Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

I mentioned the frame vectors being a factor, in a earlier post, I think it may be simpler to change the spoke shape, maybe having a half moon shape or angled backward, so when the weights are released to the CF the CF vectors of flying outward, the weights could accelerate the frame on the way out, the down side would be lose of acceleration when pulled inward. This was one experiment I had in mind to see what effect the frame vectors had on the battery and coat hanger experiment.

Edit, I will have to wait and see, but I cannot see how you can get around the energy input needed to sustain the repeated cycles, the work against CF on the way in will drain any advantage you may gain from the increased efficiency on the out, IMO.

Edit again, ask your self this Question, how long can ice skaters sustain rotation even by pull their arm in and out (adding energy)?

[FunWithGravity2]

"frame dependant"

IMHO and unfortunately many will assume the incorrect frame of referance when viewing any of their and others designs which is why so many have gone past the simple answer so many times without noticing it. Standing back and looking at the overall picture makes for wonderful hypotheticals but what really matters is the forces/torques on the axis within the designs. There will not be many designs that could work, there will be one design and formula that works and many variations of components to accomplish actions but only one true "ratio" that allows it to get done. The design will be simple and elegant but completely counterintuitive to everything that has been thought of before. IMHO there will be no fundametal breaking of physics laws other than those of conservation and suddenly we will acknowledge many other things that have broken those laws far more readily.

As i sit patiently for more i'm still

Crazy Dave

[Fletcher]

Hi fellas ..

Dave, my mind likes to make 'connections' which are not always easy to follow, so I'm pleased you enjoy the process & the jumps, many wouldn't.


I'll distill the problem of a self sustaining wheel down to its most basic.


We have to increase the system momentum & Kinetic Energy above our starting conditions, & we need to get that mv & KE from somewhere.


As an aside : Pequaide was all about that but there was never any proof to show that the missile KE (in the trebuchet, chunkin pumpkins example) was greater than the PE lost by the falling counterweight - we know there wasn't an excess in that example because the cwt was required to fall relatively fast & violently - it lost great amounts of PE but also had a substantial amount of velocity & KE itself - to get close to breakeven the cwt would have to be geared & fall very slowly so that even more KE was given to the missile.


We know in the linear momentum transfer example that a large mass can not give up all its momentum to the lesser stationary mass - if it could it would have to stop (it always has some forward velocity & residual momentum that didn't get transferred) - this is a condition of linear momentum transfer - the total momentum is the same i.e. it is conserved, & the KE is also conserved - there is no effective way to bleed out all the motion of the large mass & give it to the smaller.


In the example I'm proposing we find a work-around hypothesis for the problem - I'll step it out in discreet steps, but the reality is that some of these steps can be excluded or combined depending on how you go about storing or using the saved energy.

A mass transitioning outwards along the radial will maintain its speed & momentum - if it collides with a spring (for example) on the end of the radial which is anchored to the rim then that mass must compress that spring until the masses radial movement is no more (the mass is latched at this distance) - a large portion of its energy is now stored in the spring - N.B. the spring is on the radial which originates from the pivot so there is no forward component of force from the spring to accelerate the wheel, as yet - the wheel rpm & masses KE is entirely dependent on its radial displacement i.e. where it stops on the radial - [let's assume for a moment that its not a spring but a perfect hydraulic or pneumatic piston & that it in turn loads a spring loaded pin mechanism ready to be fired against a center stator (or external rim block) with recesses to accept the pin foot] - so we have an energy loaded gun ready to fire.

Here's where it gets interesting & this is the counter-intuitive bit - usually when we resolve two vectors like velocity or momentum we add one on the end of the other - IOWs we have opposite & adjacent vectors & we find the hypotenuse - using Pythagoras this is quite easy - but I am disassociating these vectors & I start with the hypotenuse & break out the opposite & adjacent vectors which I want to use discreetly & separately - after the mass has come to rest against the spring the wheel will have a new rpm & the mass a new lesser KE - in the hypothetical example I gave of a 2kg mass transitioning at 10m/s it has KE 100J's - at its latched position of 2r it now has 25J KE (rpm 1/4) & 1/2 its speed (i.e. 5m/s in direction of rotation) & 1/2 its momentum (2x5 = 10kg.m/s) - because I have disassociated the vectors (by storing/saving the 'lost' KE of 75J) we can reduce out from that saved KE both a velocity vector/component & a mv component i.e. 75J = 1/2mv^2 => v^2 = 75m/s^2 => v = 8.66m/s - similarly the momentum component can be reduced from the saved KE of 75J i.e. 75J = 1/2mv^2 where v = 8.66m/s, therefore mv = 2kg x 8.66m/s = 17.32kg.m/s.

