Hi Fletcher ,
The idea with the vacuum generator is simply to get the extra air to flow for free , moving air is a force . The bellows would be connected to the vacuum port at the bottom of the generator . The toy page spinning top , I believe is a vale to regulate the flow of air to the prime mover , just as the pokers on a organ would allow air to flow through a different passage to give multiple freq. with the same key .
A other free energy source is a tuned exhaust on a normal aspirated auto engine , where the Sound wave exiting the exhaust will expel spent gas from the engine exhaust at higher velocity than the engine can force it out , creating a much better flow of fresh air through the engine to get rid of the burnt gases in the combustion chamber . IOW you only need to create a sound inside a tube at the right sweet spot to create a flow of air in the direction of the sound , to reverse the flow you would need to create a sound in the reverse direction , hence the top in the toy page .
I would think if you use a piston to evacuate the bellows , the area of the piston to the area of the bellows will just give you a ratio or a leverage , where the ratio of the heat generated to the force needed to create the temp difference is less than one , iow , a loss in energy through heat which is what you try to avoid , you must not create the energy , it must come as a byproduct of say , a rising and falling weight , it is also less than one , but the freebee that you get makes up mildly for that .
All this can cause some bad vibes in your head .
Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
Moderator: scott
-
daanopperman
- Devotee
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:43 pm
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
Tell me about it Daan, lol.
Sounds like you are talking about an expansion chamber effect ?
So, left field speculating, maybe JB was onto something, being an organ builder, that generated ultrasound levels that helped accelerate the air flow - way beyond my pay grade I'm afraid.
Sounds like you are talking about an expansion chamber effect ?
So, left field speculating, maybe JB was onto something, being an organ builder, that generated ultrasound levels that helped accelerate the air flow - way beyond my pay grade I'm afraid.
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
Bill .. thanks for the info - I'm going to read the site tommorrow to get an overview as I'm finding it hard to get the brain in gear tonight.
...............
But a thought did occur to me.
If we have a radial bellows at 3 o'cl that is latched open, & we evacuate some of the air contents & reduce pressure internally - then if we release the latch the external air pressure will slam it upwards & closed with great force, & speed.
Normally the bellows would only close enough until the air pressures equalized inside & out.
Can its momentum carry it further ?
...............
ETA: we know that an air gun works by doing work to build up pressure behind a tight fitting piston - the piston is released & accelerates expelling the projectile at speed - that speed is dependent on the projectiles inertia & piston frictions - & air drag slows the acceleration from the get go.
That tight fit piston could be a bellows arrangement.
Do we know that works the same in reverse i.e. the accelerations are the same ?
Can a bellows slammed shut via an internal partial vacuum [work done slowly] & where external ambient air pressure does the second very quick work, what would be the accelerations achievable to hurl a projectile ? Could it be more ?
Pressure = force per unit area - should be the same both ways.
...............
But a thought did occur to me.
If we have a radial bellows at 3 o'cl that is latched open, & we evacuate some of the air contents & reduce pressure internally - then if we release the latch the external air pressure will slam it upwards & closed with great force, & speed.
Normally the bellows would only close enough until the air pressures equalized inside & out.
Can its momentum carry it further ?
...............
ETA: we know that an air gun works by doing work to build up pressure behind a tight fitting piston - the piston is released & accelerates expelling the projectile at speed - that speed is dependent on the projectiles inertia & piston frictions - & air drag slows the acceleration from the get go.
That tight fit piston could be a bellows arrangement.
Do we know that works the same in reverse i.e. the accelerations are the same ?
Can a bellows slammed shut via an internal partial vacuum [work done slowly] & where external ambient air pressure does the second very quick work, what would be the accelerations achievable to hurl a projectile ? Could it be more ?
Pressure = force per unit area - should be the same both ways.
-
daanopperman
- Devotee
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:43 pm
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
Hi Fletcher ,
You don;t have to create ultrasound if the witnesses already stated about 8 weights falling / rev could be heard , that gives 400 beats/min at 50 rpm . What was it he said about a Tampano .
You don;t have to create ultrasound if the witnesses already stated about 8 weights falling / rev could be heard , that gives 400 beats/min at 50 rpm . What was it he said about a Tampano .
