Gravity conservatism can be beaten
Moderator: scott
-
- Dabbler
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:47 pm
Gravity conservatism can be beaten
All gravity attempts that I have come across so far are needlessly elaborate. It is easy to demonstrate that a single mass can be raised from 6 to 12 o'clock and having acceleration on that journey. That means that there is acceleration in the same angular direction at all times which proves that energy can be produced by the rotation of a mass along a circular trajectory about an axis. - I am seeking individuals possessing 3D printers to print a proof of concept model. I do not consider myself as one of those who chose to keep all to themselves, the only way to bury one alive. If likeminded individuals are in this forum then kindly indicate so. Unfortunately posting emails here is not recommended but personal information can be obtained otherwise.
re: Gravity conservatism can be beaten
You seek individuals possessing 3D printers to print a proof of concept mode!
What is wrong with fabricating your design out of materials and size of your choice?
Just inquiring.
Ralph
What is wrong with fabricating your design out of materials and size of your choice?
Just inquiring.
Ralph
- ChrisHarper
- Aficionado
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:01 pm
re: Gravity conservatism can be beaten
I have to agree with Ralph. Having just started physical builds, as opposed to just simulating on a computer, I have to say that I enjoy the brutal honesty of the physical results in front of you.
Any design will contain a 'principle mechanism' that can be built out of almost anything, just vary the scale etc, and accommodate.
Go to 3D printing to maybe fine tune.
Chris
Any design will contain a 'principle mechanism' that can be built out of almost anything, just vary the scale etc, and accommodate.
Go to 3D printing to maybe fine tune.
Chris
No demands are made of a person perceived to be an idiot- Perfect
My Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRGwI ... pIkj-YdiNQ
My Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRGwI ... pIkj-YdiNQ
re: Gravity conservatism can be beaten
First of all, computer simulation is not synonymous with CAD/CAM. Second, 3D printing, at least the kind that has been discussed on this forum, is an additive process, unlike the messy and wasteful subtractive process that Ralph and I suspect you, Chris, are talking about. 3D printing is a rapid prototyping process for real-world builds. If done properly, a build can even be printed assembled in place. Those who shy away from building a model on the computer with some form of CAD software do not have any leg up on those who do. In fact, I would say it was quite the opposite. While you guys are busy cutting and drilling and bending and lathing and chamfering and sanding and grinding and gluing and etc. and etc. and hunting for the hardware to go along with it all, we can be sleeping while the computer does the work for us, comfortable in the knowledge that all the parts will work together exactly as planned.
Look, I can respect the build methods of Ralph and Chris and others, even the skills built up for such methods by people like Ralph, who just wings it instead of measuring ;-), but I’m a little tired of people knocking other methods, especially methods they clearly don’t fully understand. 3D printing is actually the perfect method for researching a subject like this and it’s sad that some people will let themselves be left behind, especially with the costs of 3D printers coming down so much in the last year.
Look, I can respect the build methods of Ralph and Chris and others, even the skills built up for such methods by people like Ralph, who just wings it instead of measuring ;-), but I’m a little tired of people knocking other methods, especially methods they clearly don’t fully understand. 3D printing is actually the perfect method for researching a subject like this and it’s sad that some people will let themselves be left behind, especially with the costs of 3D printers coming down so much in the last year.
-
- Dabbler
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:47 pm
re: Gravity conservatism can be beaten
My work / idea is simplicity itself and can be found at :
http://revolution-green.com/collaboration-required/
and DO keep in mind that the equations shown are by no means meant to be complete differential equations of movement, including resistance and centrifugal effects, but merely represent the torque being acted upon an invisible hand holding the rotor shaft from starting off towards hyper revolution. - I have made videos to proof this is so in actual models, facts that can not be refused. Only two conditions are required to be fulfilled and neither of them is rocket science. It is just the build which is beyond my capacity due to lack of 3D printer, tiny bearings and gears. I know I can get the bearings and gears in China but the 3D printer is beyond my financial capacity. So I am stuck .......
http://revolution-green.com/collaboration-required/
and DO keep in mind that the equations shown are by no means meant to be complete differential equations of movement, including resistance and centrifugal effects, but merely represent the torque being acted upon an invisible hand holding the rotor shaft from starting off towards hyper revolution. - I have made videos to proof this is so in actual models, facts that can not be refused. Only two conditions are required to be fulfilled and neither of them is rocket science. It is just the build which is beyond my capacity due to lack of 3D printer, tiny bearings and gears. I know I can get the bearings and gears in China but the 3D printer is beyond my financial capacity. So I am stuck .......
re: Gravity conservatism can be beaten
gravity_not_conservative,
For every angle of rotation around the axle (as shown in your "gravity" animation) the weight drops that same angle around its own pivot.
To correct this 'issue' and transform this into something like your "cantilever" animation you need to raise this weight by the same angle; in the opposite direction.
It is the (continuous) raising of that weight in circles which causes overbalance in relation to the wheel's axle.
Bummer, the cost of raising this weight equals the gain in overbalance... Ergo, for what's observed, me and my science say "nay".
But if you nevertheless get it to work then I guess your "L" doesn't need to be ">>R", only that "L>0"
This page shows a geared Roberval balance:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/roberval.htm
For every angle of rotation around the axle (as shown in your "gravity" animation) the weight drops that same angle around its own pivot.
To correct this 'issue' and transform this into something like your "cantilever" animation you need to raise this weight by the same angle; in the opposite direction.
It is the (continuous) raising of that weight in circles which causes overbalance in relation to the wheel's axle.
Bummer, the cost of raising this weight equals the gain in overbalance... Ergo, for what's observed, me and my science say "nay".
But if you nevertheless get it to work then I guess your "L" doesn't need to be ">>R", only that "L>0"
This page shows a geared Roberval balance:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/roberval.htm
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-
- Dabbler
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:47 pm
re: Gravity conservatism can be beaten
The videos don't work for some reason on my browser.
The difference in torque from moving a weight along the horizontal lever is transferred to the center gear, which must be held solid in an RB setup.
The difference in torque from moving a weight along the horizontal lever is transferred to the center gear, which must be held solid in an RB setup.
re: Gravity conservatism can be beaten
Ah, seems I swapped the names of your animations... (Tarsier, only the links work)
So the mechanism should be that which creates effortlessly the difference between those two animations: Which is the starting premise in the search of PM.
Without your intended mechanical design it'll be difficult to confirm your observation; So I could fantasize what you mean by "not balanced", but that would be... (you tell me)
Sorry, there seems to be no mechanism to try out... only some insight that a general overbalance principle might be key to perpetual motion.I can´t get it to balance. Try it yourself
So the mechanism should be that which creates effortlessly the difference between those two animations: Which is the starting premise in the search of PM.
Without your intended mechanical design it'll be difficult to confirm your observation; So I could fantasize what you mean by "not balanced", but that would be... (you tell me)
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
re: Gravity conservatism can be beaten
Conservative are the resistances to gravity constant 'fall down'...
Any intelligent comparison with 'avalanchedrive' will show that all PM turning wheels are only baby's toys!
-
- Dabbler
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:47 pm