Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[Fletcher]

Dwayne .. sorry for the delay & it will have to continue a little longer - a bit busy with other pressing issues all of a sudden.

However, I understand the gist of what you are saying though I'm going to argue each point from a different perspective - I always think in terms of energy (probably not a consideration for JB) & so I am forcing myself to look at basic velocities & momentums, trying not to go to the 'go to' KE.

In short what you are suggesting is the probable show-stopper is the ol' spring on a flat deck truck scenario - if the truck is parked we get the full benefit of the spring energy converting into velocity & mv - no dispute there.

If the truck is moving then the spring has to fire & push on a stationary block & we lose some of our stored energy because the truck has moved on a bit & the spring takes a little time to deploy etc - sounds like a good problem for an Mechanical Engineer to solve, & we have plenty of those here including Ralph & Dave.

I will discuss the solution I came up with previously for just the same problem - that was in the Aerodynamic Lift Wheel - there I used a stator with external teeth & a planetary sprocket pinned to the spoke - the sprocket had a one-way rachet - it turned freely around the stator until a force was applied to the sprocket when the ratchet locked & the force then pulled the sprocket & spoke around the stator - this worked well for an aerodynamic system because I had a relatively large force at my disposal (only using a portion of it) & because when the spoke that the wings were attached to sped up it became a self-accelerating system with even more force to pull the sprocket.

What I am proposing for discussion is of course a hypothetically perfect system but inevitably there will be losses like the moving flat deck truck scenario to account for - that can't be helped but it can be minimised - then we have ratios to consider, like if the mass moves to 2 1/2 r we can save 87.5% KE in the spring which reduces to a higher velocity again - then we have that the spring analogy could be hydraulics or pneumatics - AFAIK springs are only linear but are there any variable force alternatives (another one for the Engineers) ? - then we have where the force is applied etc etc ....

Anyway when I get the time I'll go into it a bit further & see if there is in fact a work-around that would leave us with excess velocity & energy.

Thanks for your comments & I look forward to discussing the next issues as well - I keep an open mind.

[rlortie]

If the truck is moving then the spring has to fire & push on a stationary block & we lose some of our stored energy because the truck has moved on a bit & the spring takes a little time to deploy etc - sounds like a good problem for an Mechanical Engineer to solve, & we have plenty of those here including Ralph & Dave.

If the tire should hit an irregularity in the road the leaf spring will compress forcing elongation and spreading of the spring shackles, as it decompress it throw the vehicle forward. Remember that the tire making contact to earth is not moving! In a leaf spring suspension you gain back part of that energy. A coil spring suspension (vertical force) does not have this property.

Refresh with Hooke's law regarding stress;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_ ... ar_springs

As for my current design, the following context is of interest to me.

Since Hooke's law is a simple proportionality between two quantities, its formulas and consequences are mathematically similar to those of many other physical laws, such as those describing the motion of fluids, or the polarization of a dielectric by an electric field.

In particular, the tensor equation \sigma = c \epsilon relating elastic stresses to strains is entirely similar to the equation \tau = \mu \dot\epsilon relating the viscous stress tensor \tau and the strain rate tensor \dot\epsilon in flows of viscous fluids; although the former pertains to static stresses (related to amount of deformation) while the latter pertains to dynamical stresses (related to the rate of deformation).

[Fletcher]

Thanks Ralph, I'll look into it.

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


Just while I'm remembering my previous potential solutions to the problem of giving energy to an already moving wheel, one I quite liked is the following ...

Remember that JB was a clock maker so had plenty of skills & knowledge.

We want to turn linear energy storage from a spring into rotatory motion of a wheel.

In the aerodynamic wheel it was a hard connection direct pull mech of ropes & pulleys with no delay or stages - the force was just redirected straight to the pull mech.

In this example we could use a soft connection & take the linear spring mechanical energy storage & directly convert it to RKE & Rotational Inertia of a 'floating internal flywheel' perhaps located about where the sprocket would be - we have turned KE into RKE or momentum into rotational (angular) momentum - the spun up 'grindstone' (able to freewheel) then has some play in the pivot (or the pivot is in a slide) & when top-side its mass lowers it onto the smooth stator & the RKE is transferred to the whole wheel as the grindstone loses its RKE & angular momentum (it would likely bounce) - IOW's the grindstone tries to climb the stator in the direction of travel.

