Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[AB Hammer]

Dunesbury


Self acceleration once started, is what the OB wheel will do to the point it's design will allow. Then to stop it will have to be from an outside source or it has a mechanical malfunction that stops the OB effect.

[Grimer]

That rather assumes that it is an OB effect driving the wheel and not some other effect.

[AB Hammer]

Frank

OB is what drives the wheel. All other effects are secondary to the first OB effect but necessary for perpetuating the actions.

Alan

[rlortie]

Grimer,

What other effects is there besides COG, COM, etc...

If it seeks but cannot find equilibrium, isn't gravity the key player?

A so-called "motion machine" if there ever is such a machine still relies on gravity, otherwise you have no gradient of mass.

Ralph

[rasselasss]

Disagree Riortie,,the way forward is the combination of the "flinging"effect of C/F AND gravity,also in the way we look at the problem of achieving balance/unbalance for continuous motion...."off the wall" thinking required.....IMIO

[Fletcher]

Ralph .. I'm talking about the straight hangar & battery experiment, not OOB by moving weights inwards etc.

Fletcher wrote:

"The point is would such a device violate CoAM Law if some of the unused KE & momentum went into accelerating the background carrier wheel, which in turn accelerated the masses, over & above that predicted by CoAM math ? "

No, but I wouldn't expect them to accelerate each other for very long, precisely because device wouldn't be violating an inviolate law.

Before any device is pushed , pulled , simmed, given GPE, whatever, it starts with zero angular momentum, and law says it can't exceed what it starts with.

A PMM would already be spinning when anyone finds one.

Dunesbury .. the battery & hangar experiment [where the mass moves outwards from 1r to 2r] assumes it starts with some rpm - it got that from an external input of energy in the form of torque causing angular acceleration & giving it angular momentum.

CoAM predicts that AM will be conserved, & that is what the experiment, spreadsheets & sims showed.

BUT .. what happens to a supposedly inviolate CoAM Law if that excess energy usually lost from the system is stored & reused [or used directly] to further accelerate the system, with no further input of external torque & energy ?

I'm asking you to think about the possibility that the rpm could be increased & what that means for CoAM Law, rather than the answer the Law is inviolate ?

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

I apologize once again for leading your thread astray. I do not experiment with coat hangers and batteries, nor do I wish to get involved with such acronyms as CoAM, AM & RKE etc...

I work with the hands on blue collar approach and am happy with Cf, Cp, OB and COM. I either dream up a design or am approached with one. if it looks viable or leaves me with questions, I do the basic math. If it passes I build it and place weights in the appropriate places.

If it does not run or turn on its own over 270 degrees after initial impetus is lost, which none to date have accomplished, I cannibalize it and move on.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

I get that Ralph - always have.

This is a fundamental question, about a fundamental Physics Law !

If it can be broken once it can be broken a multitude of times by different methods.

In fact if you accelerate the wheel while the mass is still transitionng it should self accelerate because the wheel mass [momentum] will throw the mass outward even faster due to the slingshot effect, IINM.

To get the weights back in (with a light weight spring return system) you just have to bleed off rotational energy to slow it down by making the wheel do external work.

Repeat the process.

[Fletcher]

Just some thoughts I have carried around, & as I have said many times, JB's MT has notations saying that many ('known to fail') PM designs would work with the adding of addition structures - these temporary imbalance designs vary from rolling balls, to rolling balls with central elevators, to connected by rope designs, to his friends design with outer flip levers etc - the point being all substantially different & known to be failed designs, that will not work on their own.

The thing in common is that if each design were to be enclosed so they couldn't be internally seen then you would add spokes & canvas covering etc to each different internal design.

[JB said people were free to feel the axle inside his wheel, it was pierced with holes (compartments)].

Wagner commented that the early wheel he saw, where he looked thru the gaps in the wooden slats, that no moving weights could be seen anywhere near the circumference - the implication being that it was substantially empty.

But why would you want all that empty space unless it was necessary - perhaps it was necessary so the spokes had length & volume, if they contained the Prime Mover mechanism [the additional structure] that would be common to all the design types he said could work.

