Big try at gravity wheel

[Red_Sunset]

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]

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]

.....................................................................
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]

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.

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]

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.