Calling on Fletcher and Ovyyus

[nicbordeaux]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJtB8eUEtCk

What you might want to know about this is that it is the device I described in Kirk's "my video" thread, which I don't want to squat with something totally unrelated. Especially as it is a device I intend to see all the way through.

The preliminary data : the OB wheel driver weight is 4 oz, drilled, w/ a nut and bolt attachment, final weight 110 g. If released from a height (wheel revolved manually) of 2 cm, it will oscillate and make the 400 odd gram steel tube "pendulum arm" oscillate with some amplitude not yet measured. The weight of the wheel is 535 grams give or take a gram or 4. The square attachment plate on hub to which the pendulum arm is attached and on which it pivots is wood, order of 350 grams. The hubs should be around 250 grams each (wheel also on hub). The red billiard ball and araldited into hole screw attachment is 183 grams.

Preliminary conclusions : a mass of 110 grams gaining ke from a "pe loss" of 2 cm vertical is setting in movement a system weighing approx 1700 gram, w/o direct drive via chain or else. Balancing act. The 1700 odd composite mass via a line over pulley wheel is raising 183 grams over 4 cms from start point, vertically.

Spinning the wheel at high revs is of no use. Even releasing it from 9 or 3 position gives no more motion than from 7:30 or 4:30.

The system is allowed to run down until it stops. The reason it is not shown released from the lowest positions is because I did the vid alone, so had to allow time for setting apparatus in motion, walking away and aiming camera, hitting "shoot" button on camera. (full vid at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsVXNvtEEWY). This vid actually better illustrates the transfer of "movement" from the OB wheel to the entire pendular system, and the ensuing effect on the "stamper block" red ball. Which is, one supposes, just a vertical pendulum.

This is one of the possibilities of obtaining rise in system height of mass over and above input mass loss allowed by the device in this simplest of incarnations. Better one's exist I think, this was just an aside to validate a theory ref setting large amounts of mass in motion in "open" systems, and using that moving mass to lift other mass over and above what would be considered "par".

Objections at this stage are that the raised mass is not captured at high point. No problemo, 5 minutes work to make a platform to sit mass on. Problem : under the effect/weight of the red ball hanging laterally whilst attached by nylon to pendular arm, said arm is pulled off to one side by a few degrees. Which translates into a lot of preload which would not be restored were the effect of red ball removed. Solutions : raise vertically with pulley wheel dead center above apparatus. Or make ratchet/one way freewheel to wind suspension nylon around, thus maintaining weight of raised mass exerted on system (?).

Five quite important points : 1) anybody patenting this if it is worth it will not be held in high esteem. Anybody wishing to join in on this project can just say so and we can work together. What is shown is just an aside to what may be accomplished (well, what I intend to build and have perform after having mucked around with this "gravity energy" stuff for longer than is sane).

2) For the Bessler wheel fans, the "stamper blocks" can clearly be simple "pendulums" geared down. Whether their function, if the Bessler wheel was real, was to control or to drive is anybody's guess, and a point much discussed on this forum ;-) Consequently, the debate as to why some depictions of the wheel show pendulums and others not may be the result of the pendulum taking on different forms.

3) the system will only perform if initiated by lifting the OB weight and letting the wheel oscillate. Dropping the red ball has very little useful effect.

4) No energy accountancy has been attempted ref the moment of inertia of the 110 gram OB weight on wheel, and input required to overcome it. Then again, that moi is piffling compared to that of the rest of the system.

ps : Michael, if this is pedantic, you may send a pm :-)

Edit : paramaters to play with include length of swing arm, dia of wheel, mass of various components, etc ad nauseum.

[ovyyus]

Thanks for posting the vid Nick. I must be missing something. I see total CoM falling. Start position is raised pendulum and raised OB weight, end position is lower pendulum and lower OB weight?

[nicbordeaux]

The vid isn't explicit enough then, Bill. Start position isn't shown, the device is already in motion, and is let to run down to zero energy/lost height of all mass. You have to press the "play" button of the vid player until you get lucky enough to freeze an image with the red mass raised. But don't bother, I'll do another vid with marking/graduations on a backboard. If you look at the unslowed down vid (2nd link) it's at approx 10 secs in that the OB weight wheel slows down and reaches what is the normal release point. It is here that the motion/energy transfers to the pendulum arm in a manner such that it really starts swinging. The stuff before is counter-productive, of no use. Just there because I needed time to back away from the thing and film it.

