Has the atwoods analysis thread gone on too long ?

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

Moderator: scott

Post Reply

Atwoods 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

Has the atwoods analysis thread gone on too long ?

Post by nicbordeaux »

12 months or so ? And it's nothing but acrimony ?

The situation : somebody has a theory, or a surprising equation. Apparantly only that person and a likeminded guy believe it's real and useful. Other's don't agree, and it's a perpetual "yes it is" "No it isn't" "tis" "tisn't". Many others don't understand. Some think they understand and it doesn't correspond to anything they have observed in builds, where, if what were understood is the correct understanding, it should be present.

Vote now to support the Freedom from Atwoods Analysis Liberation Front.

Also known as F***k Atwoods Tyranny.
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: Has the atwoods analysis thread gone on too long ?

Post by Fletcher »

Actually Nick it was in reference to the "energy producing experiments" thread of pequiade - the wubbly atwoods thread has been a recent new comer - and it's not about hostility & acrimony [which you might erroneously think it is] but about linking theory to practical mechanics & work done - frustrations can get high & some people find it hard to remain level headed under those circumstances - anonymity also takes the handbrake off for some & they say things they wouldn't say or do on the shop floor or around the board room table.

The atwoods thread may have gone on too long but I think it has been valuable in crystallizing the issues.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

re: Has the atwoods analysis thread gone on too long ?

Post by nicbordeaux »

Thanks for the clear reply Fletcher :) And thanks for pointing to the originating thread.

Still, this bolas concept cum atwoods cum running cuckoo clock weights over a nail in a rafter producing unlimited free energy as per current perception ex-nihlo... This may be a forum comprising largely of irrecoverable nutcases with da Vinci delusion (include me) , if this concept holds the promise announced, there are corporate or non people who keep an eye on energy forums just in case. Does it not follow that unless these people are too dumb to grasp the concept, be they Chinese secret agents, Aliens, NASA, MIB's or else, they'd be throwing every ounce of resource they have at it ? Unlimited energy = unlimited destructive power. There are people who'd be quite excited. Heck, just spin a big cart wheel with a donkey and you can shoot objects out of the air at 40 000 feet ?

No irony or else intended, just wondering.
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.
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: Has the atwoods analysis thread gone on too long ?

Post by Fletcher »

Nick wrote:Heck, just spin a big cart wheel with a donkey and you can shoot objects out of the air at 40 000 feet ?
Puts it in perspective Nick - spin a 1 meter diameter 41kg wheel with a donkey up to 19 rpm - about 20.5 joules required [less than one carrot] - use a lightly spring loaded return one-way ratchet gear so the donkey can walk backwards to reset - use the momentum to shoot the 1 kg rim mass 80 meters vertically, perhaps to knock holes thru castle fortifications.

Something seems wrong - it must be that it is difficult to take all the momentum from the flywheel & transfer it efficiently to the launch mass.

Would make an interesting siege engine that could have replaced the trebuchet & catapult - now man power & donkeys were probably used to create spring torsion & lift counter weights in those devices but then that was to store potential energy & wasn't using full momentum transfer that the theory suggests.

pequaide, greendoor & broli have a point though - use a tethered deployment system & cut the string attachment at the right trajectory & theoretically [& experimentally according to pequaide's video's] the mass will launch high & far stopping the flywheel - then you can go get the mass & roll it back to the machine [no work done as moved horizontally] & lift it back up & hand set the deployment rig.

P.S. yes, I know you used chemical energy to roll the mass back & lift it up off the ground but that's also less than one carrot.

* Might be a pretty good way to launch small masses to escape velocity - just need a car engine & a spinning flywheel - who needs electromagnetic rail guns or rocket motors providing thrust.

* for those that don't recognise levity.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

re: Has the atwoods analysis thread gone on too long ?

Post by nicbordeaux »

Fletcher, this is going to cause a total collapse of all our beliefs, no area will be left untouched. Alcohol abuse will rise. Complete breakdown of all moral values.

I know a guy with a phd in physics and a chair, he wondered about the pyramids, he wondered so much that he built a (smallish scale) working model of how the Egyptians dug canals and built dams to float those enormous rocks up into place. Better mail him quick and tell him that to avoid ridicule he has to renege all previous belief and theory, "coz all that Ghiza and Stonehenge stuff was built by a real mother of a donkey turning a ferris wheel and hurling mammoth rocks 800 foot up and they either just settled into the earth, or smashed with micronic precision into place. Expense : half a pound of carrots.

The Nazca lines ? No expense, they just rolled a weight along the ground. Unwanted side effect of building something else and resetting the weight. The monoliths in 2001 ? That darn donkey again.

Sorry Peq, no offense or judgement meant, just having a bit of fun :)

And actually, ok it's not relevant but the effect is similar, you can put a moderate load on a good fishing rod and shoot a 10 gram lead one heck of a long way. Timing being of the essence. 13 foot fishing rod rotates through small part of an arc, and whizzo.
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.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

Fletcher wrote:Puts it in perspective Nick - spin a 1 meter diameter 41kg wheel with a donkey up to 19 rpm - about 20.5 joules required [less than one carrot] - use a lightly spring loaded return one-way ratchet gear so the donkey can walk backwards to reset - use the momentum to shoot the 1 kg rim mass 80 meters vertically, perhaps to knock holes thru castle fortifications.
The truth is that it takes a 1kg weight dropping a distance of about 80 meters to spin a 40kg wheel up to a speed of about 19 RPM.