-
johannesbender
- Addict
- Posts: 2436
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:29 pm
- Location: not important
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
an interesting thing about piston driven air rifles
is that when the piston compresses the air at such
high speeds , the sudden compressed air,super heats
and usually if the piston seal's have enough oil on it
,it would combust , when combustion is a factor of
this process it qualifies as a "fire"arm ,combustion
contributes to the total force on the projectile ,it is
simply combustion that separates air rifles from
firearms ..
now , who ia to say JB did not discover dieseling ,
except for the fact that his mention of "as long as
its material would last" would have to have been that
material=fuel ,but surely there would have been
smoke and burned oil smells ,so that can be ruled out.
it is quite annoying ,thinking that all matter =fuel ,
and that we haven't found another way of releasing
that energy within matter except burning and atomic
bombs , "its own inner force must come in to being"..
jb
is that when the piston compresses the air at such
high speeds , the sudden compressed air,super heats
and usually if the piston seal's have enough oil on it
,it would combust , when combustion is a factor of
this process it qualifies as a "fire"arm ,combustion
contributes to the total force on the projectile ,it is
simply combustion that separates air rifles from
firearms ..
now , who ia to say JB did not discover dieseling ,
except for the fact that his mention of "as long as
its material would last" would have to have been that
material=fuel ,but surely there would have been
smoke and burned oil smells ,so that can be ruled out.
it is quite annoying ,thinking that all matter =fuel ,
and that we haven't found another way of releasing
that energy within matter except burning and atomic
bombs , "its own inner force must come in to being"..
jb
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
Fletcher's Wheel Decoder :
As applies to COAM, & Weight & Balance/Law of Levers, for rotational motion of mass (with inertia) about an axis or fulcrum.
Gravity OFF for CoAM; ON for dual masses about a fulcrum.
..............................
Thought experiment ccoming soon !
As applies to COAM, & Weight & Balance/Law of Levers, for rotational motion of mass (with inertia) about an axis or fulcrum.
Gravity OFF for CoAM; ON for dual masses about a fulcrum.
..............................
Thought experiment ccoming soon !
- Attachments
-
- Fletcher's Wheel Decoder :
Gravity OFF for CoAM; ON for dual masses about a fulcrum
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
A little busy at the moment to get back to this.
When I do I want to talk about my thought experiment & a possible 'Elephant In The Room'.
When I do I want to talk about my thought experiment & a possible 'Elephant In The Room'.
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
To continue the theme of CoAM for the moment.
N.B. Later I intend to re-introduce & discuss the concept of the "Self Accelerating System" in this context - designs & particulars are not important for now.
Comments & discussion welcome.
The Thought Experiment :
The BIG Question:
Can the CoAM Law be violated with a mechanical device that rotates around a fixed axis & does not introduce an external source of torque ?
Experimental Method :
Take the Hangar & Batteries experiment [or analogue] which proves CoAM Law as it stands !
N.B. since we are looking into inertial effects of a rotating system then an appropriate experimental device can be in the horizontal plane or the vertical plane, if opposite masses are linked via pulleys & ropes so that the effects of gravity are nullified or neutralized.
Comment1 :
We know that AM is conserved whether the masses move outwards to a greater radius due to Cf's, momentum, inertial effects; or energy is expended to move them in to a closer radius - we know that the AM will be the same after each radial direction transition.
However, in the outwards transition, the linear velocities, linear/tangential momentum, & translational KE's will be quite different than start conditions e.g. in the case of masses moving out from 1 radius to 2r, whatever the stabilized rpm after initial input energy is given to establish that rpm, the tangential velocities & momentum of individual masses will be 1/2 & the KE of individual masses 1/4 - the wheel rpm will have been reduced to 1/4 as well [i.e. half speed times twice distance].
In the case of moving masses inwards against Cf's from 2r to 1r then symmetry is upheld & the tangential velocities & momentum is doubled, whilst the KE & rpm is quadrupled [4x] - this conserves AM but by the expenditure of energy - the same minimum energy as lost in the outward transition.
Assume the background carrier wheel, or hangar, & ropes & pulleys etc have no mass & there is no frictional losses.
Comment2 :
Energy is the currency of potential to do Work, not momentum - it is measured in units of Joules.
The integral of Force x Displacement is also measured in Joules - this is convenient & means they are interchangeable for use, due to the "Work Energy Equivalence Principle" enshrined in Physics as we know it.
Comment3 :
The possible Elephant In The Room ?
