Will it work?
It will turn the generator. The generator still produces less energy than input to the motor. The spring coupling at the end of the day is just a coupling. It has no effect on the amount of energy it takes to turn the generator under load, nor the amount of energy that the motor draws in order to turn a given load.
Quote from: MarkE on July 23, 2014, 02:22:12 AM
It will turn the generator. The generator still produces less energy than input to the motor. The spring coupling at the end of the day is just a coupling. It has no effect on the amount of energy it takes to turn the generator under load, nor the amount of energy that the motor draws in order to turn a given load.
What about mechanical advantage with same speed? Where and why it will be lost?Input power at the motor flange will be 2∏NT1 and output power at the generator flange will be 2∏NT2 and
T2 will be far more greater than T1 because of mechanical advantage. Since both are rotating at same speed the time of energy input and output also remain the same hence there should be a net gain in energy also. Power, which is energy per second also gets magnified.
Quote from: vineet_kiran on July 23, 2014, 04:11:51 AM
What about mechanical advantage with same speed? Where and why it will be lost?
Input power at the motor flange will be 2∏NT1 and output power at the generator flange will be 2∏NT2 and T2 will be far more greater than T1 because of mechanical advantage.
Since both are rotating at same speed the time of energy input and output also remain the same hence there should be a net gain in energy also. Power, which is energy per second also gets magnified.
The generator is less than 100% efficient. The motor is less than 100% efficient. The spring coupling is less than 100% efficient. The only energy available to the generator is frm the motor through the spring coupling. Storing up some energy in the spring by winding it up does nothing to produce energy, or improve efficiency.
Quote from: MarkE on July 23, 2014, 05:42:10 AM
The generator is less than 100% efficient. The motor is less than 100% efficient. The spring coupling is less than 100% efficient. The only energy available to the generator is frm the motor through the spring coupling. Storing up some energy in the spring by winding it up does nothing to produce energy, or improve efficiency.
You are totally mistaken.
I am not using the energy of spring. I am rotating a larger diameter pulley by a small diameter pulley with same speed to get mechanical advantage ensuring that the mechanical advantage is not lost in time as in the case of normal pulley arrangement.
Efficency of generator or motor doesnot come into picture here at all.
1. EIN_MOTOR > EOUT_MOTOR
2. EIN_SPRING = EOUT_MOTOR
ergo
3. EIN_MOTOR > EIN_SPRING
4. EIN_SPRING > EOUT_SPRING
ergo
5. EIN_MOTOR > EOUT_SPRING
6. EIN_GENERATOR = EOUT_SPRING
ergo
7. EIN_SPRING > EIN_GENERATOR, and
ergo
8. EIN_MOTOR > EIN_GENERATOR
9. EIN_GENERATOR > EOUT_GENERATOR
ergo
10. EIN_SPRING > EOUT_GENERATOR, and
ergo
11. EIN_MOTOR > EOUT_GENERATOR.
QED.
Pin at motor = 2πNT1 at smaller flange
Pin at generator = 2πNT2 at bigger flange
T2 is greater than T1
Hence Pin at generator is greater than Pin at the motor
Hence Pout from generator is greater than Pin at motor.
Since both flanges are rotating at same speed energy is not lost in time.
Please understand the concept.
Quote from: vineet_kiran on July 24, 2014, 09:23:29 PM
Pin at motor = 2πNT1 at smaller flange
Pin at generator = 2πNT2 at bigger flange
T2 is greater than T1
Hence Pin at generator is greater than Pin at the motor
Hence Pout from generator is greater than Pin at motor.
Since both flanges are rotating at same speed energy is not lost in time.
Please understand the concept.
The concept does not work. Springs don't make free energy. The only energy that you can get at the output of a spring is energy that you transfer directly through it plus energy that the spring releases as it relaxes or less the energy that goes into the spring as it is tensed. In a dynamic situation where the spring tenses and relaxes: the average energy added and subtracted by those two actions average to zero. That means that your equations are wrong as the proof in my previous post showed, and your concept does not work. The spring like any other coupling simply transfers the torque less losses between the two flange plates. Contrary to your claims: T
GENERATOR is on average
always less than T
MOTOR. The average rotational velocities are the same. P
AVERAGE GENERATOR IN < P
AVERAGE MOTOR OUT.
Bobby Amarasingham uses spring coupling on many of his new devices.
With an eccentric flywheel there is secondary oscillation.
Simulation does indeed show energy increase, but you need to translate this motion to a shaft, somehow, and it must be safe.
Never seen a video, in reality. Interresting concept of study.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on July 24, 2014, 09:55:42 PM
Bobby Amarasingham uses spring coupling on many of his new devices.
With an eccentric flywheel there is secondary oscillation.
Simulation does indeed show energy increase, but you need to translate this motion to a shaft, somehow, and it must be safe.
