Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

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

Moderator: scott

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 »

I leave to others to see the point I was making.: force of falling object, not the force of falling man.
Keep learning till the end.
daanopperman
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:43 pm

re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by daanopperman »

Mr V ,

If we pull a mass rotating around a center inward , the mass does not increase in velocity , it is only the rate of rotation that change .
If we make a mark on the mass , and pull the mass right into the center , the mass has to rotate about it's own center of mass , and even if we could pull the mass inward free of charge , the increase of rotational velocity of the mass itself about it's own COR would eat up some energy .
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 »

Over the last 18 years or more I have researched different PM wheel designs.
I have worked and collaborated with many, some on this forum and some that no longer exist.

One thing that has been researched time and time again by many minds and empirical skills is centrifugal force. Many feel that Cf will pull a weight of equal value inward while extending the descending weight outward from the axis.

I need not explain as "sleepy" has already done that! Edited for brevity:
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 o'clock (rotating CW) and will not reach it's outermost point until after 4 o'clock leaving only 45 degrees AT BEST for it to accelerate the wheel.
Yet there are those who feel Cf can lift and force inward a weight attached to another of equal value being pulled outward. Sorry but Cf is not necessarily an outward pulling force, It is nothing more than inertia attempting to keep things in a straight line. As such it is doing more pulling at a a tangent to the axis than at a right angle.

One must consider that Cf is also reacting on the weight you wish to pull in. If it's radius is already less than the weight you are attempting to pull outward it's velocity is also working against you.

To make a long story short and simply put: Cf is not going to help you until the falling weight passes three o'clock just as sleepy states!

Ralph
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

MrVibrating wrote:
eccentrically1 wrote:Nothing has changed from your other threads...
It'll likely end the same way, but the concept's new..
If you think it will end the same way,( and yes, it will), then ... nothing's changed. You are still trying the same concept you tried in into the vanishing point et al.
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 »

"If we pull a mass rotating around a center inward , the mass does not increase in velocity."

"the increase of rotational velocity of the mass itself about it's own COR would eat up some energy."

Sounds a little bit contradictory to me! I would think that a mass rotating on its center of mass would be no different than a flywheel dampener. I can see why a mass reducing in orbital circumference need not increase in velocity, in fact it is slowing, having less distance to travel reaching a given point. As the circumference or radius increases so must the velocity.

The second hand on my wrist watch and the one on a 12" wall clock both reach 12:00 at the same time, so I assume the 12" second hand is turning faster than the one on my wrist.

Few here seem readily capable of realizing that Bessler's wheels were 12 feet in diameter (365.76cm) and a man 68" (172.72cm) tall could walk under the 8" (20.32cm) axle without ducking.

I leave in the hands of the math geeks to calculate circumference and velocity required to turn 26 RPM. What effect force wise would this velocity play on a four pound weight.

Ralph
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

Ralph, you need to edit your post, you've made your own contradictory statements.
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 »

sleepy wrote: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.

Absolutely, to try simplify the 'mental model' so far i've been envisioning moving the mass out very quickly around the 3 o'clock mark - minimising the GPE input or output, so minimal change in height when extending.

Extending instead at 1 o'clock as you suggest would be optimal for harnessing any effect though, however in that case it's clear that we're inputting some GPE by lifting the mass upwards, which is paying for the subsequent angular acceleration as it falls.

Extending arbitrarily quickly at horizontal seems to simplify the problem somewhat; if the radius of the mass suddenly doubles at 3 o' clock, quandrupling MoI (MoI - mass * radius^2), RPM should quarter, so that's quite a strong braking torque...

...and at that point, my thinking's that gravity should then apply some degree of acceleration, albeit through that limited 90° arc between 3 and 6 o' clock.

Obviously, all else being equal, a GPE input follows as the mass rotates past 6 o' clock back upwards, plus we have the radial inertial forces to consider, and this is where my pathetic attention span has wandered off. I figured starting this thread might help me formalise the problem, at least.

As i say, the 'conservative symmetry' of this hoped-for acceleration, is the deceleration that would occur when retracting the mass, again arbitrarily quickly, at 9 o' clock.

My hope is that maybe we can actually identify a potential asymmetry there, either in the costs of moving the mass in and out, or else the ratio of angular acceleration to deceleration, or something...

Again tho, i haven't worked through a full interaction, just been fixating upon that potential re-acceleration phase, the same way a gravity-wheel proponent focuses on the over-balance..

