| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RRRRyan
Enthusiast

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 135
Total Words: 24,488
Location: Gone
Reputation: Acknowledged
|
Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Michael, thanks for your response, but it we already know that torque can rotate the system without any part of the actual system moving. Weight applied as torque against the axle from a stationary (within the system) object rotates the object. Objects can be made lighter without actually moving them. Therefore... well... I read your post carefully, but I don't think it's a trap.
Funny thing with Kevin's (aka Archer) floating weight = pm thing is it really isn't any different than something sitting on a spring, except the spring cannot be passed through and the field can. So I don't buy that floating something on a magnetic field is pm, but I do think there is an important concept here. A weight, sitting on a spring, distributes its weight downward to the bottom of the spring. If it hangs on an arm from the axle, then that exact same weight is applied as torque at the axle producing the exact same effect. At 7:00 in a clockwise rotating system that would be acting to slow down the rotation.
Now, consider the proposed design (I like my blades better)... No magical moving magnet blaa blaa ... BUT!!!! Replace the spring with a magnet cushion anyway. It is so far all part of the rotating system. No gain... However, you introduce a repelling field at 7:00 in such a way as not to disrupt the rotation, but to seamlessly transfer the weight of the mass out of the rotating system via the magnetic field (no axle torque or peripheral torque) and voila ... OB. The weight is there, but it is no longer being applied to the wheel. That is what Bessler did. I'm sure of it... and explaining it for the 10th time today has given me yet another clue... that seamless handoff is more difficult than it sounds... though I have yet another idea!!!
Now, it is interesting that he is determined to use a more complicated electromagnet. If we are defining the same phenomenon a bit differently we could be on the same page, though I am still trying to solve it with configuration and mechanics, and he has introduced electronics. That handoff, (or the "wall" if you look at it as moving something in and out of an acceleration field) could be helped by such a magnet because it would be mounted outside of the rotating system but the weight it displaces would be weight from inside the rotating system. I just don't see the need to move the actual mass. If the transition is smooth the job is done. Kinda like pulling a table cloth out from under a bunch of dishes ... oh, and putting it back again after... LOL.
So in the spirit of full disclosure:
Three ways to smooth the transition of the weight out of the system:
1. Mount springs on the external deflection magnet such that the weight is added at an angle and the magnet then pivots against the weight (and perhaps springs) until it is released back into the rotating system.
2. Configure the external magnet such that it distances itself automatically and approaches just in time to steal weight from the internal mass.
3. Some how position the external repulsive magnet such that it suddenly supplements the already repulsing magnet in the system. The extra repulsion (that I insist is work even if nothing moves) would be transferred out of the system and into the external world.
Gosh I type a lot... sorry.
|
|
 |
|
Ben
Enthusiast

Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 181
Total Words: 9,771
Reputation: Acknowledged
|
|
 |
|
Fletcher
Addict


Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 3994
Total Words: 660,108
Location: fiji
Reputation: Highly regarded
|
|
 |
|
ovyyus
Addict


Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 4373
Total Words: 233,627
Location: Australia
Reputation: Highly regarded
|
|
 |
|
evgwheel
Aficionado

Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 383
Total Words: 33,038
Reputation: Acknowledged
|
|
 |
|
RRRRyan
|
|
 |
|
ovyyus

|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: re: 20th June 08 - PM machine to be revealed ? |
|
|
| Ryan wrote: | | Don't understand basic physics? Thanks. I know what I've been taught, and I know what I observe. They don't always match. |
Yes, like when you try to lift something that is too heavy to lift and you get worn out by the effort of trying. The apparent conflicting observation of you are doing a bunch of work doesn't seem to match the observation that no work is being done on the thing you're trying to lift. But when you understand WHY you are working so hard (internal muscle twitching) and WHY no work is being done on the object (W=FxD), suddenly that apparent conflict resolves itself - you understand.
Alternatively, you could entertain all sorts of explanations that attempt to resolve the apparent conflict, such as by inventing the new concept of your "static work". But the real problem clearly doesn't, in this case, reside with the nature of an unknown physics as much as it does with the nature of the observer's misunderstanding of a known physics.
Unlike a chaotic pendulum formula, or concepts of overlapping magnetic field eddies, I do think that fundamental mechanics is pretty basic stuff that any non-expert can grasp, given the inclination.
|
|
 |
|
RRRRyan
|
|
 |
|
jim_mich
Addict


Joined: 07 Dec 2003
Posts: 5354
Total Words: 694,368
Location: Michigan
Reputation: Highly regarded
|
|
 |
|
RRRRyan
|
|
 |
|
the eskimo quinn
Enthusiast


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 30
Total Words: 3,442
Reputation: Banned
|
|
 |
|
ovyyus

|
|
 |
|
LustInBlack
Addict

Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 2015
Total Words: 126,651
Reputation: Respected
|
|
 |
|
RRRRyan
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
just in case anyone is still following the physics argument quinn has posed. I would like to give a try at explaining why it doesn't work. He cleverly hid something from us, and apparently himself. As a magnet approaches another magnet, lets use repelling poles instead of attracting for instance as quinn contends, it will go through a point where the magnet you hope to push upward is actually pushing your rotation backward. No big deal, normally if it pushes it backward on approach it will push it forward on exit, but quinn has configured his arms perfectly to absorb that energy and cause a movement of the mass to what appears to be a better position (height for width). Unfortunately, it has just eaten up and moved away from what would have been an acceleration in the right direction. A similar configuration at 1:00 would do everything backward but with the same net result. No biggy again, by moving the top mass at 1:00 you've added some forward torque, exactly the same torque you stole at 7:00 (and 1 if you pulled there). No net gain. It looks neat though. Maybe when the smoke clears from all of this someone who explains things better than I can should just put a section here on recognizing height for width in all of its sneaky forms.
I started to ramble about some observations I made today, but I'll save everyone the time. In the midst of those though I realized, 1. magnets aren't popular here, 2. it seems the majority of senior members are focusing on prime movers, 3. I am in a terrible minority because I still don't think the masses necessarily have to move. I would like to name my camp camp wanna-hock-a-loogie... aka the transfer-the-weight-out-of-the-system camp. Anyone already got dibs on that name?
|
|
 |
|
LustInBlack
|
|
 |
|
|