Globalised Weightlessness

[triplock]

Me
There is, of course , ground at the centre axle, but you can split the grounding support to allow thru axle movement.

Although the mass, through the sprung gear chain , is 'weightless' it would, of course, impart energy if it hit against the rim. The light Wax sphere becomes an iron sphere whilst sharing the same form. Force transfer is the essence :)

Fletcher had the right idea, just wrongly applied IMO . I'm sure he won't mind me saying that

Chris

[Tarsier79]

Chris, I'm confused as to what you are trying to acheive. The thing that is difficult, is to be able to lift weight, invert the mechanism and lift weight again. Adding a grounded reference negates what might be usefull in such a mechanism. You know what I mean.

This devise redefines the very principles of passive gravity equilibrators, in so much as they are typically immobile, require rigid fixed frame of reference and a solid attachment to ground.

Also, as Tarsier once pointed out when I was learning the subject , the springs would loose their countenance abilities upon inversion of the support structure.

All of the above has been overcome.

The mechanism doesn't care if your grounding structure is RB (geared or lever), fixed or other abstract mechanisms. The lifting mass must be referenced to the rotation of the "wheel" for there to be any benefit regarding "PM". As Fletcher pointed out, the mass must be allowed to impart energy from it's PE, but then regain that energy.

So, what does your mechanism actually do? It just supports the mass both above and below the axis? I beleive there are probably quite a few people here that could acheive that without imposing on your prior art. But, how does that provide something useful that can be applied to a "wheel"?

[triplock]

Tarsier

I accept that it is impossible for you to make judgement calls based on my very loose description.

There clearly is another step or two not shown here which is cool.

In simple terms, the wax sphere is the mass . The iron sphere is the weight / force component . Both are the same form , but one negates gravity, the other is influenced or is a component of gravity.

It matters not to some extent as I'm hopefully just about to do a deal and I can forget this madness, turn off my laptop and move on.

Chris

[Tarsier79]

Chris, do you understand the relationship between PE of mass, and the PE of a spring? What about force vectors, and their relationships, IE force at 90,180 degrees etc?

Would you like to explain the impossibility of designing a spring or weight derived counterbalance for the below seesaw, understanding the actions shown in green in 2 and 4 are to be mostly gravity driven?

[triplock]

Tarsier,

Although I could very quickly explain matters in regards to what PE is, how it can be switched on and off , used without loss to the system, and what the essence of the arrangement is, I can't.

In fact, I'll shut shop now as it's prudent for me to do so. I need to concentrate on things happening else where.

All the best


Chris

[Tarsier79]

You seem to be very quick to tell others why their design won't work, then clam up under what appears to me to be normal discussion regarding your own theories. Well, whatever you think you need to do.

[Fletcher]

Chris, do you understand the relationship between PE of mass, and the PE of a spring? What about force vectors, and their relationships, IE force at 90,180 degrees etc?

Would you like to explain the impossibility of designing a spring or weight derived counterbalance for the below seesaw, understanding the actions shown in green in 2 and 4 are to be mostly gravity driven?

Kaine .. since you opened the gate ...

Using your diagram sequence three posts above - I think he is suggesting that the lift (gaining of PE/mgh) of the mass in 1 & 3 can be done very cheaply through his force equilibrium tensioning device - previously he said the only costs was overcoming frictions.

Using your seesaw reciprocating analogy, the mass then has PE & the device acts like an ordinary lever with a weight on one end unbalancing it - it falls under gravity gaining KE in 2 & 4 - wash, rinse, repeat, & reciprocate.

Obviously the multi-dimension alternative uses some sort of gimbal in the center that also is still 'grounded' he has said.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gimbal& ... d=0CDAQsAQ

IINM, ordinary force balancing devices as per in Dave's links the PE doesn't change too much so they also can't do great amounts of work either - they prove gravity is conservative because of their constrained nature, IINM.

Apparently Chris has this figured out so it can lift for way less energy than extracted on the way down which would prove gravity was not conservative ?! - although he says Conservation Laws aren't violated - I could be wrong but that's the way it looks to me at the moment.

