# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: webby1 on December 13, 2015, 05:46:32 PM

Title: ROC
Post by: webby1 on December 13, 2015, 05:46:32 PM
Time rate of change,, 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.

Does the instantaneous potentials of the two quantities not being the same represent another energy potential within the interacting systems.  This would represent that a difference in power is a difference in potential.

This is what I have been playing with over the last year or so and have built many testbeds looking into this relationship.

What I have done so far suggests that it might be possible to use the difference in ROC as an additional source of energy within a system.

What I also find interesting with what I have done so far is that if I do NOT use it, the systems act the same, that is in line with my view that just because something can do something does not mean it must, and that if something does do something you do not have to use it,, but you could :)

My last build was both interesting and frustrating in that my skill level to build accurately is not sufficient with the method I was trying to use, and the materials cost was going to be above what I have in my pocket, so I turned to using the simulation software to try and come up with a better solution that would enable not only myself to build it, but almost any other person who chose to do so.

The method I am trying to use does not allow for any acceleration of the systems involved, and it is the lack of the acceleration that opens the observation of the difference in force being expressed over a distance of travel.

I have a sim of my last build showing this basic relationship, so while there is no acceleration, my input in the sim being 2N is met with a required force of over 2N, over the same distance, to stop any acceleration.  Interesting note on this is that while acceleration is allowed there is a lower value of resistance needed,, as such that the "output force" is less than the "input force",, again, while there is an acceleration.

I have been watching other threads where I think the same basic relationship is being explored,, and IMHO,, if I "can" do this mechanically then there should be no question that it can be done using alternate forces and methods.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on May 17, 2017, 06:39:16 AM
What if I have the same quantity of work that is performed but in 2 different time periods.

A change in flux, whether that is magnetic or electric, will have a quantity of charge that is moved.

In a sense when you have a change in electric flux between the plates of a capacitor you have a displacement current that flows,, and likewise with a coil when you have a change in magnetic flux you have another displacement current that flows.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on May 17, 2017, 10:40:49 PM
:)
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: TinselKoala on May 18, 2017, 01:17:42 AM
Webby, mathematically speaking a "rate of change" doesn't have to include time. For example, a "mile per hour" is a time rate of change of distance (miles). But if you are like some of our country rednecks or millennials, you could be driving along sipping your favourite beverage at a _rate_ of ten sips per mile... no matter how fast you are going. (Going faster means you have to take more sips per unit time -- your time rate of sips increases -- but you are still taking ten sips per mile (your distance rate of sips change hasn't changed.)
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on May 18, 2017, 01:42:24 AM
Indeed TK,, there is always more than one way of looking at things.

But an asymmetric rate of change with a fixed reference frame is an interesting thing when it comes to inducing a voltage.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on May 18, 2017, 02:26:28 AM
Let me put it this way :)

A sip\gulp is 1 oz, you will be taking 2 drinks per mile,, but the sip takes you 3\4 mile, the gulp 1\4 mile, now you have 3 passengers doing the same thing,, so you have 4 sips, 4 gulps per mile,, 8 oz consumed per mile.

Interesting, the 2 rates of consumption per mile.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on May 18, 2017, 03:35:39 PM
If you seek to find a way to extract more electrical work potential out than in by use of magnets and coils, then IMO, I have supplied a framework for you to hang your questions on.

My explanation can be found here.

https://forum.1webby1.com/index.php?topic=12.0

This is just my take on a method,, I am sure there are better ways.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on May 18, 2017, 04:57:32 PM
I was thinking that it would be nice if there was a singe device that could\would interact simultaneously with either the magnetic or electric flux,, maybe even be able to switch between them on demand,, but that is above my pay grade so I am running with just the magnetic for now.

ETA: but who would ever believe that you could have a coil that can act as a capacitor or a capacitor that can act as a coil.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on May 18, 2017, 07:08:17 PM

for what purpose?

To take things solid state,, no moving parts other than charge.

I have a fairly messed up view on things,, kind of like maybe the electric fields are the monopoles and the magnetic field is a dipole and then it is the relative "view" that makes it one or the other,, push on one and the other moves kind of thing.
Quote

I'm beyond belief......

I tried playing with that view years ago with the Hendershot device,, shared what I thought and basically got laughed at but played anyway,, I do what I want when I want  :)
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on November 23, 2017, 08:03:03 AM
These are just the output spreadsheets from a sim,, one has the input force going in one direction the other in the other.
The sim is otherwise identical between the 2,, it is the same sim after all :)

The sim starts from a still condition and stops at a still condition.
There are no other losses and no gravity.
4 masses, each being 0.50986kg
then the "system" is only arms and gears and stuff.
One input actuator and one output damper.
The input and output are contained within the device,, so a closed system.
The Energy  split totals are for the full run and then for each 1\2 run.

the top few rows hold the totals,, the rest is the data slices or frames or whatever you wish to call it, that is from row 6 down
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on November 23, 2017, 04:36:20 PM
small note,,,
If you add those 2 spreadsheets one after the other it is one full cycle of the sim.