Because we have interrupted the process by saving energy to be used later, we now take the velocity component & the mv component of that 75J & add it back to the system - to do that we add it to the velocity & mv components that the wheel already has at 2r latch point i.e. the spring, pin fires, whatever, & reintroduces the 75J of energy to the rotating system - the mass at 2r already has 25J KE & has a tangential speed of 5m/s with tangential mv of 10 units - so we add a further 8.66m/s to 5m/s to get a speed of 13.66m/s - similarly we add to 10 units of momentum another 17.32 units to get 27.32 units of tangential mv.

Now, we recalculate the new total system KE from first principles i.e. KE = 1/2mv^2 => KE = 1/2m x 13.66m/s^2 => KE = 13.66m/s^2 = 186.6J (& linear mv has increased) - this is a gain of 186% of energy & 137% of linear momentum - it had to come from somewhere - that somewhere was from the earth grounding giving up some of its KE & angular momentum.

N.B. the crux is starting with the hypotenuse & breaking out the right angle vectors, one is the known new rim speed of 5m/s - the second is redeployed separately in a new direction but of the same magnitude i.e. a redirecting force exercise.

I'll make up a pic & edit this post to include it.

[Fletcher]

I suspected the hypothesis of taking momentum & KE from the earth ground & giving it to a rotating system, whilst not violating any Laws of Physics, would be a hard sell ;7)

Below I include a Gravitationally Balanced Inertia System pic i.e. vertical orientation with horizontal axle, which is dynamically balanced - that is because the two yellow 2kg masses are joined by ropes & pulleys so that as one moves out so does the other, & visa versa.

While you digest that, I going to make up a spreadsheet for comparison purposes.

In it I will compare apples with apples by presenting 3 cases.

First & foremost the overarching principle is that ALL momentum & KE is conserved in these examples - I assume that there are no frictional losses & where background carrier wheels or springs are used they have negligible mass, & elasticity is 100%.

1. the 1st case of linear collisions re. a 2kg mass (m1) moving at 10m/s impacting a stationary 1kg mass (m2) - we suspect that the larger mass m1 will have residual velocity (& mv) in the direction of travel - system mv should always equal 20 units & system KE 100J's, both before & after collision.

2. the 2nd case inserts a spring between the two masses above - the spring is compressed as it brings m1 to a stop & its bookend is locked to the earth background - the second bookend is then released allowing the spring to accelerate m2 - in this case of spring intervention we find that all m1's energy is transferred to m2 - system mv & KE is conserved ... BUT ... m2 has all the KE & much higher velocity than case 1. - however we see that m2 has 70% of the original system mv whilst m1 has none - this is what the sim shows & it is correct using the Conservation Laws - where did the 30% system mv go to ? - it went to the earth !

P.S. springs store energy & do not store mv.

N.B. I built this type of sim with spring intervention for pequaide 5 years ago (9th June 2009 in his "Energy Producing Experiments' thread), to show that 100% energy could be conserved but some system mv disappeared to earth.

3. the 3rd case is my rotary hypothesis - here momentum & KE is taken from the earth & given to the rotating reference frame - overall system momentum & KE is conserved, but at the local wheel level, we see a substantial INCREASE in mv & KE above starting conditions - this comes from the earth for the conservation Laws to hold true !

[FunWithGravity2]

Trying very hard to grasp the hypothetical, sorry i am not very bright although you have written it very well in laymans terns. Im still struggling a little bit with " a mass transitioning outwards will maintain" as im wondering where it recieved the initial energy. Also gravity off has me constantly trying to think "off" so i force myself to picture it/your example in the horizontal plane. The part that i have trouble understanding is the change in the moment of inertia of your rotating system now that the mass' have moved to 2r. Does this new MOI require more power to turn the system and is that where the loss is?

Not sure if that makes any sense, google redirected me to this patent on one of my "MOI flywheel" searches

relevent?

http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US8373368

I can say that i read your post several times and enjoyed it each time. But as a hypothetical of a incomplete system my mind almost exploded.(sarcasm:)


Crazy Dave

Sorry Fletch, just saw your post, this was for the previous, it will take some time to read through the new on.

