Design Status Update

[Silvertiger]

@snkellis: Motion Wheel with Ratcheted Flywheel

@sleepy: Your two points are the very heart of the behavior of the fourth class lever. Therefore, I cannot address them. But they are...most definitely on point. I think that yours is actually the simplest and most concise definition of the lever that I have read thus far. Even I couldn't have put it that simply. Excellent observations. I'm very impressed...pm me.

@ME: The setup is what it is. It is the best setup for generating power. As far as the build, I am doing some CAD work on it, which shouldn't take TOO long. And then on to Lowes I suppose.

@agor95: Try to do the best you can with what you already have.

@Fletcher: Disconnected and Partially Connected Loads Video

[ME]

I'm just interested in what you called "5th-law of levers", not in the variety of abilities to demonstrate things with excess energy which you already demonstrated to have.

So I simply conclude your "5th law of levers" is a pendulum with its usual PE-KE pair when in transit, but mysteriously gains energy at the bouncy ends.
It takes 2 bounces in weird ratios to reach its maximum energy-level.

With screen-measured accuracy there's the following build-up with:

17.0*m Joules (Starting GPE, going CW)
55.6*m Joules (increased to 17.0 x 3.27 when bounced at bottom, going CCW)
105.8*m Joules (increased to 17.0 x 6.22 when bounced at right, going CW)
105.5*m Joules (when bounced at bottom, going CCW)

Are these values correct?
Observed for r=1.73 m, m=68 kg; ignoring the rod.

@ME: The setup is what it is. It is the best setup for generating power.

Strange, I would figure that when there's this "5th law of levers" that there's some pattern to discover (things related to Size, Mass, etc) even without knowing the mechanism.
I would just like to see the effects of a range of such observations.

[snkellis]

Sorry Silver tiger, realized after I posted you'd probably already thought of that with your dual weight system.

If I'm understanding your design nightmares correctly, I'm assuming your facing a similar issue to one I've experienced... The axle gets in the way of the mechanism. In the past I've gotten around this by creating two cross sections that rotate around a split axle connected at the outer rim of the "wheel". If this is not the case maybe this suggestion help others. Google windmill lantern gear if my description doesn't make sense.

[Silvertiger]

The axle gets in the way of nothing...it's an axle. The lever can go 360 or oscillate back and forth...whichever I want it to do.

[cloud camper]

OK ST, got to watch the video.

The lever does appear to lift the weight, so I suppose one could say that if it lifts it once it could do it a million times but I agree with Fletcher in that after it lifts once then you are just trading PE for KE over and over so any lift after the first one is not relevant.

Not complaining or attacking just commenting.

Seems very impressive at this point but sadly none of these simulator claims have ever checked out before so everyone is on guard!

[Fletcher]

ST .. I had a good look at the Load 'rod attached' velocity profile you provided. It seems to verify what you said about a Load makes the oscillating system kick even stronger. IOW's there is a positive feedback loop between the oscillator Effort and the Load which has Work done on it by the oscillator.

The profile seems to be showing an almost instantaneous increase in velocity once the Load changes direction of travel (up or down) - this is unusual because mass has inertia and the velocity increase should NOT be almost instantaneous as per a normal class lever. That indicates to me that there is an enormous acceleration present (as seen by the second part of the vid launching great mass into the stratosphere) and that means a great deal of force available which grows exponentially with the Load feedback into the oscillator. IOW's the application of the Load amplifies the Effort of the oscillator.

We can see that once the Load is given the initial acceleration it then slows as you would expect. This happens in the downward direction also. Also the profile shows the oscillator amplitude is slightly changing from time to time, reason unknown to me at this time.

So I can conclude at this stage that you have a force amplification oscillator device whereby the Effort force from your special lever is amplified by the application of a Load. This Load can simply be the inertia of the oscillator system itself (earlier accelerating devices with no external Load) and also the application of an external Load which the oscillator does Work on.

This probably means (assuming no major problems with your build) that the Law of Levers [F1 x D2 = F2 x D1] is still intact because that is just mechanical ratios/vectors but seems to suggest that the Ideal MA x SR is indeed far greater than 1 (backed up by the almost instantaneous gain in Load velocity mentioned earlier).

This is curious in the least because whatever feedback system you are using is producing far greater 'launch' speeds than the 3 classes of ordinary lever could achieve. IOW's normal class levers cannot enable a Load to gain more (greater than) translational KE at any vertical height than the equivalent GPE (Joules) that that same Load would have at that same vertical height. This has been a maxim.

