Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

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

Moderator: scott

MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by MrVibrating »

Starting this thread really just to get my arse in gear; been mulling over this concept too long without much progress, so need to hash it out properly..


This concept is about as well thought-through as any over-balancing attempt - it all seems perfectly viable until you try and close the loop. That's what i want to try and get to the bottom of here.


The principle is simple enough to begin with - pull an orbiting mass inwards and it accelerates, conversely, feed it outwards and its orbital velocity decreases; both effects caused by conservation of momentum.

So, what i want to do is extend an orbiting mass outwards, causing its angular velocity to decrease, and then apply gravity to speed it back up again.

This would create energy and momentum in an otherwise closed loop. That is, if we can extend an MoI without incurring the usual deceleration, we're potentially over-unity.

Obviously, the first thing that springs to mind is extending the mass on the descending side of the wheel; so the mass slides outwards while dropping downwards, with the gravitational acceleration compensating the inertial deceleration, and so arriving at bottom dead-center somewhat delayed, but nonetheless at the same speed at which it would've arrived had its radius remained constant.

That 90° or even 180° arc of the interaction seems straightforward enough, but of course it's the other, opposite side of the interaction that will determine if any kind of net asymmetry is possible or not; gravity will also counter the inertial acceleration from pulling the mass inwards on the ascending side of the wheel.

Therefore the viability of this proposal depends on breaking this symmetry.

If anyone has any thoughts about how to delineate the various energies (gravitational and inertial) and what approaches / tests to pursue, please chime in.. the basic prize here is simply re-extending an MoI without suffering the usual deceleration this causes, by re-accelerating it gravitationally, type stuff..
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7456
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by agor95 »

https://steampunks.ddns.net/bessler/wheel/

I am looking at the maths section.

The basic imagery is in place.

You will need a mobile phone or modern browser.

Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

OK here's one idea:

- have a pair of such masses on separate armatures, let them each slide outwards in turn on the descending side, causing an inertial deceleration countered by a gravitational acceleration, and then pull them back in at the same time, while gravitationally balanced 180° opposite each other.

This avoids the gravitational deceleration while pulling the masses back in, while still getting the gravitational acceleration while moving them back out individually.

The cost of retraction and extension needs working in to the equation - if the masses do decelerate while extending then they're subject to lower centrifugal force and so have less radial PE, while the inbound masses are accelerating and so will require more energy to pull in against greater CF.

As such, the gain from gravity will need to exceed this difference between inbound and outbound radial PE's.

This seems like a plan..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by MrVibrating »

agor95 wrote:https://steampunks.ddns.net/bessler/wheel/

I am looking at the maths section.

The basic imagery is in place.

You will need a mobile phone or modern browser.

Regards
Cool graphic! The interactive 3D is great! Similar idea in that masses are moving in and out, however i'm only considering single-sided radial armatures, on separate bearings, rather than doubled-ended diametric armatures, in which the inbound and outbound masses would cancel one another's changes in angular velocity.

My thinking is that with just one mass per armature - like a 360° pendulum but with a bob that can also slide in and out on the arm - the changes in speed caused by changing radius can be offset against the changes in speed caused by gravity, hopefully in an asymmetric (ie. gainful) manner..

Where's the gain principle in your concept?
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

MrVibrating wrote:OK here's one idea:

- have a pair of such masses on separate armatures, let them each slide outwards in turn on the descending side, causing an inertial deceleration countered by a gravitational acceleration, and then pull them back in at the same time, while gravitationally balanced 180° opposite each other.

This avoids the gravitational deceleration while pulling the masses back in, while still getting the gravitational acceleration while moving them back out individually.

The cost of retraction and extension needs working in to the equation - if the masses do decelerate while extending then they're subject to lower centrifugal force and so have less radial PE, while the inbound masses are accelerating and so will require more energy to pull in against greater CF.

As such, the gain from gravity will need to exceed this difference between inbound and outbound radial PE's.

This seems like a plan..

...just noticed there's a second, alternative potential exploit there:

- rather than trying to prevent the gravitational deceleration when pulling the mass back in on the ascending side, perhaps instead this deceleration can be regarded as an opportunity to pull the mass back in against lower CF, ie. on the cheap?

Similarly, if extending the mass while on the descending side, ie. while falling, results in a net acceleration, then the outbound mass will be subject to greater CF and so have higher PE.

So there's the potential for an asymmetry between the energy required to pull the mass inwards at lower angular velocity, relative to the amount of energy it can generate when flinging back outwards at higher angular velocity..

For instance the outbound mass could load a spring with enough energy to retract the inbound mass, thanks to gravity accelerating the former while decelerating the latter...

Anyone following this yet?
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

Nothing has changed from your other threads...
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by rlortie »

No matter what the scientific gobbledygook and the impressive acronym's have to say, it appears that few here understand: " Width for height"...

Ask yourself, do you really understand this simple phrase? Bessler stated his machine would barely run with one cross bar. He did not say how many he added! There is a reason for that. you cannot force weights outward pulling in weights at the same time on ascent. You will always have more weight concentrated on the upside than you ever gain in leverage on the down side.

