

[Fletcher]

Umm .. well done, congratulations. And thanks for the clarifications.

Though I'm not sure that was what jim_mich was on about with his Motion Wheel since he never demonstrated a working wheel and IIRC his water based variant didn't work as planned (accelerate and self-sustain) according to him ?

When you first mentioned a 'bias' a few posts back I immediately thought ... what about Ideal Mechanical Advantage and Speed Ratios = 1. Efficiency being a percentage below 100% due to losses inherent in systems ?

AFAIK the Law of Levers is predicated on IMA x SP = 1 and Efficiency always less than 100% (1) in real world conditions. You seem to be about to turn that on its head, and if so congratulations will be in order at the very least.

Anyways the thought occurred that you must believe that you have found something outside the 3 Classes of Lever (from Archimedes Law of Levers) that returns a positive bias where IMA x SR >1 and with losses its Efficiency is also > 100% to get an increase in system Energy. i.e. since the known of 3 classes of lever don't create a positive bias and efficiency above 100%. Else how could a positive bias occur with mechanical inputs with or without gravity force.

[Silvertiger]

Even though his water wheel did not work, Jim did posit the argument that a motion wheel was possible, and that Bessler's wheel was a likely candidate. From my lever findings, motion is the result, whether gravity is included or not. The only thing gravity provides is a push start, as any other exchange after the initial "push" is completely conservative. So in effect, Jim was right, even though he had not discovered the application. The motion is what carries the wheel. If I STOP it, and it is in a position of rest where no net forces are acting, it will not move.

[ME]

I have already tested and verified the fifth law, which I found in a thought experiment. I drew another design of a completely different arrangement based on this law...and it worked. And the fifth law verifies the fourth...so it is not an "anomoly;"
[...]
If I was the one outside looking in, I would have no choice but to disagree as well, as it would be the prudent thing to do.

"prudent"?
That's not how it works: the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience/non-science.
But as far as I was aware there are 3 classes and one law of levers.

I guess it's obvious you're not showing the mechanism and that likely all will be revealed in time, but perhaps you could give us some data instead.
For example a table with several designed experiments showing a variety of: size, masses, accelerations, maximum velocity or something so we can get an idea about the involved relations in this new hypothesis of levers?

At least thanks for sharing your state of progress.
I guess you've convinced us all that you've convinced yourself it works: Now build it, and good luck.

[Fletcher]

The reason why I think you have it all to yourself is that jim-mich could not produce any accelerating and self sustaining behaviour in any sim program, whereas you have been able to in dual sim programs if not others.

He was a competent user of WM2D having been introduced to it many years earlier and knew most of the traps and pitfalls to look out for if an apparent anomaly showed up in town. If it was as real as he thought then he would have been able to isolate it and build a working sim of it. He was however, able to show a 'motion' to his own satisfaction in his animation program where he built the formulas himself which is a much lower threshold of proof and I would say more prone to mistake or logical error.

He also never described a new class or lever which had a positive bias - he described it as using Cf's for weights to change places IIRC.

'Motion from Motion' has been posited before (the Inertia Drive) but no-one has been able to demonstrate one in action that circumvents Newtons' Laws (3rd Law). After your physical build POP you may be the first. Perhaps in a long time.

[cloud camper]

OK ST - I really hope you have discovered something significant!

And I really don't mean to cast aspersions on your credibility.

But it does seem as though you are very reluctant to apply a load to your mechanism and then report the results.

Why is that?

[Silvertiger]

Maybe, possibly, because you don't read prior posts?? o.O

Let's see...there's this. And this.