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

[johannesbender]

"For simulations that involve collisions there are additional steps: we need to detect the collision and then back up in time to the moment before the collision to modify the velocities."

Sounds like error correction to a perceived outcome to me. When two formulas don't quite match so you need a fudge number.

Collision detection for accuracy sake is quite a difficult situation because a simulation has to prevent collision bodies intersection , intersection can happen when for example a time step is set to a specific value and the speed of objects moving on a collision path ends up in an intersecting position due to the time step skipping the positions of the motion in between because of skipping the time in between and also it has to deal with the physics that might have happened during that time skip (before the collision contact can occur) , and the method to try and prevent this and assure better collision detection and physics calculation is to back up in time then divide the time step to slice it down , such that the positions of the objects nears each other in finer increments , while still trying to maintain the correct velocities and such until the collision contact is made , this is why when in simulation software if collision detection is on the simulation can take quite a time and slows down taking quite a long while to resolve collisions , however no simulation can infinitely time slice the motion in real time.

[Fletcher]

Thanks guys for your inputs on the mathematical nuts and bolts of how sims calculate things - it all makes perfect sense, and pretty much what I would expect - some sims will be better and more accurate than others - I happen to have a high level of trust in wm2d because of its development history and beta testing background, and wide use and acceptance in engineering and industry - there may be other sims with more shiny gold plating but I am not looking for the smallest nuances to explain a runner - the law of diminishing returns kicks in, eventually, and a reliable sim will do because the runner-effect is a gross effect imo, not something requiring a microscope ..

So, to take you back to Gregory and my conversations about these things a couple of pages back - I showed many different sims and made the point that it appears that Conservation of Momentum is the first and foremost, and mandatory consideration as the sims run out - then, depending on collisions ( if they occur ) and Elasticity ( Coefficient Of Restitution aka COR ) the sim math functions calculate the new 'velocity' of objects ( before and after approach ) - and from the unchanged mass x the old and new velocities we conserve the Momentum i.e. momentum is a function of velocity and for it to not change in a physical collision then the 'velocity' must proportionally change to reflect that ..

And, if we stand even further back and look in impartially on what the sim is doing we see that the KE is NOT conserved in collisions etc - n.b. KE is also a function of old and new 'velocities' - and all COR losses and other dissipative energy losses are imagined to be bundled together to equal the shortfall of KE ( whilst maintaining Conservation of Momentum ) .. this is a convenient and tidy accounting procedure, that happens to be an accurate representation of how things are in real-world ..

** The bottom line is that Momentum is conserved thru all transactions, and KE changes accordingly to reflect this practicality .. And WEEP says that Energy equals Work Done - many educators and scientists say that Kinetic Energy ( KE ) equals Work Done ( WD ) - yet to conserve Momentum before and after a collision process ( the transaction ) this is blatantly a false assertion ..

And my frictionless linear acceleration and deceleration swinger tests sims showed that Momentum was conserved from start to finish of the 2 Legs, however, Total Energy 'increased' because of a gain in swinger GPE ( n.b. a for-free lifting of mass occurred ) - and this trashed WEEP Theory because Energy was greater than Work Done ( i.e. KEt + GPE > WD ) .. this is what the sim independently from me calculated and showed, and was no mathematical legerdemain and nuancing, imo ..

** I'll run the summary spreadsheet again from a different perspective when I have the time ..

[johannesbender]

I think most of us are at our wits end by now when it comes to lifting masses concepts .

[Fletcher]

I think most of us are at our wits end by now when it comes to lifting masses concepts .

I think it is a right of passage jb .. on this journey we all have to eventually get to our wits end before we can finally let old thoughts of conservative leverage principles retire gracefully, and try to think about the lifting and restoration of PE requirement completely differently, as B. must have done ..

[johannesbender]

It is that pesky non conservative forces that robs the system , and in bare daylight too , https://openstax.org/books/college-phys ... ive-forces , and they take part in the WEEP when present .

[Fletcher]

It is that pesky non conservative forces that robs the system , and in bare daylight too , https://openstax.org/books/college-phys ... ive-forces , and they take part in the WEEP when present .

Absolutely jb .. dissipative energy losses ( e.g. like friction thermal losses ) have no potential energy component to them ( unlike conservative forces ) - every mechanical system has some non-conservative energy losses ( they can be engineered to be minimized by using graphite grease on bearings for example ) , but they can not be entirely avoided ..