When the masses move outwards to 2r from 1r the wheels Total System KE remains unchanged - however this didn't happen spontaneously - as the masses transition they retain their original velocity, momentum & Kinetic Energy quotients - (as an aside if the background wheel has significant mass it will slow losing some momentum & give the transitioning masses extra velocity & KE until they reach the rim stop position on the radial) - when the masses impact the rim at right angles to it they lose 3/4's their KE, in this example - this energy is lost to the System.
However the AM is preserved !
Just about every experimenter knows about the ice skater examples - instinctively we have tried to move masses into a closer radius to reduce wheel inertia [mr^2, quadratic term] on the assumption that the wheel would hopefully gain AM & RKE for a cost of less than the energy [ f x d ] expended in repositioning those masses [we zigged] - it never works out but we continue to think that because the wheel inertia must be less at closer radii then then should be a gain.
What, instead if we zagged - we let masses moves outwards & instead of losing 3/4's the KE on rim impact [to conserve AM] we used/redirected that future 3/4's loss of KE energy elsewhere to accelerate the wheel i.e. give the background carrier wheel more momentum ?
This could be done a number of possible ways, one is using a central stator & gears with a pull mechanism connecting to it from the masses via ropes & pulleys - instead of losing the original momentum & KE of the transitioning masses in a rim collision [the abrupt stop] we let their momentum be bled off & redirect that force of deceleration into turning & accelerating the background carrier wheel - this increases rpm etc etc etc.
Comment4 :
If a 2kg mass is doing 10m/s at 1r then it has 100 J's of energy - if we let it move outwards along the radial unfettered then it will maintain 10m/s until rim contact at 2r - it will immediately have linear speed of 5m/s & KE of 25 J's ... BUT ... AM is conserved.
If we use a pull mech to bleed off the masses velocity, momentum & KE, & redirect it to increases the wheel rpm & AM then the masses should speed up some more in a self accelerating feed back loop ?!
For a moment disregarding the self accelerating aspect let's just consider all the lost momentum & KE being fed into the background carrier wheel - hypothetically we would have the masses at 2r with velocity considerably higher than 5m/s, closer to 10m/s [when considering rotational inertia effects] & a full compliment of 100 Joules, or thereabouts.
If this were the case, then it did not happen by the application of external torques to increase rpm etc, it was just forces redirected internally IMO.
Specific Questions :
1. What has happened to the wheel system AM ?
2. Has CoAM been violated by redirecting 'to be lost' energy as system accelerating forces ?
3. What has happened to TOTAL System Kinetic Energy ?
......................
Happy thinking & thanks for reading !
N.B. Later I intend to re-introduce & discuss the concept of the "Self Accelerating System" in this context - designs & particulars are not important for now.
Comments & discussion welcome.
The Thought Experiment :
The BIG Question:
Can the CoAM Law be violated with a mechanical device that rotates around a fixed axis & does not introduce an external source of torque ?
Experimental Method :
Take the Hangar & Batteries experiment [or analogue] which proves CoAM Law as it stands !
N.B. since we are looking into inertial effects of a rotating system then an appropriate experimental device can be in the horizontal plane or the vertical plane, if opposite masses are linked via pulleys & ropes so that the effects of gravity are nullified or neutralized.
Comment1 :
We know that AM is conserved whether the masses move outwards to a greater radius due to Cf's, momentum, inertial effects; or energy is expended to move them in to a closer radius - we know that the AM will be the same after each radial direction transition.
However, in the outwards transition, the linear velocities, linear/tangential momentum, & translational KE's will be quite different than start conditions e.g. in the case of masses moving out from 1 radius to 2r, whatever the stabilized rpm after initial input energy is given to establish that rpm, the tangential velocities & momentum of individual masses will be 1/2 & the KE of individual masses 1/4 - the wheel rpm will have been reduced to 1/4 as well [i.e. half speed times twice distance].
In the case of moving masses inwards against Cf's from 2r to 1r then symmetry is upheld & the tangential velocities & momentum is doubled, whilst the KE & rpm is quadrupled [4x] - this conserves AM but by the expenditure of energy - the same minimum energy as lost in the outward transition.
Assume the background carrier wheel, or hangar, & ropes & pulleys etc have no mass & there is no frictional losses.
Comment2 :
Energy is the currency of potential to do Work, not momentum - it is measured in units of Joules.
The integral of Force x Displacement is also measured in Joules - this is convenient & means they are interchangeable for use, due to the "Work Energy Equivalence Principle" enshrined in Physics as we know it.
Comment3 :
The possible Elephant In The Room ?