Never seen a video, in reality. Interresting concept of study.
To the best of my knowledge, Bobby Amarasingham has never been able to establish excess energy output versus input in any of his machines. Mechanical oscillations move energy back and forth between kinetic energy maxima in moving mass and potential energy maxima in tensed springs. Neither tensed spring nor moving mass have ever been shown to exhibit excess energy alone or in combination.
Since the subject was brought up.
Heres of Bobby's latest machine, can anyone guess its internal assembly ?
Think logically..
He calls it "Latest double action mechanical space energy harvesting machine all rights reserved by galaxel ltd"
BA loves to make curious machines that shake and rattle furiously. All that shaking makes it difficult to take clean direct torque and speed measurements at sufficient bandwidth, but it can be done. The other option of course is to attempt to self-loop.
He who guesses this device will understand a very very good design for implementing springy energy resonance.
Probably the best springy device ever made.
I will not respond to this thread anymore.
Quote from: MarkE on July 24, 2014, 09:39:07 PM
The concept does not work. Springs don't make free energy. The only energy that you can get at the output of a spring is energy that you transfer directly through it plus energy that the spring releases as it relaxes or less the energy that goes into the spring as it is tensed. In a dynamic situation where the spring tenses and relaxes: the average energy added and subtracted by those two actions average to zero. That means that your equations are wrong as the proof in my previous post showed, and your concept does not work. The spring like any other coupling simply transfers the torque less losses between the two flange plates. Contrary to your claims: TGENERATOR is on average always less than TMOTOR. The average rotational velocities are the same. PAVERAGE GENERATOR IN < PAVERAGE MOTOR OUT.
Do you mean say that concept of mechanical advantage itself is wrong? Then why do you use pulley or gear arrangements to switch between speed and torque? What happens if smaller pulley / gear rotates a bigger pulley / gear with same speed? (if mechanical advantage is not lost)I know very well that storing and releasing energy in a spring will not yield any excess energy. But I am not using stored energy. Working principle here is based on mechanical advantage.
Quote from: vineet_kiran on July 25, 2014, 01:16:35 AM
Do you mean say that concept of mechanical advantage itself is wrong? Then why do you use pulley or gear arrangements to switch between speed and torque? What happens if smaller pulley / gear rotates a bigger pulley / gear with same speed? (if mechanical advantage is not lost)
I know very well that storing and releasing energy in a spring will not yield any excess energy. But I am not using stored energy. Working principle here is based on mechanical advantage.
These are very basic concepts that you can check out for yourself:
The product of force and distance moved on one side of a lever is, absent losses, the same as the product of force and distance on the other side of a lever.
Coupling through different size pulleys, gears, etc, is just a rotary version of a lever.
I have already proven mathematically that your concept does not work as you claim.
Quote from: MarkE on July 26, 2014, 06:41:50 AM
These are very basic concepts that you can check out for yourself:
The product of force and distance moved on one side of a lever is, absent losses, the same as the product of force and distance on the other side of a lever.
Coupling through different size pulleys, gears, etc, is just a rotary version of a lever.
I have already proven mathematically that your concept does not work as you claim.
I agree with that.
a) In a lever force gets magnified and distance gets reduced.
What happens if in a lever force gets magnified and distance is not reduced? - which is practically
not possible
b) In gears and pulleys (rotary version of lever) torque gets magnified and speed gets reduced.
What happens if in gears and pulleys torque gets magnified and speed is not reduced?
Which is practically possible using a spring coupling.
It is also possible by another method. In the following link PDF file, please see 'Mechanical analogy'
http://www.overunity.com/10774/over-unity-by-reaction-helping-action/msg287484/#msg287484 (http://www.overunity.com/10774/over-unity-by-reaction-helping-action/msg287484/#msg287484)
In your 'mathematical analysis' you have considered only E (in) and E (out) but not torque and speed.
You postulate conditions that you cannot show to exist. That is called fantasy.
Quote from: MarkE on July 26, 2014, 09:25:35 AM
You postulate conditions that you cannot show to exist. That is called fantasy.
You conclude without verifying. That is called ignorance.
I am not formulating any postulate. I have posted the experiment in "Half Baked Ideas" for discussion.
Your postulate relies on the false notion that the average tension within the spring is not constant. Basic physics teaches us that is false. You are free to try and show that such a thing is possible. Simply declaring fantastical ideas does not either make them true or worthy of debate.
Your assertion:
"When motor shaft is rotated, it rotates the generator shaft applying force at the end of larger diameter producing greater torque at the centre of generator shaft but the reactive force of generator flange acts on outer edge of motor flange since spring is flexible and cannot offer reaction force. Hence you will get mechanical advantage depending on ratio of diameters of flanges with same speed."
Is wrong on multiple counts. The spring conveys the same torque to the big end as the small end. The tangential forces vary by radius. The torque does not.