At normal start, 183 g red ball is "keeled" at height "x". The 110 gram OB weight is also "keeled" at 6. Input is manual and consists in revolving OB wheel (not linked to red mass) so that height gained by OB weight is 2 cm. Release OB, gravity ensures that it and wheel it is on revolve to 6 and past, just like a pendulum, being unimpeded in rotation other than by negative reaction from pendulum arm. The changes in position of the OB weight over several swings of small arc induce surprisingly large amount of movement of swing/pendulum arm. It is not direct drive, but overbalance and change in balance. The red ball/mass is suspended from fishing line over a pulley wheel attached to the wood block which is the base/stand resting on table, and the other end of that fishing line is attached to the bottom of the pendulum arm. From the initial "x" position (height) the red ball drops and rises over distance proportional to amplitude of swing of pendulum arm. The maximum rise of the red mass is 4 cm above the start "x" position, and obviously, the low is 4 cm under "x". As the device stands right now, no means of capturing the red mass at the + 4 cm position is provided. No big deal to rig something up. Happily, the + 4cm coincides with a approx "5 'o' clock" position of the entire swing assembly, which is logical as the heavy swinging stuff is pulling the red ball as it rises in the arc of swing away from ball. Discounting the raised pendulum assembly which has swung past 6 and is raised mass as it started from keel point, we have at worst red ball 183 grams gaining 4 cm vertical, and 110 gram OB weight losing 2 cm of vertical height. Definitely needs a simple apparatus to capture the ball at + 4, or better still a modified bike spocket on freewheel so that height gained by red can not be lost, whilst all the swinging stuff may continue to swing free on downstroke except for pawl friction , and continue to raise red mass on "upswing" until all energy is expended or insufficient remaining to do any lifting.

Is the matter now sufficiently obfuscated as to be rendered completely incomprehensible ?

[AB Hammer]

Nick

Think Chaos effect. I believe you are dealing with.

[nicbordeaux]

Spot on Alan, chaos. Although "chaos" covers a load of stuff people prefer not to have to explain away :-)

I've run it with instead of a 180 gram ball a 650 steel bob. Obviously, the pull of this bigger mass pulls the swing arm out from vertical at rest, and we have demonstrated that we have quite simply "gravity preload". But still, the 100 grams over a couple of cm from bdc as input raises the 650 over 3-4 cm (eg, highest point reached compared to start/rest). When all stops moving, things are exactly as at start.

So, letting things unharnessed means 110 grams sets around 3 kgs in motion at a decent rate of travel, which is a load more ke than input.

Tell me, you are all men of the world, where should I go from here ? Raise mass and maintain it at high point whilst letting the preload position unchanged at end of cycle ? Set a 5 kg flywheel in motion at 60 + rpm ?

Let's get this aside over w/ quickly and lemme get on with the job ;-)

[daxwc]

Just my opinion Nic, but you need to clearly show an undeniable energy gain or why go on looking for a reset.

[nicbordeaux]

Your opinion, just like every forum member's, is valuable. Need to download a vid from the cam then we can argue. I say it's an undeniable gain in ke. See yawls later ;-)

ps : wonder where Fletcher is hiding ?

[jim_mich]

wonder where Fletcher is hiding ?

Maybe on a sunny tropical island??

[nicbordeaux]

Bully for him ;-)

Here are two more vids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCALAuUYy6c That's showing the device with a 665 steel bob as mass set in vertical motion by 110 gr (via about 2.5 kgs of swing arm cr*p).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QpdtV7X2VA And this is a balanced set up, 2 x 180 gram balls for total mass moved 360, 110 OB driver. Measurement on this one not important yet, just of interest the pulley wheels the bobs run over are dia 4.5 approx, and when they travel a half turn total mass vertical travel is 6 cm. When they travel 3 to 6 for ex, that's 3 cm rise. Useful. Main purpose is to show that yes, I do know what sort of system I'm dealing with ;-) And what would that be ? Why, a sort of atwoody type gizmo driven by a pendulum indirectly driven by an OB wheel. What's the point apart from the "I know what this is" stuff ? To clear up any future arguments about the fact that the length of nylon either bob is attached to is irrelevant as regards system balance. It shortens, we have raise of com. No angled pendulum arm self balancing the system. Straight, plain and simple facts. 4 ways of achieving this, 2 with magnets as pick-ups and power delivery modifiers, so those won't be acceptable. Two, then. Two purely mechanical.