It's funny, this concept would seem to be seeking excess work from gravity, yet it's not an overbalancing scheme in the traditional sense, the overbalance being almost incidental to the proposed exploit.. kind of a gravity-assisted motion-wheel type gig..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

eccentrically1 wrote:
MrVibrating wrote:
eccentrically1 wrote:Nothing has changed from your other threads...
It'll likely end the same way, but the concept's new..
If you think it will end the same way,( and yes, it will), then ... nothing's changed. You are still trying the same concept you tried in into the vanishing point et al.
...that was attempting to decouple angular and linear inertias (MoI vs rest mass), to harness a disunity between the respective kinetic energy terms they're functions of.

I thought it highlighted some interesting findings, but you can't please everyone.. It was nothing to do with gravity tho, which hasn't factored in any of my thinking for some time..

Here i'm looking specifically for an effect dependent upon gravity - the thermodynamic asymmetry, if one is possible, could be gravitational or inertial.. but for once, i'm considering a system that would depend upon vertical rotation with gravity present.

You're right of course that it'll probably become clear why no asymmetry is possible, and that is the purpose of this thread.

You'd also be right that most of my threads are caged in obscure terms like "MoI" and "RKE" etc., but i'm starting from the maths and physics of a potential asymmetry, rather than just unguided mechanical intuition, which with all due respect hasn't gotten us much further on the fundamentals of the problem - a point quite succinctly demonstrated right here in this thread by the oft' quothed phrase "trading height for width"; like cavemen patiently explaining that rock doesn't burn, without understanding why.. the reason of course that trading height for width is a zero-sum game is because closed-loop trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy; they're quintessentially thermodynamically-closed systems.

And if everyone here thought in those, more fundamental terms, rather than visual mechanical principles, it would be clear to all that implicit within the above conclusion is the only possible route to a solution - an asymmetric interaction, by definition, hinges upon a passive time-dependent change in force or inertia or velocity etc., and nobody would waste a moment more chasing futile OB schemes, which really do all boil down to the same thing in every single thread, and must be as tiring to the enlightened eye as any of my claptrapery..
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 »

ME wrote: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...

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, the problem as i see it can be stripped down to the dynamics of a single point mass following its full trajectory.

However i'm not proposing using G as an MoI modifier - which i'm considering in terms of "centrifugal potential energy" (CF-PE), a quantity that is of direct interest, together with RKE - G could of course be used for this, but for now, in the interests of purity, i'm considering making the radial translations arbitrarily-quickly, while passing through horizontal alignment, so with negligible change in height WRT gravity.

This way the CF-PE, whatever its dynamics, can be compartmentalised from the RKE / GPE exchanges.

Anything more complex at this stage would be jumping the gun, this is theory before practical.

As such, RPM can be considered arbitrarily-slowly, or even quasi-static phases if theoretically consistent.

The objective could be an asymmetry between input vs output CF-PE, or inbound vs outbound change in RKE, or some kind of N3 exception / momentum / counter-momentum asymmetry..

I'm not intending this as a 'perpetual overbalancing' concept, so if that is what it reduces to, it'll hopefully reach that conclusion swiftly..
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:@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.
Ah i see, i think - the 'slingshot effect' gives a pretty graphic summary - it's similar to what i'm considering, but in my case opposing masses sharing the same diameteric pole would cancel each other's torques. My rising and falling poles need to be able to accelerate or decelerate independently..
Art
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Australia

re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by Art »

The Human condition described : -

"The vast majority of human beings dislike and even dread all notions with which they are not familiar. Hence it comes about that at their first appearance innovators have always been derided as fools and madmen."
- Aldous Huxley, novelist (1894-1963)

---

"In mathematics, you don't understand things; you just get used to them."
- John von Neumann

---

What I don't understand I despise, what I despise I reject.
- The Referee's Creed

BW 18th.10.16

---
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
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 »

daanopperman wrote:Mr V ,

If we pull a mass rotating around a center inward , the mass does not increase in velocity , it is only the rate of rotation that change .
I might've gone with you here, but remember my "vanishing point" thread, in which i found that velocity of the orbiting point mass does change with radius and rate of rotation? Angular momentum as a function of MoI * RPM remains conserved, but linear momentum as a function of rest mass * velocity is variable; a purely notional conclusion, until the mass is suddenly untethered mid-orbit, and allowed to fly off in a straight line.
If we make a mark on the mass , and pull the mass right into the center , the mass has to rotate about it's own center of mass , and even if we could pull the mass inward free of charge , the increase of rotational velocity of the mass itself about it's own COR would eat up some energy .
Another fascinating finding in that last thread was also the inspiration for its title - suppose the orbiting mass is tethered on a perfect bearing, and so not 'tidally locked' like Moon and Earth; from a standing-start angular acceleration of the orbit, there is no torque acting upon the mass's own center of mass, so it does not begin to rotate about its own axis...