Here is the same setup but with the input between 2 different points and the same output points.
It is not a full full 1\2 cycle because to go from the zero point of the sim to just past that point takes a long time in rendering,, but close enough :)
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on November 25, 2017, 05:11:43 PM
I made 2 assumptions about the behavior of the software,, these were wrong.
I assumed that an elastic constraint would return any energy left within the system, it could but only if the software calculates the energy,, in this case that was to close to an impulse and the software does not handle an impulse well at all.
Second I assumed that the damper setting I used was going to keep the acceleration down to a marginal value, it did not.

To find this error within the sim I stopped the input at the appropriate spot where its total value was the same as what I could take out from the full distance of travel.
The first attempt was not able to do what I was looking for so I then turned off the input for a distance and then reversed the direction of input and came close to the same distances of motion and the same energies for input and output.

-0.0181493

on a total of about 32J is close enough for me to accept the errors I created :)
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on December 09, 2017, 02:06:56 AM
This one is interesting.

I supplied the heights and angles and stuff,, there are 2 1kg weights,, one moves up as the other moves down.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: sm0ky2 on December 09, 2017, 07:24:26 AM
Changing the roc by doing work may change the rate
But the change still happens, at some rate.
We can draw a relationship between the change in roc
and the work we did by changing it.

For example:

A diver can pull the co2 cord on his vest from the deep sea
He will go up, at an roc. Based on his change in bouyancy,
and his change in water pressure.
If we then do work with the buoyant force, the rate will
change based on the work we do.
But wether we do work or not, the diver will reach the top.
So, how much “energy” is contained in the divers roc?
Does this apply to Any roc?
And how does this affect our assessment of energy based on
the rate?
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on December 09, 2017, 08:27:32 AM
That is why I am playing with mechanical stuff,, well in sim anyway.

Most of the stuff I am doing up in sim are copies of what I have actually built over the years,, it is way faster to make the changes in the sim and see if the sim shows any interesting trends or tendencies.
The program is somewhat limited in what it can do,, but since these are from things I have built I can get an idea of what the changes would "feel" like.

If you were to use a device or 3 such that the roc that is desired from the source,, the first device,, must go through the second device to get to the third device and the second device itself is a net zero device relative.  IOW, one mass falls and lifts another mass but to do so it does it via a device I put in the way,, and the rate that one falls is not the same as the other lifts,, or vice-versa, and it is the second device that allows that difference to happen.

Simple enough and it should leave nothing over, nothing extra, but this is not always the case and it is this that I am looking into to see exactly what it is within the relationships that creates the odd condition.  If I can get to the root of it then I would thin anything that has a ROC could also be setup to have a difference in the ROC as a source.

All things seem to have a ROC since that rate is a relative function of observation between the points of change.

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: sm0ky2 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.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 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,,,
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 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.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: Low-Q 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
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 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 :)
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: sm0ky2 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.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: sm0ky2 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.

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 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.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 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.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: telecom 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?
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: Low-Q 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
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: telecom 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?
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 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.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: sm0ky2 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 (https://youtu.be/a2hzipegb3c)
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 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.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on December 20, 2017, 04:19:59 PM
Here is a screen-shot of just the top of the spreadsheet,,, much smaller file :)

In this I was getting ready to make some changes to the sim and try and run with 2 systems working with the same wheel and got sidetracked with this small change.
I off loaded the initial impact onto another hard stop just before firing off my input actuator allowing my input actuator to not need to also stop the mass and reverse it.
I also noticed that the sim ran smoother as far as other meters I have on some of the parts and this seems to of made the sim more consistent.

I can change my input force and energy by changing the actuator and when I increase the input force and energy the output also goes up, when I decrease the input the output goes down.  These changes seem to follow the input force applied, so f=ma for a fixed mass then more force would mean more acceleration, less would mean less.

A thing that is strange is that if I increase the calculations per second of the sim the applied input force the sim shows and reports goes up, as well as the output goes up, the sim is designed around f=ma so it would make sense that the accelerations the sim shows are directly related to the force the sim calculates.  Trusting that the sim is doing the math it does appear to follow with acceleration of mass to supplied force, but this strange part does give me pause on the results.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on December 20, 2017, 05:50:03 PM
This is why I am not sure about the sim numbers.
I set the time interval down lower as can be seen by the A column and the H column, you can also see that there is the same number of steps and the same change in distances and stuff but that there is much more input for the left side numbers, as can be seen in cell F1 compared to M1.  One set is for 0.0023 seconds and the other for 0.0115 seconds.