The majority of the MT's could work if extra energy was given to the wheels to build up momentum & get them well past the 'keel' conundrum.

[Tarsier79]

Its not that the MT's would work if..., I believe most of the MTs are just transformers. Since they are, as far as I can see zero sum mechanisms, they are just transforming the energy from the prime mover into rotation, circular movement just happens to be the easiest way for us to use it.

[Fletcher]

Yeah, as Bill has said many times JB was fixated on solving the age old riddle of the PMM - we all know you just need to get a little energy into the system.

[FunWithGravity2]

IMHO

The statement that all would work with additional structures might be like my saying all would work with an electric motor. It might be a fundamentally missunderstood thought that these could exist as a functioning part of any wheel. They could all be added as noise makers or distrations to allow you to think they had some part but they all rob energy from the wheel in order to do so. If theses designs did NOT rob energy then they would all turn on their own or at the bery least freewheel as long as the same mass flywheel, and they don't.

Any impact/dead stop within a design will lead to failure. There not only is not enough time for them to occur but they waist far to much energy in doing so. I think the major challenge of MT is to try and figure out where the loss of energy is coming from in each design. Which cannot always be done just by looking at it.

Crazy Dave

[Fletcher]

IMHO

The statement that all would work with additional structures might be like my saying all would work with an electric motor.

It might be a fundamentally missunderstood thought that these could exist as a functioning part of any wheel. They could all be added as noise makers or distrations to allow you to think they had some part but they all rob energy from the wheel in order to do so. If theses designs did NOT rob energy then they would all turn on their own or at the bery least freewheel as long as the same mass flywheel, and they don't.

Very sensible statements & observations Dave, & not so crazy ;7) - I'm glad you made them because that's exactly my position in a nut shell.

We are left with two conclusions about JB.

Either, he did know they could not work on their own (his notations in MT suggest he did know this) - in which case they are there for a distraction of sorts, or he really really really did want to claim the prestige & prize of solving the age old problem of the OOB wheel which others had tried & failed at for thousands of years - and he would say & do what ever it took [i.e. present wheels of varying internal mechanisms as per MT] to claim that prize [he wanted to fill the need] - there is a caveat which was each separate wheel internal OOB principle had to have the addition of a Prime Mover structure which did something very special.

Perhaps just presenting the Prime Mover mechanism & structure would have been too big a paradigm shift for his era, where as everyone of note knew about the quest for Perpetual Motion & its notoriety - so presenting his solution bundled in this way had some familiarity & publicity to help sell his wheel.

Or ... he didn't know all couldn't work on their own - lack of scientific description might suggest he was all about mechanics & geometry, & less so about math & what we would call physics terminology, used today - he uses the English terms of movement & force in the MT's - he uses momentum elsewhere - then he uses Latin & German terms for excess impetus, preponderance, excess weight etc - I tend to think he was a very clever guy who knew a lot about fundamentals of momentum & geometry, & ironically that was all that was needed IMO.

Watch this space !

And the "Is the formula of the angular momentum conservation wrong?" thread.

Or ... I'm the crazy one ;7)

.......................

Any impact/dead stop within a design will lead to failure. There not only is not enough time for them to occur but they waist far to much energy in doing so. I think the major challenge of MT is to try and figure out where the loss of energy is coming from in each design. Which cannot always be done just by looking at it.

Crazy Dave

That paragraph applies to all OOB designs, as you say Dave - I intend to show that the first sentence [bolded by me] isn't always true.

[Fletcher]

OK .. I want to start with some information - basically 'calculators' that will take the work out of what is to come, to keep things simple.

We need to know about what happens in linear collisions of two masses - we all know that in same plane collisions of two masses, unless the masses are the same (a special case) then the more massive object will still have velocity & momentum i.e. it won't come to a dead stop.