Alternatively, we could have a clutched grindstone that as spun up the clutch engages (like Daves Patent from the other day) & the RKE is transferred to the wheel, while it is slowed down - we don't even need a stator now, as Mr Vibrator showed, just a braking mech so we get full torque in the wheel direction.

There are good examples already of taking linear KE & turning it directly into RKE - IIRC there was a Polish invention that attached under the car bumper that dramatically lessened the damage from impact to a car front by doing just that i.e. KE of impact turned thru a rack & pinion to RKE of a flywheel - the flywheel energy was then braked to dissipate the RKE as heat.

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

Your mention of flywheels, grindstones and that rack and pinion bumper absorber raises memories! I went looking for the auto bumper concept as I remember it well, that is with the exception of the inventors name.

As for grindstones, do you remember Al Bacon (Glenn C) and the following?

Pay heed to third and fourth paragraph!

"Das Triumphirende Perpetum Mobile"

Except for a small change in the external dimensions of the wheel for raising weights (or so-called "running wheel"), I have organized everything together in accordance with those structures of the previous machine which I had broken to pieces. These small changes occurred by chance and do not need to be defended.

Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (or lower cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen. The base of the cylinder is 12 Rhenish feet in diameter. The height (or thickness) is between 15 and 18 inches. The axle (or shaft) passing through the center is 6 feet long and 8 inches thick cross-sectionally.

While in motion it is supported by two almost one-inch-thick tapered steel pegs, whose two bearings (or sockets) with two curves around the axle provide the rotational motion of the whole vertically suspended wheel through application of pendula, which can be somewhat modified, as the attached figures at the end of this treatise clearly show.

The internal structure of this drum (or wheel) consists of weights arranged according to several a priori, that is, scientifically demonstrable, laws of mechanical perpetual motion. After the wheel completes a single rotation, or after a single force is applied to the wheel, the motion drives the wheel unceasingly. As long as the wheel’s whole structure does not change, the wheel continues its revolutions without any further assistance from external motive power. Other automatic machines, such as clockwork, springs, and hoisting weights, necessarily require an external restoring force.
The upper weight is not attached to an external mechanism, nor does it rely on external moving bodies by means of whose weight revolutions continue as long as the cords or chains on which they hang permit. As long as it remains outside the center of gravity, this upper weight incessantly exercises universal motion from which the essential constituent parts of the machine receive power and push. These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium (or point of rest) for themselves but incessantly seek with their admirably fast swing to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside and are proportional to the size of the housing.

The mechanical wheel not only bears the name of the long sought perpetual motion machine; it deserves to be named for such motion. It uses one of the best known implements for mechanical power, namely, a true circular wheel which rotates about its central axis.
Special trials have demonstrated for eyewitnesses that this mechanical wheel is a self-rotating system of several heavy bodies and will be as long as the bodies remain heavy and the universe exists.

[daxwc]

Which is better for where your concept is headed Fletcher, a flywheel weighted at the rim or a heavy flywheel around center? Do you need a fly wheel with MOI that takes energy quick or slow?

[Fletcher]

Hey dax .. nice to hear from you - thought someone would chime in with Al Bacon & Glen Rouse's thranslations & I'm glad it was you.

As you have probably gathered by now I'm presenting a semi-mathematical construct, a mathematical abstract or anomaly if you will - a one-way trip analogy to grasp the principle in question which is the basis of the hypothesis.

My hypothesis currently assumes that the Conservation Laws are not violated which leads to the conclusion that momentum & KE must be taken from the earth for this mathematical model to balance the sums - the other potentially valid conclusion is that CoAM is violated, but I'd need a mathematician to sort it out.