The change in output velocities went along with these changes in input force and therefore energy, but this change is unsettling.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on December 20, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
It appears that the program chooses 5 frames to make the change in the actuator, it also calculates the force needed to stop the actuator,, interesting.

So the shorter the time between calculations the faster the actuator is moved, hence a higher input force needed and then that translates to more passed through the system which then speeds up the whole system.

I tried it with both a longer distance as well as a larger mass on the end of the actuator.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: sm0ky2 on December 20, 2017, 08:45:10 PM
You can put a car on a hill, and let it roll.
Calculate the momentum based on your speed.
Put larger tires on the same car and repeat.

At what diameter tire can the car then roll up an equal height hill
as the input hill?

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: Cherryman on December 20, 2017, 08:51:40 PM
@Smoky

I simulated something like that a few years ago:

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on December 24, 2017, 07:12:38 PM
With the sim setup one way it is showing an approx. 10% gain and when I manually calculate the input needs they are very very close to what the sim provides.
I am now taking the input section for the sim and changing it towards a more normal input condition, meaning the input is now setup as an almost direct force to distance usage to accelerate the 1kg mass.

I am working on this to get all the timing just right so that I can maximize the input to output, right now the sim is showing a small loss in this new input configuration.

I have a small target velocity window I am trying to stay within, that is about -9 to -9.25 m/s and have approx 1.75 to 2 m/s entrance velocity prior to the input and take about 0.0027s for the reversal and input.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: sm0ky2 on December 27, 2017, 07:52:06 PM
There is, of course, a limit to what we can ‘tamper with’.
Archimedes does a good job at explaining the mathematics,
However, it’s all been transcribed to English from Greekish
and the logic is based on geometry rather than the trigonometrical
approach most of us are used to.

Took me several times going through his works, and still most of the times
I learn something entirely new we forgot about as a society.

Anyways, two things which are important:

Slope and diameter.

We look for the optimal condition when
Momentum + Rotational Momentum/ time of collision  > (mass x 9.8m/s x height)

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on December 30, 2017, 04:50:10 PM
I took what I think I was seeing and things I already know about and made another sim, trying to "use" what I think I might know.  Well things are interesting with this new one.

I started making the sim, I had a plan but as I do while building the sim I also tested certain parts as I was making them, the sim gets picky about how some things work together.  Well the version I have running right now and have had it running for some time just keeps on running, that is I am using a constant force actuator that is being reset by the system as a result of a motion from the system, then it pulls back on the arm it is attached to and other motions happen which lead to the actuator being stretched back out again.  All this is setup on a wheel that will rotate CW for a about 1\2 turn and then go CCW for about 1\2 turn,, I use the word about because the system takes many of these turns before it looks like a pattern, so a few short rotations a little more this way than that and then a large rotation then more short ones, but it keeps on moving.

I also have a damper set to the wheel to slow it down, the wheel is actually one of the moving pivot points I ended up with.

ETA:  I also should of said that the system works the same without the damper,, well what I have watched of it anyway.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on December 30, 2017, 06:32:16 PM
I assumed that the output energy from the damper was most likely due to the start conditions,, and then got bored waiting for the sim to dissipate all of that possible energy so I stopped the sim around mid oscillation and set all velocities to zero,, repeated as many times as needed to bring the system to a halt.

At this point I added in 10N of force for 0.002m of distance, well I tried to add it for more distance but the system returned the input back to where it started from and the oscillations began again.

I also added another damper between another set of levers that are moving,, trying to damp the oscillations so that things will settle down to a zero state quicker.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on January 11, 2018, 12:00:57 AM
it is some times mesmerizing to watch a sim do this kind of thing all by itself.

I have no "control" items on the setup this came from,, only some levers and gravity, so no springs, dampers or actuators.
I have a control weight that is acting like a pendulum on one of the main interactive parts, it spends most of the time swinging back and forth but as the speed picks up past a certain level it gets thrown over the top, if you will, and starts to go back and forth on the other side of the single main pivot.

I have 4 sets of 3 levers, the wheel and 1 control lever,, the control lever is the part that is acting like a pendulum.

