Hypothesis .. Raising GPE without using Law of Levers ? ..

[Fletcher]

All good Graham .. enjoy your drinks mate, you earned them - I'm off in a couple of hours to do the same ..

Have a good read and think tomorrow about the sim I show - just remember this as you think it thru logically in the cold light of day - there are no forces in play at any time other than gravity - the control experiment does not lose any mv ( tick ) - if energy was lost to the ropes from deformation losses as you speculate then the mv of the comparison truck and trailer experiments would show a proportional loss in momentum because their velocities would be slightly less after the rope goes taut .. the last 2 trailer experiment would have double rope losses and even less velocities ..

** iow's, the KEt loss would be even greater IINM .. both comparison experiments hold their Total mv from start to pause so no loss to ropes whether 1 trailer or 2 ..

See you on the morrow, and cheers ..

[Fletcher]

Mornin ..while you are contemplating the sim Graham, here is another from a slightly different perspective - this time all experiments have a total mass ( inertia ) of 3.0 kgs but each lead-out cart has a different mass ( inertia ) - the lead carts have the same mv from frame one of the simulation ( i.e. as tho they were already given an equal impulse ) .. once again no forces involved other than gravity to change motion, just inertial interplay ..

This time the graph plots are perhaps easier to see and interpret as we can see the starting KEt's are quite different altho their total momentums are identical and remain identical .. n.b. their final KEt's are identical ..

** it appears to me that Local Momentum is conserved but Energy is not ( Killer of the Local Energy ), as per the previous sim experiment .. if you or anyone can reason it differently my ears will be burning ;7) .. sim attached ..

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



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

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher, I have been busy with a few things today but finally got back to your post.

I'm not sure that I am going to be much help because when I looked at it again with a clearer head it seems that what your sim is doing is correct.

The kinetic energy is going into the rope and for now that's the best answer I can give.

Momentum is conserved because there's no reason for it not to be in a closed system.

I have to admit that this is difficult for me to see clearly and that always gives me an uneasy feeling so if you can show that what I am saying is wrong then I'm prepared to eat humble pie.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher, I have been busy with a few things today but finally got back to your post.

I'm not sure that I am going to be much help because when I looked at it again with a clearer head it seems that what your sim is doing is correct.

Yes, it models real-world behaviour as correctly and accurately as a mathematical construct that is ring fenced inside the Laws of Physics can allow, with no actual physical interactions - i.e. it's a very good and accurate facsimile and predictor of physical behaviour between objects imo - programs like Working Model and Solid Works ( and a bunch of others no doubt ) have to be "reliable and dependable" because they are used daily in many commercial and industrial settings ..

The kinetic energy is going into the rope and for now that's the best answer I can give.

Bluntly, yes it is - and I hope I can explain the technical detail I worked out satisfactorily to you - of the what, why, and how of it which is the important bit for my hypothesis about gaining "free" energy from a pulsed swinger - I'll do this as soon as I have the spare time, so bare with me until then, and again as you digest the detail and implications as I see them ..

Momentum is conserved because there's no reason for it not to be in a closed system.

Absolutely ! - that's my mantra ;7) - it underpins all in a physical wheel - Conservation of Momentum is the bottom line for everything in Classical Physics imo - change Momentum and depending on how you do that you also change the make-up of the system Energy proportionally i.e. Energy is the capacity to do Work { WD = Energy, and, Energy = WD => KEt is a subset of 'Energy' that does physical Work } enshrined in the Work Energy Principle of Classical Physics - and just perhaps WEEP's unbending rigour can be manipulated to raise up weights for "free" as I am proposing - I'll revisit that in the light of this excursion to give some deeper background to the Momentum and KEt relationship in physical systems ..

I have to admit that this is difficult for me to see clearly and that always gives me an uneasy feeling so if you can show that what I am saying is wrong then I'm prepared to eat humble pie.

re. uneasiness, no need to eat anything except for some information - let's see if my explanations are somewhat plausible to you for the slack rope sims KEt loss and hopefully both of us can move forward a little more sure that we have some of the variables to understanding Momentum and KEt relationship in the sims ( and real-world ) stowed away and shipshape ..

Graham

ETA .. just for clarity sake - there are always energy losses in physical systems like the mechanics of weight displacement OOB wheels - these dissipative energy losses to "deformation" ( heat, sound, light, vibration etc ) will always happen - in a mechanical wheel we are more focused on capacity to do Work and Work Done - and that takes the form of Kinetic Energy and Potential Energy ( KEt and GPE ) which are the useful bits for us if we hope to create torque asymmetry, repeatable overbalance, of a runner ..

