BesslerWheel.com

[iacob alex]

.....in a different ,amazingly manner if you take a look at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_5z3VVqoJk&feature=related

Then ,think about the topic of this forum.

With a fulcrum,a lever and a single movable mass...you can build,test and enjoy your own (PM) "toy".

All the best! / Alex

_________________
Simplicity is the first step to knowledge.

[path_finder]

an example of 'PM toy'?
http://www.kugelbahn.ch/coalcar.htm

_________________
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...

[pequaide]

Lets say you have a 100 kilogram man on one end of a balanced seesaw and a 50 kilogram child on the other end. The man pushes up so that he is moving .5 m/sec. If the seesaw itself was considered to be very low mass; wouldn't the child be moving 1 m/sec? And wouldn't it be fair to say that the same force that caused the man to move is equal to the force that caused the child to move?

[Tarsier79]

Another example of inertial difference of the child and the man. Yes, the mans input propelled the man and the child, but since the child is at 2x the radius and has 4x the inertia but 1/2 the mass, So the seesaw has 3x the inertia than that of just the man, instead of the two you might predict. But since the seesaw is "balanced" The acceleration due to gravity does not have to be overcome, and the man is overcoming inertia only.


Grimer apparently has an inertial epiphany he wishes to share with us regards this see-saw. I would prefer to argue with you over the commonly accepted inertial differences due to increase in radius perhaps in your own thread.

PS: I just realised I didn't allow for negation of the gravity input due to the "balanced" seesaw, so edited.

[nicbordeaux]

[pequaide]

I am assuming that the seesaw is balanced with the passengers seated. I am not concerned about the mass of the stick they are seated on, lets not consider the mass of the seesaw itself.

This means that the lever arm on the child's side is twice as long as the lever arm under the man.

Nick Quote: The force that caused the man to move was divided by 2 because the kid was on the other end of the seesaw.

I agree with this: It seem apparent that the forces on both sides of the fulcrum are equal at equal distance to the fulcrum. What other meaning of balanced could there possibly be, other that equal. This equal force will cause the same angular change on both sides.

The torsion of 100 kilograms with a lever arm on 2 meters is equal to the torsion caused by 50 kilograms a 4 meters. The torsional forces are equal and the force from the man's legs are applied equally to both sides.

At the end of a period of time the man will be moving .5 m/sec and the child will be moving 1 m/sec.

Any force applied at any point on the seesaw will cause the same angular change on both sides; which means that the inertia (resistance to motion) of both sides is the same. I am not sure anything could be more obvious than this.

I do this with the blue48 (kilogram inertia) wheel. The lever arms are about 11 inches to .6875 inches. The masses needed to balance are about 81 kg to 5.06 kg. Any extra force placed anywhere will of course cause the same angular acceleration of both sides.

The only reason opponents argue about this is that the energy of 5.06 kilograms moving 1 m/sec is not the same amount of energy as 81 kilograms moving .0625 m/sec. When the surface of the wheel is moving 1 m/sec the wheel is perfectly happy giving one side of the wheel 2.53 joules of energy and the other side only .1582 joules. So opponents bring out the sims and say that what is being done can't be done. Then they say my experiments aren't accurate enough to believe. They will do anything to avoid the truth; that the Law of Conservation of Energy is false.

[nicbordeaux]

Well, you have a good analogy, let me look at it properly and maybe test the seesaw. It is likely that flinging children off seesaws is not allowed, we'll have to find something else.

[iacob alex]

.....this time at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z-yqVIQ6dk&NR=1

As a minimum concept,we have here a mechanical driver-follower case .

The acrobat ("the driver" ) maintains the greater torque (and uses the torque difference) on the same sade of the fulcrum.

It's a simplified seesaw game,with a single active mass...we can so easy imitate as a self-moving machine due to gravity fall and inertia storage.

All the Best !/ Alex

[Tarsier79]

This is exactly the reason you don't need to multiply mechanisms to see if you are going to get a positive result. If your mechanism produces enough torque for long enough, one will be sufficient.


Particularly, when he is on the outside of the wheel, you can imagine a weight constantly falling on one the RHS of the circle, perpetually propelling a wheel.

[path_finder]

Dear Tarsier79,

[iacob alex]

.....as a "new game" ( a continuous rotation), if you take a look at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn-OIjVg0KI&feature=related

Here,we can see that, the "classic" concept of PM ( "long arm-short arm" ) works so easy...with a single variable arm.

Remains to replace the acrobat with "something"...

All the best! / Alex

[iacob alex]

.....as a "pure" mechanical game (gravity,inertia and masses) ,if you look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65YcaRS06sY&feature-related

We have a minimal number of "spare parts" :fulcrum/support and a variable lever (one fixed arm,one variable arm)...

...or,the same concept at other topics : "Wind pendulum"(kinetic sculpture) and "Two sticks game..."(desk sculpture).

Then,why not to use the same thinking way for a possible gravity powered device!?

All the best! / Alex

[iacob alex]

.....in your design/test model ,as a simplified copy of a short movie at :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_5z3VVqoJk&feature=related

"Space Wheel" is in fact a lever,a particular see-saw(not swinging,but rotating) with a single "active" mass...so,a "minimum minimorum" condition for this simple game with gravity and inertia.

All the best! / Alex

[Ealadha]

I used to ride wheels in different ways , back in the day .

[iacob alex]

Hi Ealadha !

You said : "...I ride wheels in different ways..."

But,keep your mind on the possibility that,the shape of the "wheel"(no matter of his "complexity") has no significance,because the "final equivalence" is the same:a lever.

With a simple lever the "game" is clear,evident,readly understood if you watch the movie up here.

You need to play a single mass to and fro on the radius ,nothing more...

All the best! / Alex