So .. what the Work Energy Theorem says is that .. change in Work Done ( which is f x d [ mad ] ) = change in KE i.e. mad = 1/2mv^2 , where both conservative and non-conservative forces are applied ..

Notwithstanding that, my sim experiments of swinger carts on horizontal frictionless slides, with swingers having frictionless pivots, and which are given an acceleration followed by an equal deceleration ( both delivered via a dose of equal and opposite momentum/impulse inputs ) show that the Work Done in Total is less than the scalar KE totals + GPE gained by the swingers .. ETA .. for no net transactional change in Momentum but a generation of torque .. in one real-world wheel experiment this would be initiated from a modified fly-wheel and oscillating pendulum input engineered to have minimal non-conservative energy losses as the best fly-wheels are known to have ..

** And imo, even if a small amount of mechanical non-conservative dissipative losses ( such as friction and deformation etc ) were factored into the swinger cart experiments etc it would not change the basic result of the experiment, and my conclusion that WEEP is being violated in this very special circumstance of an applied horizontal force and inertial interactions raising up GPE of the swingers ..

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

** I am a little surprised that no one with access to other sim programs has independently run a similar experiment to mine and analyzed their results under the lens of the Work Energy Principle as I did ?! ..

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher, I know that it can sometimes feel that people may not be taking discoveries / ideas seriously enough but things can be deceptive.

There are a few reasons why I didn’t recreate your sim.

The first is that I didn’t think I needed to. I am absolutely certain that I would find exactly what you found.

Instead of doing that I have taken onboard what you have shown and I have been thinking about how something like this might be used.

Also I have been trying to link it with past ideas of mine some of which involve collisions.

So far there hasn’t been any light bulb moments but I can assure you that the idea you have presented is firmly imprinted on my brain and I wont be forgetting about it.

Besslers wheel made a knocking sound and it made it for a reason. It was obviously important.

Unfortunately for me I have other issues to address in my life but as I have said to you before there will be no walking away from this for me and even if I am quiet I am paying attention.

No one will be happier than me if you make a breakthrough.

All the best.

Graham

[spinner361]

The things that you are saying are pretty much over my head, at this time.

[johannesbender]

I replicated it back nearer to the first few pages and reported the same result with the earlier type you did , i however lost everything i had installed some time ago , i was thinking of trying it out on another free sim but i am not sure i would know how to yet.

[thx4]

@Fletcher, Without a disk of inertia there can be no conservation of momentum, it is the capacitor.
What interests me is the half-second later...
There are atomic power plants that use inertia disks (under vacuum, with magnetic suspension), to smooth out the power plant's load. There are still losses, but they're tiny compared with the size of the machines.

[Fletcher]

Thanks fellas for your thoughts .. I hope the sims are replicated by someone other than me, and perhaps they can explain it better and more logically than I have been able to ..

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

This is a simple thought experiment for spinner's sake ..

Take a 2 meter diameter solid disk shaped fly-wheel with a center axle suspended in axle supports ..

To this attach by a short crank a 1.5 meter external pendulum - n.b. this is arranged similarly to B's. engravings of the Merseburg and Kassel wheels etc ..

Hand position the pendulum to one side at it's greatest height it can achieve ( highest amplitude & GPE ) - you have armed / preset it with Potential Energy but it has no Kinetic Energy - hold it there ready, all is cocked and stationary ( the fly-wheel has 0 rpm ) ..

Release the pendulum - it swings downwards losing PE and gaining KE - as it is connected to the backing fly-wheel via the crank the fly-wheel is driven by it and begins to rotate - the KE of the pendulum plus the KE of the fly-wheel is slightly less than the PE lost by the pendulum at any vertical height measured ..

The fly-wheel gains rpm ( let's say 2 rpm ) and then slows again back to 0 rpm when the pendulum climbs up the other side of the swing and stops again - this is one 1/2 of a cycle .. at this point the fly-wheel has 0 rpm again and nearly all pendulum PE is restored ..

IOW's, the preset pendulum gave the flywheel some of its Momentum on the down swing, and the fly-wheel gave the pendulum some of its Momentum on the upswing - since at the beginning and end of the 1/2 cycle all things have no motion then there is no Net change in system Momentum - it started with zero and ended with zero ..

