Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 719111 times)

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #330 on:** January 16, 2014, 11:35:59 AM »

Quote from: Grimer on January 15, 2014, 06:10:27 PM

http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/
It's on my forum profile but since to get at it I have to click on the modify profile it's possible that only I can get at it.
Frankly, this website is the pits.
Mark seems to have given up (thank god). I'll carry on the instruction with you if you like. From your posts so far you seem to have what it takes. I was impressed by your RAR diagrams.

Hi Frank,
You are correct about the website, it is actually a web document repository, but it serves its purpose well.
You have a document there from the keely site, "the road to perpetual motion", this heading is pretty much what MarkE is asking for, but focused in on the pendulum.

If I may add my 2 cents on this road. and I do not want to pre-empt the ball that has been kicked in your direction Grimer, I only want to give the discussion an inertial push start. We all have good idea's and a refinement by taking the best of each, we might be able to construct something better that each one "standing alone".

I am of the opinion that we should start with an open mind following accepted physics paths and we are out to break the LAW. If our thought does not break the law, perpetual is out of the question before we have started.

We also know that a natural flow obeys to the known laws of physics (since they are derived from it), therefore I am of the opinion that a perpetual flow has to be un-natural. The meaning of un-natural in this context, "is an outside interference that tampers with the process flow", and therewith introduces an asymmetry.
If the cycle process is left to the natural symmetry of nature, OU can not be achieved since observations for centuries have never observed this behavior.

In the context of the pendulum, I am of the opinion to achieve OU, the swing of the pendulum needs to be interfered with. The interference needs to achieve a greater energy on the down swing than the upswing and be independent from the potential energy of the blob. The interference can be possibly, a one side string swing modification.

And so on & on

An alternative model for OU can be the RAR, some interesting concepts float around in that one. One aspect that can fox you around in understanding is similar to what foxed may people around with the homo-polar generator

PS: MarkE, I am sure Grimer will pitch the ball, patience is a virtue !

Red_Sunset

Grimer · « **Reply #331 on:** January 16, 2014, 11:50:04 AM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 16, 2014, 06:41:03 AM

Mon Cher Grimer,
I don't think so, that Mark has given up.
Even if he did, you are hooked. and that shouldn't be an excuse for you to run to the back door.

He asked a basic simple question and is entitled to a basic simple answer

Careful, I am pitching the ball, ......stretch your arms out to grab...

PS: No, you can not have, can be a valid answer!

Greetings, Yellow_Sunrise

I think he is quite capable of realising that.

Reading through your posts I see that you have had trouble with TK aka Al Setalokin - even resorting to capital letters on occasion.

I don't think Mark is sincere. He certainly will not co-operate. And in those circumstances I consider my best course of action is to put him on my ignore list. To send him to Coventry. If everybody did the same with disruptive characters they would leave. If they came back under a new name one would soon spot them - especially if they were stupid enough to choose a name which was an anagram of the previous one.

As for being hooked. For a while I was. But now I'm the one that got away.

I've replied to your PM.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #332 on:** January 16, 2014, 12:04:03 PM »

Quote from: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 11:50:04 AM

.....................................................................
I don't think Mark is sincere. He certainly will not co-operate. And in those circumstances I consider my best course of action is to put him on my ignore list. To send him to Coventry. If everybody did the same with disruptive characters they would leave. If they came back under a new name one would soon spot them - especially if they were stupid enough to choose a name which was an anagram of the previous one.

Hi Frank,
The focus is on a simple question, that deserves a simple answer.

What is required, choose the lease painful one...
** Stop circling the fire.
** In good English, "hey Jo ....stop your duck and dive"
** As Tom Cruise repeatedly said in one of his movies. "Show me the MONEY"

** Failing the above, as a last resort...Lethal injection

Anything short of that will not do.

Faithfully yours, Red_Sunset

Grimer · « **Reply #333 on:** January 16, 2014, 02:17:19 PM »

Below is a question I had from a BesslerWheel forum member who wanted me to explain my Two Flavours of Work post.
Since I also posted it here I thought I would post my BW reply here to for anyone who wants a layman's explanation.
I should point out that Mark is not the MarkE of this forum.

