Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[Fletcher]

OK dax .. here is pequaide's example again - there are two pendulums.

1. lhs has two T-Bar masses (green) of 2kg each which is balanced about the pivot - there is also a driver at 3 o'cl of 1kg - all three masses are at the same radius of 1 meter.

The driver falls under acceleration due to gravity a distance of 1 meter at 6 o'cl - it loses 9.81 J's of GPE - the sum of the 3 masses KE is an equal 9.81 J's made up of driver 1.96 J's, upper mass 3.92 J's & lower mass 3.92 J's.

You will note that the upper & lower 2kg masses on the T-Bar have twice the KE of the driver at 6 o'cl.

Their velocities are all the same however because they are all circulating at the same radius from the pivot, so the difference in KE's is due to having twice the mass of the driver.

The sim says that the sum of the KE's of all rotating masses can not be greater than the GPE lost by the driver & this seems so.

2. rhs has two T-Bar masses (yellow) of 1kg each which is balanced about the pivot - there is also a driver at 3 o'cl of 1kg - the driver mass has a radius of 1 meter while the T-Bar masses have a radius of 2 meters about the pivot.

The driver falls under acceleration due to gravity a distance of 1 meter at 6 o'cl - it loses 9.81 J's of GPE - the sum of the 3 masses KE is an equal 9.81 J's made up of driver 1.09 J's, upper mass 4.36 J's & lower mass 4.36 J's.

You will note that the upper & lower 1kg masses at 2 meters radius on the T-Bar have four times the KE of the driver at 6 o'cl.

Their velocities are NOT all the same because they are circulating at different radii from the pivot - the driver at 1 meter is 1.47 m/s while the T-Bar masses are 2.95 m/s - so the difference in KE's is due to the T-Bar masses having the same mass as the driver at twice the radius going twice as fast as the driver.

The sim says that the sum of the KE's of all rotating masses can not be greater than the GPE lost by the driver & this seems so.

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

So I ask you to think about this - if MOI was subject to balance, or mr & not mr^2 for example, then it should be equally easy to rotate both pendulums - this would mean that the rhs driver would have the same velocity as the lhs driver - if that were the case then the T-Bar masses at 2 meter radius would be traveling considerably faster than this sim shows - & if you added the KE's together you would find that the sum of the KE was far greater than the GPE lost by the driver.

In sim world this just can't happen because of CoE & MOI not being equal to mr.

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

BUT, if you had a mechanical device (the RBGS) that would operate like mr regardless of the masses radius from the real CoR, then is there actually potential to create energy as pequaide has postulated, & would that have a positive contribution to turning a wheel ?

Do you think there might be some positive contributon to the theory of generating excess momentum & KE from the RBGS_MOI hypothesis ?

[Fletcher]

dax .. just to tie up a few lose ends, in case you are interested.

In the sim below I compare a rotary system to a linear system - just like the previous post pendulums.

In the lhs pendulum the drive mass is still 1kg falling 1 meter in height losing 9.81 J's of PE - but I've changed the outer masses to 0.5kg each (total 1kg at 1 meter radius).

The linear comparison is a 1kg mass falling 1 meter in height losing 9.81 J's PE - but in this case it pulls via massless ropes & a pulley a 1kg mass horizontally (presumes no frictions).

Anyway, you will note that after the driver in each example has fallen 1 meter in height that the velocities of the parts are all the same being 3.13m/s.

The important bit is that MOI predicts mr^2 which at an orbit distance of 1 meter must equal mr [ at radius 1meter MOI = mr^2 = I = m ] - and we see that the linear equivalent of the rotary system returns the same results i.e. the horizontal mass of 1kg has inertia to overcome equal to the inertia of the two 0.5kg masses at 1 meter.

That's a good thing about using the SI coherent system.

[daxwc]

Thanks Fletcher I took the time put some thought into it and re-read the thread and the last part several times.

Fletcher:

BUT, if you had a mechanical device (the RBGS) that would operate like mr regardless of the masses radius from the real CoR, then is there actually potential to create energy as pequaide has postulated, & would that have a positive contribution to turning a wheel ?

