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

[daxwc]

But if the SIM cannot truly show an energy gain and it can only model theoretical scenarios or highlight discrepancies within specific constraints. Then what are we doing? I just went off the fork in the road, stumbled down a game trail and slid off a cliff into the abyss ;)

A human jumping barely affects the Earth due to the massive difference in their masses, making any compensatory movement by the Earth practically insignificant. Furthermore, you can't recover energy from something that doesn't move—motion or interaction is essential for any usable energy transfer. Without it, the idea of extracting energy is purely theoretical and lacks practical application. But I am sure you thought of that so what the plan.

So we are at two bodies of the same mass colliding. How is that new?


Just reread that and I sound like a troll. I am not. It is not my intent; just trying to understand where you are headed in your logic.

PS: A collision outside earth's frame of reference?

[Fletcher]

... highlight discrepancies within specific constraints.

Yeh, what's to get excited about - symmetries, like rules and laws, are made to be broken lol - only Emmy Noether would lose any sleep over any "discrepancies" in the Work-Energy Theorem ..

Symmetry <===> conserved quantity

Examples are ..

Position symmetry ===> Momentum Conservation

Time symmetry ===> Energy Conservation

[daxwc]

Well I learned who Emmy Noether is that’s a bonus ;)

• Position symmetry → Momentum Conservation: If the laws of physics are unchanged (symmetric) regardless of where you are in space, it guarantees the conservation of momentum.

• Time symmetry → Energy Conservation: Similarly, if the laws of physics remain consistent over time, it ensures the conservation of energy.

Thanks Fletcher that is a nice simple way of looking at it.

Copilot: If we assume a universe where only one conservation law holds, and Fletcher is claiming a potential energy (PE) gain in a two-object tethered system, it's more likely that energy conservation would be false. Here's why:

Momentum conservation (from position symmetry) is deeply tied to Newton's Third Law, meaning every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. This law forms the backbone of nearly all motion-based systems, making it hard to break even hypothetically. On the other hand, energy conservation (from time symmetry) could theoretically be bypassed in this alternate universe if external or unknown forces introduced energy into the system.

So, if PE gain is observed, it's more plausible to attribute it to a failure in energy conservation rather than momentum conservation. This aligns with Fletcher’s discussions about symmetries and how larger contexts, like Earth's compensatory effects, might interact with these systems.

Adding earth just widens the conservation of energy net/scope. If that failed add the universe.

Pretty soon you are at an energy limited pool/well.

[Georg Künstler]

The energy that can be harvested from gravity depends on the following Parameters.

1. Time
2. Mass
3. frequency
4. Amplitude of the oscillation

I give you an example:
A weightlifter who continuously lifts a 50 kg weight performs an oscillation of the mass.
The mass will have the same location at the end where the oscillation started. The more oscillations he is able to do, the more energy he has invested.
He can make this move fast or slow. As faster he will do this oscillation in the same time as more energy he has to spend.
The weightlifter has spend exact the energy which you can harvest from gravity.

The Newton rules, which is normally used for the calculation, are valid for a constant reference system.
But Bessler used a moving reference system. You can describe it as a move on a move.
Or as an additional amplitude on the amplitude. Like the Value added Tax(VAT)
In the radio technique we know the amplitude modification called AM.

[Fletcher]

Here I begin a series of sim studies - they mostly speak for themselves .. there are no one-way swingers in the wheels to give additional OOB and torque .. it is a pure study of Piston analogue options leading up to what, why, and how, I think Stork Bill's can be "special", or what's special behind them, imo ..

For these first 2 today the ground plate is locked to the background screen so there is no " bounce " factor per se to contend with - there is no motor turning the wheel and its internal piston analogue .. the rotation you see is only caused by MOI Change and Temporary Overbalance as the Piston falls under gravity and recovers as best it can ..

The first is a simplified Elastic Contact Piston model of body's with Elasticity / COR set to 0.95 ( near perfect rebound and minimal dissipative energy losses ) colliding and rebounding - the second replaces the collision model with a Dampened Spring Piston model to achieve a similar result ..