[Gregory]

Mornin ..while you are contemplating the sim Graham, here is another from a slightly different perspective - this time all experiments have a total mass ( inertia ) of 3.0 kgs but each lead-out cart has a different mass ( inertia ) - the lead carts have the same mv from frame one of the simulation ( i.e. as tho they were already given an equal impulse ) .. once again no forces involved other than gravity to change motion, just inertial interplay ..

This time the graph plots are perhaps easier to see and interpret as we can see the starting KEt's are quite different altho their total momentums are identical and remain identical .. n.b. their final KEt's are identical ..

** it appears to me that Local Momentum is conserved but Energy is not ( Killer of the Local Energy ), as per the previous sim experiment .. if you or anyone can reason it differently my ears will be burning ;7) .. sim attached ..

Hi Fletcher,

Basically you have a 3 kg of mass (in sum) in 3 different distributions. You give it the same amount of push/momentum (overall)... and the end result is the same: All three accelerate to the same 2 m/s, and all has the same amount of KE at the end.
So, what's the deal? :)
Obviously, I play the troll here. ;)
Just tried to give you a different, more distant perspective.
Btw, nice to see you doing theory stuff.

Yes, I think this is all correct. KE works like this. It happens because of the velocity squared term in the KE formula.
Also jim_mich speculated about something like this... Let's do the reverse, for example stop B2 and transfer it's momentum to B1. Not so easy to do, but probably not impossible either. But is it practically useful for anything?
Anyway, I find this interesting too, and it's good to thinker around with it. I'm just not sure whether it's not only a math trick/curiosity?

Yes, I agree that Momentum is more fundamental and KE is more like an abstract concept. At least from a human/everyday perspective.

Another point is that KE and Momentum are related.
If I remember right… Momentum is the derivative of KE with respect to velocity, or KE is the velocity integral of Momentum.
Can be mind melting to think about it that way… And to measure/think about something per a change in speed... It's highly unintuitive, but sure the math can do it. This is also an interesting thing to thinker about.

As for Momentum or KE conservation in experiments…
There are systems where Momentum is conserved but KE is not, and there are systems where KE is conserved but Momentum isn't. I think I encountered both over the years during my Wm2d experiments.

Also, the rotational version of your experiment can be done easily.
It's a wheel with a radial slot with two limiters/stops at R1 and R2, inner and outer radius.
Let's put a weight M1 into the radial slot at R1 for example, pin it to the slot momentarily.
Spin up the wheel to a destination RPM, then release the weight.
Weight M1 under CF will slide out to the limit R2.
Angular momentum will be conserved in this system, but KE will change: decrease while MOI increases, and increase while MOI decreases. Fun and games... I might have the wm2d file somewhere.

So what are ya sayin', master?
One must first learn how to throw energy into the invisible reservoir, before One can find a way to draw from there? :)

Sounds logical, I had the same conclusion.

[Fletcher]

Hi Gregory .. really nice to see you are still at it and fighting the good fight, couldn't have come at a better time as I delve a little deeper into this quagmire of Momentum and KE - your wm2d and analysis skills were always right up there mate .. let's put them to good use and see if we can sort the wheat from the chaff in my arguments ..

** it appears to me that Local Momentum is conserved but Energy is not ( Killer of the Local Energy ), as per the previous sim experiment .. if you or anyone can reason it differently my ears will be burning ;7) .. sim attached ..

Hi Fletcher,

Basically you have a 3 kg of mass (in sum) in 3 different distributions. You give it the same amount of push/momentum (overall)... and the end result is the same: All three accelerate to the same 2 m/s, and all has the same amount of KE at the end. So, what's the deal? :)

Obviously, I play the troll here. ;) Just tried to give you a different, more distant perspective. Always appreciated Gregory ..

Btw, nice to see you doing theory stuff. This hypothesis has been around in my head for quite a few years now - constantly evolving the theory and testing it from the ground up and pulling it apart and putting it back together again like Humpty Dumpty - and of course with a main eye on B's. works ..

Yes, I think this is all correct. Great .. KE works like this. It happens because of the velocity squared term in the KE formula. Yes ..

Also jim_mich speculated about something like this... Let's do the reverse, for example stop B2 and transfer it's momentum to B1. Not so easy to do, but probably not impossible either. But is it practically useful for anything? Hopefully the next sims and animations will make that unnecessary and we can move forward with a better understanding of the ground rules for Conservation Laws ..

Anyway, I find this interesting too, and it's good to tinker around with it. I'm just not sure whether it's not only a math trick/curiosity? I don't think it is a math trick or curiosity Gregory - but always value your opinion as we delve into the murky depths of a deep pool where the sun usually don't shine ..

