Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity

[MoRo]

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HX_nnqv9_o

[TinselKoala]

Congratulations!
You've discovered that the energy in your breakfast can be stored in a flywheel and an oscillating weight, like  vertical pendulum. The major loss mechanism is the noise when the weight bangs against the ground--- but it's easy to resupply that by giving the crank another turn or two.
You probably think that the "overunity" is because the toolbox is being raised up over and over, and that's really hard if you do it by hand. But what you are not considering, apparently, is that your mechanism, through the magnetic coupling, is re-using the same energy over and over, transferring it from the box to the wheel and back and forth. If you had a stroboscope, you'd be able to tell that the wheel slows a bit when the box is raised and speeds up as the box falls.
I'm not sure where centripetal force enters into this. At least you didn't say "centrifugal". That would have really worried me.

[MoRo]

Congratulations!
You've discovered that the energy in your breakfast can be stored in a flywheel and an oscillating weight, like  vertical pendulum. The major loss mechanism is the noise when the weight bangs against the ground--- but it's easy to resupply that by giving the crank another turn or two.
You probably think that the "overunity" is because the toolbox is being raised up over and over, and that's really hard if you do it by hand. But what you are not considering, apparently, is that your mechanism, through the magnetic coupling, is re-using the same energy over and over, transferring it from the box to the wheel and back and forth. If you had a stroboscope, you'd be able to tell that the wheel slows a bit when the box is raised and speeds up as the box falls.
I'm not sure where centripetal force enters into this. At least you didn't say "centrifugal". That would have really worried me.

First, let me thank you for the congratulations...


Now, let me handle the sarcasm...


You are correct! I didn’t say “centrifugal”... As there is no such thing as “centrifugal force”.


The word “centrifugal” is an adjective that only applies to those centrifugal masses experiencing centripetal (center pushing) forces. Since you stated that you don’t understand how centripetal force comes into play in this “discovery”, let me explain that:


My breakfast supplies energy to my hand. That energy ultimately accelerates the sockets taped to the rim of the bicycle to the desired speed. However, in harmony with Newtonian law, once they are moving at the desired speed, they want to stay at that speed. So, very little energy is required to maintain the desired speed. The sockets want to go in a strait trajectory but the tape holding them to the rim supplies centripetal force, constantly pushing them towards center to hold them in orbit. And while I'm on the subject of centripetal forces, let me also explain that there is no such thing in the universe as a force that emits a pulling force but only forces translating into a push thereby causing acceleration. Even gravity, magnetism and atomic-level week and strong forces, are ultimately pushing forces. The Earth and Moon are PUSHED by gravity towards the center of Earth-Moon mass thus they orbit each other. Since gravitational acceleration is a constant, then if the Moon were moving faster, it would leave Earth orbit, if slower it would spiral into the Earth. The tape however provides sufficient centripetal strength to overcome a great deal of centrifugal activity by the weighty sockets.


Every time I double the speed of the orbital cycle of the sockets, then the required centripetal pushing force is quadrupled.


The Earth is a much heavier mass than the Moon, yet the earth does not stay in the center.


Likewise the toolbox and bicycle, though much heavier than the sockets, want to counter orbit the sockets. The movement of this counter orbital pattern is restricted to a bidirectional linier motion.


After the initial build up, the energy required to maintain the orbital time of the sockets is far less than that required to move the mass of the bicycle and toolbox in there amplitude over the same period of time.


The mass of the bicycle and toolbox can be replaced by a generator, pump or frictional device.


A device based on centripetal force would also be suitable for energy production in a low gravity environment.

[TinselKoala]

Good answer, and almost correct.
The part about pushing forces.... that's not correct, though. I know there are theories of pushing gravity, and I kind of like those, and since gravity isn't fully understood I'm not going to criticise theories of pushing gravity. But other forces, like electrostatics, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces-- those can be attractive, definitely, as well as being repulsive. I don't think this is a matter of reference frame, either.

But that's neither here nor there. It appears that you really are serious... or my own filters need adjustment. Can you implement your idea in a simulator, like Phun perhaps? Or even a more sophisticated one, if you have access to it.
A model of some kind where forces could be measured would allow a better analysis of the situation. Meanwhile, if the system indeed "Yealds Over Unity" rather than being a simple (or complicated) flywheel energy storage system.... just how much overunity do you think it is? I ask because I know some very efficient ways of converting reciprocating motion (the toolbox up and down) into rotary motion (to drive the bicycle wheel). In fact, I estimate that if your system has a "COP" of as little as 1.2, the loop could be closed with a simple piston-crankshaft-pulley arrangement to make a solid self runner. If you have a "COP" of 2 in your system, there would be plenty left over to run a small generator and power a load, as well as being a self-runner.

Why don't you spend some time with the simulator, and also try to make the system out of something other than random junk in your garage--- then we can work on estimating its true efficiency and try to decide whether it's worth attempting to make it run itself.

Or you can continue with your advanced kinematics theories and stick with the bike wheel and toolbox... but I really don't think that's going to get anywhere useful.

[MoRo]

Good answer, and almost correct.
The part about pushing forces.... that's not correct, though. I know there are theories of pushing gravity, and I kind of like those, and since gravity isn't fully understood I'm not going to criticise theories of pushing gravity. But other forces, like electrostatics, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces-- those can be attractive, definitely, as well as being repulsive. I don't think this is a matter of reference frame, either.

But that's neither here nor there. It appears that you really are serious... or my own filters need adjustment. Can you implement your idea in a simulator, like Phun perhaps? Or even a more sophisticated one, if you have access to it.
A model of some kind where forces could be measured would allow a better analysis of the situation. Meanwhile, if the system indeed "Yealds Over Unity" rather than being a simple (or complicated) flywheel energy storage system.... just how much overunity do you think it is? I ask because I know some very efficient ways of converting reciprocating motion (the toolbox up and down) into rotary motion (to drive the bicycle wheel). In fact, I estimate that if your system has a "COP" of as little as 1.2, the loop could be closed with a simple piston-crankshaft-pulley arrangement to make a solid self runner. If you have a "COP" of 2 in your system, there would be plenty left over to run a small generator and power a load, as well as being a self-runner.

Why don't you spend some time with the simulator, and also try to make the system out of something other than random junk in your garage--- then we can work on estimating its true efficiency and try to decide whether it's worth attempting to make it run itself.

Or you can continue with your advanced kinematics theories and stick with the bike wheel and toolbox... but I really don't think that's going to get anywhere useful.

OK. Here you go:

http://youtu.be/B5RvlSIqIwY

Also, on the subject of pushing forces, as for gravity, it has obviously been represented in many illustrations as a warping of the space time field. So, for the purpose of illustrations... if you can imagine dropping a ball into a pool of water such that it is floating, and then open a drain... Officially, the ball is NOT being PULLED towards the drain... It is being PUSHED by the water molecules behind it as they flow...


Likewise all mass acts as a sort of a drain for time and time pushes on objects close to large clumps of mass as it flows towards mass center. Time is actually flowing towards the center of the Earth, causing a constant push on your atoms to hold you down.