Clearly a rotating system can also be represented by oscillating system in most instances, because a rotating pendulum is just a pendulum that continues in one direction - so it would be natural to look for a proper pendulum alternative - one that resets the drive mass or acts as a piston or switch might be useful ;7)

To answer your question, I should say a center grindstone is best - the reason is that energy is stored, & energy is given back - or alternately you could say that momentum is stored & given back - either way it does not matter where the mass is located that is accelerated by the energy as it will receive the full energy which translates as momentum & velocity - it's a bit weird & it is in relation to both Daves's & Dwayne's comments, so I'll post up a pic of what I mean next chance I get.


In short, this Case 3 hypothesis is about taking a vector (magnitude & direction) & converting a portion of that vector in the rotational environment into a scalar quantity (i.e. has magnitude but no direction), then turning that scalar quantity back into a vector (magnitude & direction) again to add to the residual vector not converted/morphed in the partial transformation process - IOW's, morphing of vectors to scalar & back that not only conserves system momentum & KE but theoretically increases it.

By way of comparison with Case 2 (spring intervention), the linear mass transformation/morphing of vector to scalar to vector, we see that all energy is conserved (m1 is stopped in our reference frame) but some momentum is not conserved in the objects & goes to the grounding so we don't see an increase in KE or mv.

The difference between Case 3 & Case 2 is that in Case 3 we collect & morph a large portion of the mv into the scalar energy but m1 is NOT completely stopped like Case 2.

From a mathematical perspective it's an aberration IMO.

[Furcurequs]

Quotes from book “The Asa Jackson Perpetual Motion Wheel� by David Brown 2003:

“Asa Jackson’s Perpetual Motion Wheel is on display in the Hall of Fame at the Museum of Appalachia in Norris, Tennessee, USA.�

According to Google Maps, I'm about a 75 mile driving distance away from there. Hopefully, I'll get there to see it some day.

Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

Hey Fletcher,

Dwayne .. sorry for the delay & it will have to continue a little longer - a bit busy with other pressing issues all of a sudden.

No problem. I certainly understand.

However, I understand the gist of what you are saying though I'm going to argue each point from a different perspective - I always think in terms of energy (probably not a consideration for JB) & so I am forcing myself to look at basic velocities & momentums, trying not to go to the 'go to' KE.

I understand that, too. In one of my college engineering classes in which we were dealing with the designs of different electrical motors, our professor did an analysis of one design based entirely upon the assumption of energy conservation - assuming, though, that all the mechanical output energy and internal mechanical and electrical energy losses were equivalent to just the known electrical input energy.

I remember thinking at the time something along the lines of, "What if that's not something we should just assume, though? What if a different sort of analysis would show us that there's actually another source of energy or something?"

So, again, I do understand why you want to approach the problem differently and not just assume kinetic energy conservation.

With that said, however, different types of analyses of conventional devices will almost certainly give the same answer due to the consistency of the various "laws" of physics as typically defined and applied.

I really don't see anything out of the ordinary in what you seem to be describing in this case, so I really don't expect any surprises in this alone. I definitely do recognize the value of the exercise, though, and might even try do it myself - well, had I not personally done enough of those already. ;)

In short what you are suggesting is the probable show-stopper is the ol' spring on a flat deck truck scenario - if the truck is parked we get the full benefit of the spring energy converting into velocity & mv - no dispute there.

If the truck is moving then the spring has to fire & push on a stationary block & we lose some of our stored energy because the truck has moved on a bit & the spring takes a little time to deploy etc - sounds like a good problem for an Mechanical Engineer to solve, & we have plenty of those here including Ralph & Dave.

Actually, I hadn't yet considered the inefficiencies in applying the spring force to an already moving object. I had thus far just assumed the ideal of complete energy storage and transfer.

Ironically, though, I have just in the past few days been thinking again about an experiment of mine in which I actually do have to try to apply the force from a, in this case, stretched spring to an already moving mass. Well, I'll probably be using a rubber band instead of an actual spring, but the same issues apply.

The problems I'm trying to deal with in my experimental setup are along the lines of how to design the release mechanism and time the release of the spring's or rubber band's tension so as to most efficiently (and so more completely) apply the force without losing much of my stored energy. I don't believe any sort of lag in the response of the spring or rubber band itself will be an issue, though, really.

