Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 498489
  • *Total Topics: 14680
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 202
  • *Total: 205

Facebook

Author Topic: ROC  (Read 12618 times)

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
Re: ROC
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2017, 01:46:18 PM »
I would recommend studying the mechanisms of 1600-1800’s clockworks
A lot of those machines do exactly what you are talking about.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: ROC
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2017, 01:46:18 PM »

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3116
Re: ROC
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2017, 05:34:47 PM »
I was not expecting the sim to show this,, then I did not expect it to rotate past 90 degrees without error either,,,


ETA:  I am going to run a few variations to make sure the sim is not having an error that is not showing up,,,

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3116
Re: ROC
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2017, 08:27:22 PM »
I relocated my input and output a little bit so I could run it backwards from the end of the other run.

Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
Re: ROC
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2017, 08:28:56 PM »
Time rate of cha4nge,, that is kind of superfluous since rate of change includes time,, rate,,  :)

What if I have two quantities of work that are identical, they will be performed within the identical time period and against each other, but the rate of change during that time period is not the same between each work quantity.

If both work and timeframe is identical, one or the other cannot do this in different timeframes. You just said they are performed within the same time period.


Two identical work is identical per definition. If not, they are per definition not identical.


Vidar

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3116
Re: ROC
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2017, 09:01:44 PM »
The time from start to end is the same,, so the total time that the work is preformed for the total work performed is the same but the "path" the work takes is not.


The "job" moves a force of 10N 2m,, 20J, so if the power component is not constant then the rate of change between the input and output is not the same as in.


If I move 10N 1m in 1 second and then take 5 seconds to move it the rest of the way,, or if I use 1N for 1.5m and then use 37N for .5m.


These are just as examples and whenever you have a non-equal lever you have these kind of interactions,, or say a compound lever,, lots of mechanical devices provide for a nice scenic route that no one seems to bother looking at on the journey from here to there :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: ROC
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2017, 09:01:44 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
Re: ROC
« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2017, 01:17:36 AM »
Like a ball rolling up and down a series of hills
Only to end up a few inches lower than it started.

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
Re: ROC
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2017, 01:21:21 AM »
Here’s an interesting thing I found
If you take a steel ball and drop if height x
Measure momentum impact force.


Now take the same ball and roll it down a long spiral
With a small angle of incline
And measure its final momentum impact force


Here’s a hint: calculate the gravitational constant of the angle of incline
to figure how how long of a spiral you need to make
For the ball to be going fast enough for E=mgh to break down.




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: ROC
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2017, 01:21:21 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3116
Re: ROC
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2017, 01:35:50 AM »
I saw a youtube thing on that,, those kind of things are interesting.


The sim I am actually playing with at the moment has a 1kg mass falling down but it ends up at a higher elevation than when it started,, no it is not magically lifting itself, there are other things happening at the same time, like another 1kg mass falling as well as a counter balance thing and that allows me to extract work from the falling mass that is lifting itself.

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3116
Re: ROC
« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2017, 07:15:48 AM »
Here is another file but this time I made a small change to the sim and I identified in the spreadsheet what I call the wobble.


I am trying to make sure that the cross-over point in a lever arm to an arc which creates a condition of 0 change distance but an infinite force and throws sims way off base.  I tried this another way but the forces blew the sim apart in a few ways which may of been fun to watch but did not provide any answers as to whether or not there is the cross-over condition.


If you are a Bessler fan,, this one is NOT what he would suggest :)  This one is taking most of the output gain in the wobble section which is a pulse rather than a constant.


The sim itself actually takes a bit of adjusting to get the mass velocity, resistance from the damper and stuff all working at the correct time of interaction to create the wobble AND leave the system in a state to continue in the direction of rotation,, small changes make a difference.

Offline telecom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
Re: ROC
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2017, 10:54:50 AM »
Here’s an interesting thing I found
If you take a steel ball and drop if height x
Measure momentum impact force.