I reduced the mass on the end of the control lever shortly after starting the sim,, you can see the change to erratic behavior.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on February 06, 2018, 06:24:33 PM
The sim has grown :)

Either the current setup makes aprox. 229kJ per 2.75 seconds or it destroys 165kJ every 2.75 seconds taking about 980 degrees of rotation to make a full cycle.
I assume the software is at issue but I keep playing with it anyway.  I have made new sims from scratch and they all do the same thing when I make them all the same and they have little differences when they are not exactly the same, but they all show the same behavior.

I am running the sim using a constant speed motor mounted on a support with a large wheel mounted on the motor and the systems, 2 of them, mounted on the wheel by a single pivot for each one and they are at 180 degrees from each other at the same radius.  They are a combination of levers and arms and a mass, then I have them connected together via arms and actuators.  The motor is set for 360 degrees per second and shows a torque ranging from around 3500nM to -1600Nm, the 3500 is the reset torque the motor must provide and the -1600 is a braking force,, aka output mechanical work.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on February 06, 2018, 06:28:16 PM
for any person interested here is the raw data file from the sim

ETA:

The black rod is between the two systems.
The green rod is part of one system and the other system uses actuator 84 in that position.
The red and blue springs are to measure the distance from the axle of the two masses.
The damper is between the two ssytems.
The other two actuators are between the two systems.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on February 08, 2018, 03:11:54 PM
I made a mistake on the motor energy,  it only shows a 2300J gain per cycle.

I thought that if I stopped a certain interaction from happening and turned off gravity I should be able to get a net zero condition, well it shows a 6J gain per cycle but that could be a rounding error.

I had to add a damper and an actuator to do this and change how I was using the other actuators.  The added actuator is to stop a motion and so the actuator is only on as a damper on steroids and as such it is an output.  I am leaving one actuator on at 150N and another on at 5N and am now changing another actuator from -240N to 500N as the primary drive to change the two systems.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: Low-Q on February 08, 2018, 10:08:16 PM
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?
Higer pressure between the ball and the track will increase friction. However it will not be considerable if both the ball and the track is made of a very hard material. It is almost no deformation.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on February 17, 2018, 09:16:13 PM
I was messing around.

No Gravity and all 3 motors are set to positive 360 degrees per second.
I took the mount points of the 2 systems and added a constant speed motor to them,, just to try and control the timing of a few interactions and I turned off gravity because I was not getting things in sync.  At first the system was all over the place but after a few revolutions of the large wheel things settled down.

Please notice, if you look, at the points where the motors 80 and 105 reverse directions, they oscillate but are not turned on while they are going backwards.   These 2 motors are only on for a short duration per revolution one at a time.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on February 17, 2018, 09:37:26 PM
CF-CP,, fun stuff

Here is the next 5 rotations,, 80kJ per rotation is not bad.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: Low-Q on February 17, 2018, 10:02:24 PM
CF-CP,, fun stuff

Here is the next 5 rotations,, 80kJ per rotation is not bad.
Why is your attached text file 3.8 Megabytes? That is a LOT of text...

Vidar
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on February 17, 2018, 11:07:13 PM
That is the data file from the sim run,, the torque and angle of all 3 motors taken about 32,765 times for about 5 revolutions.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on February 18, 2018, 06:12:12 PM
Here is another data set but in this one I slowed the motors down to 180 degrees per second.

I actually built a setup very similar to the sim but I was not running it the same way as I am in the sim,, kind of annoying that I could of made a few small changes to that build to run it this way :(

The sim is using Conservation of Momentum combined with the CF\CP thing and the functions of leverage to control the reactive force interaction, not so sure I would call it a Rate Of Change thing exactly but I think it is involved to some degree.

I shared that build with a friend while I was playing with the Skinner device and noticed a few interesting CP interactions, thinking that that device, if it worked, most likely did not use gravity per say as the actual input but as a control point.  That build was the last one I tried following that thread, I did not post that device on the forum.

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on February 19, 2018, 04:08:03 PM
Here I changed the mass value of 4 parts to a much lower value.

The output is now down to approx. 2000J per revolution.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on February 25, 2018, 12:04:40 AM
Here are a few screen grabs of the power graphs from my latest setup.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on February 25, 2018, 12:05:25 AM
The other one is for 1 cycle
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on February 25, 2018, 12:07:49 AM
My other setup before this one showed the same basic power curves but when I did the energy calculations that one came up as a net zero,, this newer version shows a 3kJ gain per cycle.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 15, 2018, 11:14:24 PM
or this :)

Velocity of rectangle 19 is actually the rotation in degrees of the 2 pivot motors

ETA that is degrees per second
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 16, 2018, 02:22:21 PM
Here is the same system but this time with the wheel motor on.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 16, 2018, 03:55:57 PM
for fun I cranked it up to 360 degrees per second,, with the wheel motor on.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 16, 2018, 05:08:37 PM
For those that may be interested in what I am doing in the sim it is simple, I am taking a conservative interaction and using it to my advantage.