Quote from: Mark

For the sake of argument, let's say I'm not familiar with [even elementary] calculus. I believe you'll reach a larger audience if you are able to keep the discussion on an fundamental level. You know, layman's terms. One needn't know mathematics to understand the concept of a jerk [that's verb, not noun :-)].

You have used the term/phrase "jerk energy" several times in the past. In my previous post, I questioned the extraction of useful work that might be derived from tapping just the rate of change of an object's acceleration. The keywords there being 'useful' and 'just'.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that a moving object's kinetic energy can be tapped from any point between slightly altering it's velocity, and bringing it to a halt. But I guess my real question, Frank, is how much energy are you talking about? Are you talking about turning a generator, pumping water, lifting a box.

I've only just come across your post, Mark. I've been busy on the Overunity.com forum.

I'll do the best I can to answer it in layman's terms.

Firstly, the amount of energy I'm talking about.

Bessler has given us evidence of a minimum value. Though not much compared to a steam engine - which is presumably why people lost interest in it - that energy is free and available everywhere on earth - even underground.

The energy you are familiar with is the second derivative, force x distance energy known as kinetic energy.

But there are other forms of energy, thermal energy, radiation energy, etc. These can be transformed (I prefer the word transduced to avoid confusion with electrical transformation) into mechanical energy for running steam engines for example or used directly without transducing them into their mechanical equivalent (you've no doubt heard of the mechanical equivalent of heat) to keep us warm for instance.

Now Jerk is as independent a source of energy from the second derivative as heat is. But because it is so close in hierarchical order to the second derivative, Force x distance, people don't seem to realise this. They accept heat (the nth derivative) and light (the mth derivative) as being different because they are zillions of derivatives away from KE. But jerk is so close that it seems just an aspect of KE.

There is one clue however which should give them pause for thought and that is the conservation aspect. The first derivative, momentum is conserved, the second derivative, kinetic energy is conserved, and jerk (angular momentum) is conserved. All three conservation laws are independent like independent nations bordering each other.

Another problem that arises is the use of the word "energy". It can be used in the global sense of ENERGY which includes heat, light, atomic, etc. or it can be used in the local sense of second derivative, Force x distance energy. It's a language problem.

We should really think of the first three derivatives as velocity energy, acceleration energy, and jerk energy. Then each would have its own name, its own nationality, like Italy. France and Germany.

But you might protest - but what about mass - where does mass come in?

Well we can think of these three as having unit mass - After all a velocity has to be the velocity of something. We can't have a grin without a Cheshire cat (except in Wonderland). So we can think of them as specific velocity, specific acceleration and specific jerk.

(If you wanted to go further, specific snap, specific crackle and specific pop)

Now I see gravitational "acceleration" energy as being mechanically transduced into jerk energy. This jerk energy is split into two.
One half goes off to earth and changes the angular momentum of the earth by an infintesimal fraction of its total angular momentum.

The other half is left behind as useful angular momentum which powers a mechanical device such as a wheel.

After all, we are already tapping the earth's angular momentum with space vehicles so we know it can be done.

It's called the slingshot effect though NASA prefers the term "gravity assist".

I hope that goes some way to answering your question.

MarkE · « **Reply #334 on:** January 16, 2014, 02:49:41 PM »

Grimer, Newton's Second Law allows us to express energy entirely in units of: mass, distance and time: A Joule = 1 kg*m^2/(s^2). So that we may see their equivalence, please dimension the units for: "velocity energy", "acceleration energy", and "jerk energy" in terms of: kilograms, meters, and seconds. It will be helpful to show an example of energy in each form:

For example:
Accelerating an unimpeded mass of 1kg at a rate of one meter / second / second over a distance of one meter requires 1 Joule.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #335 on:** January 16, 2014, 05:14:35 PM »

Quote from: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 02:17:19 PM

..............................................................................
I hope that goes some way to answering your question.

Hi Frank,

Thanks for your write-up effort.
It is a nice theory that we can identify energy in several component parts. It appears like a sensible theory.
So I have no argument with any of what is presented, although I do not see where it takes us any further than where we were before you posted it.
There is more to come ?, or should I do more digestion to satisfy my hunger

My interest lies in how this can provide a conservation workaround as you initially theorized to.