[Fletcher]

I'm still struggling a little bit with " a mass transitioning outwards will maintain" as im wondering where it recieved the initial energy. ANS: The wheel is given activation energy i.e. push to get it started - this gives the mass(es) initial velocity, tangential mv, & KE at 1r - when it is released its momentum (inertia) will ensure that it moves outwards at the same speed due Newton's Laws .

Also gravity off has me constantly trying to think "off" so i force myself to picture it/your example in the horizontal plane. ANS: Yes, it's a term I think in a lot as in sim world I can turn gravity OFF so that we only have Inertia to deal with - this is the equivalent of looking down on a plan view of a horizontal wheel with a vertical axle - superior sim programs can show things in 3D but I'm limited to 2D, so I just turn gravity OFF.

Not sure if that makes any sense, google redirected me to this patent on one of my "MOI flywheel" searches

relevent? http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US8373368

ANS: that was interesting, on quick read it looks like a hub that works in the same way as a Watts governor - except as you say the CF's compress masses to supposedly to reduce the MOI - unless I'm mistaken the masses are aligned on the axle moving a right angles to the plane of hub - not sure it would have much effect as they desire ? - Anyways, it's promoted as an energy storage device.

I can say that i read your post several times and enjoyed it each time. But as a hypothetical of a incomplete system my mind almost exploded.(sarcasm:) ANS: Yes, I'm building a picture & hoping somebody can find the show-stopper - the irony being that I have built many sim models over the years (10 or 15 years) that used pendulums & the Cf effect to do a similar thing, except the gravity component allowed an easy reset - all I had to do was get the pendulum to swing higher than the starting height, LOL - never could in sim world & I was too lazy to check the geometry, trusting the sim - of course a sim is limited to its own refrence frame as I'll show it Case 2 (that's why I was asking a few months ago about whether the sim was constrained to Conservations Laws above all else) - perhaps I should have done the sums long hand way back when - I failed to appreciate what I currently think is happening & which the sim can't show in their one refernce frame - perhaps I'll get to dust them off again or rebuild similar structures this time around - let's hope someone finds the show stopper in the hypothesis to save me some work.

The part that i have trouble understanding is the change in the moment of inertia of your rotating system now that the mass' have moved to 2r. Does this new MOI require more power to turn the system and is that where the loss is?

That's an interesting question Dave - IINM the answer is no because we are using energy (force) & not torque - I'll put up a sim soonish that shows how I tested the MOI at 2r proposal v's 1r etc - it was a simple test - could stored KE in a spring rotate a spar [massless] with a 2kg mass attached to it at either 1r or 2r & give the mass the same velocity ? - the answer seemed obvious but I didn't really believe it without doing the sim - in short, the spring gives energy & we can break out the velocity a 2kg mass must have from the KE formula - so whether the mass is at 1r or 2r, or the spring pushes from the stator position or way out past 2r it will give that 2kg mass the same velocity of 8.66m/s to add to the 5m/s residual speed (total 13.66m/s), or so it seems to me at the moment.

[FunWithGravity2]

Fletcher,

you will not get a show stopper from me with regards to the path that you are on. I am just trying to wrap my head around what you are trying to share and what i assume you may be keeping for yourself. Im wondering/assuming you have a completely different mechanism with similarities in forces to this and just using these as examples where the energy is easier to calculate with storage in springs/hydraulics as opposed to.......

FWIW, i assumed that the lack of calculation of the MOI was because this was just a hypothetical force comparison of a completely different design and you just wanted us to focus on a mathematical solution as i also assume the other is more organic and far more complicated to calculate gain without losing folks attention.

But i'll stop making assumptions and see what else you have to share with us.


I do have lots of real world builds with pendulums(like your sims) and if you have any questions or are curious about a scenario that i probably have just ask and i'll share specific to your query. If that would expose to much of your thought process publically i undestand.

Thank you

Dave

[rocky]

Fletcher wrote:
“The Prime Mover Rotor is fundamentally a mechanically clutched, activated & deactivated, Roberval Balance with Stator assembly.�
“The wheel accelerates, then coasts, then accelerates, etc, gaining momentum & KE.�

It appears to me Fletcher that you are working on Tennessean Asa Jackson’s PM machine because it was also mechanically clutched and did coasting.

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.�

“The wheel diameter is 5 ft. 4 in. The axle is 1.5 in. The floor of the display case is covered with 167 parts that were around the machine when it was acquired from Doug and John Jackson, great-great-grandsons of the inventor. There are parts missing.�

“The wheel is constructed almost entirely of the hardwoods oak and hickory. There are a few metal parts like dowels, ratchet wheels, springs and weights.�

“There are three parts to the wheel, all of which rotate on a common wooden axle covered with beeswax.
1. The wheel itself has the Rim with outside teeth and cross-bracing.
2. Within the Rim is a Diamond-shaped structure.
3. Within the Diamond is an Inner Circle which has a 29 in. diameter.
The Rim, Diamond and Inner Circle can turn independently of each other within limits. These 3 components are interconnected by 24 links, levers and fulcrums.
Of these, 12 are horizontal, 11 are vertical and 1 is at an angle. In most cases the connections for all of these tend to be on even inch increments both vertical and horizontally, relative to the Main Axle.�

“There is also a Pawl and Ratchet mechanism with a system of belts and levers which interconnect with the Rim, Diamond and Inner Circle. In some of the drawings there are references to the Ratchet Side and the Washer Side of the wheel. Both sides of the wheel are identical except for a few holes in some of the Braces and the Pawl and Ratchet system. The Ratchet Side is when you are standing on the side where you can see the toothed ratchets. The Washer Side refers to the other end of the axle from the ratchet where a washer prevents the axle from shifting.�

Quotes by News-Sentinel newspaper reporter Sam Venable in article Feb. 2, 2003
“five feet in diameter�
“It was built around the time of the Civil War [1861-1865] by Tennessean Asa Jackson.�
“Museum owner John Irwin bought it in 1994 from Jackson’s descendants.�
“Jackson was very secretive. He hid his machine in a cave. Whenever he had to be gone he always removed several parts for security.�
“When Irwin purchased the machine, well over 150 unattached pieces were included.�
“It’s a given the Jackson’s wheel worked because some of the parts are worn.�

Quotes by David Brown
“The wheel was built in the 1860’s by Asa Jackson.�
“There are polished wear marks on the tooth edges. They indicate that it turned and meshed with the flywheel for a considerable length of time.�
“The wheel was passed down through the generations of the Jackson family.�
“In the 1930’s, Jack Jackson (great-grandson of Asa) attempted to restore the wheel to working condition, but didn’t succeed. After Jack’s death, the wheel passed on to his sons, Doug and John. The museum acquired the wheel from them.�
“The idea of inventing a perpetual motion machine has been around for centuries. Few have been a working model and those that were, didn’t work. However there are two exceptions: the wheels of Johann Bessler in Germany and the wheel of Asa Jackson in Tennessee.�

See the three attached photos of Jackson’s machine. I was at the museum and took many photos.
If you or anyone else would like more detailed photos of his machine, email me and I will send you a Zip file of them.

[Fletcher]

Hi Dave .. no problems, these days I'm all about sharing, even if it has show-stoppers I haven't yet thought about - I've made my share of mistakes in the past (& I'll make them again) but I usually find them in private by myself & never get to post the evolution of an idea in a thread so that others may broaden their horizons so to speak from the experience.

Actually your feedback is enjoyed coz the exchange forces me to simplify as much as possible as I think of an explanation & reply that makes sense & is easy to follow - I have noted how easy you picked up the direction so I knew you'd been there - feel free to chime in with any concepts you wish to share along similar lines.

Yes, I'm presenting a semi-mathematical model of an ideal situation - basically just momentum & simple geometry - if I've gone off the reservation now is the time to find out, with these basics.

If I can pass this muster then yes I have other ideas I built in sim world before that I felt had great potential at the time, but the sim said otherwise - this time I'm building the picture from first principles from the ground up so that I can challenge those previous sim builds outputs with better fundamental understanding - that applies if I got something wrong this time too.

[Fletcher]

Thanks Rocky .. thanks for the contribution, that was interesting - I haven't looked into Asa's wheel in a while - if you could just tell me how it works that would be great because I was never able to figure it out (same with Doc's buzzsaw) ;7)

P.S. if it worked by taking momentum & energy from the earth that would be excellent - cheers.

[Fletcher]

First & foremost the overarching principle is that ALL momentum & KE is conserved in these examples - I assume that there are no frictional losses & where background carrier wheels or springs are used they have negligible mass, & elasticity is 100%.

1. the 1st case of linear collisions re. a 2kg mass (m1) moving at 10m/s impacting a stationary 1kg mass (m2) - we suspect that the larger mass m1 will have residual velocity (& mv) in the direction of travel - system mv should always equal 20 units & system KE 100J's, both before & after collision.

2. the 2nd case inserts a spring between the two masses above - the spring is compressed as it brings m1 to a stop & its bookend is locked to the earth background - the second bookend is then released allowing the spring to accelerate m2 - in this case of spring intervention we find that all m1's energy is transferred to m2 - system mv & KE is conserved ... BUT ... m2 has all the KE & much higher velocity than case 1. - however we see that m2 has 70% of the original system mv whilst m1 has none - this is what the sim shows & it is correct using the Conservation Laws - where did the 30% system mv go to ? - it went to the earth !

P.S. springs store energy & do not store mv.

N.B. I built this type of sim with spring intervention for pequaide 5 years ago (9th June 2009 in his "Energy Producing Experiments' thread), to show that 100% energy could be conserved but some system mv disappeared to earth.

3. the 3rd case is my rotary hypothesis - here momentum & KE is taken from the earth & given to the rotating reference frame - overall system momentum & KE is conserved, but at the local wheel level, we see a substantial INCREASE in mv & KE above starting conditions - this comes from the earth for the conservation Laws to hold true !

Cases 1 & 2.

Note the differences in v, mv & KE.

Particularly in the Spring intervention sim where 70% of momentum is captured in the sim, & 30% is absent - IMO this went to the wider earth system or reference frame.

This should have given me a clue previously about how the sim program handles CoM & CoE & changing reference frames in some instances.

[Furcurequs]

Fletcher,

I've thought along similar lines in the past, and as a matter of fact, I have an idea that might be in some ways a variation of this still. It has some other added things going on with it, though, that have me scratching my head a bit and so I feel I may actually need to test it, since so far it only exists in my head.

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

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 magnitudes 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.

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. If it continues to fall another meter, we know we've essentially just added the same amount of energy again - with approximately the same force through the same distance - 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, 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.

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.

Dwayne

[rlortie]

Fletcher posted the below quote recently, I considered it reletive to our pursuit and saved it to "Notepad"

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.

Some years back when Bob Kostoff introduced his machine.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bob+kos ... channel=sb

Which he claimed relied on Cf to throw the weights outward. Two members from Overunity and myself in collaboration ran some tests on just how effective Cf was in throwing outward weights located at half radius using straight spokes.

Our results were very disappointing to say the least. It did not occur until the spoke was passing 3:00 o'clock! weight of mass verses velocity and angle of attack is very crucial here.

Where as Cf force is said to be directed not at a right angle tangent to the axis but rather at 80 degrees, the use of elliptical or semi- circle spokes is suggested. Strait spokes cause high friction as the Cf is working on the longitude of the mass and not fully utilized outwardly.

EDIT: To make my point, try the battery-coat hanger experiment using a horizontal axis.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Some years back when Bob Kostoff introduced his machine. Yes, I remember it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bob+kos ... channel=sb

Which he claimed relied on Cf to throw the weights outward. Two members from Overunity and myself in collaboration ran some tests on just how effective Cf was in throwing outward weights located at half radius using straight spokes.

Our results were very disappointing to say the least. It did not occur until the spoke was passing 3:00 o'clock! weight of mass verses velocity and angle of attack is very crucial here. Yes, IIRC it was a gravity unbalanced system, not one where the opposite weights were syncronised to stay at the same radius by gears or ropes & pulleys etc so always dynamically balanced ? If that were the case then the weight force is greater than the Cf until the spoke is near horizontal going down, so what you say makes sense.

Where as Cf force is said to be directed not at a right angle tangent to the axis but rather at 80 degrees, the use of elliptical or semi- circle spokes is suggested. Strait spokes cause high friction as the Cf is working on the longitude of the mass and not fully utilized outwardly. You've said this before Ralph & I'd like to find the source - IIRC someone once posted a pic of the stone on a string rotating around the head of a bloke (the usual scenario) - I think it was there that the concept of forward & backward vectors was introduced (as you are alluding to I think) but that was in relation to acceleration of the system i.e. increasing the rpm, or deceleration to a leser rpm IIRC - IINM Cp's in a constant rpm situation are always 90 degrees to the radial - if the weight is released its inertia means it travels tangentially from the orbit it is on ?!

EDIT: To make my point, try the battery-coat hanger experiment using a horizontal axis. If the batteries are linked as above then it is gravity neutral - what am I not understanding about what you are saying Ralph ?

Ralph

I'll answer Dwayne's observations in a short while.

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

As you are aware, I have spent considerable time reading the works of Leonhard Euler and Danial Bernoulli both students of Johann Bernoulli.

Check out this Wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_a ... fixed_axis

I have read it, that does not imply that I understand all of it!

In my above post, change the word "longitude" to diagonal.

Ralph