More to follow.

[Fletcher]

Yeah .. long weekend here so we went away & did a day's deep sea fishing - caught some good keepers.

Nick .. I think you haven't grasped the full extent of what's trying to be conveyed.

I've looked over your vids to get the gist of what you're attempting - haven't built any sims yet, so these are my initial observations.

The drive weight needs to be locked at 3 o'cl, until it is released - this will force the pendulum arm to the left of vertical i.e. to find the PQ point.

N.B. the lifted weight will also thru the cord pull the pendulum to the left, until EQUILIBRIUM is reached - this will be at some angle proportional to the masses etc.

ONCE equilibrium is reached [PQ] measure the CoM [vertical height] of each component & work out the Pe of the system.

Release/trip the drive weight [currently at 3 o'cl] & video it with the back board height marker etc - measure the Pe in each frame or selection of frames to see if there is an increase in system CoM, which is an overall gain in Pe registered.

Observation:

It appears to me, after a quick look, that you are moving the drive weight to the 3 o'cl position, you are also stopping the pendulum shaft from moving left to find the equilibrium start position, to be a fair test.

Have a look at any physics pages about weights acting thru pulleys [Triangle of Forces vector diagram] & their attachment angles & weight forces - you will see that the strain & weight forces are not equal, angle dependent - IOW's you are biasing the result by hand resisting the strain in the pulley & ropes at start, IINM.

[see Triangle of Forces attachments]

P.S.1. there is a very obvious similarity to the Milkovic 2 stage oscillator, IINM.

P.S.2. I'll run a sim when I get time.

[nicbordeaux]

Yeah .. long weekend here so we went away & did a day's deep sea fishing - caught some good keepers. "Old man and the Sea" stuff, not that you're old mind you. How many days did the big one tug you boat round the Island ?

Nick .. I think you haven't grasped the full extent of what's trying to be conveyed. Methinks you ain't grasped that I grasped right away that the problem is that the system is "self-balancing/adjusting", eg the swing arm in the one weight setup will tilt to adjust for any force applied elswhere, therefore a two ball balanced setup is the build to go for to avoid that incalculable stuff ;-)

I've looked over your vids to get the gist of what you're attempting - haven't built any sims yet, so these are my initial observations.

The drive weight needs to be locked at 3 o'cl, until it is released - this will force the pendulum arm to the left of vertical i.e. to find the PQ point. Yup, but if locking the arm and wheel prior to release will keep everything visualy hunkey dorey, the forces are still there, just nice and invisible in the locking mech. I'm not disagreeing w/ you mind you.

N.B. the lifted weight will also thru the cord pull the pendulum to the left, until EQUILIBRIUM is reached - this will be at some angle proportional to the masses etc.

ONCE equilibrium is reached [PQ] measure the CoM [vertical height] of each component & work out the Pe of the system.

Release/trip the drive weight [currently at 3 o'cl] & video it with the back board height marker etc - measure the Pe in each frame or selection of frames to see if there is an increase in system CoM, which is an overall gain in Pe registered. There is a more advanced build which has amongst other things little brass needles overhanging the wheel, and the top board, a bit like a speedo display. There's also a plumbline behind the "pendulum arm", suspended from an object not in contact with the device and not subject to tremor or swing.

Observation:

It appears to me, after a quick look, that you are moving the drive weight to the 3 o'cl position, you are also stopping the pendulum shaft from moving left to find the equilibrium start position, to be a fair test. Correct.

