Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[Fletcher]

Trevor .. the last pic was of a standard weight lifted into position RBGS - what you gain in wheel KE is the same as the PE you provided to lift the weight on a string & place it on the rim stop - this is why all these weight force variations don't work - RAR are trying to alter the pin locking position on the pantograph version but that doesn't work either, IMO.

I have tried just about every combination known to man to use the rack/slider connected to ropes & pulleys to lift another weight somewhere else (giving it PE & torque) to create weight imbalance - I can do it but I never get more KE out of the wheel than the horizontal component or velocity, momentum & KE lost by the rack (as per the hangar & batteries experiment) - I also tried using flails to impact the rim stop but it was a one off shot which wasted energy.

But by all means build a standard RBGS & see the behaviour - it is still interesting but you will soon see & feel the problems.

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

dax .. yes, the MOI is a consideration - the interesting thing from my perspective is the balance as you say - my rationale is that if force is applied at the rim at a longer arm then an equal & opposite force will be experienced by the outer gear of the RBGS - leverage wins - a force is a force is a force - so it should have the same effect as taking weight off the RBGS & placing it on the rim stop at a longer arm, but of course the force being applied for a far greater vertical distance as mentioned above - that unknown & only speculated on force imbalance concept is what is so fascinating to me about this design idea & theory, & the MOI contribution to the hypothesis.

As said, it is impossible for me to describe this intriguing machine concept in known physics terms, because there appears a break in symmetry theorem, if it holds true in practice - either way a great opportunity to learn something of value I think.

ETA: I think the easiest theory would be that the Work Energy Theorem doesn't hold true for ALL situations.

Or you could invoke Ken B's explanation of mass in motion loses some matter i.e. energy equals matter, therefore for a wheel to export energy mass must be evapourating into energy since the material doesn't change atomic number - nah, just kidding.

[Tarsier79]

Why are you so sure there is sudden change of moi? My opinion is that MOI is not what you apply force to to get energy, but is just a measure of the ratio of rotation vs KE.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

I have built many variations of geared lever balance, I must confess most of which were Out of Balance Wheel attempts, when I get time I will be building more Geared balance to find the best option to counter balance the negative shift of CG on my lever systems (Geo Genny's), although the push over wheels systems will take some beating because of there efficiency. Long story Short, I will build the RBGS with a counter weight as I proposed, only I will remove the generators, or do a test before adding the generators, it is my next build anyway so will not take much extra time.

I am still not convenience the flail system will do much work on the rim because most of the weight will be on the pivot point until just before 3 and just after 3 the gear starts moving the system back away from the rim, it seem a small window of opportunity.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Something went wrong.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

Double post, so I will use it, while I was clearing my garage I found some of my old blue flat hose I used for reservoirs I may also build in time the experiment I suggested on you other thread.

[daxwc]

MY Quote earlier:

But it is the sudden change of MOI that is part of the appeal of the RBGS, not just the CF of the slider Trevor. Although I am not convinced the balanced is completely broken and the MOI felt just because it is levered on.

I will try to explain it with the pantograph RB because the RBGS goes into the Z plane and harder to understand at first glance.

In the first picture the pin is pulled and the weights are felt exactly where they are and the whole pantograph collapses and rotates. This is what you are implying is happening with the RBGS in your design Fletcher but there is no break of structure that I can see.

In the second picture just a force is applied to the pantograph and the balance will rotate just till the force added is balanced, but the weights are still balanced on the structure. You have not got the weights to feel their exact weight to where they are in lateral space and change MOI.

Would be happy to be wrong Fletcher, just show me where I am lacking in understand :)

[Fletcher]

dax .. I stated at the beginning of this thread that I observed something unusual IMO about the RB, in terms of a possible MOI anomaly, & this started me on the track of investigating RB's & evolving to RBGS's.

What I noticed I show in the pic below & the attached sim - it also applies to the pantograph RB as you have shown.

I will attempt to explain what I consider counter-intuitive behaviour, or at least not entirely expected at first glance.

