The Augmented Pendulum-Chris Harper-2014

[ChrisHarper]

The Augmented Pendulum -14th October 2014

Here I demonstrate, by way of logical analysis, considered design and subsequent simulation, how to inject a shot of potential-energy into a pendulum, at both ends of its swing.

The internal energy created is sufficient to overcome all frictional losses.

https://youtu.be/pRjgcZ3Pyn8

Chris Harper

My Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRGwI ... pIkj-YdiNQ

[raj]

Copyrights become active on the date the claims are published and
made public in public domain. There must be proof of publication date.

Raj

[MrVibrating]

Chris, the way you're using this - you can seen there's no possibility of energy gain, right?

I can help you turn it into a gain mechanism.


At the moment, you have a gravitational interaction (the weight swinging up and down), plus an MoI variation (the planar linkage moving masses in and out).

Obviously, moving masses in and out in alternate sync like this also causes an additional gravitational interaction - this is adding unnecessary complication at the moment. You'd be better off just having the one GPE interaction, and varying the MoI symmetrically with the upper masses - so both moving in, or out, at the same time. This cleans up the system, and allows you to focus on the interaction of the MoI variation, with the GPE interaction.

Also, when the upper masses are swapping alternate inner / outer positions like this, your max MoI is reached when the masses are extended on either side, whereas your min MoI state is when they're at equal radius on the horizontal beam. So again, you can clean this up and double the MoI variation you're getting by moving them in and out together as a pair.

To make energy, drop the weight from at least 90° horizontal (or even higher) - as it accelerates, centrifugal force is produced via the 'orbital' angular momentum of the two upper masses.

The key to extracting free work from this CF force is to allow those masses to be pulled outwards slowly - at constant speed; so preventing them from being accelerated outwards by the rising CF force and rising speed from the gravitational acceleration.

In addition, the gain criteria has one further stipulation - it is insufficient to simply rely on centrifugal force to start moving the weights outwards, you must initiate their outbound motion with the application of a small linear force.. forcibly accelerating them outwards, on top of whatever CF force is already pulling them outwards.

So, drop the weight, causing the horizontal beam to rotate about its axis, thus producing CF force on its masses. Then push or pull those masses outwards, without waiting for CF force to do it for you, and then apply centripetal force to prevent CF force from accelerating them any further, on their way out, as the weight continues to fall and accelerate the system.

The integral of that centrifugal force is 'negative work' - free energy, basically. In other words, the effort involved in governing their outbound velocity, preventing its further acceleration, is a negative effort, an output of energy from the system, not an input of energy to it.

Check my thread on the Community Buzz forum for a more detailed example of this free negative energy gradient. My example uses a spooling weight, but this is only to clearly delineate the two interactions and the gain condition their interaction makes possible. Rigidly attaching the GPE load to the same member bearing the MoI variation - as you are here - is the more practical way to go.

The gain available from that negative CF/CP work is equal to twice the KE generated by the weight drop. You could load it into a spring/s, lift some weight with it, whatever - the only clause being that the radial speed is held constant, not being allowed to accelerate. Satisfy that condition and you have free energy.

The KE you get as a result will be less than it is now, however when you add in the gain from the negative radial workload, you can have up to 190% of whatever your input GPE.

Note the time it takes for the weight to fall to bottom dead center, and then time the MoI extension to match this period. For example, if it takes two seconds to fall, and the masses on the horizontal beam have 500 mm of outbound travel available, then your target speed is 250 mm/sec, so that they fully extend in the same time it takes for the weight to fully drop.

Then find a way to give them that 250 mm/sec from the very outset, and hold them at that constant speed until the weight's dropped.

I'm not saying this is necessarily easy to do, but the gain is there waiting for whoever can manage it..

You could have a wheel containing many of these interactions per rotation..

[ChrisHarper]

Copyrights become active on the date the claims are published and
made public in public domain. There must be proof of publication date.

Raj

Raj

Copyright Protection is automatic as soon as the work is fixed in a tangible medium.

In any event, that medium was date-stamped and marked as received by a statutory body in 2014, so back to you Inspector 🖕🏽

Chris Harper

[ChrisHarper]

MrVibrating,
Now that I have a full understanding of the Laws which govern matters, the Augmented Pendulum design was configured so that it would not induce a full rotation.