I will discuss the solution I came up with previously for just the same problem - that was in the Aerodynamic Lift Wheel - there I used a stator with external teeth & a planetary sprocket pinned to the spoke - the sprocket had a one-way rachet - it turned freely around the stator until a force was applied to the sprocket when the ratchet locked & the force then pulled the sprocket & spoke around the stator - this worked well for an aerodynamic system because I had a relatively large force at my disposal (only using a portion of it) & because when the spoke that the wings were attached to sped up it became a self-accelerating system with even more force to pull the sprocket.

The first part there sounds something like the conventional hub in a "coaster" or freewheel bike (as opposed to a fixed gear bicycle), if I understand you correctly. ...which could also be part of a solution for the problem I have with my previously mentioned experimental setup. I've at least been thinking a bit along those lines.

I'm not up to speed enough to comment on your self-accelerating system.

What I am proposing for discussion is of course a hypothetically perfect system but inevitably there will be losses like the moving flat deck truck scenario to account for - that can't be helped but it can be minimised - then we have ratios to consider, like if the mass moves to 2 1/2 r we can save 87.5% KE in the spring which reduces to a higher velocity again - then we have that the spring analogy could be hydraulics or pneumatics - AFAIK springs are only linear but are there any variable force alternatives (another one for the Engineers) ? - then we have where the force is applied etc etc ....

I've done some thinking about how to alter the force profile of a "spring" or some spring like system. ...and, shoot, now you've got me thinking about the differences in compound bows and recurve and long bows again and just why the compound bow is more efficient (I believe). ...okay, I just found someone's master's thesis.

Anyway when I get the time I'll go into it a bit further & see if there is in fact a work-around that would leave us with excess velocity & energy.

Thanks for your comments & I look forward to discussing the next issues as well - I keep an open mind.

Thank you. I believe it pays to think about all these things in depth.

I did want to address the battery and coat hangar experiment again, though.

That demonstration was devised to show that when no external torques are applied, the angular momentum of a system is conserved. So, the forces applied by the string puller were redirected so that the forces on the batteries were directed through the center of rotation of the system.

The string puller, though of course, certainly did add energy to the system, but the angular momentum was conserved since no actual torque was applied.

If we want to keep this added kinetic energy but with the batteries moving at a different moment arm and/or rotating at a different radius - like perhaps while moving again at its original radius - we have to then exchange angular momentum with mass outside of the system. This would require a torque on the earth (or another very massive object) in this case.

What you have been describing seems to be but one way to do this, and I don't see how it could introduce any additional kinetic energy beyond what was already there after the string puller had pulled the batteries in to the smaller radius.

Since the earth is so massive and any change in motion of the earth would be immeasurably small, we typically do have to just assume that the momentum of the earth has changed in such interactions as you describe. This is a reasonable assumption, though, based upon numerous other experimental observations about momentum conservation.

I'm saying this because I'm not sure I even know how one could solve the problem based upon momentum conservation when we have an interaction with the earth in which we cannot see or detect a change in the earth's motion.

We are left, then, with having to use what we actually do know, and that would be the energy we've stored in the springs and/or the force through distance the compressed springs can in return supply.

Since the changes in the motion of the earth are so immeasurably small in such interactions, in solving typical problems we just assume the earth is fixed and that it can, you might say, "sink or source" the momentum changes needed with an object moving about on the surface of the earth.

My own still highly speculative argument elsewhere in this forum, though, is that with just the right working mechanism, maybe energy could essentially be "sourced" from the earth and/or the gravitational field in a similar manner. ...but again with just the right out-of-the-ordinary mechanism.

I've just not yet seen anything I would really consider out of the ordinary with what you've yet shown here, though.

Anyway, I'll look forward to your arguments.

Dwayne

[rlortie]

Posted on Stewart's thread;

You may wish to confirm my figures as I am not recognized as proficient for math skills.

A twelve foot diameter wheel has a circumference of 452.39" (11.49071 m)

At 26 RPM we have 980.18 FPM (29.9253 m/PM)

Or 11.13841 miles per hour (17.92553 k/hour)

Plausible Angular momentum, Cf and Ke anyone?