I have 3 identical RBGS pendulums - on each is attached a 2kg mass - each mass is at a different location on the platform - effectively the mass is at a greater & greater radius from the real COR from left to right - they are released from 3 o'cl - they swing under gravity to 6 o'cl - they all arrive at 6 o'cl in the same time with each mass having the same velocity, momentum, & KE - MOI says that objects at a greater radius are harder to turn or take greater effort to accelerate - for the RB & RBGS this doesn't appear to be true.

My explanation about why this is so ...

Each mass although at a different radius from the real COR will lose the same PE - assuming no system losses then each mass will have the same velocity, momentum, & KE at any vertical height after release - therefore they arrive at 6 o'cl in the same time, or the pendulums have the same periods.

In reality the mass is constrained to follow a circular path by the actions of the RBGS - it is the same circular path as the outer gear but displaced to the right - IOW's the mass follows a virtual COR to the right of the real COR.

The significance ...

Any length of platform, with any mass located anywhere on it, will behave exactly like a simple pendulum with the same radius of gyration, or radius of rotation.

This applies to your RB diagrams also !

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

When I come back I will give an example & explain pequaides mr v's mr^2 argument in terms of MOI & simple pendulums - & why balance (law of levers) does not equal an MOI of mr, AND NEVER CAN.

This should provide some sort of comparison to this post conclusions for you to ponder.

[Dunesbury]

Then what difference does it make to use RB? If it equalizes torque at end of arm, is it going to end up another zero sum at end of flail?

Earlier you said driver resets because CF's were greater on end of flail not pushing on rim stop. If flail is balanced, and it is connected to torque equalizing mechanism, are you sure this would happen?

[Fletcher]

Then what difference does it make to use RB? If it equalizes torque at end of arm, is it going to end up another zero sum at end of flail?

No, I don't think it is zero sum game just because we use a RBGS - the RBGS is a torque equalising device, as weight is applied anywhere on the platform, & providing the Counter Weight end is of the same total mass - if we apply force on the rim stop from the flail then Newtons Laws say there should be an equal & opposite reaction force - I think this will be felt at the outer gear, precisely because it is a RBGS - could be wrong but hard to know without a physical build.

Anyway, due to laws of leverage, the flail force is applied at a longer arm than the reaction force at the shorter arm on the same side of the lever - this should create a CW torque.

N.B. I don't believe there is any difference in weight force or just plain force - IOW's we can lift a weight (weight force) & place it on the rim stop - the outer gear will feel less weight force, but law of levers says the system will rotate CW due to leverage torque - in my case I don't have to lift any real weight, just apply a force thru the flail.

Earlier you said driver resets because CF's were greater on end of flail not pushing on rim stop. If flail is balanced, and it is connected to torque equalizing mechanism, are you sure this would happen?

Huh ? .. the driver resets after the shaft is past 6 o'cl, because the angle between the platform & the shaft is less than 90 degrees - this 'opens' the angle allowing the driver to move to a greater radius, which allows the driver to move back to its starting position - in doing so it stands up the flail to its original vertical orientation.

[Dunesbury]

Sorry , you said it here on page 9 reply to Dave?

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... &start=120


No problems Dave.

It is quite simple really when you see that the red driver mass (piston) moves out to the right a small ways due to Cf's (inertia & momentum) N.B. it does need a latch & release system - because the driver is geared to the double ended balanced flail (which moves under Cf's as well) then energy is only expended to rotate the flail via the rack & pinion, not lift it as we all have tried to do at one time or another & is the bane of all Roberval Balance systems trying to create weight unbalance, to date.

N.B. the horizontal 'structure' is moving away from (lagging behind) the rim stop position in relative terms creating a distance differential & gradient we can exploit & use as an 'escape' path so to speak - all systems need a differential of some sort.

Anyway, the flail (yellow m2) keeps contact with the rim stop & applies pressure to it because of Cpf's in the driver, which in turn keeps the flail against the rim stop & applying force till after 3 o'cl, when they move apart.