Yes, I agree that Momentum is more fundamental and KE is more like an abstract concept. At least from a human/everyday perspective. I think it is the inertia component of Momentum ( mv ) that rules the roost in that hen house Greg - hope to soon show you why I think this ..

Another point is that KE and Momentum are related. If I remember right… Momentum is the derivative of KE with respect to velocity, or KE is the velocity integral of Momentum. I don't disagree with you and I hope to show you that the math and coding construct that is wm2d and every other computer kinematic simulation is a jungle - but it, as far as I can tell, can be boiled down to inertia and velocities as the go-to factors for the programmers etc .. will be interested in your thoughts as I get further into the experiments and dissect things ..

Can be mind melting to think about it that way… And to measure/think about something per a change in speed... It's highly unintuitive, but sure the math can do it. This is also an interesting thing to think about.

As for Momentum or KE conservation in experiments…

There are systems where Momentum is conserved but KE is not, and there are systems where KE is conserved but Momentum isn't. I think I encountered both over the years during my Wm2d experiments. I would like to see some examples of when mv isn't conserved Greg, if you can find the sims again ( always a problem with me as I have thousands of them lol ) ..

Also, the rotational version of your experiment can be done easily.It's a wheel with a radial slot with two limiters/stops at R1 and R2, inner and outer radius. Let's put a weight M1 into the radial slot at R1 for example, pin it to the slot momentarily. Spin up the wheel to a destination RPM, then release the weight. Weight M1 under CF will slide out to the limit R2. Angular momentum will be conserved in this system, but KE will change: decrease while MOI increases, and increase while MOI decreases. Fun and games... I might have the wm2d file somewhere. Yes, I have no doubt - but I am trying to stay connected and relevant to my hypothesis about the mechanics of how to get a free lift in GPE - one rabbit hole at a time eh ;7)

So what are ya sayin', master?

One must first learn how to throw energy into the invisible reservoir, before One can find a way to draw from there? :)

Pretty much right on the money Gregory ..

Sounds logical, I had the same conclusion. Then buckle up amigo, and I look forward to your thoughts ..

[Gregory]

Hi Gregory .. really nice to see you are still at it and fighting the good fight, couldn't have come at a better time as I delve a little deeper into this quagmire of Momentum and KE - your wm2d and analysis skills were always right up there mate .. let's put them to good use and see if we can sort the wheat from the chaff in my arguments ..

Ok, I am looking forward for the entropy magic... and help to make sense of it if I can.

I think it is the inertia component of Momentum ( mv ) that rules the roost in that hen house Greg - hope to soon show you why I think this

Yeah, inertia is a mysterious beast...

I would like to see some examples of when mv isn't conserved Greg, if you can find the sims again ( always a problem with me as I have thousands of them lol ) ..

Basically, I think any system where a translational component and a rotational component pass energy back & forth between each other.
For example a Scotch Yoke, or a Piston & Crankshaft, or a Quick return, etc. In those cases the System total KE will be the conserved quantity or common ground... and the momentum and KE components for each part will vary during operation.
Plus the simple pendulum too...
I attach an example sim.

Of course when averaged for a complete cycle, quantities can still be thought of as conserved, it just not appropriate for precise math, calculations and stuff.

Then buckle up amigo, and I look forward to your thoughts ..

I dust off my magic wand, hope it still works...
Happy new year! :)

[Fletcher]

Happy NY to you too Gregory, and of course one and all ..


Newtonian Mechanics is said to be deterministic ( predictable ) i.e. cause and effect , or more precisely, one cause gives one effect - if it flows one way then it should also be reversible - this allows us to use Classical Physics to predict mechanical outcomes - framed by Newton's Laws of Motion written and expressed in the language of math - this is how kinematic sims can exist and be useful ..

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

Shortly take a look at the animation below ( sim attached ) of a very ordinary cause and effect experiment we have been recently talking about, the slack rope pull-along sim experiment - there is a control test and beneath that the slack rope test, and beneath that a 2 Body collision test for comparison to the slack rope test ..

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

** Graham mentioned that he feels a little uneasy with my slack rope pull-along KEt destroying results, while MV is conserved .. I understand how he can feel that because it is a sim ( mathematical construct built by engineers, mathematicians, and programmers ) that represents and predicts a real-world 'ideal' experiment even tho 'ideal' never happens in real-world - n.b. keeping it simple allows us to understand causation a little easier, within the framework of Newton's Laws ..