Have a look at any physics pages about weights acting thru pulleys [Triangle of Forces vector diagram] & their attachment angles & weight forces - you will see that the strain & weight forces are not equal, angle dependent - IOW's you are biasing the result by hand resisting the strain in the pulley & ropes at start, IINM. Wondered about that. Thx. Need to find a way around it.
[see Triangle of Forces attachments]

P.S.1. there is a very obvious similarity to the Milkovic 2 stage oscillator, IINM. YANM. The M2SO bears a remarkable similarity to everything from a chestnut on a branch to a upsd spoon swinging in a beer bottle neck :-)

P.S.2. I'll run a sim when I get time.

Well, thx. Glad somebody is kind enough to be interested and understands the issues. The wheel with OB isn't the best initiator or "prime move device" , the greater the arm length the better within reason. And any gain is coming from not the leverage factor, but the way a small mass can without direct drive upset a big system and set it rocking. There you have a similarity with the MilkoSO.

Well, some is coming from the leverage but only because of a differential in response times of different mechanical parts in relation to each other, therefore if we consider that grav has a constant speed or effect which can't be changed, and that there are interactions within system parts which are not always mechanically linked and have diferent apex times/occurences and speeds, there could be some silly analogy with a sail. But who cares, only thing that counts is results.

ps: we're talking two devices here afaik, one has a big weight, the other is easier to prove (thx again for pointing out the issues) just by shortening the fishing line.

pps : Or, as the real purpose of this device is to get an OB wheel from keel to 12 with minimal input (without all those dumb balls and weights hanging off it) ...


And just to keep relevant stuff in the same thread, a link previously posted elsewhere : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UXG2x18L7E&NR=1

[nicbordeaux]

Ah, actually I was a mite too quick on that one, it's not OU. Giving up on inventing anything. Just toys from now on.

[Grimer]

You can learn a lot from toys. Bessler certainly seemed to think so.

[nicbordeaux]

path-finder is reinventing an old game that can only be the one Bessler alluded to... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoop_rolling
But he's having to eat the confit de cananrd Périgourdin to get materials.

[nicbordeaux]

Custer's Last Stand, The March Pendulum

Just done some measurements with/ precision (.1 gr) scales. Protusion from 110 gr OB weight, raise by putting scales' plate under protusion. Lift to release position "3 o' clock'. Suspended weight over pulley still 665 grams. In spite of holding scales in hand so some tremor, maximum reading is 128 grams, minimum around 70, must be some angular stuff at work, plus fact that heavy bob moves pendulum arm in a direction which assists raise.

As per previously shown vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCALAuUYy6c , 110 (ok, 128 if you want) grams over 115 cm lifts 665g over 30 mm. Raised mass height is measured by inserting 30 mm wood plate under bob at highest point and leaving it there.

Irrespective of any angular hocus pocus, leverage or else going on during the operation, the end result, which I am standing very firmly by is : 110 gr losing 115 mm position of height causes 665 grams to rise 30 mm.

Is that enough to relaunch the system ? Yes. More than enough. If the weight is just caught at height and sat on a stand, the system (eg pendulum arm, OB wheel) will swing away till keel, so you could argue that the end result is loss if you don't also capture pendulum at high point. However, by winding and spooling the tether, The system raise is undisputable.

The other vids of note already published are a "balanced" 2 ball setup with total bob mass of 366 grams)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QpdtV7X2VA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJtB8eUEtCk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsVXNvtEEWY (in which preliminary conclusions : a mass of 110 grams gaining ke from a "pe loss" of 2 cm vertical is setting in movement a system weighing approx 1700 gram, w/o direct drive via chain or else. Balancing act. The 1700 odd composite mass via a line over pulley wheel is raising 183 grams over 4 cms from start point, vertically. Spinning the wheel at high revs is of no use. Even releasing it from 9 or 3 position gives no more motion than from 7:30 or 4:30. The reason it is not shown released from the lowest position is because I did the vid alone, so had to allow time for setting apparatus in motion, walking away and aiming camera, hitting "shoot" button on camera. Just look at the way the pendulum starts swinging when the OB wheel rotation hits the right "frequency/height" from 4h30 to 7 h 30.

These are very imperfect results, as tuning the system as regards length of componets, weights, diameters will yield more.

Please don't call this a "S2O oscillator or anything else. It is my invention, therefore with all due modesty I am calling it the MARCH pendulum.