Note that they fall and recover quite fast ( i.e. minimal time of applied action ) ..

** I will compare different states, and then compare to my " A-Prime " Prime Mover modeling and see if we can see any trends and potential benefits from a different type of applied mechanics in a more dynamic system ..

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



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



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

[Fletcher]

Testing upload of animations ..

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



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



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

OK .. I don't know why the animations won't load for me today - couldn't access BW.com the last 2 days fwiw ..

Here are the sims anyway ..

ETA .. seems to be uploading ok now ..

[thx4]

Thanks Fletcher for this animation, I've always wanted to see what it could do on springs.
If we could keep the weight on the periphery for a short time, the system would be in perfect balance and could probably go a little further. ...Ideally, the opposite weight would be disturbed by the impact on the spring and could rise slightly to increase the imbalance when the other reaches its peak. Pure speculation...

[Fletcher]

Thanks Fletcher for this animation, I've always wanted to see what it could do on springs. You are welcome thx4 ..

If we could keep the weight on the periphery for a short time, the system would be in perfect balance and could probably go a little further. ...

Quite right - it starts off in perfect balance at what I call the beginning of the "action zone " i.e. for the sim at 10.30 o'cl ( for a CW wheel ) when it begins to fall under gravity - but as we know when it begins falling at that shallow angle it falls a certain vertical distance and can only gain KE equal to the GPE ( vertical height ) it has lost ( at that angle ) - but, the wheel the piston is attached to moves on CW due to the MOI change and the temporary overbalance created and that vertical height to be recovered is greater than it fell from - IF it could get back up to the datum start position at the steeper angle all our problems would be solved and we could all retire and move to the South of France ;7) - because as you said it would be back in perfect balance again and a net momentum gain would keep it coasting .. so we have an energy deficit because it can not recover the vertical height of a steeper angle after 10.30 o'cl and this has a negative torque slowing it down instead of increasing the rpm .. however, if we had a method to give it a boost of rotational momentum while it was falling and recovering then we could possibly get it back to datum if that recovery of height took place closer to or after 1.30 o'cl ..

This is where the bouncing bottom and top plate, and the swingers, come into play in this hypothesis - the whole of wheel bounce caused by the piston action of fall and recovery back to balance causes the swingers to set to additional torque on the rebound, in my mind-sim - and this is the source of the boost in wheel angular momentum the wheel requires to lessen the recovery angle of the piston recovering vertical height i.e. a positive feedback system is created to increase wheel angular momentum gains ( in theory ) ..

Ideally, the opposite weight would be disturbed by the impact on the spring and could rise slightly to increase the imbalance when the other reaches its peak. Pure speculation...

It's a good thought, and worth speculation - I will run that sim for you before long - what I currently would expect to happen is that the piston would fall onto its spring and while the bottom weight would bounce upwards ( in an unlocked sim ) they are effectively trading momentum between them - so the piston weight might recover only a minor height ( not full travel ) while the bottom opposite free-to-move weight would rise upwards a distance - I would expect they would net out the same or similar in vertical height gains as we see in these sims - but a sim test will give us a reliable answer - ( my mind-sim is usually not as reliable as the real-sim ) ..

[Fletcher]

Here is the second part of the quinella tests of the previous 2 sims - this time the ground-lock is released ..

Please note that the pistons recover very little vertical height and their tracks show crossing over, moving backwards, aka seemingly chaotic movement ..

What is happening here imo is that they both show a fast falling action and on the rise up the weights are constantly contacting the slide track guide walls as they themselves move up and down ( bounce ) - iow's the weights have inertia and so does the wheel body and they come into conflict which wastes energy as frictions or changing either participants inertia as they interact ..

* rather than loading these sims as further attachments if you have previously downloaded the sims just unlock the ground-lock and run the sims in the unlocked state as these are ..

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



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



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

[Fletcher]

Here you go Thx4 .. this is what the sim predicts ..

Bottom weight is released to rise and fall from any piston bounce effect etc ..

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



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