Quote from: MarkE on July 26, 2014, 10:52:39 AM
Your postulate relies on the false notion that the average tension within the spring is not constant. Basic physics teaches us that is false. You are free to try and show that such a thing is possible.
A huge rotating wheel will have tremendous moment of inertia. Hence once you set a huge wheel in rotation, force to be applied on its outer edge to keep it rotating will be negligible. The tension developed in spring will be corresponding to this force only. So, tension developed in spring and energy consumed for tensioning the spring are also negligible. This will be taken care of by mechanical advantage.
Quote from: MarkE on July 26, 2014, 10:52:39 AM
Simply declaring fantastical ideas does not either make them true or worthy of debate.
What for this forum is there? What for "half baked ideas"?
Quote from: MarkE on July 26, 2014, 10:52:39 AM
The spring conveys the same torque to the big end as the small end. The tangential forces vary by radius. The torque does not.
That happens only in case of rigid coupling. If you tie a meter length rope to a pillar and apply tangential force at the end of the rope, will the tangential force depend on the radius? Whatever force you apply at the edge of the rope, same force appears at the outer edge of the pillar.
For rigid coupling F(tangential) generator is less than F (tangential) motor depending on radius.
For spring coupling F (tangential) generator = F (tangential) motor, doesnot depend on radius. Hence torque will be magnified.
Quote from: vineet_kiran on July 26, 2014, 12:03:44 PM
A huge rotating wheel will have tremendous moment of inertia. Hence once you set a huge wheel in rotation, force to be applied on its outer edge to keep it rotating will be negligible.
You are conflating temporarily consuming stored kinetic energy with torque transfer.
Quote
The tension developed in spring will be corresponding to this force only. So, tension developed in spring and energy consumed for tensioning the spring are also negligible. This will be taken care of by mechanical advantage.
Wrong. The tension in the spring is a result of the reflected load torque. Over time the power contributed by a finite energy store such as the maximum energy that the spring can store or the flywheel can store approaches zero.
Quote
What for this forum is there? What for "half baked ideas"?
The idea is dead on arrival because it relies on non-physical concepts.
Quote
That happens only in case of rigid coupling.
Again that is wrong. The compliance of the coupling sets a maximum variation, and combined with the inertia sets a time constant. Averaged over many time constants, the torque is the same as with a rigid coupling.
Quote
If you tie a meter length rope to a pillar and apply tangential force at the end of the rope, will the tangential force depend on the radius? Whatever force you apply at the edge of the rope, same force appears at the outer edge of the pillar.
I see you appear to be very confused about where the forces originate. If you apply a linear tangential force out at some moment arm as in your pillar example then the torque depends on the radius. A rotating device such as a motor develops a torque, not a linear tangential force. A generator reflects a torque, not a linear tangential force.
Quote
For rigid coupling F(tangential) generator is less than F (tangential) motor depending on radius.
Both the motor and the generator operate on torque. The spring transfers torque. The tangential forces depend on the radii.
Quote
For spring coupling F (tangential) generator = F (tangential) motor, doesnot depend on radius. Hence torque will be magnified.
No dude, see as I have explained. If I have an 1800 rpm 1 hp motor, that motor turns 188.5r/s and produces a
torque of 3.96 N*m. Tangential force, not the torque depends on the radius. Ditto a generator that produces 1hp*efficiency output at 1800 rpm.
It needs to hold against the torque. A rigid coupling is nothing more than a spring with a very high K.
Quote from: webby1 on July 26, 2014, 01:40:18 PM
If the thought is that if I pull on one end of a clock spring with 1lb of force then the other end of the clock spring needs to hold against that force, and if the length of arm connecting the two ends are not the same then the resulting torque on the output side will be higher,, sound enough except for the change in direction, or angle, of force as it is transferred through the spring,, the ends, in this case, end up pulling in towards each other as well as a tangential force against the ends of the arms.
I say this because I actually built this about a year ago,, and noticed that the end connections would rotate as force was applied pointing towards the true direction of applied force.
You are exactly right. The force appearing on generator flange depends on direction or angle of application of force from the spring. To overcome this problem you may have to use several springs one above the other with their ends terminating at equidistances on respective flanges.
For example if you use four springs, their ends should terminate at 90 degrees apart on respective flanges. You know about this because you have conducted the experiment. It is difficult argue with people who simply talk without practical knowledge.
Quote from: MarkE on July 26, 2014, 01:26:08 PM
No dude, see as I have explained. If I have an 1800 rpm 1 hp motor, that motor turns 188.5r/s and produces a torque of 3.96 N*m. Tangential force, not the torque depends on the radius. Ditto a generator that produces 1hp*efficiency output at 1800 rpm.
The torque developed by a 1 HP motor depends on its internal characteristics such as internal diameter of the rotor, strength of electromagnetic forces etc. The torque you get at the motor shaft is a result of these internal characterisics.
