BesslerWheel.com

[iacob alex]

...can make a correspondence between an Atwood machine with a heavy pulley,and a pendular mass with a massive hub.

A small mass difference(Atwood machine) is engaged to coil,spiral gravity fall into a great rotational inertia,in a retarded motion.

The heavy hub pendulum(or a long arm-short arm configuration with a massive pivot/hub) is intended to operate alike.


All the Bests! / Alex

_________________
Simplicity is the first step to knowledge.

[iacob alex]

....can be a landmark to understand the connection and energy transfer between gravity and inertia.

In this simple design,picture we have a fulcrum ,an arm and a mass operating in gravity (as a classic lever...),but...the other "arm" is "void",but a massive hub,the central zone of the rotational motion.

As a whole,the image is of a heavy hub pendular mass:it can transform a translational pull of gravity(arm and pendular mass) into a spinning motion on the spot(fulcrum....)),so into rotational inertia.

It's something apart...a lever in two "worlds":gravity and (rotational) inertia.

The input is in gravity.

Now,how about the output!?


All the Bests! / Alex

[greendoor]

This sounds similar to an idea I had when I first posted here. Imagine a tall, corkscrew post. A round flywheel with a matching corkscrew thread in the central hole could be dropped 'down' the post - attaining a high rotational velocity by the time it reaches the bottom.

I was thinking that this weight in falling down a vertical distance could also be used to lift another weight (e.g. a clone of itself) back up to the top in the process. So while we would have a simple balanced lifting system with zero gain and minimal losses, I was think we would have all that rotational energy as a bonus.

However - somebody pointed out to me that this screwed post is really no different to an inclined plane. The energy used in achieving rotation is the horizontal component. Looking at a simply pully system, we can convert a downward fall into vertical lifting - or into horizontal movement - or any combination of the two, but the forces x distance (hence work/energy) equation remains balanced.

I'm still intrigued with the idea: a spinning mass is a good storage of energy, and this could also be used in a balanced lifting system. I don't believe it makes much difference in a balanced lifting system whether the weights are spinning or stationary.

Or does it ...? Bearing in mind the Aether flow and the Aspden effect ...

_________________
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.

[iacob alex]

Hi Greendoor!

Your corkscrew image...is far away from my scenery:an Atwood machine with a massive pulley,or a pendulum with a heavy hub,as a starting point for a gravity powered device..Sorry...

As I see the things,energy is stored everywhere,as a spectrum,but if we can get it "free",it's more easy to gather it from a gravity potential fall(h...mgh...a level difference) than from a velocity difference(inertia...the outer space,linear momentum difference of two bodies).

Gravity can be regarded as a nonlinear potential flow,a possible cascade if you want...

To gather it,we can use a temporary but direct transfer in inertia(rotational,angular "fall"),a short time storage,like an uprising wave.

Really,we are living on the beach of a possible incoming cosmic energy,this gravity...so,let's play waves!


All the Bests! / Alex

[greendoor]

Thanks iacob - this is starting to make sense to me ... but only a little ...

The massive heavy hub or pulley has massive inertia (I like to think that it is very enmeshed into the Aether, in fact ultimately composed of Aether. I'm not sure how inertia is supposed to work if space is an empty void - which it can't be anyway, because space is full of waves of all types and has temperature and dielectric properties).

So the massive heavy hub doesn't want to move, but the out of balance weight wants to move just like a free falling weight ... so what happens?

This is really nothing different from an out-of-balance massive heavy hub. I can't see any free energy here - otherwise truck wheels would accelerate up to speed when placed on a tyre balancing machine prior to balancing ...

hight difference = energy potential
velocity difference = energy potential

Flywheels can be used for energy storage - tapping the differences between velocities, just like we can use difference in height for gravity powered jobs such as fluid transfer or pendulum clocks.