When the masses move outwards to 2r from 1r the wheels Total System KE remains unchanged - however this didn't happen spontaneously - as the masses transition they retain their original velocity, momentum & Kinetic Energy quotients - (as an aside if the background wheel has significant mass it will slow losing some momentum & give the transitioning masses extra velocity & KE until they reach the rim stop position on the radial) - when the masses impact the rim at right angles to it they lose 3/4's their KE, in this example - this energy is lost to the System.
However the AM is preserved !
Just about every experimenter knows about the ice skater examples - instinctively we have tried to move masses into a closer radius to reduce wheel inertia [mr^2, quadratic term] on the assumption that the wheel would hopefully gain AM & RKE for a cost of less than the energy [ f x d ] expended in repositioning those masses [we zigged] - it never works out but we continue to think that because the wheel inertia must be less at closer radii then then should be a gain.
What, instead if we zagged - we let masses moves outwards & instead of losing 3/4's the KE on rim impact [to conserve AM] we used/redirected that future 3/4's loss of KE energy elsewhere to accelerate the wheel i.e. give the background carrier wheel more momentum ?
This could be done a number of possible ways, one is using a central stator & gears with a pull mechanism connecting to it from the masses via ropes & pulleys - instead of losing the original momentum & KE of the transitioning masses in a rim collision [the abrupt stop] we let their momentum be bled off & redirect that force of deceleration into turning & accelerating the background carrier wheel - this increases rpm etc etc etc.
Comment4 :
If a 2kg mass is doing 10m/s at 1r then it has 100 J's of energy - if we let it move outwards along the radial unfettered then it will maintain 10m/s until rim contact at 2r - it will immediately have linear speed of 5m/s & KE of 25 J's ... BUT ... AM is conserved.
If we use a pull mech to bleed off the masses velocity, momentum & KE, & redirect it to increases the wheel rpm & AM then the masses should speed up some more in a self accelerating feed back loop ?!
For a moment disregarding the self accelerating aspect let's just consider all the lost momentum & KE being fed into the background carrier wheel - hypothetically we would have the masses at 2r with velocity considerably higher than 5m/s, closer to 10m/s [when considering rotational inertia effects] & a full compliment of 100 Joules, or thereabouts.
If this were the case, then it did not happen by the application of external torques to increase rpm etc, it was just forces redirected internally IMO.
Specific Questions :
1. What has happened to the wheel system AM ?
2. Has CoAM been violated by redirecting 'to be lost' energy as system accelerating forces ?
3. What has happened to TOTAL System Kinetic Energy ?
......................
Happy thinking & thanks for reading !
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
Maybe I just have flywheels on the brain or are you suggesting using the background carrier wheel as a flywheel? Powering the flywheel in the fashion of those toy ratchet whirl birds?This could be done a number of possible ways, one is using a central stator & gears with a pull mechanism connecting to it from the masses via ropes & pulleys - instead of losing the original momentum & KE of the transitioning masses in a rim collision [the abrupt stop] we let their momentum be bled off & redirect that force of deceleration into turning & accelerating the background carrier wheel - this increases rpm etc etc etc.
What goes around, comes around.
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
Yes, using the background carrier wheel as a flywheel (inertia & KE storage device).
I did a quick search of what a Whirlybird Ratchet was - no gearing system to self accelerate itself ;7)
Possibly like this model - this is a similar self accelerating system I used when using aerodynamic forces to pull the wings forward to go over tdc with residual momentum & KE from a standing start - in this case the used portion of the lift force integral was greater than the total air drag force, which in sim world allowed this to work.
Note the ropes & action of wings closing in the z plane pulling on a gear close to the hub & the stationary stator component around which it revolved.
P.S. it would be good to get some builders comments (besides me) on have a racheting device could be built.
I did a quick search of what a Whirlybird Ratchet was - no gearing system to self accelerate itself ;7)
Possibly like this model - this is a similar self accelerating system I used when using aerodynamic forces to pull the wings forward to go over tdc with residual momentum & KE from a standing start - in this case the used portion of the lift force integral was greater than the total air drag force, which in sim world allowed this to work.
Note the ropes & action of wings closing in the z plane pulling on a gear close to the hub & the stationary stator component around which it revolved.
P.S. it would be good to get some builders comments (besides me) on have a racheting device could be built.
