I've found I can prove it's possible to extract energy from the Newtonian gravitational field.
The secret is to use the acceleration down (NG) as the driving force and the deceleration back up (EG) as the resetting action. Same action as a machine gun which uses recoil to reload.
Appropriately enough one of my grandsons is called Maxim.
I want to present the proof to my builder first in case he wants to build it. If he doesn't I'm sure he will have no objection to my presenting the proof to the rest of the forum.
PROOF - at last!
Moderator: scott
PROOF - at last!
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
The key to understanding the essence of energy capture is the recognition that gravity is acting to impact the wheel on the downward stroke but to counter any reverse impact which would negate the original impact on the upward stroke, the bounce in other words, the equivalent of the adiabatic legs in Carnot.
So NG is working constructively both in the 12 → 6 acceleration free swing which transfers clockwise energy to the wheel and in the 6 → 12 deceleration "bounce back" swing which smothers any counterclockwise energy being transferred and resets the swinging weight in its original position.
It is this realisation that Gravity is onside for both the outward and return journeys that is the eureka moment - the point at which one can "see" what is going on, an experience far more compelling than the dry mathematical proof presented in a previous thread and an experience which is more generally accessible.
So NG is working constructively both in the 12 → 6 acceleration free swing which transfers clockwise energy to the wheel and in the 6 → 12 deceleration "bounce back" swing which smothers any counterclockwise energy being transferred and resets the swinging weight in its original position.
It is this realisation that Gravity is onside for both the outward and return journeys that is the eureka moment - the point at which one can "see" what is going on, an experience far more compelling than the dry mathematical proof presented in a previous thread and an experience which is more generally accessible.
re: PROOF - at last!
Grimer, i'm a bit confused are you saying this:
1. You have a weight attached to the wheel at 12 o'clock
2. You drop the weight from 12 o'clock
3. The weight then hits a stop on the rim at say 3 o'clock
4. The impact from the weight causes the wheel to turn
5. The weight bounces back up to its starting position on the wheel, which may now be at say 1 o'clock due to the movement of the wheel
1. You have a weight attached to the wheel at 12 o'clock
2. You drop the weight from 12 o'clock
3. The weight then hits a stop on the rim at say 3 o'clock
4. The impact from the weight causes the wheel to turn
5. The weight bounces back up to its starting position on the wheel, which may now be at say 1 o'clock due to the movement of the wheel
re: PROOF - at last!
You're only a bit confused. 
The 12 to 6 and 6 to 12 refers to the regions over which NG and EG operate.
The position of the drop will have to be calculated to get the optimum balance between the energy put into turning the wheel and the energy put in to resetting the wheel.
I would imagine the optimum drop region would be something like 2 to 4 based on the info we have about the Keenie.
Bessler stressed that one shouldn't be greedy. He probably found out that more energy needs to go to the reset than to the rest of the wheel for optimum perfomance.
The importance of reset is, of course, that once reset the wheel is in perfect equilibrium and so any energy which it has required from the drop will take it all the way round for the weight at pi radians to drop and continue the cycle.
One will need the usual accoutrements of catches and trips bit these in the limit require insignificant amounts of energy.
The essential point to hang on to like grim death is that NG not only provides the clockwise turning energy but also suppresses the counter clockwise EG energy which would otherwise negate the clockwise energy when it reached reset position.
However, one does need EG or else the weight would never return and the rig would keel. One needs the "bounce" to take the weight back but one doesn't want it to do anything when it gets there.
To take a topical example. Think of making a putt in golf. One needs to hit it just hard enough so it reaches the lip of the hole and flops in. Too hard and it jumps over the hole. To soft and it doesn't reach it.
Likewise with the rebound weight, too hard and it puts counter clockwise energy into the wheel - which you don't want. Too soft and it does reach its reset position which means the wheel has a keeling counter-clockwise moment which you also don't want.
As the 1940 advert puts it. Not too little.. not too much... but just right.
The 12 to 6 and 6 to 12 refers to the regions over which NG and EG operate.
The position of the drop will have to be calculated to get the optimum balance between the energy put into turning the wheel and the energy put in to resetting the wheel.
I would imagine the optimum drop region would be something like 2 to 4 based on the info we have about the Keenie.
Bessler stressed that one shouldn't be greedy. He probably found out that more energy needs to go to the reset than to the rest of the wheel for optimum perfomance.
The importance of reset is, of course, that once reset the wheel is in perfect equilibrium and so any energy which it has required from the drop will take it all the way round for the weight at pi radians to drop and continue the cycle.
One will need the usual accoutrements of catches and trips bit these in the limit require insignificant amounts of energy.
The essential point to hang on to like grim death is that NG not only provides the clockwise turning energy but also suppresses the counter clockwise EG energy which would otherwise negate the clockwise energy when it reached reset position.
However, one does need EG or else the weight would never return and the rig would keel. One needs the "bounce" to take the weight back but one doesn't want it to do anything when it gets there.
To take a topical example. Think of making a putt in golf. One needs to hit it just hard enough so it reaches the lip of the hole and flops in. Too hard and it jumps over the hole. To soft and it doesn't reach it.
Likewise with the rebound weight, too hard and it puts counter clockwise energy into the wheel - which you don't want. Too soft and it does reach its reset position which means the wheel has a keeling counter-clockwise moment which you also don't want.