If you use the increased KE to fling the weight upward 80 meters the weight will return the same energy when it falls back down so as to spin the wheel back up to the same speed 19 RPM, minus some friction.


Image
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: Has the atwoods analysis thread gone on too long ?

Post by Fletcher »

The Australian aborigines & other indigenous races also invented the spear throwing stick based on the same principle - a length of wood with a groove to rest the spear in, notch & handle - this extends the arms & elbows leverage to hurl the spear higher & further - providing you have the power to quickly rotate your arm & shoulder - that's why you instinctively know the correct length to let the fishing line & sinker hang off the end of your rod before casting - trial & error - to short & lots of rotation but not much distance - too long & not enough rotation speed to get max distance either - balancing leverage & power.

Seriously though - their theory is about transferring momentum to a smaller mass to give it high velocity & not about more efficient leverage - it would seem to me that the trebuchet might do this to some small degree - as the counterweight drops in an arc the hanging rope with mass is caused to rotate around the end pivot increasing the masses velocity - this might be due to the inertia & Cf's of the small mass acting against the swinging counterweight acceleration & taking some of its momentum & transferring it to the high velocity mass - I haven't researched how they are actually explained but quite a few here have studied them in detail.
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

Post by Fletcher »

jim_mich wrote:
Fletcher wrote:Puts it in perspective Nick - spin a 1 meter diameter 41kg wheel with a donkey up to 19 rpm - about 20.5 joules required [less than one carrot] - use a lightly spring loaded return one-way ratchet gear so the donkey can walk backwards to reset - use the momentum to shoot the 1 kg rim mass 80 meters vertically, perhaps to knock holes thru castle fortifications.
The truth is that it takes a 1kg weight dropping a distance of about 80 meters to spin a 40kg wheel up to a speed of about 19 RPM.

If you use the increased KE to fling the weight upward 80 meters the weight will return the same energy when it falls back down so as to spin the wheel back up to the same speed 19 RPM, minus some friction.


Image
Where's the difference in pequaide's 2.08 meters [20.4 Joules] v's 80 meters Jim ? - though of course your scenario is entirely plausible.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Post by nicbordeaux »

Well Jim, I hope they can come up with a system of 100% recapture. But let's not turn this thread into a atwoods validation too, or we'll be newton cradling that 1 kg 80 times over 80 meters less some small loss :) I'll wait around until the concept is shown to be of use or not. Not through lack of willingness, but lack of ability to see the gain.

Fletcher, the trebuchet indeed gets a great load of it's efficiency/velocity out of the sling acceleration. As to the fishing rod, it's far from just leverage and line length hanging out of top ring, altough those are crucial factors. A given length and "power" of rod will cast very differntly depending on taper, wall thickness mainly. It's the way the tip "loads" on the slight backswing and the speed with which it "springs" which make the difference. That gives theoretically more velocity than a slow rod. However, as a slow (bends all the way down to the handle) rod can build up some massive speed and curve throughout it's length, the picture isn't clearcut and there is no physics model which will predict how a rod will really perform in the casting area. Empirical. A better model is the bow and arrow, a big hard to pull longbow (straight when unstrung) will shoot a heavy arrow a good distance, and deliver a really massive impact. The arrow from a recurve or double curved bow where the tips are reverse to normal curvature under load will deliver a light arrow with great speed as there is a "double unwind", the tips springing faster than the main part of the blade. This is similar to the trebucket effect. And there is a case probably for these "blade springs" in a wheel, and unless anyone has proof that bessler's wheel was permanently OB rather than permanetly under spring load, and that the "crossbars" were not springy, it's an interesting "theory". You'd need a difference in loading of spring on each side but that doesn't seem impossible with some sort of sliding system.
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Has the atwoods analysis thread gone on too long ?

Post by ovyyus »

nicbordeaux wrote:...unless anyone has proof that bessler's wheel was permanently OB rather than permanetly under spring load...
Bessler's first two unidirectional wheels were described as exhibiting torque at all operating speeds, including when held stationary. An axle rotating with the wheel would seem to provide nothing for a spring to push against. Therefore, it seems unlikely that wheel torque was the result of spring load.
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: Has the atwoods analysis thread gone on too long ?

Post by Fletcher »

Hey Nick .. I can only ask a question when & where I see one worth asking ;7) I was taking the mick nick just a little with your thread title which you astutely picked up on.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

re: Has the atwoods analysis thread gone on too long ?

Post by nicbordeaux »

And rightly so Fletcher :)
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.
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6698
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Has the atwoods analysis thread gone on too long ?

Post by daxwc »

Ovyyus Quote:
An axle rotating with the wheel would seem to provide nothing for a spring to push against.
The spring could be fixed parallel with the axle and thus causing the side loading of the pillar as the witnesses observed.



For those interested in Fletcher’s statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kestros

thks
What goes around, comes around.
Post Reply