Scotland revisited

[Senax]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg

Two cars.

Green low road car arrives first.

Real or Fake.

Please explain your choice.

[agor95]

Now implement that in a wheel!

[johannesbender]

Remember to obey the rules of traffic when you overtake , indicate , accelerate and overtake ,indicate, decelerate and form back up .

[eccentrically1]

The reason no physicist is able to explain this is that the device is generating free 3rd derivative energy, the energy which will soon be sending oil shares into a death spiral.

[agor95]

The reason no physicist is able to explain this is that the device is generating free 3rd derivative energy, the energy which will soon be sending oil shares into a death spiral.

There you go lighting the touch paper.

If you think about it then a curved track is like a pendulum's path.

The pendulum drops and speeds up a car drops and speeds up.
The revers is true as they rise to the end height.

And that height is lower than the initial height to compensate for frictional losses.

Is there anything new to this from the last time it was shown?

P.S. Or is this a dimension time loop caused by an O.A.P. zipping past?

[Fletcher]

Racetrack with Pendulums

[Fletcher]

With tracks marked.

[Sam Peppiatt]

You are on the right track Fletcher. But, it's more like this: See thx4 video; https://youtu.be/K4r9Uqskjiy Well it's not working-----------Sam
PS See Calloway's post page 7

[Sam Peppiatt]

I see what I did wrong. The "Y" at the end has to be a capital "Y": https://youtu.be/K4r9UqskjiY _____________Sam

[Fletcher]

Hey Sam .. Mr Judgefreed is an old time member here (Crazy Dave). He has done an enormous amount of work with pendulums over 20 years and I have admiration for his work and tenacity. He calls in here occasionally and adds what he can.

What Frank was showing is the "Brachistochrone Problem"

https://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/c ... ne-problem

It's pretty easy I think to understand why the lower track gets to the same height (and end) earlier than the higher track. It has to do with acceleration and Sine and Cosine angles etc. Tho nobody needs to know all that.

Galileo used inclined ramps to show that a ball would run down a ramp and up another one to its start height (not counting frictions). And if he varied the slopes it made not a jot of difference except in time taken. IOW's velocity was the same on any track incline for a given vertical height.

The simple way to visualize it is drop a ball almost vertically down a ramp (shaped like and "L") and let it then run out horizontally for a while then up-ramp to the same start height. Do the same thing with another L ramp which doesn't let the ball fall so low.

And this is exactly the same scenario as the 2 identical pendulums "racing" that I simmed - at least I think it is.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher, First of all, I owe you big freqing apology, (more angry at my self; for what ever the reason). Anyway, didn't know this was an old problem, which is above my understanding. I must be stuck in the mud with this wheel. Will have to look at your animation again-------------Sam

[Fletcher]

No probs Sam .. the takeaway is what Galileo showed using ramps \___/ of different heights, and slopes, for entry and exit. And this is exactly the same as we see with an off-vertical standard pendulum released from any angle.

If starting from a standing start at ANY vertical height measured beneath start height the pendulum (and the ball/toy car in the race track) has exactly the same velocity, even when the masses are different. Their velocities are identical for any given height measured but their KE's are different if their masses are different, is all.

The height lost for KE gain is linear (1 unit of h lost = 1 unit of KE gain, 2 units h lost = 2 units KE gain) .. and is why the scientists are adamant (as I am) that the slope makes no difference to that KE (mgh) for height lost relationship - the opposite happens on the way up. All that is different is the time taken to reach the end of the race back at original height. The steeper entry losing more vertical height allows the car to have a greater proportion of vertical acceleration to normal acceleration (i.e. the track applies a right angle acceleration vector to the car). This means that vertical component is greater for longer than the higher track run etc and it has higher velocity running horizontal until it is ready to climb back up again and gets there quicker.

It's why mgh = m1/2v^2 => if height is known then v = sqrt(2gh). No time, slope, or torque is important in knowing this linear relationship.

Brachistochrone solves the best slope to use for some circumstances, but is essentially the Galileo experiment dressed up in algebra and integration calculus for math heads. As we know you don't need to be a math genius to understand anything about physics and mechanics. Just the ability to analyse and rationally explain what you see.

ETA : sim animation of balls (1 and 4 kgs) falling 1 and 2 units of height. 'g' set to 10 m/s/s for easier visual math.