As the 1940 advert puts it. Not too little.. not too much... but just right.
- Attachments
-
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: PROOF - at last!
Playing around with the rig mentioned here I realised that rather than having the hinged beam pull on stationary weights I would do better to have it impact
other weights and bounce back up as shown here:
The blue F balls are fixed relative to each other. The S balls are free to swing.
I suppose using snooker balls as weights suggested the idea of impact and bounce back up. It was in thinking about bounce back that I realised the way that gravity assists the rotation of a wheel both on the downward and return legs of the red swinging arm.
I don't know what the Coefficient of Restitution is for snooker balls but I don't suppose it is that great so it will be best to soften the impact with a spring. Looking back through the impact thread I see that Jim Mich pointed this out early on here and here. At the time I didn't have my intuitive notion of impact clear and I disagreed with Jim. I now realise he was absolutely right and I was quite wrong.
It was only later on in the thread when remembering the definition of slow and sudden loading of a beam that I was able to divorce the popular idea of impact which involves many orders of motion higher than d³x/dt³ and the technical concept which doesn't. It was at that point I recognised the functional similarity between fast and slow beam loading and the fast (adiabatic) and slow (isothermal) legs of the Carnot Cycle.
other weights and bounce back up as shown here:
The blue F balls are fixed relative to each other. The S balls are free to swing.
I suppose using snooker balls as weights suggested the idea of impact and bounce back up. It was in thinking about bounce back that I realised the way that gravity assists the rotation of a wheel both on the downward and return legs of the red swinging arm.
I don't know what the Coefficient of Restitution is for snooker balls but I don't suppose it is that great so it will be best to soften the impact with a spring. Looking back through the impact thread I see that Jim Mich pointed this out early on here and here. At the time I didn't have my intuitive notion of impact clear and I disagreed with Jim. I now realise he was absolutely right and I was quite wrong.
It was only later on in the thread when remembering the definition of slow and sudden loading of a beam that I was able to divorce the popular idea of impact which involves many orders of motion higher than d³x/dt³ and the technical concept which doesn't. It was at that point I recognised the functional similarity between fast and slow beam loading and the fast (adiabatic) and slow (isothermal) legs of the Carnot Cycle.
- Attachments
-
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: PROOF - at last!
Grimer....you and I have (independently) came to the same conclusion...
a "balanced" weight system...which incorporates a (bounce) or a (tap) to perpetuate the motion...
right or wrong there is something...to independent verification...( in this case, of course, it is theory)
richard
edit to add: seems this could be significantly added to..
..a smaller increased velocity, fly weighted wheel...applying a torque to the greater outer wheel...I.e. instead of a bounce or tap...a continuous applied pressure form the counter weighted fly wheel..
this (connectedness) is not the same as a solid fly weighted wheel.
a "balanced" weight system...which incorporates a (bounce) or a (tap) to perpetuate the motion...
right or wrong there is something...to independent verification...( in this case, of course, it is theory)
richard
edit to add: seems this could be significantly added to..
..a smaller increased velocity, fly weighted wheel...applying a torque to the greater outer wheel...I.e. instead of a bounce or tap...a continuous applied pressure form the counter weighted fly wheel..
this (connectedness) is not the same as a solid fly weighted wheel.
Last edited by Richard on Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think
re: PROOF - at last!
Jim...beautiful...
throw a dog a bone...can you link me :-)
...edited above post...Possible?
richard
throw a dog a bone...can you link me :-)
...edited above post...Possible?
richard
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think
That can't be bad.Richard wrote:Grimer....you and I have (independently) came to the same conclusion...
Yep. The trick seems to be to get the minor component doing the bouncing or tapping to its reset position before before the major component runs out of steam. Since the minor component moves faster this should be possiblea "balanced" weight system...which incorporates a (bounce) or a (tap) to perpetuate the motion...
right or wrong there is something...to independent verification...
or even refutation.
re: PROOF - at last!
You can avoid impact and all those giant problems it causes.
re: PROOF - at last!
Having reached 500+ views for this thread I was rather expecting one of the usual suspects to either come up with a show stopping objection or a simple Basic program which extends the standard equations of motion to show the effect of change in acceleration (jerk) of a swinging bouncing weight.
After all, how difficult can it be? Don't tell me that it'll be left to the little red hen.
The last program she wrote was 20 years ago in something called Fast Basic. It was written to discover if the inverse square law of gravity could be seen as the difference between two inverse laws. Including a random offset from the resulting spiral gave a very persuasive picture of spiral galaxy formation.
Of course it could be that someone has already written such a program and is being anally retentive like Bessler. If they have they'd do well to remember his example and bring it to this thread before someone else or the little red hen.
No one remembers who comes second.
After all, how difficult can it be? Don't tell me that it'll be left to the little red hen.
The last program she wrote was 20 years ago in something called Fast Basic. It was written to discover if the inverse square law of gravity could be seen as the difference between two inverse laws. Including a random offset from the resulting spiral gave a very persuasive picture of spiral galaxy formation.
Of course it could be that someone has already written such a program and is being anally retentive like Bessler. If they have they'd do well to remember his example and bring it to this thread before someone else or the little red hen.
No one remembers who comes second.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?