Computer animation.
Moderator: scott
Computer animation.
During the lasts few week I've been working on a computer program to be used as a tool in undersatanding pendulums swinging from the edge of a rotating wheel. Now this program is only part way to what I want it to be. But I've reached the first goal. That is it accurately (at least as far as I can determine) computes and draws a simple swinging pendulum on the edge of a wheel with the wheel rotating at a steady speed.
The next step (when I get the ambition) is to add spring pressure to the pendulums and to provide for multiple pendulums. By this I mean pendulums that react with each other. I already can vary the quantity of pendulums around the wheel which is easy. But putting two pendulums on a lever or whatever else I think up is much more difficult.
I started this program after building a couple pendulum wheel ideas. I realized it would be faster to re-compute than to re-build. And I could see what was happening instead of trying to watch a fast moving object.
Most of the time the swinging settles down to a set pattern...
If I make an abrupt change in a parameter then it sets the pendulum swinging wildly before it settles down...
Sometime I can coax it into a complex pattern. But they are usually unstable and easily revert to a simple pattern.
Just thought I would share.
The next step (when I get the ambition) is to add spring pressure to the pendulums and to provide for multiple pendulums. By this I mean pendulums that react with each other. I already can vary the quantity of pendulums around the wheel which is easy. But putting two pendulums on a lever or whatever else I think up is much more difficult.
I started this program after building a couple pendulum wheel ideas. I realized it would be faster to re-compute than to re-build. And I could see what was happening instead of trying to watch a fast moving object.
Most of the time the swinging settles down to a set pattern...
If I make an abrupt change in a parameter then it sets the pendulum swinging wildly before it settles down...
Sometime I can coax it into a complex pattern. But they are usually unstable and easily revert to a simple pattern.
Just thought I would share.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
re: Computer animation.
Someone here posted a link which lead me to http://www.gravitram.com/energy.htm
I tried to backtrack and find the original post here but failed.
I looked at this design and I believe it really does run until stopped. I sent an e-mail to the designer asking some questions and am waiting a reply.
When most people look at a gravity wheel, they look only at 'balance'. But there is another component that MUST be looked at. That is inertia! When an object moves inward or outward on a moving wheel, the object must speed up or slow down relative to the spin. Actually the object stays moving about the same speed but because its path changes it must move faster or slower than the wheel. This is where inertia or kenetic energy comes into play. To analize ANY spinning wheel with moving weights, pendulums, etc. you must take the kenetic inertial energy into account.
This wheel I believe is one of the oldest means of harnessing gravity. I found some references to this design i think from long ago China? Unfortunatly this design only allows a slow spin with little usable energy out. Now why might it work? Well I think it stores gravitational force on one side as inertial energy and gives it back on the second side.
The wheel rotates clockwise. Look on the left side. As the ball starts to move inward inertia will make it want to 'speed up' and the will cause the ball to seem to 'push upward'. On the right side as the ball moves downward I'm not so sure just what happens yet. I need to study it more.
I really feel strongly that inertia is the key to a perpetualy turning wheels. There is most likely any number of designs that may work once we understand the principle. Some I am sure will yeild usable power.
By the way, one of the best places to hide something is right out in the open. I suspect the designer of this wheel may have failed to get new jobs because these exibits were funded by energy companies. His company went from one person to 16 people back to one person. Just my opinion, I may be wrong.
I tried to backtrack and find the original post here but failed.
I looked at this design and I believe it really does run until stopped. I sent an e-mail to the designer asking some questions and am waiting a reply.
When most people look at a gravity wheel, they look only at 'balance'. But there is another component that MUST be looked at. That is inertia! When an object moves inward or outward on a moving wheel, the object must speed up or slow down relative to the spin. Actually the object stays moving about the same speed but because its path changes it must move faster or slower than the wheel. This is where inertia or kenetic energy comes into play. To analize ANY spinning wheel with moving weights, pendulums, etc. you must take the kenetic inertial energy into account.
