Gravity "preload"

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

Moderator: scott

Post Reply

I don't get the question

Poll ended at Tue Feb 09, 2016 2:10 am

I understand what the question means
4
40%
I can't imagine what on Earth this question means.
1
10%
The question is utterly pointless
5
50%
 
Total votes: 10

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

Gravity "preload"

Post by nicbordeaux »

I would appreciate some input on what constitutes a preload, which is generally deemed to be unacceptable.

Scenario : an Atwoods with two equal weights, m1 & m2. Equilibrium. Force on the pulley Wheel totals m1 + m2.

M1 is 1 micron off the floor. If the connecting string is snipped m1 loses 1 micron. M2 has a hole Under it, it can lose loads of height. If M2 remains via some arrest mech attached to the pulley Wheel, and causes said Wheel do do work or raise mass, what is your take on this ? The system has lost half the mass (or become disconnected) and force exerted on it. Without losing any significant mh if the descent or drive of m2 balances out with the rise or work of the pulley.

Take that a step further : imagine that cutting m1 lets the system (Atwood Wheel + m2) gain considerable height. Do you have to account for m1 as the force it was exerting on the system, or can you just say it lost 1 micron, end of story ?

To those who know all and are mighty, and easily offended by plebian ignorance, my most humble apologies.

Thx in advance.
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
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Gravity "preload"

Post by Tarsier79 »

Preload is when you lose more Mass Height than you gain. If you gain MH, or it leads to a gain: PE to KE, then you win.
User avatar
WaltzCee
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3361
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Huntsville, TX
Contact:

Re: Gravity "preload"

Post by WaltzCee »

nicbordeaux wrote:To those who know all and are mighty, and easily offended by plebian ignorance, my most humble apologies.

Thx in advance.
Well now, isn't that special. First let me congratulate you for throttling your own self and grasping your throat and yanking your cerebral membrane out of your hind quarters.

Hats off to you. I don't doubt your sincerity. Your apologies are accepted, plebe.

Now, my precious plebe, let's examine this matter. Your suggestion is the product of the ratio of the difference between masses to their sum equals the actual acceleration. Very good. I can't debate that point. Seems real to me.

In fifteen words or less, could you kindly explain yourself. OK, 16.

Yet what does this mean. This idea poses several questions, as your model is taken to an extreme. Let's kick it in the ass, shall we?

You say,
(or become disconnected)
then you say
Take that a step further : imagine that cutting m1 lets the system (Atwood Wheel + m2) gain considerable height.
You've totally confused me with your reasoning there, plebe.
........................¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Re: re: Gravity "preload"

Post by nicbordeaux »

Tarsier79 wrote:Preload is when you lose more Mass Height than you gain. If you gain MH, or it leads to a gain: PE to KE, then you win.
That's kind of you. If I take that at face value, I have won. Still, one has doubts, one has believed one has won before, only to be shot down in flames, quite rightly, as one missed something so obvious a hydrocephalus chimp would have seen it. So easy to delude oneself.

I'll submit the build to a comitee of select experts.

So far, the vetting process has been done by the wife who's objection is : "Yes but no, because the strain or force exerted on your gizmo by your left ball (m1 and m2 being balls) disapears when the line which attaches your left ball to the the system from which your right ball is also suspended is cut, so it is quite normal that your right ball sags violently, thus setting your gizmo in motion and the weight of your left ball can't just be ignored except a height lost 1 micron."

To which I protest in vain "But you don't understand".
Last edited by nicbordeaux on Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Post by nicbordeaux »

WaltzCee : thank you oh mighty One for condescending to converse with a flea-ridden ignoramus.

The device can be illustrated -in plebian terms- as a long, stiff pendulum arm at the bottom of which there is a mass. It has no other name than mass, not even 1 or 2.

From the bottom of the pendulum arm, at the very center of the mass, there extends an insignificant metal stick.

At some distance away from the stick there are , either side and at equal height and distance, rollers over which run a rope of sorts. Thus dangle on either side of arm and mass balls m1 and m2. These two are attached to the stick. To summarize, pendulum arm (and it's mass) is vertical as the two weights attached to it are identical. This is not one continuous rope, but two: each ball is knotted individually to the steel rod.

Upon one of the balls being cut, and caught at a totally insignificant height loss, say 2 mm drop, the pendulum will be moved at a velocity dictated by the Forces that be to the side of the remaining ball , which does drop rather, as one would expect.