Hey dax .. nice to hear from you - thought someone would chime in with Al Bacon & Glen Rouse's thranslations & I'm glad it was you.

???? :-)
Ralph

[mickegg]

Hi Fletcher,Furcurequs

Been wondering about using a sprag clutch in this situation for some time now (this overlaps with another project I'm working on)

The following setup more or less shows the idea.
A piston & crank where the piston is the moving mass
This would advance the weight (wheel) as it moved to a larger radius.

Not storing the energy via a spring though.

The freewheel property would allow the weight to move back in if the con-rod stays on the one side of the crank and reverses for the reset phase.

Would need to be balanced of course.

I haven't tested the mech as yet so might not work as envisaged!

Regards

Mick

[Fletcher]

Thanks mick ..

The concept ties in with what I've also tried in sim world in the past with my pull mechs - the mass turns linear KE into RKE of the wheel.

I'm going to write a reply to Dwayne in the next few hours & then sort of summerize where I'm coming from.

There are some things I can't build in WM2D & that is where real engineers like yourself are invaluable for your practical & mechanical experiences.

Hopefully we can together get to the bottom of this momentum transfer hypothesis & you guys can tell me whether the solution I think might work will or won't ?

I'll include some basic designs that are pendulum oscillating designs & rotary designs - of course they are worth sh.t if the final stage of momentum transfer can't work out as I would hope.

[Fletcher]

Dwayne wrote ...

...but...

In this particular case, I don't believe we can add velocities like you are trying to do here.

You are storing a certain amount of energy in your compressed springs which, of course, in your scenario is ultimately determined by the magnitude of the one component of your mass velocities.

Yes, though this is a hypothesis about complete momentum transfer, assuming no losses – by reduction mv & v can be derived from KE & KE can be found if you know the others.

When the forces of the springs are redirected, though, you can only add this same amount of stored energy back to the moving masses.

Yes, that is correct – I can absolutely assure you that the spring can capture the 75 Joules as potential mechanical energy, & give a 2kg mass 17.32 units of mv & a velocity of 8.66m/s, the caveat being that it can only do this it seems if the mass to get the potential energy is stationary in the reference frame, & not moving (the spring on a flat deck truck scenario).

If you calculate the kinetic energy of the masses moving at 5 m/s, then, and add to that the energy stored in your springs and solve for the speed, you will see that you are back to where you started. It's that darn Pythagorean theorem. The magnitude of the component velocities squared and added together just equals the magnitude of the initial velocity squared, and of course the energy is just proportional to this.

Yep, that’s one way to do the sums i.e. go straight to CoE & it doesn’t look hopeful in producing extra mv or KE – I believe the way I'm looking at it is still a legitimate approach - we seem to have a problem at the last hurdle – how to add mv to an already moving mass with mv consecutively – giving masses with KE a top-up packet of energy on a consecutive basis seems to be problematic in energy terms.

If we think in terms of a falling mass, a mass that starts with zero speed initially and falls one meter will have a certain known speed and kinetic energy. Yep. If it continues to fall another meter, we know we've essentially just added the same amount of energy again Yep, KE = mgh = PE - with approximately the same force through the same distance Yes, gravity force is constant because the acceleration is constant - thus doubling the total kinetic energy. We only increase the speed after moving the second meter by 41%, though.

Like with the gravity example, your springs can only add a known amount of kinetic energy over a known distance, ...

Yes – spring force is linear, that is a compressed spring has large acceleration & force initially which reduces rapidly until zero at full length in a straight line relationship – what you are saying is true – springs can add only a known amount of KE over a known distance

.. and so we must add this to the kinetic energy at the 5 m/s speed and then solve to find the final speed and our speed gain.

Therein lies the problem with springs trying to add mv to already moving objects – they need an anchor point to push off & if the object is already moving away from that anchor point, & they are constrained to a working length, then we lose a portion of their effectiveness [power] straight away resulting in your energy neutral scenario – this concurrency would be a tough nut to crack.

To get the velocity addition and energy gain that you are going for, I believe your spring would have to push off of a massive object that is itself moving at the 5 m/s, and which we don't seem to have. I believe that's the show stopper for your particular scenario.