A "possible cascade" - I like that. Image there was 10 tonnes of lead positioned in space right above your head right now. It would come crashing down with enormous power unless restrained. The power have to come from the space that is right about your head right now ... it's sitting there waiting - and if somebody actually did move 10 tonnes of lead right into that space, that power would be available ... a veritable cascade or avalanche of power ...

Or do we simply provide that power in the act of positioning the mass into that void - pushing aside every atom of substance that stacks right up to the stratosphere and beyond, re-distributing the weight of the world ...

I have no idea ...

I want to believe there is power available, just like Bessler said. Maybe we will kick ourselves for missing it when we eventually find out.

[iacob alex]

Hi Greendoor1

Your comments are interesting ones...and sometimes can create some inspiration:I am thinking about your corkscrew idea...

It was for me,after some time to imagine a double centered-eccentered game,with a pliable hub(hub as a centered mass,then commuting as an eccentered mass/pendulum) as a driver,and a two arms lever(long arm-short arm,then commuting into two equal arms),as a follower.

Sure,the intention is to get an self moving arrangement:this time the advantage is that we have a starting velocity for the hub,playing as a falling pendulum,for the eccentric timing.

I have it in my mind,the next step is to make it on paper...

But ,you see,the paper is worthlees ,if with no connection in the real world...

All that I know is that a small unbalance,applied to a well balanced system,for some period and in a certain mood,can have an amazing effect.

All the Bests! / Alex

[iacob alex]

...is imagined to store rotational inertia,due to a pendular fall in gravity.

Look at : www.msu.edu/user/brechtjo/physics/atwood/atwood.html

The simulation-test was made for a particular Atwood Machine:with a heavy pulley.

If we use the heavy pulley (M3) as a heavy hub for a pendulum (arm+bob M1),we can roll up gravity fall (this time with a variable arm...).

The interesting point is,that we can accelerate a heavy hub (rotational mass),with a very small mass ...as a large wave rolling onto the shore...

And more...we can employ this "wave" ,in a short discharge,to close the loop (to get a "self-motion").

All the Bests! / Alex

[pequaide]

In the MSU Atwood’s you can put 2000 kilograms in the pulley mass and it will act as if it is a rim mass pulley of 1000 kilograms. So with mass of zero suspended on one side and 1 kilogram suspended on the other side you would get an acceleration of 1/1001 * 9.81 = .00980 m/sec².

If the one kilogram is then dropped one meter the entire mass would have a velocity of .14 m/sec for a momentum of 140.14. The dropping of the one kilogram mass would take 14.286 seconds, so if we apply F = ma and use v/t for a, we would get Ft = mv. So 9.81 N *14.286 sec = 1001 ka *.14 m/sec, ha how about that it works.

Now if all the motion of the 1001 kilograms is given to the one suspended kilogram, in a similar manner to NASA giving all the motion of the spinning rocket to a small tethered mass, then the one kilogram will have to be moving 140.14 meters per second. Let’s see how long it will take 9.81 newtons (the original force) to stop the one kilogram mass moving 140.14 m/sec. Using v = at we find that it takes 14.285 sec.,

If you think energy is conserved when all the motion is given to the one kilogram then it will only be moving 11.83 m/sec, and it will take 9.81 newtons only 1.26 second to stop it.

Some keep saying that force times distance is what is conserved in these interactions, and that force times distance needs to be conserved in these interactions, When in fact it is not, it is force times time that is conserved. The same people that say that it is force times distance have no working machines. I say that it is force times time and I have working energy producing machines. When are you going to wise up my friends? It is Force times Time.

What makes you think that (with a force of 9.81 newtons) you should be able to stop in 1.26 seconds the same quantity of motion that took 9.81 newtons 14.285 sec to make? Plus you have no experiments that will do this.

[greendoor]

Pequaide - when you say you have 'working energy producing machines' - are these self sustaining, and can they lift useful loads? I think that is what everyone here is waiting to see from you. The numbers look impressive, but is what you call 'Energy' the result of calculations based on 1/2MV^2?

I full believe that all the momentum of a rotating large mass can be applied to a smaller mass, as per the abandoned NASA yoyo de-spin device. I expect that Momentum would be conserved, therefore the smaller mass would spin rather fast. But are you saying this is an Energy increased simply based on the fact that the numbers increase dramaticly when velocity is squared? Or is this real energy that can do work in a working experimental model?

[pequaide]

The newest model seems to double its height quite easily.

Greendoor questions; - are these self sustaining, and can they lift useful loads?

It is not mechanically designed to repeat. The flung mass that rises twice as high is about 185 g, it could have a mass of 185 tons. To get it to cycle or repeat or be self sustained is an engineering problem. Showing that the Law of Conservation of Energy is false is more important than spending money on an easy engineering problem.

Greendoor questions; but is what you call 'Energy' the result of calculations based on 1/2MV^2?

Sometimes: The Ke formula is a perfectly good formula; it tells you how far an object will rise. It tells you what the Pe of an experiment is. But with the new model it is pure height, you can see the mass rise.

Greendoor questions; But are you saying this is an Energy increased simply based on the fact that the numbers increase dramaticly when velocity is squared? Or is this real energy that can do work in a working experimental model?

This is a real machine; you have a picture of it. Something that drops 40 cm but then rises 91 cm is real energy. The tether restricts it from rising higher, and I see five variables that can be tweaked.

[greendoor]

Sorry pequaide - I seem to have missed this picture somehow. Do you have a link to it?

I agree that raising mass a certain height is clear proof of energy. For some reason I thought you had only got as far as spinning up cylinders.

[iacob alex]

Hi !

Maybe I am wrong...I am not sure,but my "nose",aptitude for insight tells me that, the person simulating "Atwood Machine with a Heavy Pulley",made something formidable:imagined a paradox.

Possibly,already we have on the table the "nascent PM"...that "up-down " difference.

You know the story of the scientific "interdiction":any closed trajectory of a mass-point, in gravity(difference of potential),has a null result.

No comment...

But with a heavy pulley M3 (rotating on the spot,or more interesting...rolling on a horizontal surface),and a small mass-unit " m " on his top position(a heavy hub pendulum...)we have a different situation.

If our science on the paper corresponds with a test in reality...we are on the way.

All the Bests! / Alex

[pequaide]

Oops; the maximum velocity of the one kilogram would be only 4.429 m/sec not 11.838 m/sec. I would have thought that the kinetic energy velocity would be the square root of the momentum velocity (140.14 m/sec). But by finding the kinetic energy independently of a comparison with momentum I see that the freefall kinetic energy of the one kilogram is 9.81 joules and that that velocity can not exceed 4.429 m/sec. This is a freefall period of .4515 second.

So, for those who believe in kinetic energy conservation, you are going to have to stop the one kilogram that has been given all the motion of the one sided Atwood’s in .4515 seconds. 9.81 newtons in .4515 seconds is going to have to stop the motion that 9.81 newtons took 14.285 seconds to make.

Sorry for the math error; .you have .4515 sec not 1.206 sec.

[iacob alex]

Hi Pequaide !

Calculus can be interesting,if we have a connection with a simple test.

Heavy hub,for a pendular fall is intended to play as a temporary storage system:long charge-short discharge.

It seems that this forum have many people interested in discussion,only..."parole ,parole"...

Really we need some "garage people"...sorry,that I am out of possibility,for the moment.

Pendular fall (two unequal arms) is maximum of simplicity of spare parts.

All the Bests! / Alex

[iacob alex]

Hi !

By the way:the most simple problem of instability,in an old Hutte book,you can find as a horizontal surface,with a sphere/cylinder on it.

If you add a small mass on top of it,you have in mind the image of instability.

This time the great mass is a hub,and the small mass is the pendulum.

The small mass is the cause of instability:if you have a "mountain mass" as a sphere,your mass on top of it,can move the "mountain"...if you wait some time.

All the Bests! / Alex