The systems is self balancing, eg the ball will only lose as much height as it has power to raise the com of the pendulum arm+mass thing. There can be no loss or gain of mass over height. Irrespective of the angle of forces thing which Fletcher kindly pointed out to me a long while ago, thus confusing me for over a year. The angle of the dangle does not need to be accounted for, it takes care of itself.

Whilst all this sagging of ball and increasing angle of pendulum arm gizmo goes on, there is force to be harvested. The amount of force that can be harvested is exactly equal to the remaining ball's gravity potential, eg 9,81 m/s over distance "x".

As long as the amount of work extracted from the system is not so great that it definitively excludes all possibility of the ball reaching the bottom of it's travel as defined above, all is well.

You may, Great One, object that this is greatly affecting the speed of events. Force over distance and time. To which I would humbly retort : "Stuff that".

The "math" appears to be "minimal loss of height of the disconnected m1 as a minus. Descent of m2 and corresponding rise of pendulum arm and attached wizardry as non-existent. Gain of height of any mass driven by aforementioned descending and rising stuff as plus. If the result of that necessarily simple arithmetic is a positive value, I win.

Nick

ps : Your answer to my initial post contains a quote box which is empty. That quote is probably now irrelevant, as my explanation seems perfectly clear to me, which is a good starting point.
Last edited by nicbordeaux on Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

Post by ME »

I would appreciate some input on what constitutes a preload, which is generally deemed to be unacceptable.
I don't see the problem.
As I understand "preload", you -as machine operator- put some weight at some potential (at a certain height), perhaps putting something in an overbalanced situation first (Bessler's wheel?), or needs to be kicked first (initial Kinetic energy).
Perhaps all that preload is lost...

When creating a PM machine, all this could be regained. It should be able to maintain its motion plus generating an extra preload.
This newly generated preload could be used to activate another machine: cutting the effort in half. When cascading to yet another machine, the initial preload becomes a negligible small effort compared to the output.
Thus to be able to power a whole city, one should be extremely happy to simply 'kick-start' such machine: thus I don't see the problem - and perfectly acceptable from my point of view.

Basically this (and probably your example) is the 'fun & struggle' between currently accepted physics, and PM-research.

It's currently known (and generally accepted) to be a useless exercise; now find a counter proof.

That's my humble opinion.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

re: Gravity "preload"

Post by nicbordeaux »

Found this quick sketch on the back of an envelope, used it to try and explain to wife without having to reassemble the device which is now very different from this. It should illustrate the basic mechanism, or skeleton thereof.

This is not anything that as shown would do anything untowards. Just a check on the acceptability of the accounting.

Obviously, if your gizmo gets a raise in overall com , the question is relevant.
Attachments
Sans titre-1.jpg
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.
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Gravity "preload"

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Nick,

Gravity is the product of mass, and we live on a large mass, so you could say gravity is preloaded.

In a wheel! It is good to have gravity preloaded if you want to have a preloaded torque force, through out 360 degrees of rotation, wherein you drive the wheel externally and tap the constant gravity's torque, it should be possible to make twice as much energy than the energy input.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Post by nicbordeaux »

The question is silly, really, cutting the weight off is the same thing as attaching your device to a wall using a given amount of force, then cutting the attachement to the wall. Or removing the wall. The only advantage is that it is easier to pick up a ball on a return stroke than to rebuild a wall.
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Gravity "preload"

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Nick,

your drawing are not far from the solution, and there is only one more step from completion.

When you start to use Newton Meters leverage force you will be close to the answer. The answer to what we seek, is in NM of torque, not 98 MS, take a moment (sorry) to think about it, it will be the force differential of the descending side of the wheel being higher than the ascending side of the wheel, and that is the true out of balance, force, "not weight", but the transfer of force.

There are already designs out there that would work as forced wheels, but look crap as out of balance wheels. That makes me think that very few builds ever get built, I Know that you like to experiment the same as me, but how many time have you looked at a drawing and thought that's height for width, and just left it there on the back of a envelope not even thinking it is even worth drawing to scale let alone a build.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

re: Gravity "preload"

Post by nicbordeaux »

I'll build it all right ;-) Maybe a Roberval type mech with a load of capacity for vertical travel is something to be looked at. Roberval, or just any "downward force on one side tranlates to upward force on the other, get mass back up to height. Infer: force translates to height both ways.
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