Energy storage, better than a spring.

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply

All newbies should be shot

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results

nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Energy storage, better than a spring.

Post by nicbordeaux »

Anybody out there tried a 130 lb compound bow and understand how it works ? Really astounding, once you get the cams over, you can hold a massive amount of pe which is just dying to spring into massive action with very moderate finger hold.

There is a bit of a knack in timing it right so that the puny human can flip those cams, a question of angling and pulling at the right moment, but that can be mechanically replicated or "emulated" no doubt. And even if not, it's likely a great way of storing force from a given point in system movement, to be restituted in no uncertain manner at a desired later point.

Anyway, it involves blades you could liken to a leaf spring or other leaf type, strings, and cams. And the point isn't how do you fit a 130 lb pull compound into a wheel, but how would the cam/string/spring arrangement fit in with what is know of bessler's wheels ?

It's already been debated to shreds and will these darn newbies stop throwing mad ideas around ? Sorry folks :)
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6700
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Energy storage, better than a spring.

Post by daxwc »

The glaring question really is, what magnetic type force is it that attracts newbies and polls? Can this force be effectively put into a working wheel? ;)))

Relax, just riding your leg.
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

All newbies with diarrhea of the keyboard should be shot! :)


Top posting users December 2009 and Top posting users this week.


Image
Attachments
Top Posting Users.PNG
User avatar
getterdone
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:27 pm

re: Energy storage, better than a spring.

Post by getterdone »

Jim, dont you think thats a little bit rough.

Speaking from a newbee point of view, I think that nic and others should be encouraged to bounce around ideas on this forum. Although most of these things have been discussed before, it keeps the conversation going, I dont see a whole lot comimg out of Community Buzz these days.
Cut the newbees some slack, it takes a lot of reading to just get the basics of what the founding members have learned over many years . I like reading the old threads when the senior members were all working together and shedding some light on this mystery. Gotta get back to Steve Street, page 40.

No offence intended

Leo
Beer is the cause and the solution of all my problems.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

Maybe that is a little bit rough.

But it was the newbee that suggested "All newbies should be shot". I was just disagreeing with that sentiment by suggesting that it be reduced to only those with restless fingers.


Image
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

What about oldies with digital diarrhea ...

Anyhoo ... I'm not sure that a cross-bow is significantly different from a spring. I agree that it's a good storage of Energy, but that might be a limitation for an over-unity device ... millions would disagree with me though.

I think the difference between a Catapult and a Trebuchet is worth considering. A Catapult is a variation on the Slingshot and the Crossbow. A Trebuchet doesn't store energy in a spring or elastomer, but stores it in elevating a mass vertically. I guess that's Potential Kinetic Energy storage too, but I think it is superior. There are less thermal losses. Also, the force from a spring or un-winding elastomer quickly diminishes over distance. With a falling weight, the force of gravity never diminishes (at least not significantly over the typical heights used in practice).

Those in favor of using springs will argue that progressive rate springs can be used to provide a relatively constant force over a set distance. But ultimately, when the tension is fully released, the Force is zero. With a falling weight, the downards force of gravity never goes away - even when the mass reaches the bottom. (However, the upwards normal force coming up from the ground balances it - which is effectively the same thing).

AFAIK, these are both ways of storing Energy, but they can't store and conserve Momentum. I prefer flywheels, as they store both Momentum and Energy. The question is - which do they Conserve (because it can't be both) ...
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Post by nicbordeaux »

Hi Greendoor,
It's not a crossbow I'm talking about, at least not the standard ones, but compound bows, the ones with cams which flip over. A spring compressed to store "x" amount of whatever will require an opposing force applied directly to it of identical "x" to remain compressed. A compound bow requires maybe 25 lbs to keep 130 lbs well behaved. Furthermore, the loading of the bow is "x" over a very short distance, whereas a spring is a long distance. Generalizations regarding springs indeed, because with rod and cams you can to an extent simulate the compound bow effect. Wikipedia has a good description of the tech stuff, just google "wikipedia compound bow" .

Leo : it's OK, Jim and I had a small preliminary skirmish, I think we now understand one another :) It's true I post a lot, lots of different subjects too, so it's a bit like you walk into a retirement home and start changing channels on the TV; the ones who still have a grasp on what they are watching get upset :) Only kidding Jim :)

And BTW, would the person who removed my second green dot please denounce himself that I my return him the favour ??? :)
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

"it's a bit like you walk into a retirement home and start changing channels on the TV; the ones who still have a grasp on what they are watching get upset :) "

he he ...