Yep, that makes sense & we can’t use a massive wheel exterior as a flywheel either because of action & reaction forces – the spring would push both ways & rob the external wheel of momentum, so zero sum game.

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

Fletcher wrote:
However, I understand the gist of what you are saying though I'm going to argue each point from a different perspective - I always think in terms of energy (probably not a consideration for JB) & so I am forcing myself to look at basic velocities & momentums, trying not to go to the 'go to' KE.

So, again, I do understand why you want to approach the problem differently and not just assume kinetic energy conservation.

With that said, however, different types of analyses of conventional devices will almost certainly give the same answer due to the consistency of the various "laws" of physics as typically defined and applied.

I really don't see anything out of the ordinary in what you seem to be describing in this case, so I really don't expect any surprises in this alone. I definitely do recognize the value of the exercise, though, and might even try to do it myself - well, had I not personally done enough of those already. ;)

Fletcher wrote:
In short what you are suggesting is the probable show-stopper is the ol' spring on a flat deck truck scenario - if the truck is parked we get the full benefit of the spring energy converting into velocity & mv - no dispute there.

If the truck is moving then the spring has to fire & push on a stationary block & we lose some of our stored energy because the truck has moved on a bit & the spring takes a little time to deploy etc - sounds like a good problem for an Mechanical Engineer to solve, & we have plenty of those here including Ralph & Dave.

Actually, I hadn't yet considered the inefficiencies in applying the spring force to an already moving object. I had thus far just assumed the ideal of complete energy storage and transfer.

The problems I'm trying to deal with in my experimental setup are along the lines of how to design the release mechanism and time the release of the spring's or rubber band's tension so as to most efficiently (and so more completely) apply the force without losing much of my stored energy. I don't believe any sort of lag in the response of the spring or rubber band itself will be an issue, though, really.

Fletcher wrote:
I will discuss the solution I came up with previously for just the same problem - that was in the Aerodynamic Lift Wheel - there I used a stator with external teeth & a planetary sprocket pinned to the spoke - the sprocket had a one-way ratchet - it turned freely around the stator until a force was applied to the sprocket when the ratchet locked & the force then pulled the sprocket & spoke around the stator - this worked well for an aerodynamic system because I had a relatively large force at my disposal (only using a portion of it) & because when the spoke that the wings were attached to sped up it became a self-accelerating system with even more force to pull the sprocket.


The first part there sounds something like the conventional hub in a "coaster" or freewheel bike (as opposed to a fixed gear bicycle), if I understand you correctly. ...Yes which could also be part of a solution for the problem I have with my previously mentioned experimental setup. I've at least been thinking a bit along those lines.

I'm not up to speed enough to comment on your self-accelerating system.

Aerodynamic Lift Force is proportional the relative v^2 of the air, so if you increase air flow speed the force multiplier is not linear & you get positive reinforcement & self-acceleration.

Fletcher wrote:
What I am proposing for discussion is of course a hypothetically perfect system but inevitably there will be losses like the moving flat deck truck scenario to account for - that can't be helped but it can be minimised - then we have ratios to consider, like if the mass moves to 2 1/2 r we can save 87.5% KE in the spring which reduces to a higher velocity again - then we have that the spring analogy could be hydraulics or pneumatics - AFAIK springs are only linear but are there any variable force alternatives (another one for the Engineers) ? - then we have where the force is applied etc etc ....


I've done some thinking about how to alter the force profile of a "spring" or some spring like system. ...and, shoot, now you've got me thinking about the differences in compound bows and recurve and long bows again and just why the compound bow is more efficient (I believe). ...okay, I just found someone's master's thesis.

Pneumatics might do it i.e. a short stroke large area piston used to compress air with a pressure tank, release the same volume to a small area long stroke piston (Pascal’s Principle).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pasc.html

Fletcher wrote:
Anyway when I get the time I'll go into it a bit further & see if there is in fact a work-around that would leave us with excess velocity & energy.

Thanks for your comments & I look forward to discussing the next issues as well - I keep an open mind.

Thank you. I believe it pays to think about all these things in depth.

I did want to address the battery and coat hangar experiment again, though.