This wheel I believe is one of the oldest means of harnessing gravity. I found some references to this design i think from long ago China? Unfortunatly this design only allows a slow spin with little usable energy out. Now why might it work? Well I think it stores gravitational force on one side as inertial energy and gives it back on the second side.
The wheel rotates clockwise. Look on the left side. As the ball starts to move inward inertia will make it want to 'speed up' and the will cause the ball to seem to 'push upward'. On the right side as the ball moves downward I'm not so sure just what happens yet. I need to study it more.
I really feel strongly that inertia is the key to a perpetualy turning wheels. There is most likely any number of designs that may work once we understand the principle. Some I am sure will yeild usable power.
By the way, one of the best places to hide something is right out in the open. I suspect the designer of this wheel may have failed to get new jobs because these exibits were funded by energy companies. His company went from one person to 16 people back to one person. Just my opinion, I may be wrong.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
re: Computer animation.
I think you misunderstood, or I did. I thought it was known not to be a PMM, by way of it being in a museum. Regardless, I think you are right, interia or kinetic energy might have something to do with it.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Computer animation.
Jim_mich, nice program , VB6 ?
I tend to agree with your views on inertia.
Also, manipulation/redirection of centripetal/centrifugal force (as per other threads) a possibility (maybe via translation to inertial forces).
I wrote a pgm to calculate instantaneous forces acting on weights in a very similar way to the picture from the museum.
Unfortunately, everything summed to a constant at all angles. (No gains)
It bothers me re inertia in the usual sense, as i view inertia as nothing more than a manifestation of kinetic energy. Unless it can be controlled in some unusual way.
I feel we need to identify an anomaly in nature (ie, an anomoly to us poor humans that despite our (earthly collective) intelligence we have but described a subset of nature we call "science").
Find an anomoly, exploit it in a way that serves our needs.
I think Newton is our "enemy" - he has stated laws which, if complete, condemn us to failure.
For all that, I think we will win. This post somewhat of a ramble, dont take too seriously!
regards, Alan.
I tend to agree with your views on inertia.
Also, manipulation/redirection of centripetal/centrifugal force (as per other threads) a possibility (maybe via translation to inertial forces).
I wrote a pgm to calculate instantaneous forces acting on weights in a very similar way to the picture from the museum.
Unfortunately, everything summed to a constant at all angles. (No gains)
It bothers me re inertia in the usual sense, as i view inertia as nothing more than a manifestation of kinetic energy. Unless it can be controlled in some unusual way.
I feel we need to identify an anomaly in nature (ie, an anomoly to us poor humans that despite our (earthly collective) intelligence we have but described a subset of nature we call "science").
Find an anomoly, exploit it in a way that serves our needs.
I think Newton is our "enemy" - he has stated laws which, if complete, condemn us to failure.
For all that, I think we will win. This post somewhat of a ramble, dont take too seriously!
regards, Alan.
re: Computer animation.
I'm not so sure, I think there may just be a novel way to get Newton to work for us. Otherwise I'm quite daunted.
You are right about KE and inertia.
From the work-energy theorem,
W=[delta]KE
So given that (1/2) and m are assumed to be constants, and change in constant has no meaning, the only thing that can make KE change is velocity.
W=(1/2)m([de]v^2)
Which shows that work is proportional to the square of the change in velocity. Saying that objects have inertia means that they resist a change in their movement, and this is what is proved, one has to work against that resistance to change the velocity.
You are right about KE and inertia.
From the work-energy theorem,
W=[delta]KE
So given that (1/2) and m are assumed to be constants, and change in constant has no meaning, the only thing that can make KE change is velocity.
W=(1/2)m([de]v^2)
Which shows that work is proportional to the square of the change in velocity. Saying that objects have inertia means that they resist a change in their movement, and this is what is proved, one has to work against that resistance to change the velocity.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 1718
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: Computer animation.
Hi AlanR,
you are right, when you are telling you think that Newton is our enemy.
When we use Newtons 'laws', we always get a 'canceled out' between
left end right side. There is no TIME factor, lifting, falling at the same Time on each leverarm.
But the most problem is, that even the simulation programms used the formulars. So we are blind !!. You can only do simple experiments to show
that Newton is incomplete.