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: sm0ky2 on March 16, 2018, 08:20:05 PM
An object has a moment of inertia

Imagine two situations, both inputting the same quantity of “energy”

What changes, is the time the energy is applied
and in doing so, maintaining the same quantity,
we proportionally change the amplitude.
essentially, two situations have different ROC.

In one, we exert a force of one amplitude, for a given time.
In the next, we exert a greater force, for less time.
These forces impart an acceleration onto the object.

Keeping input energy constant,
how does the ROC affect the final velocity of our object?

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 17, 2018, 02:02:06 AM
I assume that is a rhetorical question.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: sm0ky2 on March 17, 2018, 02:25:19 PM
I assume that is a rhetorical question.

it is to inspire thinking

These relationships hold, in every form
Be it physical force, electromagnetic force
electromotive force, gravitational, etc.
(atomic magnetism excluded)

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 17, 2018, 04:36:16 PM
I take it then that you did not look at anything I posted, if you had then how is what you posted supposed to "inspire" anything?
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 17, 2018, 05:32:41 PM
Here is the data file from the system running at 360 degrees per second without the wheel motor.

If you crunch the numbers you will see that the system, with wheel usage, is at about 15000J per cycle and without the wheel motor it is about 13500J per cycle.

I prefer the setup without using the wheel motor because it shows things in an easier to see condition, even tho it makes less output.

To keep it simple,, all the energy is within the system, whether I use any myself or not.  No energy is created or destroyed and is only in a constant state of change, but it is conservative.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 17, 2018, 07:08:53 PM
The thing is that what I am exploiting is so ubiquitous that I do not think it is able to be patented.  I have shared a version of this sim with a friend who runs into this very condition as part of his every day job and must design in safeguards to prevent it from damaging the company equipment he works on.

This relationship has been around forever and this very condition has destroyed many of my testbeds,, but I did not appreciate what it was showing me.

Someone like Tinselkoala could take this, do his due diligence, and write up a full paper on it and be the first to publish,, that I think would be a win for the team.

If this can go from sim to the real world it is a game changer, it would lead to so many other advances that life could get better for all people,, so I am slowly doing my own thing and working on taking this from sim and trying to bring it into the real world.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 17, 2018, 09:26:06 PM
A silly question to inspire thought :)

Does the change in energy of a single drop of water and gravity change if that drop of water flows freely over the spill-gate of a dam or if it runs through the turbine of said dam?
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: sm0ky2 on March 18, 2018, 05:14:16 PM
Yes, but the changes to internal energies of the water drop aren’t really applicable here.
(information storage, cohesive structuring, etc)

I’m trying not to use any specifics because it’s better to find the path yourself

Think about ‘spinner’ hubcaps, the kind that keep spinning when your car stops
You go to 60, the tires spin, and you stop at a red light
Now you have 4 metal disks spinning at 1200rpm

You could say that this is a internal energy that has nothing to do with
the car moving forward down the road.
But at some level, the mass of the spinners is added to the wheels, and axle
connected to the drive shaft, and the dragging axle as well.
So the energy is accounted for in your fuel consumed at the engine.

We could probably find a way to extract it back out
but we wouldn’t be “gaining” anything.

This applies even when the internal energies are higher than that which we put in.
Think about the way we calculate the duty cycle of an electrical signal
And apply the same logic to the physical system.

I’m going to give you one more:

E=mgh
The “g” is a ~constant applicable to our planet.
but there can be other g’s

Let’s set E
m is the same
So if we change g, we must change h

the same energy (stored in gravitational potential) on two different planets
results in different heights at which we hold our mass

For simplicity we can assign the value of E/m to x
And: x=gh
Therefore: g=x/h
And: h=x/g

now when we apply time
we see the difference in ROC

It’s all the same situation

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 18, 2018, 06:09:23 PM
I guess what you are missing is that the information I have shared is from a sim that produces output for the operator for free.
This output energy is not created or destroyed in the process but is a natural part of what is happening within the sim.
This exchange of energy is already within the system and the output for the operator is a required output to maintain a conservative system.
This exchange of energy does not need to be used and the system will maintain the same "relationship" but in a different fashion and still be conservative.