After 6 o'cl greater Cf's in the outer flail mass (green m2) closest the rim starts the processs of the flail returning to vertical orientation assisted by the Cf's of the driver transitioning back to the left again to reset.

Hope that helps your visualization process when your head clears, wish I was there ;7)

[Fletcher]

After 6 o'cl greater Cf's in the outer flail mass (green m2) closest the rim starts the processs of the flail returning to vertical orientation assisted by the Cf's of the driver transitioning back to the left again to reset.

Yes, there is two things happening after 6 o'cl.

1. the driver angle 'opens' allowing the driver/rack to reposition back to the left of the beam - this is due to Cf's, or inertial forces if you prefer, since Cf's are fictitious forces.

2. the flail is in a horizontal position at that time - it is a balanced mechanism with equal mass wheel weights at each end - the green m2 (from memory) is closer to the rim, therefore it has a greater radius than the opposite inner end one - at greater radius it experiences greater Cf's (inertial forces) than the inner one on the other end of the flail - it will assist the standing up of the flail but its contribution is small, because the wheel weights have little mass or CF's - it was incidental detail for the purests ;7)

ETA: are I think I see some possible confusion - in my drwing I showed the shaft well past 6 0'cl - when the inner would have more Cf's (they have the same velocity; mv^2/r) - this happens later when past 6 o'cl but by then the rack is moving left standing up the flail, which is low mass as said.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

I have 3 identical RBGS pendulums - on each is attached a 2kg mass - each mass is at a different location on the platform - effectively the mass is at a greater & greater radius from the real COR from left to right - they are released from 3 o'cl - they swing under gravity to 6 o'cl - they all arrive at 6 o'cl in the same time with each mass having the same velocity, momentum, & KE - MOI says that objects at a greater radius are harder to turn or take greater effort to accelerate - for the RB & RBGS this doesn't appear to be true.

Agreed.

Any length of platform, with any mass located anywhere on it, will behave exactly like a simple pendulum with the same radius of gyration, or radius of rotation.
This applies to your RB diagrams also !

Agreed.

I guess I am confused are you or are you not trying to harvest this also with your design?

[Fletcher]

I think it has a place in the scheme of things - how much importance I don't know - the main theory is that the flail makes contact & applies a force at the rim stop somewhere around 1-1.30 o'cl - & contrary to Trevor's opinion it keeps applying a force until about 3 o'cl.

This means that it applies a force over quite a vertical distance - a far greater vertical distance & time than an equivalent Standard weight transfer RBGS would do which is very short time & vertical distance indeed.

If there are equal & opposite forces applied as described in previous posts & they are applied over a large distance & for a long time then that is an opportunity for the structure to accelerate & gain momentum & KE.

Whilst the Standard model can not achieve greater system KE than the PE given from external sources to lift the hanging weight onto the rim stop - that is limited by CoE Law.

As mentioned, IMO, it is impossible to describe this in normal physics terms, because symmetry theorem does not allow for a gain in system momentum & KE - I am happy to think of it in terms of a composite theory of best fit that is partially understandable in known terms.

[daxwc]

Fletcher Quotes:

I think it has a place in the scheme of things - how much importance I don't know - the main theory is that the flail makes contact & applies a force at the rim stop somewhere around 1-1.30 o'cl - & contrary to Trevor's opinion it keeps applying a force until about 3 o'cl.

Agreed but this is the CF applied force.

This means that it applies a force over quite a vertical distance - a far greater vertical distance & time than an equivalent Standard weight transfer RBGS would do which is very short time & vertical distance indeed

Agreed.

If there are equal & opposite forces applied as described in previous posts & they are applied over a large distance & for a long time then that is an opportunity for the structure to accelerate & gain momentum & KE.

Fair enough Fletcher, but I don’t agree you have used any of the MOI anomaly due to as my second picture states you have not broken balance of the RBGS you have just applied a force to one end of it.



,

[Fletcher]

Yes, that's right - but I'll come back with the second drawings & see if you think there might be some influence.

Normally when a driver moves to a greater orbit in other devices it increases MOI.