Background .. in the real world ropes are used all the time .. if you have ever wondered about the development of suspension bridges since the days of the Romans then you will know that steel rods are strong but not flexible for loadings/tensions, therefore they stress, crack, and break - steel chain links are a better option but have the same misgivings of breaking easily under load but are more flexible - ropes were ideal in low loading situations because whether braided or twisted they could deform ( stretch and thin ) and absorb some of the energy or load - but ropes are weak and will stretch and deform then snap as we have all experienced - so in Victorian times suspension bridges were held up by ingeniously combining the best qualities of steels strength and durability with a twisted strand makeup like a rope so it could stretch and deform ( aka steel wire rope ) but still had enormous strength and resistance to breaking under high load and stresses ..

** Why we are uneasy about the unbreakable slack rope sims is down to a couple of things I think ..

1. program developers need for expediency and practicality .. so the slack rope element in WM2D remains a constant length ( it does not deform, stretch and thin out ) under load - this is not reflective of the real-world but is a necessary compromise within limitations of computing power and $ product development cost of accuracy, imo ( a super computer could do it, at great cost ) ..

2. how much KEt does the program know to dump when the rope goes taut ? - not too much, and not too little - the Goldilocks sweetspot .. always an exact amount disappears - in the case of my sims exactly half the KEt is gone - but we know the COE Law says all energy is conserved therefore by deduction the half of KET missing has been computed to be transformed into dissipative energy losses of assumed rope deformation etc i.e. a gross summed adjustment for all dissipative energy losses is made in the software of the program ..

** We are further uneasy because we are not sure how the rope knows how much KEt to dump, what were the rules for calculating dumping, and what was the basis of the programming of the sim so that it did accurately predict a reliable result ?

>> I'm not a programmer but I will give it a go - they must have followed some logic for how the kinematic program predicts outputs ..

So first thing is that in my program I call up the "Properties" of the rope and notice there is a field for Elasticity - it is always set to 0.0 - if I build a generic input to change the elasticity of the rope it does not work ( bug, it stays at 0.0 ) - I only just discovered last week that if I open the properties for the rope and manually input the elasticity between 0.0 and 1.0 then the rope behaves dramatically different - but what is it doing when I change the elasticity ?

>> Elasticity is another name for Coefficient Of Restitution ( COR ) <<

So when COR/Elasticity is 1.0 it is a 'perfect ( ideal )' rebound, like a lossless spring interaction with an object- the perfect bounce recovery analogy - when it is 0.0 it is a perfectly inelastic interaction - in the real-world there is no 1.0 COR material ..

The significance is that Body's in collision also have COR/Elasticity values - so in the sim I did a comparison test of a 2 Body collision with elasticity's set to 0.0 ( same as the rope ) - identical results !

* What is happening ? - when 2 Body's collide and stick together it is like throwing mud against a wall and it sticking to the wall i.e. 0.0 COR - if they are stuck together the 2 Body's have the same velocity ..

So given that the masses/inertia of the Body's are all 1.0 kg and they start with a frame one velocity of 2.0 m/s then we can see that after interaction MV is conserved but KEt is halved, with half the KEt removed as dissipative energy losses ..

But what is driving the calculations ? - it is the COR .. and the inertia - imo, from there the program calculates the beginning velocities of the objects and the after velocities of the objects post physical interaction, given their unchanging COR's .. and that is why the results are predictable and consistent every time ( Goldilocks sweetspot ) ..

** Note the velocities before and after - note the MV is conserved, note that the KEt is not conserved - because they are both calculated on the before and predicted after velocities which feeds into both MV and KEt at any time interval - and the after velocities are dependent on the initial and unchanging COR/Elasticity of both the Body's in collision and the slack rope Elasticity factor ..

>>> N.B. you can manually change a slack rope Elasticity to 1.0 and it will behave as a perfect spring - it is always useful to have a slack spring option for some experiments ..

So we might feel uneasy about how the sim operates but there is a logic to its calculations based in science - I hope this helps explain how I think the program is instructed to operate - altho this is a simple experiment the method is the same for all interactions albeit the calculations more complex ( luckily we have computers and programs to do it in an instant ) ..

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



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

More sims and animations to come ..

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

[Fletcher]

Here I have not used the slack rope pull-along test as we know it is identical to the 2 Body Collision test where at least 1 Body has a COR of 0.0 ) same as rope COR ) ..

** on screen COR/Elasticity inputs have been created for each experiment - unlike ropes these work fine so can be changed without opening the Properties for each object ..

The COR's have been entered as 0.0 ( Blue ) for one test and 0.5 for the other ( Red ) ..