You only have to fold the two halves of inversion together to create circular motion.

How that is achieved, is thoroughly understood.

However, there are far simpler mechanical ways to produce self-sustaining rotation. Those I will upload to my YouTube channel shortly, as well as post here.

All I freely upload for public-consumption with demonstrable Copyright Rights in place with both Oxford and Cambridge Universities, who are in receipt of the raw files ( so Raj, put your notepad and pencil down and click off your currently open page to the UK Patent Office as the Comptroller grows tired)


Chris Harper

[ChrisHarper]

Note to Forum

This is my second attempt at posting to the Forum in recent weeks some new designs that maybe of importance to some of you, but both times on two seperate threads, Raj immediately tried to piggy-back a Copyright claim to mine and steal two youtubers's idea in the process, or, like now, dismiss my 2014 Copyright Declaration as spurious.

Is it any wonder why people, on the whole, are reluctant to Open Source ?

Im more than happy to create a closed group here, if some are just want to know the bloody answer they've been searching decades for without ego getting in the way.

Chris Harper

[Furcurequs]

At least in the U.S., the automatic copyright will only protect the specific picture or drawing and not some potentially patentable mechanism depicted within it.

If you are first to publish a potentially patentable design with your copyrighted image and/or drawing, however, in the U.S. you would then have a year to file for patent protection. In pretty much the rest of the world, though, you will have blown your chance for getting a patent.

In publishing your image, it might be possible that you are establishing some prior art that would prevent others from patenting your specific design, too, but of course anyone could then use your design without regard as to your wishes - assuming, of course, that it doesn't infringe the valid patents of others.

If I'm not mistaken, also, in the U.S. a copyright notice is no longer even required on an image to maintain the copyright owner's copyright. It definitely used to be.

George Romero's zombie movie Night of the Living Dead was mistakenly released without a copyright notice when it was still required by copyright law to maintain copyright. Because of that mistake, the movie is now in the public domain and free for anyone to copy.

If an image is something that you actually hope to make some money on, it might be wise to fill out a registration form and pay the small fee.

[ChrisHarper]

F,

I no longer have any desire to attempt to Patent protect, for after taking in Fletcher's Stirling advice previously posted on the subject, it would be a fruitless fools' errand.

I just simply seek to be acknowledged as the discoverer for posterity, which is wholly reasonable, is it not ?

Chris

[raj]

How will a copyright dispute be resolved in a court of law?
What document has to be produced to establish date of origin of copyright claim?

Chris, you have shown all your Pantographs.
Congratulations.

I have a patent in my name of a marine energy converter, patent granted over ten years ago, using a pantograph. This can be verified on WIPO website search, under my name: Balkee.

Raj

[ChrisHarper]

Raj,
What has your final sentence got to do with the price of cheese ?

So whilst I'm here attempting to Open-Source everything, you're claiming abstract priory just by virtue of the fact your wave-machine contained some pantographic geometry? Lol

In what alternate reality do you think that carries any relevance here. It only highlights your desperation to put your cart back before the horse!

Chris

[raj]

I am categorically disputing your copyright claim in 2014, as shown in your video on youtube, without giving any verifiable proof of your claim.

In your thread " Harper's Hypothesis", for the past two months, you showed your pantographs in criss-cross, straight levers style i.e XXXXXXX formation, which always open up on both ends and close up on both ends like Bessler's storkbill.

You were upset when I posted a NEW form of pantographs, using two LL form as center piece.

Why did you have to open up a new thread to continue discussion on your continued hypothesis.

Raj

[ChrisHarper]

Raj,

Are you actually ok mate,? as you appear to be having some sort of psychotic episode ?

With all due respect, my Copyright declarations on all posted material are solid, with the progressive design lineage archive dating back many years.

If you wish to contest that through Copyright arbitration in the UK then please do so, as I would very much enjoy the process of presenting evidence and testimony in person.

As I said previously, I do have unequivocable proof that I am the design originator, but I won't show you it Raj,

I'll just give you enough rope to continue making a complete arse of yourself for all to see.


As I said Raj, take a break mate, and maybe put the bottle down?

Chris Harper

[raj]

Dear Chris,
I am not gullible.
I don't always believe what I see, hear or read.
I want to have proof, when I feel doubtful.
For Now, I don't believe you having proof of my LL shape lever central components pantographs copyrights.
If you have proof, just show. and I'll shut up.