* Now we imagine 2 one-way swingers attached opposite each other at the perimeter of the fly-wheel - one at around 12 o'cl and the other at around 6 o'cl - this time the external pendulum driver swings down and up again, and again stops - as before there is no Net change in system Momentum thru the 1/2 cycle, near all PE is recovered - but the acceleration on the downswing and the deceleration on the upswing of the fly-wheel causes the vertical hanging swingers to rotate around their pivots and lock at oblique angles, both to the same side - this causes a positive torque on the fly-wheel .. this positive torque adds a turning force to aid the preset pendulum accelerate in its next release, and so a positive feedback loop is established ..

Hope this simplified thought experiment helps with understanding the concepts of my theory ..

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

ETA .. yes thx4, the fly-wheel is the capacitor analogue ..

[daxwc]

Fletcher: “Now we imagine 2 one-way swingers attached opposite each other at the perimeter of the fly-wheel - one at around 12 o'cl and the other at around 6 o'cl - this time the external pendulum driver swings down and up again, and again stops - as before there is no Net change in system Momentum thru the 1/2 cycle, near all PE is recovered - but the acceleration on the downswing and the deceleration on the upswing of the fly-wheel causes the vertical hanging swingers to rotate around their pivots and lock at oblique angles, both to the same side - this causes a positive torque on the fly-wheel” –

This is easy to see if you have it motorized; but not so easy to envision when the pivot is moving down with weight with no energy. There is not going to be any swing there to capture because there is no acceleration. Just my humble opinion; I could very well be wrong. Somebody needs to build it. Why would the hanging swingers have any swinging force? You hoping the external pendulum drives it through. The crank is a form of leverage. The ratchets also are energy hungry you have to work against the springs. All pendulums fall at the Same Rate that be swingers and external pendulums.

The swingers are no longer passive pendulums but are instead mechanically constrained. Misaligned timing could result in energy losses; especially if the ratchets "fight against" the natural motion of the swingers or the flywheel.

Does it account for what we see in observations of the wheel’s acceleration from start? Does it account for what seems to be no change of RPM speed from when a load is applied as what brought Wagner’s accusations?



“How Pendulum Principles Affect the Logic:
1. Mass of the Swingers: If the system assumes that heavier swingers contribute more significantly to torque, the counterintuitive pendulum principle says otherwise: the mass of the swinger doesn’t affect its period. The torque contribution would instead depend on how the swingers are arranged, pivoted, and moved by external forces.
2. Amplitude and Energy: For small swings (which may occur in the described system), the amplitude doesn’t change the period. This suggests that even if the swingers are "nudged" by the external pendulum, the timing of their motion may not naturally synchronize with the flywheel's rotation in a way that adds significant energy to the system.
3. Gravitational Effects: Since pendulums rely on gravity for their motion, any mechanism attempting to exploit their swing must either:
o Be designed to amplify and harness these natural oscillations efficiently.
o Use external energy to overcome losses and resistance in the system.”

So can the crank add enough resonance oscillation?

[daxwc]

Somebody needs to do a SIM of how a dropping pivot affects a pendulum.

[Georg Künstler]

I have experienced this problem since I built my blue-drum version. this is now over twenty years ago.
To solve the problem you must use a synchronized swinging/oscillation.

The pendulum must oscillate synchronized in that way so that we will get an positive torque in one direction.
You will find some videos from me showing a wheel with some holes and in the hole i had placed some rolling weights.
During the rolling the rolling/cylindrical weights always keep the lowest position. I have choosen 8 rolling weights.
So there is no gain.

The interesting part is, when you roll the complete wheel over a bump all weights are orientated in one direction and swinging up.
It is the synconized oscillation of 8 weights. We have torque on the carrier wheel when we prevent a back rolling.
Then we repeat this function again and again.

It is resonance with a disturbing force.

The disturbing force can be used in a positive and a negative way, so you get an increasing or and decreasing amplitude of your oscillation.
The easiest way to demonstrate this is using a pendulum attached on a role and shorten on lengthen the rope periodically.
And you will see that the amplitude of the swinging will rise. Timing pulling and release the rope is essential.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher: “Now we imagine 2 one-way swingers attached opposite each other at the perimeter of the fly-wheel - one at around 12 o'cl and the other at around 6 o'cl - this time the external pendulum driver swings down and up again, and again stops - as before there is no Net change in system Momentum thru the 1/2 cycle, near all PE is recovered - but the acceleration on the downswing and the deceleration on the upswing of the fly-wheel causes the vertical hanging swingers to rotate around their pivots and lock at oblique angles, both to the same side - this causes a positive torque on the fly-wheel ..