...which means that as it is dragged into the dead-center of the orbital axis, all of its angular momentum simply disappears, vanishing into nothingness, destroyed, gone, expired.

If the orbiting mass represents all of the system mass, then this interaction is irreversible - obviously, moving a non-spinning mass radially out of the center isn't going to magically endow it with angular momentum. What went in is effectively destroyed.

Even more worryingly, if the orbiting mass does indeed represent all of the system mass, then the angular, orbital acceleration applied by pulling it all the way into the center is very considerable, and even moreso, is the energy cost; as RPM's ramp up, so does CF and thus the amount of energy required to pull it in even further...

..starting with an initial coasting RKE of say 1 Joule, given sufficient starting radius, it might cost a kilojoule or more to pull it all the way into dead-center.... at which point, all of that energy disappears along with the angular momentum it corresponded to.

Startling result from such a simple premise, no? Straying somewhat from the concept here, but happy to continue discussion of that finding here or back in that thread, it's these little nuggets of befuddlement that i live for..
Last edited by MrVibrating on Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7458
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Gravitationally accelerating a raised MoI

Post by agor95 »

@MrVibrating

Your experiments are fine and you are where I was with the one directional M. Turbine MK II

You are correct cancelling happens when the rod is on the middle mark.

The system is under compression at 6 o'clock.

This pressure is released as it rotates.
That fires the rod up as the alternative mass follows a flail path

At that point the rod has rotational and linear momentum.

As the rod slows towards the middle mark the counter torque reduces.

Now ask yourself; what are the other rods doing?

Regards
Last edited by agor95 on Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
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 »

Art wrote:The Human condition described : -

"The vast majority of human beings dislike and even dread all notions with which they are not familiar. Hence it comes about that at their first appearance innovators have always been derided as fools and madmen."
- Aldous Huxley, novelist (1894-1963)

---

"In mathematics, you don't understand things; you just get used to them."
- John von Neumann

---

What I don't understand I despise, what I despise I reject.
- The Referee's Creed

BW 18th.10.16

---
LOL there's an undeniable masochistic streak in us lot, has to be, i guess. I think it's not so much the self-induced brainache - because we can all appreciate the good kind of worthwhile mental strain - it's just the time it takes, in this increasingly ADHD world, to get to grips with any new way of thinking. I bet the drop-out rate on well-intentioned correspondence courses makes it every bit as lucrative as the diet industry or high street gyms.. but then that's also the great thing about the finger-buffet of teh interwebz, it's accessible learning for diabetic attention spans. I doubt the bar will ever rise fast enough before we're all made obsolete by quantum AI, but until that inevitability i like to believe we can still make some hay while the sun shines..
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:@MrVibrating

Your experiments are fine and you are where I was with the one directional M. Turbine

You are correct cancelling happens when the rod is on the middle mark.

The system is under compression at 6 o'clock.

This pressure is released as it rotates.
That fires the rod up as the alternative mass follows a flail path

At that point the rod has rotational and linear momentum.

As the rod slows towards the middle mark the counter torque reduces.

Now ask yourself; what are the other rods doing?

Regards
The prominent details in your design, as i see them, are the gravitational interaction, which appears symmetrical between input and output workloads, and the inertial interaction, wherein the MoI of each individual rod-and-weight pair is minimal as they pass through the exact center, and maximal when fully extended on either side. This MoI variation causes equal opposing torques and counter-torques on opposite ends of the rod-weight pairs, which is also symmetrical.

The further complication is that they move in and out at different times, rather than all at the same time, so MoI of one rod-weight pair is high when another is low etc., and so angular accelerations and decelerations from one pair are being applied to all the others... but again, in a zero-sum deal.

Sorry if i'm missing a key detail - but not seeing an advantage! Hate saying that, and love the animations.. and there's no doubting that masses changing radius are going to be the key, one way or another...
Post Reply