description of attachment (NOTE: not to scale!):
think of the green compartment as a "shaft".
the red flaps are on hinges so that they can move 90 degrees.
at the shown state, the flap on the right is about to fall. when it does, it forces air (gray arrow) into the shaft. this air moves through the shaft and out the bottom on the opposite side, creating lift.
think of a bird flapping its wings.
RE: clues, we have here:
-the hammer/anvil effect
-the weights banging on the turning side
this site is relevant.
grav lift
Moderator: scott
grav lift
- Attachments
-
re: grav lift
I don't like the particular execution but the concept I do like. The problem is that you're going to have a very hard time realizing that. You'll need some very fine pumping mechanisms and what not. The swing also needs to be fast enough to make a considerable strong thrust for a short time which also overcomes friction.
I think the theory of this looks good but it's going to be a bitch to materialize.
I think the theory of this looks good but it's going to be a bitch to materialize.
re: grav lift
Of course, it is possible Bessler's wheel could have worked in a similar way.
He would have been an expert in bellows construction through his pipe organ building skills and it may have provided him with that illusive 2 to 5% of additional energy to eliminate friction and pass the dreaded dead spot.
Cant help thinking that pneumatic actuation would have been noisy however, which probably would have been noticed and recorded.
I like the concept though. but that old thorn in the side of equal energy lurks in my mind. That is, the energy in the puff of air is equal to the energy in the fall of the flap/bellows. This is because they both occur in the same direction, probably cancelling each other out.
Sorry for the negative Frettsy. I'm starting to sound like Bill!
Kas
He would have been an expert in bellows construction through his pipe organ building skills and it may have provided him with that illusive 2 to 5% of additional energy to eliminate friction and pass the dreaded dead spot.
Cant help thinking that pneumatic actuation would have been noisy however, which probably would have been noticed and recorded.
I like the concept though. but that old thorn in the side of equal energy lurks in my mind. That is, the energy in the puff of air is equal to the energy in the fall of the flap/bellows. This is because they both occur in the same direction, probably cancelling each other out.
Sorry for the negative Frettsy. I'm starting to sound like Bill!
Kas
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.�
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
thanks guys, glad you at least see potential here.
KAS: since the air first travels perpendicular to the fall of the flap, then in the same direction (but on the other side of the wheel) wouldn't their energies sum together instead of canceling? it seems to me that this is a different case since the energies do their work on opposite sides of the axle, therefore one will force the crossbar up and one will force it down.
KAS: since the air first travels perpendicular to the fall of the flap, then in the same direction (but on the other side of the wheel) wouldn't their energies sum together instead of canceling? it seems to me that this is a different case since the energies do their work on opposite sides of the axle, therefore one will force the crossbar up and one will force it down.
re: grav lift
Frettsy,
You would think that there are 2 positive forces involved here but for the flap to fall and do work, it has to be weighted.
Now, take a look at the position of the 2 flaps/weights.
The one on the left is lower or below the axis point whilst the one on the right changes its position from a equal mirror image of the other (good no loss there) to a lower position after the fall.
This axial movement is detrimental and represents a small loss.
And the loss is explained thus:
When the fallen flap/weight reaches the 6 o'clock position, it opposite number will be at 11 o'clock. Therefore, a little more work is required to make up the lost axial travel.
IMO, the puff of air would not provide enough energy make up this lost energy.
Add to this the friction of the air transfer which will require the use of non-return valves and all of a sudden, you have a mountain to climb.
This is of course only my opinion and I have been wrong before.
Nevertheless, I like idea and it may be worth building a rudimentary model to try the concept out.
Kas
You would think that there are 2 positive forces involved here but for the flap to fall and do work, it has to be weighted.
Now, take a look at the position of the 2 flaps/weights.
The one on the left is lower or below the axis point whilst the one on the right changes its position from a equal mirror image of the other (good no loss there) to a lower position after the fall.
This axial movement is detrimental and represents a small loss.
And the loss is explained thus:
When the fallen flap/weight reaches the 6 o'clock position, it opposite number will be at 11 o'clock. Therefore, a little more work is required to make up the lost axial travel.
IMO, the puff of air would not provide enough energy make up this lost energy.
Add to this the friction of the air transfer which will require the use of non-return valves and all of a sudden, you have a mountain to climb.
This is of course only my opinion and I have been wrong before.
Nevertheless, I like idea and it may be worth building a rudimentary model to try the concept out.
Kas
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.�
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
hi all - sorry I haven't replied in weeks - I've been away.
I remember when I was little and one of the doors in my house would mysteriously open itself. I could have sworn it was a ghost.
later I realized that it was air pressure - when another door at the end of the hall was opened, it would suck my door open too. or when it was closed with force, my door slammed shut. that's the basic concept which inspired this idea. if a door is closed at one end of a closed compartment, the air will be forced out at the other end (wherever it can exit) minus friction. but air friction is comparatively very minimal AFAIK.
another way to think about it, is dropping a piece of plywood flat on the ground. the force with which the plywood actually hits the ground is almost 0. that's because of all the air trapped beneath and pushing up on it. now if we can force all that air down too, instead of up, we have doubled the force instead of canceling it.
just thinking out loud here. mainly because I don't have the resources to actually build this myself (alas, such is life).
I remember when I was little and one of the doors in my house would mysteriously open itself. I could have sworn it was a ghost.
later I realized that it was air pressure - when another door at the end of the hall was opened, it would suck my door open too. or when it was closed with force, my door slammed shut. that's the basic concept which inspired this idea. if a door is closed at one end of a closed compartment, the air will be forced out at the other end (wherever it can exit) minus friction. but air friction is comparatively very minimal AFAIK.
another way to think about it, is dropping a piece of plywood flat on the ground. the force with which the plywood actually hits the ground is almost 0. that's because of all the air trapped beneath and pushing up on it. now if we can force all that air down too, instead of up, we have doubled the force instead of canceling it.
just thinking out loud here. mainly because I don't have the resources to actually build this myself (alas, such is life).