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: Erfinder on May 18, 2017, 04:21:55 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 (https://forum.1webby1.com/index.php?topic=12.0)

This is just my take on a method,, I am sure there are better ways.


You are on "the" path.....


I agree 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: Erfinder on May 18, 2017, 05:18:27 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.


for what purpose? 


[/size]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.


I'm beyond belief......
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: Erfinder on May 18, 2017, 07:38:34 PM
To take things solid state,, no moving parts other than charge.


ok......


I have found that parts should be allowed to move....



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.
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  :)


Do what you want.....progress is progress......
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:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8oAN5cKHu8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8oAN5cKHu8)
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.