** Note the after contact velocities of the Body's - do a manual calculation or MV and KEt for the tests to check against the predictions of the sim - we note that the bottom Red test with the higher COR at 0.5 has more KEt than the one Blue above with a COR of 0.0 - this is expected - iow's we lost less KEt to summed and removed dissipative energy losses ..

More to come ..

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



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

[Fletcher]

Now I compare slack rope tests where I manually change the bottom experiment Red system rope COR to 1.0 against the Blue rope COR 0.0 as before ..

** Note MV is conserved in all 3 tests - and the bottom Red collision test is 100% elastic ( COR ) therefore the objects after collision have no residual velocity, hence the KEt for the Red test is 100% conserved while it is halved for the Blue test .. this is imo due to the program calculating velocities before and after and that determines the MV and KEt, based on unchanging COR's ..

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



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

[Fletcher]

Here is the 2 Body collision comparison with the Blue test at COR 0.5 and the Red test at COR 1.0 ..

Note MV and KEt split based on velocities ..

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



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

[Fletcher]

Finally .. here is the 2 Body collision comparison with the Blue test at COR 0.5 and the Red test at COR 0.75 ..

Note MV and KEt split based on velocities ..

** at COR = 1.0 ( i.e. 100 % ) both MV and KEt is 100 % conserved .. this series today is foundational and will become important and more significant down the track so to speak ..

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



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

[Fletcher]

Should have summarized .. I believe the WM kinetic program mimics real-world Newtonian Mechanics about as good as it gets - enough to be reliable and predict movements and motion with accuracy ..

I also believe that to do this it firstly conserves Momentum as the base line condition where there is an interaction of more than 1 Body - for example in my sim tests above if one object is stationary and the other collides with it having a certain velocity then WM's starting position is to pro-rata the new velocity of the 2 objects stuck together ( it assumes COR 0.0 ) which in my case is 2 objects traveling together at half velocity - this conserves mv - usually the COR is not 0.0 so then it apportions the 2 objects new velocities starting from that half stuck together velocity as its benchmark starting place for computations ..

Using COR 0.0 allows it to then know the relative velocities before and after collisions and the new velocities after collisions/interactions subject to the lowest COR/Elasticity of the objects in contact - and from calculating the velocities of individual parties in an interaction it just simply, no fuss, calculates their KEt ( 1/2mv^2 ) and mv - from there all disappearing KEt must be dissipative energy losses to balance the books ..

IOW's inertia, velocities, and COR steer the ship, while maintaining Conservation of Momentum - as mentioned I'm not a programmer but that's how I would probably approach it if I were ..

[johannesbender]

@Fletcher , typicly kinematic software simulate physics by using the formulas for motion and forces and energy etc , where bodies have physics properties like mass elasticity etc which is all variables to be plugged to the formulas (newtons laws etc) , conservation laws etc , then theres also an algorithm model used to process/calculate or approximate the differential equations of all the numerical data (iincrementally) such as the runge kutta or euler methods ( you would have to research them to have a clear and error free answer) , which after all calculations are processed the visuals on your screen is finally updated (positions etc) , ofcourse there are all other types of formulas processed like collision detection and constraints etc.

Many software use these formulas to simulate motion and physics , but not all aim to have a high level of accuracy , some software aim to have an acceptable level of speed and accuracy such as physics engines and games , wm2d and other simular software aims to have a much higher and customizable level of accuracy , but all in all they all must use the formulas we know to adhere to what we know in the real world of motion and physics .

I know this is an unstructured summation and pretty much a vain answer , but the facts are , whether one is a coder or not , in the end you cannot really fully answer these questions without inside knowledge of the code or structure of the software in question , and the reason is that coders dont have to stick to a certain particular blueprint for their software , there are different ways of getting from A to B , but in general this is more or less how its done and as much information i can conjure up without knowing whats really under the hood , the best one could do is ask the developers of a particular software for accurate information .

[thx4]

Should have summarized .. I believe the WM kinetic program mimics real-world Newtonian Mechanics about as good as it gets - enough to be reliable and predict movements and motion with accuracy ..

@ fletcher, Best wishes for success and health.
Just a detail 🙂, you could have the best software in the universe that it could only show you what it assumes based on possible calculations on the KNOWN,
In other words, it's BLIND and will never see what's really happening in the PRESENT. If B had been born today, in our time, he would never have found it.
It's a fact that needs to be introduced once and for all, and that's why even the dumbest experiments can surprise us. ( I'm a specialist 🙂)

Yeah, inertia is a mysterious beast...

For me, inertia is the analogy with a metal plate that slows down magnetic effects... So at some (very short) moment, the force of gravity must have become non-existent.