For me, incomplete is not equal to wrong !! Incomplete means, it is valid for special cases. Besslers case is different.
Put an excenterroller on a lever. During moving sidewards, forces are never the same on the lever, left and right. They don't cancel out !!
Look at 'name searched' on this board. Put this construction on a lever !!
Shown under Georg's ideas, well balanced too.
Their will be a heavy and a light side, during moving. Up is heavier than down.
Best regards
Georg
you are right, when you are telling you think that Newton is our enemy.
When we use Newtons 'laws', we always get a 'canceled out' between
left end right side. There is no TIME factor, lifting, falling at the same Time on each leverarm.
But the most problem is, that even the simulation programms used the formulars. So we are blind !!. You can only do simple experiments to show
that Newton is incomplete.
For me, incomplete is not equal to wrong !! Incomplete means, it is valid for special cases. Besslers case is different.
Put an excenterroller on a lever. During moving sidewards, forces are never the same on the lever, left and right. They don't cancel out !!
Look at 'name searched' on this board. Put this construction on a lever !!
Shown under Georg's ideas, well balanced too.
Their will be a heavy and a light side, during moving. Up is heavier than down.
Best regards
Georg
Best regards
Georg
Georg
re: Computer animation.
Looking for an anomaly? A spinning projectile falls slower than a non-spinning one! A spinning motor weighs less than one at rest. It has something to do with matter inter-reacting with ether (zero point) energy.AlanR wrote:I feel we need to identify an anomaly in nature (ie, an anomoly to us poor humans that despite our (earthly collective) intelligence we have but described a subset of nature we call "science").
Find an anomoly, exploit it in a way that serves our needs.
And yes Alan, VB6!
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
The carnival ride.
The carnival ride.
There is a carnival fair every summer in the town I grew up in. When I was a teenager this carnival had an an unusual ride. It was people powered. The riders provided the only energy input. It was not for little kids or tired old people, although sometimes youngters went along for a free ride. This was a giant swing with a basket platform about 4ft x 6ft if my memory is right. The realy cool thing about it was if you got a group of enegetic teens working in unison they could make it go 'over the top'. Believe me it took a lot of energy to make it swing that high, about five minutes of constant 'pumping' by all the rider. The bearings where most likely just greased steel because if you stopped to catch you breath it slowed down. But if you succeded what a thrill! I and some friends did it twice. Once over the top it was very easy to keep it spinning. You just hung on to the hand rails and let the inertial forces sway you back and forth while you resist the push/pull at the right time. It took us a few rides before we got the hang of pumping. And the first time 'over the top' the operater had a line of people waiting so he put the brakes on after only a couple of turns. But the second time we went 'over the top' there was no line and we asked the operator to let us ride as long as possible. We went round and round for about five minutes which attracked a lot of attention and gave the operator more business.
What impressed me the most was the large ammount of energy needed to get 'over the top' compaired to that needed to keep it spinning, and the fact that to keep it spinning was so easy, just sway in rhythm.
There is a carnival fair every summer in the town I grew up in. When I was a teenager this carnival had an an unusual ride. It was people powered. The riders provided the only energy input. It was not for little kids or tired old people, although sometimes youngters went along for a free ride. This was a giant swing with a basket platform about 4ft x 6ft if my memory is right. The realy cool thing about it was if you got a group of enegetic teens working in unison they could make it go 'over the top'. Believe me it took a lot of energy to make it swing that high, about five minutes of constant 'pumping' by all the rider. The bearings where most likely just greased steel because if you stopped to catch you breath it slowed down. But if you succeded what a thrill! I and some friends did it twice. Once over the top it was very easy to keep it spinning. You just hung on to the hand rails and let the inertial forces sway you back and forth while you resist the push/pull at the right time. It took us a few rides before we got the hang of pumping. And the first time 'over the top' the operater had a line of people waiting so he put the brakes on after only a couple of turns. But the second time we went 'over the top' there was no line and we asked the operator to let us ride as long as possible. We went round and round for about five minutes which attracked a lot of attention and gave the operator more business.