Hence the drop of water and gravity having no difference in the exchange of energy whether or not "we" use it.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: sm0ky2 on March 18, 2018, 09:35:51 PM
I guess what you are missing is that the information I have shared is from a sim that produces output for the operator for free.
This output energy is not created or destroyed in the process but is a natural part of what is happening within the sim.
This exchange of energy is already within the system and the output for the operator is a required output to maintain a conservative system.
This exchange of energy does not need to be used and the system will maintain the same "relationship" but in a different fashion and still be conservative.

Hence the drop of water and gravity having no difference in the exchange of energy whether or not "we" use it.

SIMs are limited to the mathematical equations programmed into them
They can be a useful tool, but a real world example will show the real results

If “we” dont use the energy of the water drop
It will expend it digging a deeper pool at the bottom.
And tearing up rocks, etc.

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 18, 2018, 10:58:47 PM

SIMs are limited to the mathematical equations programmed into them
They can be a useful tool, but a real world example will show the real results

Exactly, that is why I said if it makes from sim to the real world.

Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 21, 2018, 11:45:00 PM
So I have been playing with things to make it easier for me to build, and well went back a few versions and then made some other kind of changes so it is the same concept but going about it in a different fashion.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 22, 2018, 05:32:30 AM

Just an abstract thought.

Take a large "U" tube and place a large container on top of each leg.

Down here at sea level seal the top of one of those containers,
Raise assembly up say 1 mile.

Does the water in the "U" tube change its height?

Seal the other container while up 1 mile and open the first lower container back down.

Does the water move more?

Did any more water weight get lifted than what came back down?

So is the weight of the air the same as what the change might be,, not so sure if it is or not but it was just one of those passing thoughts :)
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on March 22, 2018, 05:30:40 PM
In trying to figure out what is what with what I am doing I made a ridiculous change to the sim,, if this was running I would not want to be anywhere near the device :)
This setup is putting out approximately 300KW average.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 05, 2018, 07:41:33 AM
Well,, this one is fun.

This data shows a 40kJ loss for the run
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 08, 2018, 02:10:10 AM
I simplified things down to only the wheel motor, not that it is as impressive but only having 1 active component and the rest passive, or reactive is fun.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 08, 2018, 08:14:15 AM
As the sim settles down :)
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 08, 2018, 07:28:46 PM
This is just a pic of the power graph starting from a dead stop, no motions at all.

What the graph does not show is the first infinitesimal where the motor is supplying an infinite torque to instantly raise the wheel speed to 360 degrees per second as well as starting the motions in the rest of the system and it is these motions that then make the motor power show a large negative power at the very beginning of the graph.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 10, 2018, 08:40:54 PM
I have idealized the sim, that is I have removed as many arms and replaced them with ideal rods as I can, reduced the mass of components down so that only the "working" masses have significant mass.
I did this to try and focus on the interaction that I think I am playing with, and well it raises an interesting question for me.

Which momentum needs to be conserved?

I am conserving one value when I want to observe it and how I choose to observe it.  Maybe it is kinetic energy instead, not sure but the sim is running nuts on and with no errors.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 11, 2018, 04:36:00 PM
I minimized the sim even more, even tho now it is only producing 18kJ per 0.56 seconds, so not as impressive.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 12, 2018, 01:25:07 AM
I simplified further,, trying to get to the actual causality and not just what I think it should be,, I think I was wrong, no I was wrong and going down this far in simplification demonstrated that.

This is just  the data file, no pic.

What I did was remove the extra masses and some rods\arms and stuff, then I increased the mass of the remaining arms.  This led to a large negative power spike so to get rid of that I off-loaded that hit into another heavy flywheel that has a constant torque motor trying to slow that wheel down and when the spike hit I dumped that into that wheel which speeds it up for the torque motor to slow back down.  This method is only "a way" of going about it and was easy to implement in the sim.

So now it is at about 13.5kJ in about  2.5 seconds but it is more about finding causality.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 12, 2018, 10:16:57 PM
I made a few adjustments to get it a little bit more stable.

I included the rotational velocity of the load wheel, it can be used to determine a common point,, 179.999'ish degrees per second
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 13, 2018, 08:20:26 PM
What I am playing with is a group of conservative mechanical  systems inter-connected and operated in such a manner as to allow the operator to extract useful work for no additional cost to the operator.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 14, 2018, 09:47:23 PM
My no-arms heavy is corrupted,, I make some changes and they have no affect on the output, I go back a few versions of the sim and make the same changes while having that version changed, without adding or removing any parts, to behave the same and the changes are evident.

When I have that one using the same stuff the output is more like 76J per second instead of like 7.6kJ.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 18, 2018, 11:27:22 PM
I went back a few versions and started from there.