What I find paradoxical (amongst other things) is that the two kinetic sim programs using standard Newtonian Physics and circular Math is allowing this apparent increase in System KE to occur without objection, and apparently, without fake vector forces in the sim.

I look forward to your real world build results.

P.S. A real world build allows you to fine-tune a sim retrospectively to the same or similar parameters/inputs so that they show matching performance. Then the sim is 100% reliable IMO.

All The Best.

[WaltzCee]

A "real world build" is an analog computer.

[Silvertiger]

Here is the lever working in ANOTHER kinematics sim program, Simwise 4D.

[Fletcher]

Hey ST .. how about showing the System CoM icon in action on your models/vids ?

No need to reveal the hidden mech, but in lieu of constructing a complete GPE and KE budget for the system (where all parts are known) the >show System CoM function is a very good visual aid.

I expect it to be above the X axis for your models given what you've said about them accelerating and gaining KE.

If by chance it's below the X axis (starting on the 0,0 datum) then that might indicate that it is losing System GPE at the expense of System KE (as is the case for the ordinary 3 lever classes i.e. 1 : 1 trade-off not counting losses).

If not below, augurs well for the direction you're heading in.

Let's check-off the obvious if we're gonna keep srcatching our heads on this side of the screen ?!

[Silvertiger]

Unfortunately, my version of WM does not have that feature. I can only measure individual objects. I would actually need a script for it. In SW4D, com isn't even there. On the menu in SW4D, Insert>Meter has taken the place of Measure in WM2D, and com is not listed. I suppose I could write a formula that adds all com's but I don't think it would show the little circle.

Edit: I found the button for it. Didn't know it was there. I kept looking in Measure on the Menu lol.

[rlortie]

Silvertiger,

i am following your thread here, but have stayed clear not knowing diddly squat about simulating.

I have one dumb question eating me up!... Why does the length of the lever increase as it ascends and decrease in length on descent.

Using full screen view on my 21.5" (54.61cm) monitor, I find the length of lever changing from 4.25" (10.795cm) to over 6.25" (15.875cm) It's longest length being when true vertical. For ease of conversion these measurements are liberal. It appears to grow and shrink in length an amount exceeding 2" (5.08cm).

Is there a simple explanation for this that a computer dummy can relate to? Or is it not an anomaly that you wish not to discuss, such as a telescoping lever?

Ralph

[Silvertiger]

Check the aspect ratio on your viewscreen. If it is not correct, then things will appear as optical illusions. If you have the wron aspect ratio, circles will appear like ellipses, and levers will appear longer in the x-direction and shorter in the y-direction.

[Silvertiger]

Ok so here is a video of the System CoM.

[ME]

...ANOTHER...

Simwise4d is a 3D rebranded version of Working Model using the (Runge)-Kutta-Merson-method as a physics solver, just as Working Model 2D.

But besides that, I find it strange it's able to "make it past the vertical" in the first run.
It fails when you double the animation step: it's expected to only make the calculation marginally more accurate.
It just seems to get significantly less "excess" energy from the bounce.
And that's for the same mass (and GPE) as used in the first run.

It uses the GPE to get to the first bounce and is able to make it back over the top the first time.
When it's finally able to bounce back at the left-side then it passes the same position with the same GPE as it initially had, plus the added KE.
It fails significantly (at 2:50) while it had more energy then in that first bounce.
Curious even when unrelated to the first run.

That "5th lever video" (I think your clearest video) showed no significant slowdown having a constant (PE+KE) when in transit.
From this I deduce it doesn't steal (or needs to steal) energy for some secret rebound action.
So I wonder what happened in this demo (other than a lightweight problem)

(view-distortion: I guess the view was a tiny bit from the side, so things disappear in depth. And with that there's likely a perspective-distortion because it's 3D)

[Silvertiger]

Choosing a time step for a particular problem is very difficult. The following
ad-hoc rules can assist you in your selection of a time step:
Small time step = improved accuracy
Large time step = improved computing speed
You do not always have to choose an extremely small time step just because
you are concerned about accuracy. More often than not, a reasonably small
step size produces a simulation result with sufficient accuracy.

Different simulations demand different time steps. A simulation of a thrown
baseball creates good results when the time step is about 0.01 seconds. This
time step would not be appropriate for a simulation of the solar system,
however. At a rate of 0.01 seconds per frame, it would take a very long time
to see any motion of the earth around the sun.

My initial settings were 0.005, which was more than enough. Taking it to 0.0025 just made it run slower, but would not change the desired result. It still worked, even at that insane level of accuracy.

Edit: Was Ralph talking about the simwise video, then?