Thanks nicb - wiki says this specifically about compound bows: "Normally between 70-85% of the stored energy is transferred to the arrow. "

Maybe this is 'better than a spring', but this is pretty poor efficiency if you ask me. Potential for designing an overunity machine using a bow or a spring would appear to be pretty much screwed from inception.

Unless of course we have a prime mover that develops such a magnitude of excess motive power that efficiency becomes a minor consideration. Which is what I believe Bessler found - i'm sure there was a lot of friction in his wheel (especially in the external loads such as the stamper boxes).

I really do think we are barking up the wrong tree to look at this in terms of Energy though. If you study what the top physicists say about Energy, you will find that there is much dissatisfaction with the very concept and definition of what Energy actually is. The deep thinkers that is - not the drones who were taught the mantras and how to drool on demand ...

Energy is defined as the capacity to perform work. Work is defined as the capacity to consume Energy. (Is that the best they can do?) Somehow, 'Energy' has been sold to the public as a unit of Fuel - but we can prove that is false with rocket burn calculations.

'Energy' is mathematically derived from Velocity Squared - which is an abstraction, since nothing can physically travel at Velocity Squared. As such - the very concept is extremely limiting. As soon as you lose Velocity, you lose Energy Squared. But is that really how the physical world behaves? Obviously - in many situations this does accurately describe how the physical world behaves. And our textbooks are very careful to choose only those situations that prove their point.

But there are many situations that display massive energy losses, which are all to easy to write off as heat losses etc. All very convenient. But is this a true picture of reality? The catch, is that IF we choose to believe this is the true picture of reality, then we build machines based on this reality, and it becomes reality ...

I choose to believe that Energy is just a number game that gives a distorted perspective of the importance of Velocity compared to the importance of Mass. Momentum gives equal importance to both - and this is why I personally are far more interested in efficient ways to store Momentum, rather than storing Energy.

Sorry to harp on about this - but I think this is fundamental to WHY Bessler succeeded and why most other attempts fail.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Post by nicbordeaux »

Well, unless you have other ideas, you can only store momentum as momentum, if momentum is a travelling object or a characteristic thereof. The only other way is to "transform" your momentum into pe. i'm wrong ?

In the compound bow scenario with pulleys as cams, you transform a slow protracted momentum into pe, and release it as an amount of momentum over a very brief amount of time. That can be achieved by other means, the only advantage of the compound system id the small amount of force required to store a large amount of force (or momentum).

My uninformed perso opinion is that the notions of momentum, force, energy and all other gizmos are different terms for qualifying different observable "physical" manifestations of the same thing. Therefore I don't worry about them unduly as being named this or that, as long as a device works as expected or in a repeatable manner, it's OK to call any of the manifestations of force, movement or else by any name.
david jenkins
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 5:29 am

re: Energy storage, better than a spring.

Post by david jenkins »

I like your idea of using a compound bow. I hunt archery every fall and understand what you are saying. I have a 65 pound draw on my bow with an 85% letoff. For those of you who have never drawn a compound bow it means that when you pull it after a few inches it gets very easy. Find a way to pull it and you may have it.



Dave

P.S. Elliptical dual pulleys are the key.
User avatar
Ed
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:13 pm
Contact:

re: Energy storage, better than a spring.

Post by Ed »

Isn't this just a form of toggle clamp?
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Cams_Springs/Mechanism.html#Clamping

The elliptical cams actually make it harder than usual to draw back and then at the end of the pull it becomes easy to hold, so isn't there a trade off just like any other kind of lever?
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

re: Energy storage, better than a spring.

Post by nicbordeaux »

Pretty much right Ed, it's a trade off of sorts (how's that for appearing to admit somebody is right whilst leaving open the option that you might possibly be right even if you haven't a clue as to what you (nicbordeaux) are on about?)

So, tradeoff, but that can be of great use if you remove from downstroke and restitute as very fast force at most desperate point on upstroke or swing. In a wheel device not sure that would work, in a lever it would. just take a pendulum lever, build up the "draw force" over several strokes (or just one), then release force to reset pendulum.

A lever doesn't afaik store energy, a bow with cam does and with that it stores with very small "retention" pressure required. No increase in measurable force, even a 15% loss (?), but you transform slow into fast.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
Post Reply