This positive torque adds a turning force to aid the preset pendulum accelerate in its next release, and so a positive feedback loop is established ..”

This is easy to see if you have it motorized; but not so easy to envision when the pivot is moving down with weight with no energy. There is not going to be any swing there to capture because there is no acceleration. Just my humble opinion; I could very well be wrong. Somebody needs to build it. Why would the hanging swingers have any swinging force? You hoping the external pendulum drives it through. The crank is a form of leverage. The ratchets also are energy hungry you have to work against the springs. ( soft pawls ) All pendulums fall at the Same Rate that be swingers and external pendulums.

The swingers are no longer passive pendulums but are instead mechanically constrained. Misaligned timing could result in energy losses; especially if the ratchets "fight against" the natural motion of the swingers or the flywheel.

Does it account for what we see in observations of the wheel’s acceleration from start? ( imo Yes, because of overcompensating OOB from the swingers ) Does it account for what seems to be no change of RPM speed from when a load is applied as what brought Wagner’s accusations? ( imo Yes - the swingers Net torque overcompensates ( i.e. meets and exceeds ) normal system dissipative energy losses .. )



“How Pendulum Principles Affect the Logic:

1. Mass of the Swingers: If the system assumes that heavier swingers contribute more significantly to torque, the counterintuitive pendulum principle says otherwise: the mass of the swinger doesn’t affect its period. The torque contribution would instead depend on how the swingers are arranged, pivoted, and moved by external forces. ( see animation of gravity driven sim )

2. Amplitude and Energy: For small swings (which may occur in the described system), the amplitude doesn’t change the period. This suggests that even if the swingers are "nudged" by the external pendulum, the timing of their motion may not naturally synchronize with the flywheel's rotation in a way that adds significant energy to the system. ( see animation of gravity driven sim )


3. Gravitational Effects: Since pendulums rely on gravity for their motion, any mechanism attempting to exploit their swing must either:

o Be designed to amplify and harness these natural oscillations efficiently.

o Use external energy to overcome losses and resistance in the system.” ( see animation of gravity driven sim )

So can the crank add enough resonance oscillation? ( see animation of gravity driven sim )

Somebody needs to do a SIM of how a dropping pivot affects a pendulum. ( see animation of gravity driven sim )

dax .. below is an animation of a POP gravity driven arrangement I have been describing - fwiw it was deduced from my interpretation of the Toy's Page Toys - the motor is removed - the pendulum is preset to have maximum GPE and then released - the fly-wheel and the pendulum bob are both 10 kgs - the swinger bobs are 0.25 kg each ..

Note that the pendulum successfully accelerates the flywheel and the fly-wheel accelerates the pendulum for the half cycle - the swingers are moved by the acceleration and deceleration phases as described - unfortunately I can't build one-way bearings to be reliable in the sim program ( watch each of them in their positions ) - nonetheless you can see them swing about under their pivots and use imagination - a one-way bearing would only allow them to swing to the right and create a CW torque on the flywheel - and it is my contention this resetting OOB is more than enough to exceed ordinary system dissipative energy losses and in fact accelerate the fly-wheel - n.b. the pendulum ( contrary to what your Chatbot says can not swing higher, it can only swing faster - and if the fly-wheel increases in average rpm then the pendulum must be swinging thru bottom dead center with greater and greater velocity as rpm increases )

N.B. the animation of my sim shows the external pendulum does not lose any Net Momentum of note - however because I can't lock out the swingers to create a positive torque to turn the flywheel when the pendulum reaches its highest position the fly-wheel stops and reverses direction - if the swingers were true one-way swingers I contend the reversal would not happen ( re. cart and swingers sims ) ..

Also note that the swingers near top and bottom have the greatest "throw to oblique angle" from the acceleration and deceleration phases of the half cycle - however they all contribute to an average OOB replenishing torque, imo .. and that naturally the oblique angle locked at will only provide a torque on the fly-wheel thru the arc of the oblique angle until it hangs vertical again to await recharging ..

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



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