Now take the same ball and roll it down a long spiral
With a small angle of incline
And measure its final momentum impact force


Here’s a hint: calculate the gravitational constant of the angle of incline
to figure how how long of a spiral you need to make
For the ball to be going fast enough for E=mgh to break down.

Do you mean the law of energy conservation fails?
Being superseded by the conservation of the momentum?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: ROC
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2017, 10:54:50 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
Re: ROC
« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2017, 04:29:46 PM »
Here’s an interesting thing I found
If you take a steel ball and drop if height x
Measure momentum impact force.


Now take the same ball and roll it down a long spiral
With a small angle of incline
And measure its final momentum impact force


Here’s a hint: calculate the gravitational constant of the angle of incline
to figure how how long of a spiral you need to make
For the ball to be going fast enough for E=mgh to break down.
If you take away friction, both scenarios privide the same kinetic energy at the bottom.


Say the spiral is 1m high and its track is 10°.
Then the length of the track is approx 5.7587704m.
The acceleration of the ball at this angle is sin(10)×9.81ms^2=1.7035ms^2.
The final velocity is 9.81ms.
This result is valid if the ball does not roll, but slides along the frictionless track. If it rolls, the spinning mass gains rotational momentun, and the velocity will be less than 9.81ms at the bottom.


If you drop the ball from 1m hight, its kinetic energy is the same as the ball sliding or rolling along the spiral track.


Vidar

Offline telecom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
Re: ROC
« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2017, 12:54:04 AM »
in terms of the ball going down the spiral. it will be rolling on a side due to a
centrifudal force, extracting considerable pressure.
Will this decrease a final energy?

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3116
Re: ROC
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2017, 09:41:41 PM »
Working through the sim looking for errors or extraneous input by the sim I found something interesting.  I was looking into the wobble, or bump, or whatever you wish to call it when I made a small change, with this change the sim would not settle down at the end of the cycle, so I ran just that section for a while and this is what I got.


The sim going from the start position down and into this condition was almost a complete recovery of gravitational potential,, it was short by about 1J when the drop in height was at its maximum change.


This data dump for 101 seconds of run showing 34J free is interesting.  The dump is only of the damper that is attempting to stop the oscillations from continuing between the springs, levers and weights.

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
Re: ROC
« Reply #28 on: December 17, 2017, 04:40:29 AM »
If you take away friction, both scenarios privide the same kinetic energy at the bottom.


Say the spiral is 1m high and its track is 10°.
Then the length of the track is approx 5.7587704m.
The acceleration of the ball at this angle is sin(10)×9.81ms^2=1.7035ms^2.
The final velocity is 9.81ms.
This result is valid if the ball does not roll, but slides along the frictionless track. If it rolls, the spinning mass gains rotational momentun, and the velocity will be less than 9.81ms at the bottom.


If you drop the ball from 1m hight, its kinetic energy is the same as the ball sliding or rolling along the spiral track.


Vidar


Look, I’ve been here for a long time, and i’ve Seen this conversation
Get way out into left field too many times.
So rather than discussing back and forth with no way to agree
Let’s take a look at the real life situation
And see what happens.
We can talk about ‘why’ later


https://youtu.be/a2hzipegb3c

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3116
Re: ROC
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2017, 12:31:35 AM »
If it is acceptable to have a sim use an elastic collision to reverse the direction of a mass in motion without having it calculate the instantaneous forces.


I redesigned the sim a little bit to only use an elastic collision to reverse the direction of a mass in motion and then I added an input to supply an increase in system force, then I needed to use an inelastic rope to stop from exceeding the run distances.  I could of spent a while trying to figure out the exact input distance I needed or use the rope,, I used the rope :)


This is the data dump for both dampers and the actuator.  It shows a very nice gain, but this is only a sim.


This is a Libra office file,, for some reason when I save as an xls file it makes it many times larger and so I can not post it.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: ROC
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2017, 12:31:35 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at:


OneLink