Regards, Red_Sunset

Grimer · « **Reply #336 on:** January 16, 2014, 07:39:07 PM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 16, 2014, 05:14:35 PM

Hi Frank,

Thanks for your write-up effort.
It is a nice theory that we can identify energy in several component parts. It appears like a sensible theory.
So I have no argument with any of what is presented, although I do not see where it takes us any further than where we were before you posted it.
There is more to come ?, or should I do more digestion to satisfy my hunger

My interest lies in how this can provide a conservation workaround as you initially theorized to.

Regards, Red_Sunset

I'd already prepared the following offline before I read your post so I'll paste it and add any other comments at the end.

==============================================================

To sum up the diagram of a previous post showing the paths of a cicular pendulum and a cycloid pendulum:

The cycloid pendulum arrives at the lowest point of the arc having the NG 2nd derivative energy of the NG drop length.

The circular pendulum on the other hand arrives with both the NG 2nd derivative energy and a EG 3rd derivative contribution.

How can this 3rd derivative energy be visualised?

When I was a young design engineer indeterminate structures were analysed with an approximate method called Moment Distribution invented by a US engineer, Hardy Cross, a method long since superceeded by computers and Finite Element Analysis.

The forces at the end of a member were diagramatically represented not only by the tension and compression straight vector arrows but in addition by circular arrows which denoted moment or twist.

So the circular pendulum shaft has NG energy and EG 3rd derivative twist energy. It is this twist energy, this moment energy that is released to take the bob higher than its start position as it switches at nadir junction from the slow circular track to the fast Brachistochrone track.
==============================================================

To actually carry out an experiment to demonstrate this would be a herculean task since one would have to have a pendulum shaft with asymmetric properties; stiff on the circular pendulum side and flexible on the cycloid pendulum side.

However, if one thinks about it one can see how a stiff pendulum shaft will be given a moment as it falls since there is a well know phenomena which demonstrates this in spades.

And that phenomena is the falling chimney which breaks in the middle as it falls. Think about it.

It breaks because its subjected to a bending moment which is sufficient to exceed its bending strength. The shear size and weakness of the chimney shows this up whereas with the pendulum shaft everything takes place below the threshold of perception - but not below the threshold of reason.

No doubt sourpuss TK aka AS would like to call that rationalizing.

minnie · « **Reply #337 on:** January 16, 2014, 08:38:14 PM »

Hi Grimer,
well explained, even made sense to me. Thank you.
John.

Grimer · « **Reply #338 on:** January 16, 2014, 09:15:51 PM »

Quote from: minnie on January 16, 2014, 08:38:14 PM

Hi Grimer,
well explained, even made sense to me. Thank you.
John.

Thanks very much, minnie.

I wish the people on BesslerWheel.com could understand me as well as you do.

conradelektro · « **Reply #339 on:** January 16, 2014, 09:50:47 PM »

Quote from: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 07:39:07 PM

And that phenomena is the falling chimney which breaks in the middle as it falls. Think about it.

It breaks because its subjected to a bending moment ....

I would like to offer an alternative explanation for the falling chimney:

See, chimneys are jerks who jerk off during the night because they do not like being watched jerking off.

Usually chimneys are blown up during the day. And when the chimney falls it wants to jerk off one last time. But the chimney cramps up in daylight and breaks because he applies a too great bending force.

Greetings, Conrad

MarkE · « **Reply #340 on:** January 17, 2014, 01:41:23 AM »

Quote from: Grimer on January 16, 2014, 07:39:07 PM

I'd already prepared the following offline before I read your post so I'll paste it and add any other comments at the end.

==============================================================

To sum up the diagram of a previous post showing the paths of a cicular pendulum and a cycloid pendulum:

The cycloid pendulum arrives at the lowest point of the arc having the NG 2nd derivative energy of the NG drop length.

The circular pendulum on the other hand arrives with both the NG 2nd derivative energy and a EG 3rd derivative contribution.

How can this 3rd derivative energy be visualised?

When I was a young design engineer indeterminate structures were analysed with an approximate method called Moment Distribution invented by a US engineer, Hardy Cross, a method long since superceeded by computers and Finite Element Analysis.