Raj

[ChrisHarper]

Raj,
No I won't actually show you the volumous date-stamped copyright-proof as that act of disclosure on my part would mean that I validate your childish strop, which I don't !

As I understand it, Elon Musk is using a pathograph in one of his deplorable ancillaries. Maybe you should sue him with your nearly expired patent for a water bobbing toy ?


Chris Harper

[MrVibrating]

MrVibrating,
Now that I have a full understanding of the Laws which govern matters, the Augmented Pendulum design was configured so that it would not induce a full rotation.

You only have to fold the two halves of inversion together to create circular motion.

Extending or retracting them in sync will increase the MoI variation, however you still have some MoI variation with the alternate extension / retraction you're showing here - but also a GPE interaction too; both masses on each end of the planar linkage are rising or falling, hence a GPE input or output.

So moving them both out or in together will double the MoI variation, while eliminating the extra GPE interaction.

Even then however, the energy cost of reducing the MoI is equal to the rise in GPE we get.

So for example in the config as shown, as those masses swap inner / outer positions, there's a moment when both are at equal radius from the axis - the min MoI position - and this has necessarily converted some GPE into some KE. As they pass that position, and one mass moves in, the other out, that KE is converted back to GPE.

Whereas if both move in or out together, we add or subtract KE without exchanging it for GPE between those masses - so as one gets lower, the other gets equally higher. This thus requires that the energy powering their extension / retraction must come from somewhere else, and ultimately the KE input when they retract is again converted to GPE of the pendulum, increasing its height, and when they extend we convert some of the 'swing' KE from GPE back into radial KE of those masses, reducing the swing height.

If you stick meters on everything and slow it down, you'll see that net energy (PE plus KE) isn't varying.

There is no way to achieve a gain in mechanical energy here. Its balance of PE to KE varies as it swings, but their sum is fully conserved - it's an inherently closed system.

If you add some way to inject further energy (such as by triggering a release of PE from a spring or whatever) it will convert that to GPE via an increased swing height, but still be a closed system, unable to gain or lose momentum or energy.

There is a free-energy gradient available - a way to actually gain free energy from 'nowhere', from the CF force acting on the sliding masses - you have to send them outwards with an input of PE (as from a spring) and then prevent CF force from further accelerating them on their way out. That centripetal effort is negative, not positive - an output of work, not an input - and it's basically 'free' energy.

The amount of this free energy available is equal to twice your GKE; for example if your GPE is say 4 Joules when the system's at its max height, harnessing the free-energy gradient described above will mean that the max KE you can get from that GPE will be less - maybe 2.5 J instead of 4 J - however you'll also be gaining another 2 * 2.5 = 5 J from 'nowhere' in the form of negative work output from CF force.

So you'll have effectively converted that 4 J of GPE into 2.5 J of KE, plus another 5 J of PE, for 7.5 J of mechanical work from that 4 J of GPE.

Hence after repaying the 4 J GPE, you'd still have 3.5 J of mechanical energy left over.

I've proven that this free-energy gradient's there, and that it can be successfully harnessed. I'm certain that there is no other alternative free-energy gradient possible in classical mechanics. Only the variation in net system inertia afforded by a changing MoI makes this exploit possible.

But to tap it, everything has to be measured and monitored in-progress. You have to calculate the 'free PE' available, and then actually measure its collection, in the form of whatever work you convert it to (raising a weight, loading a spring, etc.).

I've made many dozens of different types of these "GPE plus pantograph" designs in simulation, and some of them are quite beguiling to watch, but there was never any energy gain principle involved. It's interesting to see how they go about conserving energy, but that's all they can do.

Taking it to the next level means sciencing it. Measuring shit. Understanding where free energy is available, and then actually harvesting it, to sum to a measurable gain over input energy..

How that is achieved, is thoroughly understood.

However, there are far simpler mechanical ways to produce self-sustaining rotation. Those I will upload to my YouTube channel shortly, as well as post here.

All I freely upload for public-consumption with demonstrable Copyright Rights in place with both Oxford and Cambridge Universities, who are in receipt of the raw files ( so Raj, put your notepad and pencil down and click off your currently open page to the UK Patent Office as the Comptroller grows tired)


Chris Harper