Haven't had time to learn how to stagger the Pause Control yet - so jury-rigged it for now.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher, I went back to your pendulum experiment. Both pends. are the same length, so the period has to be the same for both. Since he lower one swings farther, and the time is the same, it has to be moving faster. It's a great demonstration for the old question-----------------Sam

PS I hate to admit it, but, I think you are right about pendulums not working; or, if there is a way, I don't know how to do it.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, I went back to your pendulum experiment. Both pends. are the same length, so the period has to be the same for both. Since the lower one swings farther, and the time is the same, it has to be moving faster. It's a great demonstration for the old question-----------------Sam

PS I hate to admit it, but, I think you are right about pendulums not working; or, if there is a way, I don't know how to do it.

You are not alone Sam .. we have all tried straight pendulums, and variations of them, with no success. We often keep going back to them in one guise or another, with the same stubborn result - they stand still - or they can't be lifted high enough to reset etc,, and then they stand still.

I don't like being the bearer of bad tidings but there it is .. I try to not hide from it and I for one certainly can't escape that reality (not that I haven't tried, many times).

What I can offer is something that helped me mentally re-frame the problem we all face, so I could better manage expectations and not be doomed to repeat past mistakes i.e. analyze, learn, and move on.

And it is this ..

ALL Out-Of-Balance (OOB) devices are just different ways of making pendulums (fancy tho they may be) .. whether they be single mechs or multiple mechs. Once given some lateral travel further from the axle they have positive torque and accelerate and rotate until the wheels CoG is below the axle (position of least GPE), then their inertia carries them on thru the balance point and upwards gaining GPE. They have negative torque after passing thru the PQ point (CoG beneath the axle) because whilst they have inertia they also have 'g' decelerating them in equal measure to what was given.

IOW's we can move objects sideways and create torque and rotation, but we always have to lift them vertically upwards to be reset closer to the axle again to have repeat conditions. And at best it is ZERO SUM GAME. No asymmetric torque, no NET positive directional force, to continue rotation. Geometry can not be fooled. Law of Levers can not be fooled.

This inescapable realization lead me to some conclusions ..

1. JB's wheels did have OOB similarities, I would even say they were mainly OOB wheels (of various formats). The Driver Motive Force that gave imbalance conditions.

2. JB had something mechanical inside that was activated and its action did provide the NET positive directional force to allow an ordinary OOB wheel to reset etc. And this was the magical device (not really - just unusual mechanics) that turned his OOB non-runners into "runners". IOW's his non-runner fancy pendulums into "runners".

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

FWIW .. You may not remember but I did build sims and a mock-up of a Ramelli wheel with short levers offset to one side at 45 degs upslope (all facing same direction and same slope). Around them (the roller carrier) I hung a looped chain to act as the Driver. The Ramelli had no torque (couldn't have any torque). The chain was offset to the side of the axle. It did rotate a little but the chain would still find its position of least GPE and settle at this PQ point. Just like any ordinary OOB wheel or fancy pendulum arrangements that rely ONLY on OOB. It visually was about the perfect OOB arrangement with chain continually out to the side - it couldn't reset - that was the clincher moment for me for 'naked' OOB "pendulums".

Anyways good luck to you all the same !

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

I'm off in the next week or two to FIji to do some R & M etc, getting organized now. After 3 years away. Departure was delayed due to a small op 2 wks ago and now its school holidays so having trouble re-booking and getting my connector flights. My house there is a tech free zone and I don't have a smart phone so will be MIA for a month or two. Best of luck to everybody. What we do have going for us as a group is resilience and perseverance in spades. And we know we need it lol.

[agor95]

Well Sam

That rounds things up.

The belief that a mass with a pivot point off the Center Of Mass is a pendulum. Everyone has tried getting a gain by using a pendulum from the beginning of time. Lets say 1717 to reduce the research.

And they all have failed.

Levers and leverage have been tested in all sorts of ways for the same length of time. Both have shown to be a 'zero sum game'.

The more complex the device the quicker it slows down.

So here we are with a stark view.

And yet some members believe there is a principle in pain sight that exists and it was found.

This is the world within this forum.

And in the pursuit for the principle people learn things about themselves and skills they did not know existed.

Regards