Conservation of Angular momentum and Energy are interesting.

[broli]

I will probably feel stupid about this in a weeks time but wanted to openly share this before the idea fleas from my head.

Since it's late here I won't be explaining the whole thing. But what happens if you have a wheel where you conserver angular momentum by playing with the masses and their radius? The resulting radii will be different due to CoAM and CoE. Now think what gravity and different radii and masses result in...OOB.

[Soon]

I will probably feel stupid about this in a weeks time but wanted to openly share this before the idea fleas from my head.

Since it's late here I won't be explaining the whole thing. But what happens if you have a wheel where you conserver angular momentum by playing with the masses and their radius? The resulting radii will be different due to CoAM and CoE. Now think what gravity and different radii and masses result in...OOB.

Linear momentum is momentum = mv. Conservation of angular moment depends on decreasing the orbit of the satellite. See attached image. It's basic math. With what you guys might be considering if other than a satellite, otherwise it's mass * velocity * radius.
And now you'll ask about mv^2/r. We really do need a thread on math.

[agor95]

Hi broli

Did you see my 'The Cake Device'?

viewtopic.php?p=174949#p174949

Simply have a device rotating fast and control the masses when they fly out.

Then when the device slows springs pulled them in again.

It is an interesting area to study.

Note.

It came about because a member was complaining that springs are either to weak or to strong to operate with rotating masses.

Regards

[Soon]

I will probably feel stupid about this in a weeks time but wanted to openly share this before the idea fleas from my head.

Since it's late here I won't be explaining the whole thing. But what happens if you have a wheel where you conserver angular momentum by playing with the masses and their radius? The resulting radii will be different due to CoAM and CoE. Now think what gravity and different radii and masses result in...OOB.

With what I'm building, as the weight wheel assembly moves in, some of its conserved energy/momentum will be put back into the overall
energy budget of the wheel. An example is if a 1kg weight is rotating at 0.25 m/s and it's radius is 1m, it's momentum is 0.25kg-m/s.
When it moves inward 10cm, that part of the wheel will be rotating at 0.225m/s. That requires only 0.225kg-m/s of force. This will allow the
weight to transfer 0.025kg-m/s of force back into the momentum of the wheel itself. Basically as a weight retracts it will be able to input
momentum into the wheel. And with the ratios that I am building to, the weight wheel assembly will require 1/2 of the force to maintain its
momentum once it passes bottom center.

[agor95]

Hi broli

I found the original Demo.

The html page in the zip file should run in your browser.

Regards

[Soon]

In physics the difference between linear and angular momentum can be considered in the wrong way. When I first
started considering perpetual motion I considered the acceleration of gravity as linear momentum. And I considered
as a weight rotates around an axis/axle of a wheel to be angular momentum. While it isn't, it helps to show the
distinction between the work gravity is doing and how a wheel conserves it.
If we consider a weight rotating around an axis/axle then L = Iv can be used. I modified it from L = Iw. L is its
momentum while I is the CoG of the weight and v is its velocity. Then if a 1kg weight moves at 1m/s, we can say that
when it moves from an I of 1m to an I of .75m, the difference between the 2 values
1kg-1m/s, when it moves to .75m the wheel will be moving 25% slower. Then 1kg can be multiplied by 1/.75 = 1.33
which would allow for 1.33kg-.75m/s. This would then be factored as 1.33kg-1m/s - 1kg-1m/s = 0.33kg-1m/s.
0.33kg-1m/s of force would be put into the moment of inertia for the wheel itself.
Is this right watlcy? Can you be nice and proof my math? How can we tall we're getting somewhere? I think I have
it wrong.

[Soon]

I'll made a quick video explaining one aspect of science. If I want I can make another video showing
retraction and then lay one on top of the other so the relationship between torque being generated and
momentum being conserved would be shown.
What I don't know is if it takes 1.57 seconds for a weight to roll to the bottom of a 9.81m radius. I could
verify that by doing the math on a spreadsheet. Then I'd also know the average distance a radius is away
from the "y" axis. This second part would allow the work it takes to rotate a weight to the overbalanced
position known. What do you think watlcy? Is that the direction we should go or not? I'm not sure.
https://youtu.be/SiI9M-slpFs

I might do that for my YouTube channel but I won't post in here unless watlcy let's me know what he
wants me to do.