- Attachments
-
- Gottingen2degAOA_1.8_diameter2.wm2d
- Aerodynamic Lift driven sim
- (59.25 KiB) Downloaded 102 times
-
- Self Accelerating System
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
There has to be a disconnect and re-engagement of the flywheel doesn’t there?
An energy storage then back-feed cycle as two separate systems.
Fletcher
I am terrible with trying to figure out those wm2d pictures and I lost the program in a computer crash. Forgive me if I don’t get the intended action right away.
An energy storage then back-feed cycle as two separate systems.
Fletcher
Have you looked around MT’s for ideas…. MT 136, MT 134, MT 133, MT 123I did a quick search of what a Whirlybird Ratchet was - no gearing system to self accelerate itself ;7)
I am terrible with trying to figure out those wm2d pictures and I lost the program in a computer crash. Forgive me if I don’t get the intended action right away.
What goes around, comes around.
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
That's fine dax .. I don't mean to be disrespectful but let's not get ahead of ourselves with trying to find a mech.
But yes, imagine a spoke wheel for this exercise - the masses move out on the radials/spokes - they are connected to an internal gear system that rotates with the wheel - the gear is meshed with the stator [which doesn't move] & that is the grounding to push against - how we get the weights to come in again is quite easy I think (they oscillate).
.........................
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 ?
That would be the big break through if what I postulate is correct & that proposition is what needs answers.
A feasible device to achieve that comes later I think.
But yes, imagine a spoke wheel for this exercise - the masses move out on the radials/spokes - they are connected to an internal gear system that rotates with the wheel - the gear is meshed with the stator [which doesn't move] & that is the grounding to push against - how we get the weights to come in again is quite easy I think (they oscillate).
.........................
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 ?
That would be the big break through if what I postulate is correct & that proposition is what needs answers.
A feasible device to achieve that comes later I think.
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
Fletcher wrote:
Over the years we have came up with designs with intent to move the outer weights inward on the ascending side. No matter the method or contrivance, you are still stuck with the ever popular "height for width" syndrome. The outward leverage and increased radial spacing of the weights never makes up for the inward concentration of weights.
The only way I know of to beat this problem is move the ascending weight into a compartment supported at the axis. Or keep the majority of weights (mass) on the descending side.
I prefer to choose keeping the mass on the descending side, not using solid weights but rather molecular mass. More in line with Bessler's statement that one side is full the other empty as it should be.
Where as Bessler's weights were alleged to be four pounds, mine weigh in on a scientific scale at .566 pounds (9.05 ounces or 257 grams), there are seventy of them. These weights do not make for Pe, rather, they induce 4.09 pounds (1.855 kg) of Pe.
Ralph
All this proposed mechanical conversation of moving the weights inward is educational and interesting, but it leaves me with apprehension.But yes, imagine a spoke wheel for this exercise - the masses move out on the radials/spokes - they are connected to an internal gear system that rotates with the wheel - the gear is meshed with the stator [which doesn't move] & that is the grounding to push against - how we get the weights to come in again is quite easy I think (they oscillate).
Over the years we have came up with designs with intent to move the outer weights inward on the ascending side. No matter the method or contrivance, you are still stuck with the ever popular "height for width" syndrome. The outward leverage and increased radial spacing of the weights never makes up for the inward concentration of weights.
The only way I know of to beat this problem is move the ascending weight into a compartment supported at the axis. Or keep the majority of weights (mass) on the descending side.
I prefer to choose keeping the mass on the descending side, not using solid weights but rather molecular mass. More in line with Bessler's statement that one side is full the other empty as it should be.
Where as Bessler's weights were alleged to be four pounds, mine weigh in on a scientific scale at .566 pounds (9.05 ounces or 257 grams), there are seventy of them. These weights do not make for Pe, rather, they induce 4.09 pounds (1.855 kg) of Pe.
Ralph
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
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.
"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.
re: Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy
Dunes,
I do love your pessimistic views, you give the challenge incentive!
A PMM will start spinning when an appropriate design is fabricated that maintains a continuous OB status. it will start with zero angular momentum, and will obey the law saying it can't exceed what it starts with. That being the sustaining amount of OB maintained within its embodiment.
Ralph
I do love your pessimistic views, you give the challenge incentive!
A PMM will start spinning when an appropriate design is fabricated that maintains a continuous OB status. it will start with zero angular momentum, and will obey the law saying it can't exceed what it starts with. That being the sustaining amount of OB maintained within its embodiment.
Ralph