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 ..

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



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

[Fletcher]

Here is the A-Prime Piston analogue sim to be compared to the 2 previous but more familiar types I recently showed ..

In the first animation of the sim the ground-lock is in the locked down mode i.e. the top and bottom plates are not able to move up or down n.b. ** notice it behaves similarly to the other 2 types of straight piston in the locked down mode ..

In the second animation the ground-lock is removed ( unshackled ) and the whole-of-wheel can move up or down in response to momentum inputs from the A-Prime piston analogue n.b. * this is a best as I can manage ' representation ' of an earth wheel connection transferring momentum to and from as I have discussed previously ..

** notice that unlike the previous 2 piston types in unlocked mode it is not a chaotic motion in the least, and a failure to climb back up again - quite the opposite, a resounding success also in unlocked mode ..

This is a very important and significant point imo - the gravity ( pun intended ) of it can not be overstated lol - this is what is IMO " special behind " Stork's Bill's ( aka my A-Prime Prime Mover apparatus ) ..

IOW's, whether the ground and ceiling plates are locked down, or not, the sim shows the blue rpm track ( see graph plot rhs bottom ) are almost identical in every way ( no chaotic collapse ) .. the same for the driver red track flower leaf shape showing the same recovery track and potentials etc ..

** The significance is that when in unlocked mode we have the up and down whole-of-wheel motion/movement, aka blue mm height gain and loss ( see graph plot rhs top ) that is not effected or annihilated in the A-Primes performance, as it did for the other standard types ..

** This means that there is discernibly NO PENALTY to the A-Prime Prime Mover operating in the not locked down environment - IOW's with no performance penalty the up and down movements of the whole-of-wheel are " FREE " and of no consequence - and available to accelerate the one-way swingers upwards gaining GPE and set to torque ..

** This additional torque from the having been set swingers is the BOOST in wheel angular momentum needed for the slower acting inertial A-Prime to deliver its " punch " and then reset itself to balanced position ( to coast onwards ) until the next A-Prime enters the action zone etc ..

** If the sequencing of action and reaction in your own mind-sim of the pairing of the A-Prime to swingers is thought thru carefully and objectively then it can be seen to be potentially a positive feedback loop arrangement leading to a wheel system accumulating angular momentum, energy supplied from the earth, imo ..

Sim included as an attachment - just unlock etc ..

ETA .. thanks again to Gregory for delivering a workable and reliable geared sim workaround for the previously binding A-Primes that make it possible to view them in action smoothly moving in the y-axis while also rotating - much appreciated ..

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



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



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

[johannesbender]

So if i am internalizing this correct , you are highlighting the smoothness and efficiency of the two connected pendulums and weight , because there's no violent collision against the wheel and because its a smoother restricted action due to pendulums , in total there is less abrupt behavior ?

[Gregory]

Hi Fletcher,

Happy to see that gearing trick working! As well as the A-prime recovering.

I upload the latest swinger wheel variant I experimented with in the last few weeks.
It consist of a simple spring variator, a wheel with 16 swingers connected together as a team, a heavy central balance beam (light blue) as inertial storage, two ratchet wheels (dark blue and green) to trade momentum between the balance beam, the swingers GPE state, and the wheel... all of these producing an interesting dance.

It works like this:
- Spring variator causing a speed change/difference to pump and dump the wheel. This is not so smart and should be replaced with a more advanced variator like the A-prime or something else.
- The wheel receives a good starting push. Initially the balance beam is connected to the wheel, but after start it's free to move.
- If the balance beam races CW compared to the wheel/drum, it will cause the swingers to lift into OOB via one of the ratchet wheels, and if the beam lags behind the wheel or turns CCW, then it will also cause the swingers to be lifted into OOB. Two for one, why doing only in one direction if you can do both!
- Geared ramelli / roberval gearing to make the swingers bounce back.
- Swinger latch is activated when they can't rise higher anymore, and matching wheel speed.
- So the variator variates the wheel speed, the beam lifts the swingers OOB, and supposedly OOB will turn the wheel, that was the idea of this experiment. Basically, I combined the swingers with an old passive inertia idea...

It can produce a lot of weird behaviour, sometimes can even accelerate when the sequence between things is just right, sometimes slows down, and sometimes it can even stop and restart from zero rpm, because in that case the beam usually push the swingers to a high GPE state which restarts wheel rotation and the dance can continue... Pretty mesmerising to watch. But sometimes also do some glitches and can stop abruptly for no reason, just the usual stuff...

The parameters can be tweaked in a number of different ways, gear ratio to variator, gear ratio from ratchet wheels to swinger team, variator spring constant, beam mass, swinger weight mass, etc. Feel free to play with it as much as you like, but I warn you, it can be very addictive! ;)

Usually it runs down one way or another, but it can produce a lot of chaotic or strange effect. After pushed, I would say this wheel can spontaneously revolve a little, and not as easily submitting itself to a balanced or stopping position... Although in reality this would probably be a very hard build, and not sure if it could work the same way as in the sim.

That's all in a nutshell!
(Double ratchet rulez!)

[Fletcher]

Hi Gregory .. wow, you put plenty of work and fine detail into building that sim - it looks complex to most but I think I get what you are trying to do - I did watch it stretch its legs more than a few times, and read over your descriptions and analysis as I went so I had a solid mind map of what I was looking at and what was supposed to be happening as you described ..

You are right - I think it would be a hard real-world build and the sim gives probably the best result possible .. we know B's. runners were simple to understand and easy to build ( as said from himself, and Karl's observations ) which suggests minimal complexity and opportunity for things to go wrong imo - that's a natural evolutionary process of development, and refinement over many years and runners ..

Whatever fundamental ' movement causing ' principles he used I would think after 30 years the simplest form would have been adopted that was the most reliable imo .. most ideas can be simplified down as they become more familiar ( we do it with sims all the time ) and I'm sure his runners had no unnecessary parts or redundant movements ..

Anyways - I think this sim may ultimately suffer from the limitations of the sim environment wrt Conservation of Energy Law - probably no surprise there ..

Because it uses springs in the variator and then inertial interplays etc, then in its simplest description it appears to be Energy In becomes Energy Out less any collision dissipative Energy losses ( not conservative ) .. altho the action could/would be chaotic and give a feedback as designed, I would expect the feedback to not be consistently net positive and grow the Rotational Kinetic Energy and Angular Momentum , imo ..

Thx for putting all that thought and effort into building that sim - I know from personal experience it is not an easy or quick process, especially when complex behind the scenes formulas are involved to latch and release objects etc - for those wondering physical latchs etc can be managed at the close up scale but are a mare at this scale ..

[Fletcher]

So if i am internalizing this correct , you are highlighting the smoothness and efficiency of the two connected pendulums and weight , because there's no violent collision against the wheel and because its a smoother restricted action due to pendulums , in total there is less abrupt behavior ?

Mornin jb .. the A-Prime action/behaviour is indeed more controlled, slower to complete, less abrupt, and more efficient than the alternatives I exampled ..

The collision or spring pistons are comparatively speaking aggressive whilst the A-Prime piston is more passive - the first two are more like heavy handed percussion instruments and the A-Prime a surgically inserted inertial piston i.e. the arm weights and the driver weight have substantial momentums and this forces the follow thru even in the unlocked state ( * which the others can not do ) - the result is that its action gives time for the swingers to raise upwards and set to torque, and the wheel to rotate onwards to lessen the recovery angle ( i.e. vertical height ) for the inertial A-Prime full follow thru and reset to balance to happen .. whilst the bounce factor is less than the aggressive types this can be easily compensated for by increasing the mass of the arm weights and the driver weight, to get a bigger " bounce " ..

ETA .. geometry has its part to play in the A-Prime Prime Mover - as the arm weights start falling or end their rise again they move a certain incremental distance - at the same time the driver weight moves a maximum distance it can because of the geometry relationships of shape - when the arms weights are at or near cross-over the driver weight can only move a very short incremental distance ( then it stops and reverses direction ) - this means that near cross-over the driver weight's inertia is pulling down on the whole-of-wheel and the inertia cause the maximum pulling down force at that instant ..

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

For me B's. mechanical solution to his runners was contingent on 2 main points ..

1. a sudden and easy lifting of weights ( giving torque ) ( from AP ) .. for me one-way swingers ..

2. something special behind Storks Bill's ( from unpublished MT ) .. for me the A-Prime first mover ..

The A-Prime is balanced ( e.g. with an opposing counter-weight, or a second opposite A-Prime mech ) - as it enters the action zone it is unlatched and falls and then later swings on thru to recover its original shape and vertical height ( thereabouts ) i.e. be back in balance after temporary imbalance of deployment ( it will fully recover by itself after 3.00 o'cl anyway in a CW wheel ) - that means it is latched and released and caught again as it moves from one side of the wheel to the other ( * it does not continue uncontrolled oscillations ) - this action " bounces and shakes " the whole-of-wheel ( including itself ) and it is this bonus action that sets the swingers into imbalance and generates the abundance of torque in a runner, imo ..

The key is that using an A-Prime piston that goes from balance to imbalance and back to balance again generates a bounce factor to set the swingers into torque, and this torque rotates the wheel until the next bounce impulse is received from the next A-Prime deployment - the A-Prime appears to well handle the whole-of-wheel bouncing up and down and still smoothly follow thru and recover ( * unlike the others which fail miserably ) - the required bounce to set the swingers into torque is literally of no consequence to the A-Prime, yet of every consequence to the swingers - without the A-Prime causing the bounce and shake the swingers could not set to torque and generate additional wheel angular momentum ..

* 2 parts working together in a positive feedback loop to make the whole appear bigger than the sum of the 2 parts, at the local level ..