Here I'm imagining the case of say a 4kg mass moving horizontally to the right at 5m/s - it has mv of 20 units - if it impacts a stationary mass of 1kg [mv = 0] then the 1kg will take off, but the larger mass will still continue moving to the right also - momentum will be conserved with both masses having the original system momentum of 20 units - the original 50J of KE the larger mass had is also conserved [assume elasticity is 100%] & shared between the masses in motion.

See the pics below to see the final velocities, momentums & KE's etc.

http://www.convertalot.com/elastic_coll ... lator.html

The point being that in linear collisions we can never get the system KE to increase after collision i.e. Momentum & KE is conserved - if the massive object could be brought to a stop & give all its momentum to the lesser object then it would have a far higher velocity after impact & the KE would increase to above the original system tally.

The problem is we can't completely stop that larger mass, no matter what we do.

...........................

I also include a triangle calculator.

http://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html

The following relates to a continuation of the battery & hangar experiment - in previous examples I have been talking about releasing a mass at a certain rpm about a pivot from 1r to 2r - this is a convenient shift because it forms a special geometry triangle in resolution of forces, momentum, velocities, & KE's etc - a 90 degree triangle (as they all are) but with internal angles of 30; 90; 60 degs in this doubling of radius example.

We can use Pythagoras Theorem to calculate the magnitude of any unknown side length, & trig etc, but its simpler to use squaring of the sides usually used to find area i.e. a^2 = b^2 + C^2 & then square root to find 'a' length/magnitude.

So if a mass is transitioning laterally at 10m/s velocity then at perpendicular collision with the circle rim the vectors will resolve [by squaring the rectangle] to two vectors for velocity & momentum - one is forward direction of 5m/s which we know by calculation & experiment - the other is 8.66m/s - this is straight resolution of vectors geometry with the help of pythagoras squaring the sides of a right angle triangle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_triangle

More advanced.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RightTriangle.html

........................

N.B. Velocity, linear momentum, & forces are vectors & can be resolved.

KE is a scalar quantity having magnitude but not direction.

........................

Whilst KE is scalar it is a measure of capacity to do Work, in N.m's or Joules [J] - due to the Work Energy Equivalence Theorem the vector quantity of force times distance is also measured in N.m's or J's - they are interchangeable according to the Theorem - one is scalar & one is a vector - nevertheless linear momentum is a vector & the triangle can be resolved into two components just using vector analysis.

When I come back I'll explain what I think I found, with pics.

In short if a mass of 2kgs transitions under Cf's, inertia, or momentum, at an arbitrary 10m/s from 1r to 2r & impacts the rim at right angles we will have an experimentally proven new forward component of rim direction speed & momentum of 5m/s & mv of 10 units - this equates to a reduction from 100J KE to 25J's - we are missing 75J's of KE which reduces to 8.66 m/s velocity & 17.32 units of mv.

If this cross component is collected & stored in a spring (for example) to be redirected as a push on a grounded stator then we can add a perfect 75J of energy to that 2kg mass with already 5m/s & 25J's of KE to give it a combined speed of 13.66m/s & KE of 186.6 Joules - a system gain of 186.6%.

IOW's the mass is completely stopped at the rim by intervention of a spring storage device for example [remember the linear momentum example where we couldn't stop it] - some of the momentum is converted to rim direction speed & momentum & KE - the spring stored energy is redirected as a push to the system against a grounded stator adding all its energy to the system - the system momentum & energy is increased.

CoAM & CoE is conserved because the wider earth wheel system is invoked, If I'm Not A Nincompoop (IINANP).

Sorry for being long winded, pics next post will help simplify further - I'm proposing that ALL momentum can be transferred in this rotary example, because the mass is STOPPED at the rim intersection, increasing Local Energy.

[FunWithGravity2]

@Fletch

I am enjoying your thought process and thread and watching both, thank you.

"dead stop"as usual for me was probably unclear,imho. My idea for the workign wheel has components that come to rest for a moment but they do so by gadually transferring their energy during rotation.

I might be adding more to my MT thread soon as the weather changes here in New England and i find myself inside. Looking forward to more from you, watching intently


Cheers

Dave