Blood From Stone

[Sam Peppiatt]

To @

I've tried to explain how Bessler's wheel worked, in considerable detail, to old members and new alike. Yet no one shows any interest what so ever; so, I say again; I'm wasting my time and, apparently yours too.

Sam Peppiatt

[cloud camper]

Perhaps you should consider constructing a wheel exactly to your description and then demonstrate it in operation lifting 70 lb stacks of bricks as Bessler did.

I'm sure many more would be interested then!

Good luck Sam!

[Sam Peppiatt]

CC,

Thanks Cloud Camper!! I'll need it. I wish I had your mill---------------Sam

[silent]

.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Silent,

Sure, here goes---------the weights slide on spokes of a wheel. They work in pairs, as one slides in the other slides out. Every half turn of the wheel they have to reset. I.E., they have to shift from one side of the wheel to the other,
to keep it constantly OOB.

It's easy to move the weights when the spokes are horizontal but, this always leads to bottom heaviness. The weights arrive too late to do any good. So; for the wheel to work it has to be continually top heavy and or bottom light at the same time.

An easy way to do this, is to make the spokes similar to the shape of a swastika. Now, the weights can shift from side to side when the spokes are more or less horizontal. At, or about, the 12:00 and 6:00 o'clock positions. In other words, the wheel can be made top heavy and bottom light without lifting the weights up.
Are you with me so far?

[Sam Peppiatt]

Continued,

Up to this point everything is pretty obvious. But still have to shift the weights in and out / side to side. This is the most novel part of the invention and the most difficult to describe.

The weights slide on a fixed rod that forms the outer arm of the swastika. Another rod, parallel to the fixed rod, can tip in closer or out from the fixed rod.
A single spring extends from the weight on the fixed rod to a bearing on the movable rod. As one end of the movable rod moves closer or farther away, ( from the fixed rod), tension on the spring, will cause the weight to slide back and forth / in and out, along the two rods.

The movable or pivoting rod is controlled by a compound lever that extends in towards the center of the wheel. It is activated by a small weight.

This hasn't been tried yet. Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Follow up,

When the movable rod tips 7 degrees, (7 degrees from being parallel), the spring will move the weight up a slope of 30 degrees, ( on the fixed rod).

I think it has a good chance of working but, will just have to try it and see.

Sam Peppiatt

[silent]

.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Silent,

No, I can't draw it. I chose six spokes, rather than four, to avoid the swastika shape. But it's a lot more work making six of every thing.

Sam

[MrVibrating]

Here's that last rig, augmented with OB torque by retarding the clutch engage angle:




..takes bigger initial steps, but only hastening the inevitable degradation with rising speed..


Done more tests trying to replicate the effect with CF force - switched to pumping a radial mass in and out under CF, instead of rotating in and out - the idea being to eliminate the weight's angular momentum from the interaction - however the same net result; vMoI's do not gain momentum from CF force, as they do from gravity.

As such, my previous 'conclusion' that this means it's safe to actually gain momentum from gravity is a total non-sequitir - on the contrary, if momentum's conserved, but a vMoI definitively gains it under gravity, then it must be altering Earth's resting state!

Dunno, will post up the CF tests if anyone's interested in seeing more negative results..

Been too busy to update, but completed pretty much every test i've outlined. No major advances.. until today, perhaps..

Quick recap - accumulating momentum from gravity's actually mechanically very simple:



..here, lifting weight radially, after dropping it through the angular plane, means we get to keep all of the angular momentum obtained from the drop.. and the one after that, and every one thereafter.

We're only adding energy there - all of the momentum is coming from gravity. No torque's applied at the axle. Just radial lifts, which conserve angular momentum.

This process would be terrifyingly OU, but for the ever-rising cost of the centrifugal workload required. And so, as ever, the cost of accumulating momentum this way perfectly squares with half em-vee squared.

So, surely, the obvious way forwards is to simply raise the weights radially, from 6 o' clock BDC as above, only without paying for the centrifugal work! Cos if we haven't paid for the CF work, then the extra KE we gain each time we drop the weight, adding even more momentum, must be free, right?

So as before, we drop the weights from 12 o' clock TDC, from whence they rotateth downwards, so imbuing the net system with the vital vis viva from gravity, and then, when they reach 6 o' clock BDC we just lift them radially, straight up again, without paying for any CF work cos it ain't worth it otherwise, and then simply repeat, ad insanitum.

Each time the weight rotates downwards again, it adds even more momentum, because gravity's not speed-dependent, so the KE value of that accumulating momentum just squares right up, as if the weight were falling through infinite height.

Yet the cost of re-lifting it is always just its regular GPE - gravity times mass times height - none of which are time-dependent, or thus speed-dependent - because we're totally ignoring the CF forces..!

So, the amount of KE we get, for constant GPE input, just goes through the roof!

Far as i can see, this makes for kick-ass OU - simply by forgetting all about the CF forces, and the fact that they inevitably rise with velocity!

Why didn't anyone think of this before?

[MrVibrating]

..look, here's a quick outline:




..now you tell me this:


• if we can change GPE without changing MoI, what CF is there to pay for?

• what will happen to the relationship between GPE as a function of GMH, and GKE as a function of the accumulating momentum?


Perhaps it's not even necessary to keep it perfectly balanced like this.. maybe, provided there's no net change in MoI, the masses can move at equal speed, simplifying the mechanics.. there'll be a small drop in MoI as they pass mid-radius, but starting and ending MoI's are the same each lift, so the net cost should be neutral?

Maybe we could knock up a scissorjack that replicates this acceleration curve? Simple maths at heart, acceleration as a function of radius (MoI = mr²) - can automate it in sim-world of course but we could also plot out the acceleration curve and maybe match it with tailored jacks.. that'd be cool.

But yeah, how simple is that? This is all you need to decouple GPE from GKE, far as i can make out... Maybe i've been staring at the toys page too long, dunno..

[MrVibrating]

Here's actually testing it rotating (minor detail):




..the wobble there's only cos i'm using a reactive function to accelerate one mass in relation to the other's constant speed.


If you wanna do your own checks, just accelerate one mass inwards at the same rate the other decelerates outwards, et voila.

Looks to me like the PE cost of these radial lifts is gonna sum cumulatively.. while the KE benefit keeps going squaring up..

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

Continued,

Up to this point everything is pretty obvious. But still have to shift the weights in and out / side to side. This is the most novel part of the invention and the most difficult to describe.

The weights slide on a fixed rod that forms the outer arm of the swastika. Another rod, parallel to the fixed rod, can tip in closer or out from the fixed rod.
A single spring extends from the weight on the fixed rod to a bearing on the movable rod. As one end of the movable rod moves closer or farther away, ( from the fixed rod), tension on the spring, will cause the weight to slide back and forth / in and out, along the two rods.

The movable or pivoting rod is controlled by a compound lever that extends in towards the center of the wheel. It is activated by a small weight.

This hasn't been tried yet. Sam

There's no time-dependence. Your input and output fields are both GPE's - you want a 'drop weight' / 'shift-weight' to do some work moving another mass that will cause OB. But the most amount of OB work the shift-weight can line up is equal to its own GPE, or else it'll just keel. Closed-loop trajectories through static fields, by definition, yield zero net energy.

The way forwards is to keep at your old gravity wheels, but instead of looking at 'em in terms of energy, in the first instance... momentum is the name of the OU game..

[MrVibrating]

Whew I thought we had scared you off! Sorry for all the hoopla.

Thanks for sharing all your insights - I always love them! So in-depth I just can't ever understand it all, but I try.

I watched closely how your weights behaved in that last diagram and they behave like a spring is attached between the 2. The bottom weight falls first, it stretches the spring, thumps against the bottom, and then the spring pulls the top weight down.

If that last diagram was meant to be spinning, then it looks like those diagrams where weights shift back and forth on a crossbar.

Neat stuff and thanks for sharing!

silent

Honestly ain't read the intervening pages, will skip back when i get time. Just wanna log anything that might be 'progress'..

Dunno if the latest idea's even theoretically sound yet, need to test it.
Probably just unity, gaining 1 J KE for every J of lifted GPE, at best.. but scraping for exploits, lifting radially, raising GPE, without changing MoI.. c'mon, how natty is that? Gotta be some kind of finders fee in one of these schemes sooner or later..