Yes.



Fletcher:

Do you think there might be some positive contributon to the theory of generating excess momentum & KE from the RBGS_MOI hypothesis ?

Yes.



So the real question does your design gain from the MOI difference? Hmm… not sure… my opinion not in the typical way one would think about harvesting it, but I guess the CF gain is working through it or because of the stable MOI provided by the RBGS. Do you really think the less energy to start to rotate it manifests itself?

[Fletcher]

So the real question does your design gain from the MOI difference? Hmm… not sure… my opinion not in the typical way one would think about harvesting it, but I guess the CF gain is working through it or because of the stable MOI provided by the RBGS.

Do you really think the less energy to start to rotate it manifests itself?

You know dax .. I'm not sure.

Put simply, & probably conservatively, I don't think the RBGS does any harm, at the least.

But the RBGS is necessary for this design to function in the way I intend - that is because the rack has to move a slight distance (less than one rack length) under inertial forces, & back again, so a continuos horizontal platform is good for that - the racks energy in the direction of rotation will be diminished (very slightly, as a function of increased radius & component vectors as per hangar & batteries CoAM experiment), as a negative, perhaps offset to some degree by the use of the RBGS.

But more importantly, it is the use of this RBGS mechanism that creates the time & distance gradient or differential that is needed in any device to provide the preferred exit path, or 'path of least resistance' if you will e.g a ball (& water) must roll down a hill, squeezed pincers can spit out a pip at velocity etc - it also forms the RB continuous lever able to change system CG & where system CoM is not co-located with system CG.

In summary, this is a very simple device where the racks inertia creates a force at the rim which acts over a long vertical distance, at a small energy cost to the rack which then resets itself - all going well it would create a partial imbalance for about a quarter revolution & would be in balance for the remainder of the revolution - add many more mechs & a wheel could be continually unbalanced at all times & self accelerate quickly to maximum unloaded rpm which would be dictated by lag time for linear movement of the rack & the circular movement of the flail 'pusher'.

I believe that there is a very good chance for the momentum & KE gain of the wheel system from the flail push stroke to be greater than the rack movement energy cost to the wheel system.

Or as you put it, breaking Mechanical Advantage doctrine for a system energy gain.

IOW's, true imbalance without a PQ point from a composite motion & gravity influence in a wheel.

[Fletcher]

I'm answering a private mail here in the thread.

'Fletcher's Motion Wheel' mechanical concept for a self sustaining wheel is based on the principle of imbalance (CG shifting) caused by dynamically generated inertial force redirection, or re-purposing, to effect system CG advantageously.

This theory of use of applied inertial force to create imbalance is quite a different concept from many traditional internal 'weight force' redistribution concepts for OOB wheel designs.

I believe the theory & hypothesis is original - the mechanical concepts efficacy is based on a hunch, or my intuition, & experience - also that the Work Energy Theorem may not hold true for ALL mechanical interactions.

News Flash :

For those immoveable from the sacrosanct Conservation Laws, who treat them as being inviolate, then consider this.

1. Take any combination of mechanical arrangements & devices found on Bessler's Toy Page, in any reincarnations you can conceive of - if Conservation Laws are inviolate then nothing derived from that page can ever lead to a 'true PMM', under any circumstances.

2. However, if a combination or iterations of devices on this page can lead to a 'true PMM' then the work-around apparent negates the item 1. argument.

[Fletcher]

Something to Ponder:

Bessler said something to the effect that once he found true PM he knew why all the other attempts had been wrong.

He also said that the wheel rotated thru imbalance & once started rotating could never again find its Punctum Quietus i.e. it could not find equilibrium of forces, or quiet point.

So what was the approach that all the failed attempts employed, that were wrong ? - we should know that quiet well ! - it is the 'trading height for width' scenario - it's also what we generically call finding the keel position or 'keeling' - what does 'keeling' really mean, that could be so wrong ?

I am more guilty than most of often describing 'keeling' as a system finding its position of lowest Potential Energy, or where its CG is at the least vertical height - & of course what goes down must be lifted up i.e. a mass moved out on the descending side must be lifted up & in on the ascending side - it seems a system where 'keeling' wasn't an immediate show stopper concern might be a way forward.

So ... what could cause imbalance once rotating, & could not find Punctum Quietus, & was not 'trading width for height', & did not utilise common 'keeling' mechanics ?

Something to Ponder !

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

ETA: the Potential Energy in Fletcher's Motion Wheel does not change - IOW's the virtual CG shifts sideways but does not lose any vertical height.

[Fletcher]

I have steered clear of this thread as I do not believe the concept is workable for a number of reasons. I have been waiting for the words "add more mechanisms" which finally was mentioned.

IMO doing so will put you right back into the "width for height" syndrome no matter how ingenious your RGBS mechanism might be. I am open to be proven wrong!

Ralph

This quote is pulled from Grimer's Priority Claim thread - at the time it had me wondering whether Ralph was talking to Frank or me, since the second last sentence definitely does refer to my concepts in this thread - and I did mention adding more mechanisms to give continuous down-going torque, or permanent imbalance.

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

Ans: my concept is not a standard 99.9999% mass redistribution model & can not fit the description of suffering from 'trading height for width' syndrome because no internal mass, or alternatively the entire system itself, ever loses any Potential Energy (PE), therefore it can never 'keel', or suffer from keeling.

The CG is shifted sideways & back to create imbalance - this is not weight imbalance but force imbalance.

A sideways force is morphed into a down-going force at the rim with mechanics, which creates a turning moment, or torque.

Thanks for your comments anyway Ralph.

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

My face is red and I feel like an arse! When I wrote the above, I did not realize I was on Grimer's thread, I thought I was here on this thread!

For this dumb-ass mistake I sincerely apologize to both, you and Grimer.

So, if you have objectively proved that your idea is indeed valid, do you plan on or are you building it?

The first seasonal Alaska cold front hit here driving temperature down well below freezing, four to five inches of snow is forecast within the next two days! I cannot afford the expense to heat my shop, doctors and hospitals believe they should come first, so I am likely down for the winter!

Not all is in vain though! it is giving me time to ponder new ideas and having innovation hit me like a slap in the face. I have been hung up for weeks giving thought and three attempts using different concepts for a component for my fluid drive design. Halfway through the third attempt, a
simple idea fell upon me like a ton of bricks! The old touche' I could not see the forest for the trees!

With this hurdle met, I can now lay back, rest and wait for the bears to come out of hibernation.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

No problem Ralph - ain't it grand when inspiration strikes - I find sleeping on it helps - perhaps over the winter even better ways to implement something will come to you & save some time & expense later.

Actually I'm really looking forward to yours & others ideas that don't involve trading width for height & keeling concepts - I gave those away permanently many years ago, & never went back - so much so that I can barely skim thru a new presentation as soon as I recognize it as one - my patience & tolerance is done.

My ideas are open source - my workshop back in NZ is unavailable & I don't have one here to do any builds myself - I am happy having contributed a concept & theory that I think is original that is not 'trading width for height' - & I am happy that no one else can pilfer the ideas on this thread & lock it up with patents for their own enrichment, should anybody want to build something based on my ideas - ultimately I firmly believe the answer will be close to what I have proposed.

[Fletcher]

Ralph .. I've seen you quote these lines before, so I thought I'd tell you what I think Bessler was saying in relation to his true PM machines v's machine concepts that are not perpetual e.g. trading width for height concepts - it is quite simple IMO.

They look similar, or have similar form - however, their material characteristics (their mechanics or mechanical principles) are quite different i.e. one trades width for height using various contrivances including levers etc & doesn't work, & the other true machine also uses contrivances including levers etc & does work.

The difference is in the fundamental principle of generating imbalance created by the mechanics employed.

"as an example of the ideas I am discussing, consider the case of two small metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, their FORM consists in their regular sphericity. But we find that placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker than the other.

Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to both - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference." - pg 221

"The case is no different from that of a leaden or even waxen sphere. They are both as perfectly deserving of the description "sphere" as is an iron one, despite the fact that the latter will withstand fire and other attacks better than the two former. For form give the essence of the thing." - pg 222

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

I of course have read your above quote many, many times!

I have thought about and attempted to put it into various usefulness including Kenrick's natural movement or vibrations of things on a molecular level.

I also like to take key words and browse for links that could possibly be entwined/imposed with Bessler, his era, peers and acquaintances.

Here is an excerpt from Wiki on the key word "essence" for example:

In the history of western thought, essence has often served as a vehicle for doctrines that tend to individuate different forms of existence as well as different identity conditions for objects and properties; in this eminently logical meaning, the concept has given a strong theoretical and common-sense basis to the whole family of logical theories based on the "possible worlds" analogy set up by Leibniz and developed in the intentional logic from Carnap to Kripke, which was later challenged by "extensionalist" philosophers such as Quine.

I look for ties or things happening with people that Bessler knew and that could have left him with impressionable thoughts.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

I think he is essentially saying that form & essence are the same thing.

But the physical characteristics (the arrangement) of the mechanics employed in a true PM wheel is the 'material accident' (the principle) which is the formal cause (the reason) that the true PM wheel works, & others do not.

In the same way that a sphere is the form & the essence.

But the physical characteristics of each spheres material makeup is inherent or innate to that material & is the cause of why they behave differently.

[Blitzbrain]

Hi Fletcher,

I am entering this discussion quite late, and you might judge me just "flying by" but I have a few ideas regarding all attempts for wheels made up in this and other forums:

Why does Bessler talk about the fact, that one half of the wheel is empty and one is filled. Any other attempt, that is not regarding this major claim of Besslers' will have to cope with the uprising wheight on the other side if one wheight did go down (and have its effect) on the first half revolution of the wheel...

http://youtu.be/vVT69Pde4Zo?list=PL9BBE4A531E3176EC

The guy in the video here is NOT a true gravity man (because he uses electricity for the moving parts...)... but comes close to an interesting idea... he always keeps his wheights active.... and when going up the other side... it is inactive...:

I tried to contact this guy... unfortunataly he seems to have vanished from the net... Maybe he was to clear on his location? (Watch hios other movies)...

I don't know whether his machine is effective... but sometimes it pays to "look over the fence"... and this machin does perpetual spinning... until the battery is empty...

Bessler found a way to bring back his effective wheights to the start position while the wheel was spinning.

And there is a second thought I want to "throw in"...

Whe bessler claims, that one half of his wheel was empty... than what if he did not use 8 effective wheights but only 4... which he repeatedly was able to move on one side of his wheel.

if you calculate whith the levers in his wheel, he had a total force of roundabout 150 kg at the axis of his wheel, while having 6 kg positioned on the rim of the wheel. One wheight (2kg) was always in the air... with this kind of reflection on this... Must have been pretty easy to move 2kg whith 150 kg of force... the question is: How he managed it...

Now imagine him giving tension on a spring with 150 kg at the axis just to release this power to a 2 kg wheight... would that be possible?

Just food for thought...

BTW... I suggest everyone to build a wheel before thinking of it how it works. Just set up a proper wheel... let's say 1 meter in diameter with a ball beared axle in the middle.... and then start working from there. Why do I suggest this...? It is amazing, what you can learn from this wheel... Try all kinds of mechanisms... I use fischertechnik for that (German old school kind of LEGO system from the 80s...) You learn a lot just by seeing the wheel spin... and start poisitioning wheights on it, move them, put levers etc. to it... it gives a lot moere lessons than to be critizised here in the forum...

For instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaGH3DZa ... ZJGeYVkRfw

I wish you a lot of succes in any direction...

[Fletcher]

Hi Blitzbrain .. I will attempt to answer some of your questions.