But if you fix a lengthy lever arm to the motor shaft, even a little child can hold this lever arm and prevent 1 HP motor shaft from rotating. If you tie a lengthy rope instead of a lever arm, even a adult cannot prevent motor shaft from rotating because force doesnot get magnified through rope since it is not rigid.
Through your postings I can make out that you are a superficial crank. Too much book reading without practical knowledge makes a superficial crank.
Take examples of Farday, Newton, Edison etc., I think none of them had academic carreer.
Quote from: vineet_kiran on July 27, 2014, 12:55:39 AM
The torque developed by a 1 HP motor depends on its internal characteristics such as internal diameter of the rotor, strength of electromagnetic forces etc. The torque you get at the motor shaft is a result of these internal characterisics.
Those characteristics are how the motor gets its 1hp rating.
Quote
But if you fix a lengthy lever arm to the motor shaft, even a little child can hold this lever arm and prevent 1 HP motor shaft from rotating. If you tie a lengthy rope instead of a lever arm, even a adult cannot prevent motor shaft from rotating because force doesnot get magnified through rope since it is not rigid.
And in that you have just confirmed that the tangential force is as I have been telling you the motor torque divided by the length of the moment arm. The torque into the spring does not depend upon the flange plate or spring diameters. You have now eviscerated your own postulate.
Quote
Through your postings I can make out that you are a superficial crank. Too much book reading without practical knowledge makes a superficial crank.
Take examples of Farday, Newton, Edison etc., I think none of them had academic carreer.
Ad homs on top of destroying your own argument don't speak well for you.
Tom, sure you can do those things. However, over time you can't either keep winding up the spring indefinitely, nor can you unwind it indefinitely. Over time the average amount of wind-up or relaxation on a per rotation basis tends towards zero. That means that on average the amount of power that the spring stores or releases tends towards zero. On average the spring just conveys power from the motor to the load (generator). The input power is the motor torque multiplied by the shaft speed. That same power, ignoring losses, conveys from one end of the spring to the other.
http://www.colourbox.com/image/set-of-two-car-springs-and-rubber-spacers-image-4735803
.
A motor or generator will not necessarily have a flat efficiency curve. So, if you are moving up and down the efficiency you will need a calibration curve that you can use to correct the measured values. The easiest way around this problem is to find a load that is very flat at least in the region where you want to make measurements.
Quote from: webby1 on July 28, 2014, 12:45:27 AM
I have been stepping by 0.1V from 0.5V up to 3.5V,, this is how I noticed my issue,, when I was done after a few hours of running it and went back to spot check my previous numbers the were off by a fair amount.
After I posted the question here I was thinking that since I have replaced the meters, wires, input motor twice and the load resistors that my problem might be mechanical in the built in gearbox for the output motor,, what if the grease they are using "softens" after so much shear,, but I am not sure if that would give the change I am getting,, any way, I have diluted that lube down with some thin stuff and by itself it spins easier,, but the noise is pretty bad and it is late,, so I will run it back up tomorrow and hope that the issue is solved.
and here I thought that it would be a simple case of set it up and just run it, record it and then I could compare,,, nothing is that simple some days :)
A gear box adds a lot of variables. In the ideal case you would have a good torque transducer and then control the load electronically to get your measurement set-points. You might be a lot better off with something like a prony brake than a gear motor.
illumination is found here :-X
the truth is out there 8)
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on August 21, 2014, 09:33:11 PM
illumination is found here :-X
the truth is out there 8)
Out where? Please turn the illumination towards truth! World will be greatful to you!
Quote from: webby1 on July 28, 2014, 08:15:55 PM
Well no joy,, but now the current draw has gone down lower :)
I can only do with what I have,, or what I can make,, the new meters were an early birthday present.
To me it does not make sense that the input goes down and the output goes up,, I could see the input go down and the output stay the same,, or more likely go down.
I guess that means I am gong to have to use plan "B",, more of a pain but a run up for 40 minutes without the testing device active in the middle should not be that hard to do.
@webby1,
Lubrication will change viscosity with use and temperature. Especially in a gearbox. There was a you-tube video
of a person testing a qmogen sized flywheel device for top RPM. He used a butane blowtorch to get the bearing
parts of his device up to temperature quickly before he began. Now I can see why.
---
There are instrumentation coupling-connectors with torque measuring devices built in. It finds the torque and
the rpm and an instrument displays the mechanical power being transmitted through the coupling.
These type of things would be useful for use in a rotating-equipment installation because it's often not
immediately obvious which direction mechanical power is flowing.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on July 25, 2014, 12:26:40 AM
He who guesses this device will understand a very very good design for implementing springy energy resonance.
Probably the best springy device ever made.
I will not respond to this thread anymore.
The living energy machine!
Gravock