This one now has another set of interactive systems and a spring that interacts between each system pair.  If the spring rest length is set short,  0.83m, the output and input values drop, if it is set long, 6m, they do not.
I now have the load wheel set to a constant torque and I have included the spring length. 4m is the longest the spring will get to and makes a nice marker within the data.

This version puts out approx.  125kJ in 0.424 seconds

I clipped the input side of the graph in the pic, I am more interested in the total values than the individual values.

ETA: I added another relationship comparison measurement as well.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 22, 2018, 03:35:38 PM
https://www.amazon.com/Plastic-Clackers-Klakkers-Makers-Favors/dp/B003415LOM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackers

This toy can be very inspirational,, as well as a Newtons cradle since they are basically the same thing.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 24, 2018, 09:17:58 PM
I started with a basic change to the toy.

This does not include any of the other stuff and is only a change to start with.

I scaled down the setup from m lengths to cm lengths but kept the mass values,, so with this data the torque is in N-cm <== so multiply the torque by 0.01 to get N-m, I then increased the degrees per second from 360 to 3600.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 25, 2018, 07:32:12 AM
This simple mod can itself be "tweaked" and change the behavior of the system.
I would also point out that going from this simple starting point I supplied numbers from the sim interacting with the whole system in at least 2 different ways.
What I am trying to point out is that I might of found a method but it is in no way the only method and is most likely not even the best method.

<TIC> Those that are skilled in the production of mechanical gain devices might be able to infer what all the missing parts are and how they interact :)
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 25, 2018, 07:47:15 PM
I added in a little slop in one area so as to be more like the real world, the change was not expected, it increased the output in an interesting way, well with what the change was the increase would of been expected but I did not expect how things changed,,,

I then took the new slop version and then dropped the masses down to what they would be in a build of this size, adjusted things as needed.
again this is in N-cm so multiply the torque by 0.01 to get N-m.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 26, 2018, 12:54:49 AM
Now you could connect the two clacker parts together :)

This is how I have done it.
There is more stuff but this is where I started getting some of the stuff I am getting, and this is not the first time I have played with this setup or shared it, I did not "use" it the way I am now.  Those previous times were ITRW, as in testbed.
This also is not setup to use gravity.
Motion makes motion and force makes force.
Give it motion.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 26, 2018, 01:33:36 AM
I myself prefer to run with 2 sets on the same pivot and have those sets interconnected.

I colored the systems to make it easy to see.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 26, 2018, 04:03:34 AM
Then for starters you can add a motor and a spring and start the motion correctly.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 26, 2018, 05:06:39 AM
I decided to share this even tho I figure there will be,, well stuff.
I guess that there will be:
Those that take it and present it elsewhere as there own idea
Those that will "protect" it using the law
Those that will claim it is either there idea or a knock off of there idea
Those that will simply say it does not work
Those that will use this to justify what they are doing
but most of all, the thing that bothers me the most is that there will be those that will stop with only this version of it, maybe going so far as to say you can't do it any other way or use any other force\motion or whatever.

so the numbers showed that the system, just as simply setup as I have shown, produces approx. 36J in those 3 full negative cycles.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 26, 2018, 06:24:56 PM
So I then increase the mass of the yellow "clacker" circles from 0.768kg to 2.0kg and the gain goes away and shows as a small cost.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 26, 2018, 06:28:45 PM
Then I increase the spring constant and there is a larger cost, 481J

It is this condition that got me thinking, not with this exact sim and not with this exact setup.

I asked myself where is this energy going and how is it getting there.  I had other setups that were showing a large power difference but a net zero energy and things along those lines which really got me wondering about what is happening.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 26, 2018, 07:06:08 PM
Since the only thing that can be accelerating is the arm\mass parts then if I let it run for a while they should come to an equilibrium of sorts and things should drop to a net zero.

-4.7J is close enough for now.

Now there is all this motion, all this force and it all is not really hard linked together, if it was then the acceleration would of been instant, that is the arms\masses would of been at speed with the wheel motor period, but there is a dynamic link between them.
What force is compressing the spring?  What force is the spring creating when it expands?  Simple questions.
Where and how is this force exchanged?

What if "I" could control that exchange?
What if "I" put something in the middle of that conservative exchange?

In my other data dumps I have shared, that is what I am doing.  I have put a "control" system in the middle and am using the conservative exchange of potentials in such a way as to not stop the exchange.
I am conserving Momentum, or I at least I should say I am allowing Momentum to be conserved but through my control device, like a dam on a river.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 26, 2018, 07:43:43 PM
I think then with what I have shown so far it is reasonable to say that "I" as the operator have put in the energy to compress the spring and spin the system up to speed.  This energy is now stored within the system.  This energy is in a constant state of exchange, it is oscillating between momentum of the arms\masses and compression of the spring and is seen by the torque required from the wheel motor.