Having been a member here for twelve years I have only seen one design using weights that I thought stood a chance:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... er=user_id

IIRC Bessler stated in a letter regarding his axle that it was full of holes and compartments. This to me makes sense, for the best way to lift a weight would be to stick it in the axle making the descent side full and the ascent side empty as it should be!

I do not know if raj ever built this design, if he did he should have noted the sudden acceleration gained when the weight hits the rim and pick's up speed or as you prefer AM giving it a shot not unlike the arrow leaving the bow!

Ralph
User avatar
raj
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:53 am
Location: Mauritius

re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by raj »

Thank you Ralph, for reminding me, how weak one is, when one struggling against all odds, ALONE.

No. I didn't build. Simply because I can't.

Raj
Keep learning till the end.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

eccentrically1 wrote:Nothing has changed from your other threads...
It'll likely end the same way, but the concept's new..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by MrVibrating »

rlortie wrote:No matter what the scientific gobbledygook and the impressive acronym's have to say, it appears that few here understand: " Width for height"...

Ask yourself, do you really understand this simple phrase? Bessler stated his machine would barely run with one cross bar. He did not say how many he added! There is a reason for that. you cannot force weights outward pulling in weights at the same time on ascent. You will always have more weight concentrated on the upside than you ever gain in leverage on the down side.

Having been a member here for twelve years I have only seen one design using weights that I thought stood a chance:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... er=user_id

IIRC Bessler stated in a letter regarding his axle that it was full of holes and compartments. This to me makes sense, for the best way to lift a weight would be to stick it in the axle making the descent side full and the ascent side empty as it should be!

I do not know if raj ever built this design, if he did he should have noted the sudden acceleration gained when the weight hits the rim and pick's up speed or as you prefer AM giving it a shot not unlike the arrow leaving the bow!

Ralph
It's not an overbalancing concept! At least, i'm not trying to generate energy by perpetual overbalance, ie. trading width for height!

The prospective gain here pertains to extending MoI without decelerating; thus generating energy and momentum..
sleepy
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:53 pm
Location: earth

re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by sleepy »

If you are going to let CF and/or gravity move the weight outward on the descending side,the weight will never reach it's destination in time for gravity to give it the push you're expecting. It won't begin to move until after 3 oclock (rotating CW) and will not reach it's outermost point until after 4 oclock leaving only 45 degrees AT BEST for it to accelerate the wheel. For this to have any chance, the weight must be forced out at 1 oclock. Also, the wheel will need a massive push to set it in motion, and the faster the wheel is rotating, the less time gravity will have to act on the weights.
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by ME »

A short lecture on the basic economy of Perpetual-Motion-Physics:

A vertical wheel has some mass doing Gravity-up versus Gravity-down. Any deviation (a force, or Energy when over-distance, can only be used once) becomes a Height-For-Width problem when trying to shift things horizontally to get more Torque..
The base premise is that this weight needs to go around: the combined sine and cosine (read: horizontal versus vertical motion) of circular motion.
Because Torque, Moment of Inertia and Angular Momentum are cumulative for the mechanism we can just observe a single mass (or a single pair) and worry about multiples later - simplifying things dramatically. We could even have a lightweight wheel so we only have to consider that mechanism, saving a lot of complicated math when we fancy such thing.
So when we want to use G as a MoI-modifier then it's perhaps easier to consider a carousel (horizontal wheel), and fix the orientation as some other design challenge.
But even here: any G going down needs to get up again for becoming repeatable.
So actually we can't use G because its use needs to be conservative for repetition purposes and any needed initial energy could come from an initial kick (hopefully no-one remembers and no-one cares).
All acquired energy will eventually be drained by dissipating friction.

---=o=---

The most likely place where this short lecture might fail is at that "base-premise" instructing things to go perfectly around.
When some unknown mechanism speeds up then it becomes subjected to Centrifugal stuff and the reason for a speed limit.
At max-RPM it's likely such mechanism can't apply torque to the speeding wheel, or when it could it will be timed on the ascending side... until it slows down a bit.
So idealized it's becomes a flywheel at max-RPM.
And actually it spirals outwards (or something) from some torque-giving configuration till a circular flywheel-configuration.
- It solves a closed path situation;
- That spiral-path implies a torque/MoI imbalance;
- The G is still there as a mechanical-reset which implies an overbalanced wheel, only to get more and more neutralized by CF.
- We only need a difference in radius based on mechanical orientation, closer to the axle on the ascending side, a MoI imbalance.
- AKA: basically no new information for an overbalance-wheel-design.

So I must have made some other mistake, but where...
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
raj
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:53 am
Location: Mauritius

re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by raj »

Dear Marchello,

I see your lecture misleading and your logics faulty.

The force of IMPACT??? of falling objects demonstrated here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxC8kf7hvQE

Keep it up.

Raj
Keep learning till the end.
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by ME »

Yes, finding errors was the point... Now explain where and why.

Unfortunately the weights inside some wheel are not jumping goblins (or whatever) who get tired and need an energy intake... try again.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7456
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by agor95 »

@MrVibrating

I am looking at the maths round the 6 o'clock area.

Based on the masses, length and rotation speed reported.
Also the spring profile.

The principle; the rod is fired up and rotated over and around the axle.

Like a sling shot effect.

Thanks for the testing good to know it is working for others.
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
Post Reply