The forces at the end of a member were diagramatically represented not only by the tension and compression straight vector arrows but in addition by circular arrows which denoted moment or twist.

So the circular pendulum shaft has NG energy and EG 3rd derivative twist energy. It is this twist energy, this moment energy that is released to take the bob higher than its start position as it switches at nadir junction from the slow circular track to the fast Brachistochrone track.
==============================================================

To actually carry out an experiment to demonstrate this would be a herculean task since one would have to have a pendulum shaft with asymmetric properties; stiff on the circular pendulum side and flexible on the cycloid pendulum side.

However, if one thinks about it one can see how a stiff pendulum shaft will be given a moment as it falls since there is a well know phenomena which demonstrates this in spades.

And that phenomena is the falling chimney which breaks in the middle as it falls. Think about it.

It breaks because its subjected to a bending moment which is sufficient to exceed its bending strength. The shear size and weakness of the chimney shows this up whereas with the pendulum shaft everything takes place below the threshold of perception - but not below the threshold of reason.

No doubt sourpuss TK aka AS would like to call that rationalizing.

Grimer, I see three statements that can be the basis for a testable hypothesis:

1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.

Please correct any of these statements as necessary. Once we are absolutely clear on the hypothesis I believe that I can define experiments that do not require Herculean efforts.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #341 on:** January 17, 2014, 09:26:04 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on January 17, 2014, 01:41:23 AM

Grimer, I see three statements that can be the basis for a testable hypothesis:
1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.
Please correct any of these statements as necessary. Once we are absolutely clear on the hypothesis I believe that I can define experiments that do not require Herculean efforts.

Hi MarkE,
From my viewpoint, you hit the nail squarely on the head. The cost factor introduced by the cycloid swing path interference will be the prime consideration in the final balance tally.
Red_Sunset

MarkE · « **Reply #342 on:** January 17, 2014, 10:18:29 AM »

Red_Sunset, I think we have real progress here because I think that Grimer has said enough to that we can state his hypothesis clearly and unambiguously. What we need now is for Grimer to either agree with the hypothesis as stated or make needed changes so that it accurately reflects his ideas. I am optimistic that once we have the hypothesis nailed down in language everyone agrees on that I can propose experiments that will not require high cost or difficulty.

Grimer · « **Reply #343 on:** January 17, 2014, 12:13:29 PM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 17, 2014, 09:26:04 AM

Hi MarkE,
From my viewpoint, you hit the nail squarely on the head. The cost factor introduced by the cycloid swing path interference will be the prime consideration in the final balance tally.
Red_Sunset

Hi Sailor,

Yep. I have to admit that in spite of being thorough pissed off with him and suspecting him of being an agent for Big Oil -
- a Battle of Waterloo carrier pigeon ready to fly home to his master as soon as it's clear that Gravity's not conservative -
- that he has a point.

Of course if the logic is sound then we don't need an experiment, do we.
We don't need experiments to show that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on other two sides, do we.

If experiment fails to confirm the many cheerful facts about the square on the hypotenuse then so much the worse for the experiment.

I suppose its useful to have an experiment to show to those too dim to follow a logical argument.
We'll have to call it the Didymus experiment, eh!

MarkE · « **Reply #344 on:** January 17, 2014, 12:32:16 PM »

Grimer, no argument by itself is going to make all of the observations that gravity seems to operate conservatively go away. If in the time of Euclid someone had shown that beyond some point there appeared to be no more prime numbers, and try as anyone could they could not locate additional prime numbers, then Euclid's assertion that there are an infinite number of primes would have been in great jeopardy. Therefore it is insufficient to simply declare that you have an exception to the common observation and accepted conclusion that gravity is conservative. If gravity is not always conservative that needs to be proven. That can be done by showing through repeatable and reliable experiment that gravity is not conservative under some set of conditions.

I have taken your statements and attempted to express what I believe you hypothesize as at least one set of conditions where gravity is not conservative. Please either confirm that those statements reproduced for your convenience here accurately represent your hypothesis, or change them as needed so that they do. Then we can proceed to work on an experiment design to test the hypothesis.

1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 719111 times)

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Grimer

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Grimer

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Grimer

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Grimer

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

conradelektro

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Grimer

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel