Impact is the Key

[rlortie]

Another application of the 'impact' theory:
The explanation of the 'buzzsaw' wheel by Hans von Lieven
http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/perpetual.html

To keep the records straight and give credit where due this should read;
One mans opinionated view and possible explanation of the Buzzsaw wheel.

It is not an explanation but a hypothetical theory of how it might of worked and in my opinion it is not the answer.

Ralph

[greendoor]

I don't think I can constructively comment on the rest of your post until you have exorcised the notion of stress (force per unit area) and replaced it with the concept of natural strain.

Hey thanks Grimer - I realise now that I was using the word 'stress' as a layman, not realising that Stress & Strain are defined words in physics. I'm trying to get up to speed with the proper terminology.

As a newbie to Continuum Mechanics, is it fair to say that:

Stress is the reaction of a material to an external force expressed as force per square area. and is therefore very similar to Pressure?

Strain is the measure of geometrical deformation of the material - dimensionless - e.g. percentage deformation?

For example: could we Strain a rubber ball to 50% of it's original size - and measure the Stress in kiloPascals? (Please don't lecture me on stretch, logarithmic strain, Green strain, and Almansi strain... my brain hurts already)

This stuff is extremely relevant to what we are trying to achieve - so thank you for bringing this up.

I've also looked at the Buzzsaw Wheel and figured that it probably is the Bessler principle re-invented, and that impact seems to be a factor in both. I have a line of inquiry i'm investigating, but don't wish to discuss yet. Most likely my complete ignorance of much of modern physics means I don't have a show - but maybe i'm just stupid enough not to realise it 'can't be done' and do it anyway ...

[greendoor]

It is an acceleration, certainly, but not the same kind of acceleration you are envisaging.
Take the rotating space station as an example. That acceleration is applied to the external layer of a body. You feel the same in a rotating space station as you would walking on the earth. I'm assuming that the diameter of the station is as large as the diameter of the moon, say, so that you wouldn't get any feeling of giddiness which you might on a very small station.

The acceleration of gravity acts at a vastly different level. It acts on the very smallest of material particles within our body. As such we don't feel it anymore than a deep sea free diver feels the pressure of the water around him - as I explained previously. What didn't you understand?

Fair comment. I suppose on a rocket sled, the body is experiencing a Stress from the rocket seat. This stress is applied to the surface area in contact with the seat - hence an unsupported head could get whiplash ...

In a rotating space station, i'm not so sure. I still haven't come to terms with why a uniform angular velocity can create continous acceleration without requiring any energy input ...

Once the space station occupants have attained the same uniform angular velocity, they won't need any extra energy to maintain what appears to be a stationary position (if they don't look out the windows). But they would experience CF - an Acceleration - which I think is similar to gravity.

The force would come from every atom in their body wouldn't it - just like gravity? Because the intertia of every atom wants to fly straight - hence the psuedo CF force ...?

[smotgroup]

be careful with this Gauss gun repeater because the more steel ball bearings
in the gun chamber adds to the collective velocity of this device and can cause
serious injuries especially if parts in the device shatter.

theoretically the Steel ball bearings would repeat back and forth in the gun
barrel until enough damage to any of the materials caused the device to stop
functioning.

for those who don't know what a Gaussian gun is you can watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxkZaYYSHFs

Jerry

[greendoor]

Major EDIT: oops - didn't see that this repeater is more than just a Gaussian Gun. It's like a Gaussian Oscillator, or Laser, with the rubber in the ends to bounce the balls back ...

That seems dangerous ... would it ever stop? Or just explode? Has anyone made one yet???

This I might have to try ...

[Grimer]

...
Most likely my complete ignorance of much of modern physics means I don't have a show - but maybe I'm just stupid enough not to realise it 'can't be done' and do it anyway ...

In my opinion your "complete ignorance of much of modern physics" is your greatest asset. After all, Bessler was completely ignorant of modern physics and he achieved something that modern physics deems impossible.

[Grimer]

It is an acceleration, certainly, but not the same kind of acceleration you are envisaging.
Take the rotating space station as an example. That acceleration is applied to the external layer of a body. You feel the same in a rotating space station as you would walking on the earth. I'm assuming that the diameter of the station is as large as the diameter of the moon, say, so that you wouldn't get any feeling of giddiness which you might on a very small station.

The acceleration of gravity acts at a vastly different level. It acts on the very smallest of material particles within our body. As such we don't feel it anymore than a deep sea free diver feels the pressure of the water around him - as I explained previously. What didn't you understand?

Fair comment. I suppose on a rocket sled, the body is experiencing a Stress from the rocket seat. This stress is applied to the surface area in contact with the seat - hence an unsupported head could get whiplash ...

In a rotating space station, I'm not so sure. I still haven't come to terms with why a uniform angular velocity can create continuous acceleration without requiring any energy input ...

A good question.

There is energy input. It is balanced by the energy output which is why you don't recognise it anymore than the free diver "sees" the pressure he is under.

Once the space station occupants have attained the same uniform angular velocity, they won't need any extra energy to maintain what appears to be a stationary position (if they don't look out the windows). But they would experience CF - an Acceleration - which I think is similar to gravity.

Similar but not the same. We know this because the reciprocal of mass is zero at the velocity of light whereas the speed of gravity is indefinitely large.

The force would come from every atom in their body wouldn't it - just like gravity? Because the inertia of every atom wants to fly straight - hence the pseudo CF force ...?

The force of gravity must come from structures very much smaller than atoms otherwise the atoms would shadow each other to some extent from the gravitational wind and gravitational mass would not be proportional to volume but to some variable between volume and area.

[Grimer]

be careful with this Gauss gun repeater because the more steel ball bearings
in the gun chamber adds to the collective velocity of this device and can cause
serious injuries especially if parts in the device shatter.

theoretically the Steel ball bearings would repeat back and forth in the gun
barrel until enough damage to any of the materials caused the device to stop
functioning.

for those who don't know what a Gaussian gun is you can watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxkZaYYSHFs

Jerry

That was really fascinating - and so was the video. Presumably if one put more balls on the SMOT track eventually one would fail to take the bend.

What happens in practice to the repeater?

(I've just noticed your handle - So I guessed right about the Smot bit then. You wouldn'g be Omnibus by any chance....... Nah! )

[Grimer]

Major EDIT: oops - didn't see that this repeater is more than just a Gaussian Gun. It's like a Gaussian Oscillator, or Laser, with the rubber in the ends to bounce the balls back ...

That seems dangerous ... would it ever stop? Or just explode? Has anyone made one yet???

This I might have to try ...

I once tried to egg people on to saturate a cubic inch of palladium with heavy hydrogen and so repeat the P and F explosion on the grand scale. No one would argue about cold fusion anymore if if a whole NY block disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Unfortunately no one was prepared to be a martyr in the cause of science.

[ovyyus]

Impact is not the key.

[jim_mich]

Impact is not the key.

I agree that impact is not the key. It is not a source of energy. But it might be used to transfer energy from a faster moving weight to a slower moving wheel. Of course something must drive the weight to its faster speed.

-------------

Suppose that you are on a rotating space station where CF mimics gravity. Suppose that you are carrying 100 pounds of weight and walk forward at 50% of the rotation speed of the space station. That 100 pounds of weight will increase to 225 pounds. If you walk rearward at the same speed then that 100 pounds of weight will decrease to just 25 pounds.

[Grimer]

I like the space station imagery, Jim. I find thinking in images like that is very productive.

As for "impact is not the key. It is not a source of energy." I will take that as a challenge and try to show that it is.

[ovyyus]

... I will take that as a challenge and try to show that it is.

The real challenge is to demonstrate.

Jim is correct, impact is not the key. It is not a source of energy. Grimer, can you currently demonstrate that impact is a source of energy?

[FunWithGravity]

Iv'e been reading but refused to get involved in what appears to be ONE more blow hard with misguided ideas and no real world experimentation.
But the gaus gun repeater picture shows how pretty pictures OR pretty words can confuse and mislead.
Anyone who has experimented with Gaussian type apparatus will tell you the picture is useless. The Gaussian reaction is the ball being superaccelerated in the last instant. It causes great impact and shoves the balls off the other side. But on return it cannot act the same way because accelleration cannot be accomplished with a ball already attached to the magnet. The further from the magnet the greater the reduction in magnetic field and a greatly reduced impact. USELESS concept. AND misdrawn.
I'm an idiot. but have read along for 8 pages. and just like everyother genius that has come along every other month, the focus is only one aspect of this problem. Impact yada yada, micro imbalance yada yada. How about the realisation that in order for it to fall it has to be lifted. I see very fancy words for what most Experimenters here have learned. We can absorb, transfer move lever, increase decrease a ton of variables within our wheels. I have read looking for new info but have seen nothing more than unproven conjecture for what most have experienced in real world experimentation.

I only stop by occasionally to watch the foolishness, but wanted to jump in for my worthless 2cents. After 8 pages your running on thinner and thinner hot air grimer. make a point that is new or you will find that this thread will soon turn destructive like all the rest. Conjecture and lecturing may be your self indulgent mental mastubation but it only lasts so long before the wolves begin to turn and demand some meat. I believe it is going to be page 10.

[bluesgtr44]

I still have many more questions than answers and even though I am a bit skeptical, I appreciate Grimers input and direction. Not that I see impact as the source....I do think Bessler may have employed impact later (bidirectional wheels) to increase the power output of the wheel. When he explains that this is not needed, he means it is not what makes the wheel spin.

Talk away, Grimer.....I'm listening and learning! I'm not exactly wanting you to find the solution, I want to do that myself. But, I will take just about any kind of information that may reveal that little something to me. I think we call this desperation....would we not?


Steve