That demonstration was devised to show that when no external torques are applied, the angular momentum of a system is conserved. So, the forces applied by the string puller were redirected so that the forces on the batteries were directed through the center of rotation of the system.

The string puller, though of course, certainly did add energy to the system, but the angular momentum was conserved since no actual torque was applied. Yes

If we want to keep this added kinetic energy but with the batteries moving at a different moment arm and/or rotating at a different radius - like perhaps while moving again at its original radius - we have to then exchange angular momentum with mass outside of the system. This would require a torque on the earth (or another very massive object) in this case. Seems so.

Thanks for your comments Dwayne !

I'd also appreciate your expert comments on the next phase - if I'm chasing rainbows better to find out now !

[FunWithGravity2]

edited to delete an oversight, wrong post. Found what i did not see in the previous.

Really Cray Dave

[Fletcher]

Here's some pics of the sim in action I updated to show what happens to a springs power over distance from the pivot, & when the mass is already moving away from the spring, in this case at 5m/s when it is fired.

If it is concurrent energy process then we should see approx 10m/s of the mass, regardless of where the spring is positioned (it delivers a packet of energy to the mass) i.e. 25J + 75J = 100J => v = 10m/s.

If it were a consecutive process we would see the accumulation or addition of both velocities of 5 + 8.66 = 13.66m/s.

This doesn't happen with springs used to store & release energy which then discharge against stationary anchor points because the target mass is moving away relative to the anchor & the spring delivers its power over a predefined distance.

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

Looks like we need some other way to store Energy, or more precisely momentum, & release it to the system when & where we need it - we need a mechanical method that can add to the system consecutively as I've been describing it lately.

[Fletcher]

I think the answer lies with the flywheel (paraphrased, JB said flywheels should not be sniffed at).

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

I sometimes look for things as much not said, or understated, as said.

JB was a clock maker yet strangely it hardly gets a mention - just a few sentences in DT where he says he made two pocket watches for fellow passengers on the voyage to England to help pay his way.

Also something I tend to forget about when looking at the toy page re. the late addition of the hand drawn spinning top - we see the top upright in the spinning position (static view) - we don't see the chord that is wound around the top to give it its momentum & energy.

A top is also a toy that you'd expect to see children playing with in the lanes or streets.

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

See this description of a fusee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusee_%28horology%29

It was an early refinement to clock making that allowed springs that unwound to give constant torque which made them more accurate - it was also drawn by Leonado Da Vinci & was used in cross bow windlasses well in advance of Bessler's time.

The fusee changes mechanical advantage.

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

Back to our problem - let's assume there is a flywheel of some sort located near the wheel hub & pivoted to the structure - attached to this flywheel is a fusee type device that also acts like a sprag or one-way clutch (with light return spring), so the flywheel can free-wheel when no more acceleration is applied to it.

We use the 2kg mass connected by rope thru pulleys to the fusee to give its KE to the flywheel as RKE & angular momentum (assume 100% transfer of energy, i.e. that the pivot is frictionless) - there may or may not be a requirement for a linear spring in the process unless we need more 'timing control' but it would have additional energy losses to factor.

BTW, I have looked at flywheels & fusee's for many years - they are something I could never sim in WM2D - the fusee changes the mechanical advantage of the rope pulling the flywheel so that as the flywheel speeds up the transitioning mass it pulled up to a stop, turning all its linear momentum of the cross component into angular momentum of the flywheel.

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

The last stage is to have a braking system that when applied to the flywheel creates a turning moment in the wheel i.e. the rotational angular momentum of the flywheel is transferred to the external wheel as angular momentum.

e.g. if we have a CW turning external wheel & within that wheel a flywheel also turning CW, & it is braked, the external wheel will increase in rpm IINM - this is the creation of a turning moment.

N.B. we are changing the refernce frame, IINM.

I suspect that the turning moment will add angular momentum to the the external wheel in a consecutive manner ?!

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

If this final connection is true, then it makes it possible to design pendulum type devices (Oscillating) that gain more PE than they started with, or rotary type devices ("Motion Wheels") that gain in momentum & KE.

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