There is a potential that some may not consider.  The red arm on the dual interconnected pic that connects the two arms together creates a closed system between those two arms, this then also means that the momentum of those arms can be conserved.
What if I were to take the relative momentum of one of those arms\masses and transfer it to the other one?
Would the other one then need to accelerate to store that momentum?
What other forces would change with that transfer change of momentum?
What is observing all of this?
How would that point of observation change?

I have provided the data for at least 3 different ways of interacting, one where I control the rate of change of the arms\masses relative to the wheel and each other, one where I control the wheel rate of rotation and one where I control both.

I have asked myself these questions and I have come up with my own answers and then used those answers to try and make the system act the way I want it to.

This concept can be used in other ways, I am sure of that, as well as I am sure there are better ways of doing it mechanically than what I came up with.

We understand all that is around us mainly by what we see, the mechanical universe if you will,, so if we can see that universe in a slightly different way we might be able to create new things and gain a higher level of understanding of what we see.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 26, 2018, 08:59:59 PM
The center to center measurements
Long arms 10
Short arms 4
Cross arms 8
pivot from axle 4
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 27, 2018, 05:29:14 PM
I took this sim and dropped it down to only 1 system.
It is still rotating at 180 degrees per second and the masses are the same as well as the spring.
What I did do was to add a very simple control device.
Here is the data from that.

I included a spring with no force constant between the masses so there is a relative velocity for comparison and to look for any significant change in that velocity.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 27, 2018, 06:06:03 PM
Then I adjusted the control device which is not shown.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 27, 2018, 07:08:58 PM
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 27, 2018, 07:10:29 PM
Then I increased the frames per second for a closer look
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 27, 2018, 09:51:59 PM
FYI,

2.0400000000e+000 long arm  kg
8.4000000000e-001 short arm  kg
6.3617251235e+001 wheel  kg
1.6400000000e+000 cross arm  kg
6.0000000000e+000 spring rest length  m
5.0000000000e+004 spring constant N/m
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 28, 2018, 06:34:34 AM
I might be wrong but I think that it is important to observe and understand that the system prior to the inclusion of the "control" device is a conservative mechanical oscillator.
I think this understanding of the conditions prior to the use of the "control" device makes it easier to understand that it is still only a conservative mechanical oscillator with the "control" device active and a load being taken out of the system.

In this setup there is no new energy being created or destroyed and that all the energy is accounted for.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 28, 2018, 04:28:04 PM
I am trying to save this run as an .avi but am having issues getting a file that will actually play,,,
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 28, 2018, 08:42:05 PM
While I am waiting for some feedback on how to make a video of the sim running I got a little carried away.
I idealized the sim by replacing all of the long arms and cross arms with rods,, they are ideal and massless, I increased the circle masses to 15kg.

If I could only get them to play nicely together, they keep doing sort of what they want and not like I want them to, that would be running at basically 90 degrees.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 29, 2018, 05:18:06 PM
One of the things that I find interesting is that if you do not operate this system correctly you do not see anything but a nice oscillation, that is it will act exactly the same, as say, an RLC circuit, a nice sine wave.  When you operate it correctly you get the wave forms I have shown.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on April 29, 2018, 10:11:56 PM
On the "more-fum"  testbed setup,, that is a 1MW setup, well almost 1 mega-watt of output :)  all that in a 30^2m box.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on May 01, 2018, 03:57:08 PM
This is a downsized unit with only a single pivot.  I increased the rate of rotation as well as brought the arms up to a high rate as well.
I had to idealize the arms to rods so that the sim would not error.

I added 2 springs so that I could either add or subtract energy from the arms and in these 2 pics I am subtracting energy via the springs.
These 2 runs were from the same starting point the difference is in how I have my control system adjusted.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on May 02, 2018, 09:36:09 PM
The system as shown is directional, so spin it one way and you get an out the other and you must give it an in.
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on May 02, 2018, 09:37:46 PM
now out
Title: Re: ROC
Post by: webby1 on May 03, 2018, 05:25:37 PM
I have sim'ed this up for a real world build.
The pivot arms are now 30cm long, the pivot from axle is 30cm and the long arms are 75cm,, I have increased the working mass and made a few enhancements that I know how to make (https://forum.1webby1.com/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
I am rotating the wheel at 360 degrees per second, aka 60RPM and with approx. 265J per second gain I think that can overcome the losses of a motor and a generator.
Since I made changes to the setup I am only showing the power graph and the data file.

Made like this I think I can rotate a lot faster safely.