[Tarsier79]

Thanks Fletcher. That's what it sounded like to me too. I was trying to confirm that.

From the underlying principles, you can see why it can't be done with a system of springs. PE is PE. You have balance or you don't. You can't release energy from one component in a gravitational balance and expect its counter to react without consequence

[nicbordeaux]

This is all very complex. Too complex for me. Just a question : gravity is a downward force which we express as 9.81 ms. If a mass is accelerated vertically at 9,81 second, the accelerated mass or things inside or on it are "weightless" ?

[nicbordeaux]

Just as I suspected, nobody knows. It's freefall which causes weightlessness. I am going to patent this.

[Fletcher]

This is all very complex. Too complex for me.

Just a question : gravity is a downward force which we express as 9.81 ms.

If a mass is accelerated vertically at 9.81 second, the accelerated mass or things inside or on it are "weightless" ?

Hi Nic .. gravity is a field, or a field of acceleration downwards, for all intents & purposes - that acceleration 'g' is 9.81 m/s^2 thereabouts in most places on earth.

Force is mass times acceleration; so gravity force is mass x 'g' in Newton's.

Fg = mg or gravity force = mass x gravity acceleration - so a 1kg mass in a gravity field will have a weight force of 1kg x 9.81m/s^2 = 9.81N's; a 2kg mass will be 2 x 9.81 = 19.62N's. N.B. the acceleration is the same on every mass.

Note that this complies with Newton's 2nd Law which fundamentally says that F = ma; so they are the same i.e. a force is a force is a force, of course.

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

If you apply an opposite force to the gravity force then you need to know the mass (e.g. 1 or 2kgs as per above) & the anti-acceleration to be applied e.g 9.81m/s^2 - the weight force will be equalled & opposed by the opposite force - the mass cannot lose PE & can have no torque.

Fundamentally the weight force is cancelled by the opposite force, so there is no weight force any longer, & it is 'weightless' as you said.

[Fletcher]

Thanks Fletcher. That's what it sounded like to me too. I was trying to confirm that.

From the underlying principles, you can see why it can't be done with a system of springs. PE is PE. You have balance or you don't. You can't release energy from one component in a gravitational balance and expect its counter to react without consequence.

IMO, that's why he couldn't invert his 'vertical mass on scissors with zero length spring balance using planetary gears' equalization device, (the slimline device) ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ayCZV ... e=youtu.be

... because as soon as you tip it over the vertical component of weight force is no longer acting directly down thru the axle/pivot & equilibrium is disturbed - you could lock it I suppose, but the reset seems the problem.

Perhaps he has found a way Tarsier ? - as I said way earlier I won't spend to much time & I'll wait for the Patent to be public knowledge.

[nicbordeaux]

Thanks for the maths Fletcher, it can always come in helpful if I find some bird even more ignorant than me and who impresses easily ;-)

[pequaide]

If you accelerated an object vertically at 9.81 m/sec/sec that force adds to the gravitational force. The object inside the rocket will experience two Gs of force.

I think what you meant was: If you applied an accelerating force of 9.81 m/sec/sec vertically. But this would be just like sitting in a chair. Because that is what a chair does. And you are not weightless.

Weightlessness is simulated by letting an aircraft free fall. Only gravitation is working inside the aircraft; there is no oppositional force on those masses floating in the fuselage. But again this is only an appearance of weightlessness; they are actually accelerating at 9.81 m/sec/sec. This is also true of objects in earth orbit; they are not weightless they are only falling at the same rate that they are moving tangent away from the earth.

At a point somewhere between the Moon and the Earth where the two gravities are truly equal and opposite can we say that an object is weightless. And even then there is solar gravity.

Newtonian Physics is not about energy, it is exclusively about linear momentum.

The conserving forces in the Third Law are about forces that are conserving momentum not energy. Newton was in opposition to the energy mv² concept.

The Second Law F = ma is a mathematical expression of the conditions under which momentum is made: not energy.

The First Law says it takes a force to change the quantity of Momentum.

Newton was an opponent of Energy Conservation. Newton’s relationship with Leibniz makes this statement obvious