The crux of what you talk about is that science explains a gravity field as being conservative - this means that as long as a weight is given PE by an external source then providing it has a pathway to follow that allows it to lose that PE gained it will convert it into a lesser amount of KE & frictional energy losses - NEVER is there more KE than the PE given in the first instance - additionally by giving the the weight PE & providing the system CG is not directly below or above the vertical line of the axle then torque will be created to turn the wheel - but this torque which is applied over a vertical distance (F x D) also results in no more than the PE initially given to the weight - see "Work Energy Equivalence Theorem".

It can be summed up as the 'trading width for height (TWFH) argument' in a nut shell - please read the link given to fully understand why a gravity ONLY system that has torque, but loses PE, can NEVER self sustain itself, because it has frictional energy losses, & can not restore its PE initially given & eventually will find its position of lowest PE or what is called its PQ point (position of force equilibrium or quiet point).

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 165#130165

Why does Bessler talk about the fact, that one half of the wheel is empty and one is filled ?

Bessler gives a series of comments about his wheels in many sources - some are literal (direct/basic) & some are metaphorical & often they are mixed together - he did not want to disclose his exact mechanical method of self sustaining motion, so sometimes he chose to make comments that were more allegories or symbolism (e.g. toy page) - this is one instance IMO - he meant half full half empty not in the literal sense but was referring to the force (not weight imbalance) that caused the torque occurring on one side of the wheel, IMO.

He could truthfully say that, & if you didn't know what he was talking about, & if you were misdirected, well whose fault is that ...

Any other attempt, that is not regarding this major claim of Besslers' will have to cope with the uprising weight on the other side if one weight did go down (and have its effect) on the first half revolution of the wheel...

http://youtu.be/vVT69Pde4Zo?list=PL9BBE4A531E3176EC

Bessler found a way to bring back his effective weights to the start position while the wheel was spinning.

And there is a second thought I want to "throw in"...

Where bessler claims, that one half of his wheel was empty... then what if he did not use 8 effective weights but only 4... which he repeatedly was able to move on one side of his wheel.

Now imagine him giving tension on a spring with 150 kg at the axis just to release this power to a 2 kg weight... would that be possible?

Just food for thought...

NO, I don't believe for a second that he found a way to restore full PE (see above) as he said he learned the hard way that it was a waste of time & effort - he found a new way to cause torque that could self sustain a wheels motion & it didn't involve weights losing PE, therefore there was no need to restore the compliment of PE.

BTW... I suggest everyone to build a wheel before thinking of it how it works. Just set up a proper wheel... let's say 1 meter in diameter with a ball beared axle in the middle.... and then start working from there. Why do I suggest this...? It is amazing, what you can learn from this wheel... Try all kinds of mechanisms... I use fischertechnik for that (German old school kind of LEGO system from the 80s...) You learn a lot just by seeing the wheel spin... and start positioning weights on it, move them, put levers etc. to it... it gives a lot more lessons than to be critizised here in the forum...

For instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaGH3DZa ... ZJGeYVkRfw

Nice build ! - I personally have built many wheels & platforms & conducted countless experiments before I moved on to the sim program - there I conducted countless more - it didn't take too long to realize the truth of conservative gravity argument & recognizing trading width for height (TWFH) as an absolute dead end.

It took many years for me to finally figure out a way to create torque in a wheel from inertial forces (as a result of dynamic motion) that could sustain system motion, in theory - it involved the RBGS, an hanging artificial horizon (or stationary axle alternative), a rack & pinion, a flail, & a rim stop at the perimeter of the wheel.

I hope that by sharing my ideas & reasoning that I can lever open the door that traps closed minds & open a flood gate of ideas & opportunities based on his new approach of force redirection & NOT traditional weight redistribution & losing PE.

I believe I have covered the first (& possibly the only way) that it can be done, but man is inventive & other competing ideas based on the same or a similar principle may come to light now that an alternate method to TWFH is finally suggested & exampled.

Of course, I can not factor the 'finger in ears reaction' which is also a human condition, especially for those heavily invested in TWFH ideology.

[Fletcher]

"Jumping to Conclusions" is also a human condition & this is exactly what Bessler was counting on to keep his secret, unless you were of sufficient discerning mind.