What impressed me the most was the large ammount of energy needed to get 'over the top' compaired to that needed to keep it spinning, and the fact that to keep it spinning was so easy, just sway in rhythm.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
re: Computer animation.
Shab Levy e-mailed me wrote:Hi Jim,
Thanks for your interest in my exhibits. I do not know if the Franklin Institute still has the exhibit on Display, I have not visited for a few years.
The exhibit has a very ingenious mechanical gear and motor system, all hidden in the shaft. This is a special high efficiency motor that uses very little current and works off of batteries, also hidden in the shaft. When the exhibit was built and tested in our studios, the motor ran for over six weeks before it was necessary to change the battery. The exhibit's purpose is to attract visitors and introduce the concept of energy. The explanation on the exhibit states that it is NOT a perpetual motion machine, as this concept has been proven impossible many years ago. The reason for doing the exhibit is to stimulate discussion among visitors about the use and abuse of energy.
Porto Alegre is in Brazil, not in Chile. It is located in the University of Porto Alegre, on the southeastern tip of Brazil. See reference:
http://www.gravitram.com/index_and_chro ... avitra.htm
Best regards,
Shab Levy
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
re: Computer animation.
Hi Jim;
Now we know the secret to the musuem wheel! Thanks for letting us in on the way it works. By the way, that carnival rides sounds pretty dangerous..!..but maybe it is an example of one of those 'anomolies'.
Now we know the secret to the musuem wheel! Thanks for letting us in on the way it works. By the way, that carnival rides sounds pretty dangerous..!..but maybe it is an example of one of those 'anomolies'.
re: Carnival ride
Patric,
There was no more danger than a ferris wheel. You were locked in a padded cage so you couldn't fall out. And the floor remained horizontal.
But is was not a ride for little kids!
There was no more danger than a ferris wheel. You were locked in a padded cage so you couldn't fall out. And the floor remained horizontal.
But is was not a ride for little kids!
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
re: Computer animation.
Jim,
I remember going in one of those things years ago - it was on a pier somewhere along the south-coast of England, I forget where. It was great fun - as you say it took a lot of effort to get over the top, but was quite easy to keep going after that. I'd love to try one again sometime!
All the best
Stewart
I remember going in one of those things years ago - it was on a pier somewhere along the south-coast of England, I forget where. It was great fun - as you say it took a lot of effort to get over the top, but was quite easy to keep going after that. I'd love to try one again sometime!
All the best
Stewart
re: Computer animation.
Jim_mich: I think I read a paper or a website about spinning projectiles, but I've never been convinced, have you done any experiments with it?
Georg: In which equations and how should time be taken into account?
Georg: In which equations and how should time be taken into account?
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Computer animation.
Jonathan,
It is well know now that spinning projectiles travel farther. At one time it was a military secret. Somewhere I read about an experiment where they enclosed an electric motor to prevent any difference in air flow, and then carefully measured how fast it fell when spinning and non-spinning. They used laser beams and photo sensors at the top and bottom.
It is well know now that spinning projectiles travel farther. At one time it was a military secret. Somewhere I read about an experiment where they enclosed an electric motor to prevent any difference in air flow, and then carefully measured how fast it fell when spinning and non-spinning. They used laser beams and photo sensors at the top and bottom.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
re: Computer animation.
Really?! I'll have to look into this. Just so we're clear, by military secret, you mean recently right? Because I know that the rockets and bullets of way back when were shot with no spin until they realized that if they spin as they move, they go straighter and therefore farther, and I'm sure that was a military secret for awhile. For example, if you throw a football with no spin, it will flip while falling, and there will be a lot of drag. If you throw it with spin (and one pointy end forward) it will go much farther. If this is exactly what you mean, then this has to do with precessional stabilization, and not some weird effect on the object's interia. When they did the optical falling experiment, did it fall straight down? If so, never mind, because stabilization on such will make no difference, it will not tumble as it falls.
Also, does it's speed while falling and spinning depend on orientation too?
Also, does it's speed while falling and spinning depend on orientation too?
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.