Gravity Driven Mechanisms

[Turtle]

It seems rather difficult to find a definition on this.

 

i'm not surprised that web searching "gravity driven" or its variations returns no neat definitions. the phrase is self evident. :shrug:

 

anyway, i want to revisit something you said that i may have implied i agreed with when i quoted this post of examples. specifically, you mischaracterized the clock example. you said:

...

Pendulum clock. Kinetic energy from the pendulum slowly releases the weight of the clock which was engaged by the key winding it up causing the maintenance of time. ...

 

a "pendulum clock" is not the same as a "weight/gravity driven" clock. there are spring driven pendulum clocks for example. now i know you meant "a weight-driven clock with a pendulum", but as we are on about technical matters, seems we oughta be precise in our technical language. (or so i have heard.)

 

so, your description of a "weight-driven pendulum clock". the kinetic energy of the pendulum comes from the intial person-push when the clock is started, and the pendulum is kept swinging with a push every tock. the tock-push comes from the ratcheted wheel that the top of the pendulum engages, and that wheel is driven by the torque applied to a drum by having the weight hang [exert a continuous downward force due to gravity] by a cable offset from the drums axis. anyway, the pendulum does not drive anything; it is driven. it adds nothing to the source of power turning the hands, rather it takes from that source. the pendulum's purpose/function is to set the timing of the clock, i.e. how fast the weight is allowed to fall.

 

again, the simple test of whether or not emile's machine is gravity driven, is to see it operate as do any of our agreed-on weight-driven mechanisms.

 

i have speculated on some actions of the device, but we have no evidence. some of these speculations of mine can be answered with a short video that starts with the device stopped and untouched, then without interruption we see emile start it and operate it for several cycles, and then we see emile let go the lever and let the device come to a full stop with no further touching. cut. print. distribute.

 

edit: speeling airs

Edited November 4, 2012 by Turtle

[Guest Aemilius]

Well I just can't block you Turtle, I only end up wondering when reading responses to your posts....

 

Turtle "emile introduces the thread by givng 2 examples of what he considers to be [definitionally] "gravity driven mechanisms". the examples were a water wheel & a weight driven clock."

 

You're really going all the way back to the beginning of the thread? I started the thread out with those two examples, it was an invitation to comment in a generalized way on what constitutes a gravity driven mechanism.

 

Turtle "in both cases of these example mechanisms there is an intial input of work from an outside source that raises mass. for the clock, a person winds up the weight with a key; for the water wheel the sun evaporates water which rises in the air as vapor & then falls as rain on high elevations and runs downhill."

 

Agreed, about those two examples.

 

Turtle "in both cases, after the initial input, and starting activation, each mechaism will "run", "operate", "work", and or "function" without further input of energy to raising the active mass and that "running" of the mechanism will have at least a characteristic motion of rotation. start the clock by swinging the pendulum (or setting whatever escapement into action with a nudge) and it runs [rotates the hands] until the weights land on the bottom of the case as gravity draws them down. start the water wheel rotating by putting it in a downhill water-flow and it runs until no more rain falls as gravity pulls down the raised water."

 

Sure, agreed about those two examples.

 

Turtle "emile then introduces a mechanism that he says is "gravity driven", in some [exactly?] same way or ways as the clock or the water wheel he gives as standards/premises."

 

Right.... the same way as in "gravity driven". The first two examples provided at the beginning of the thread were to foster discussion (which they did). I never held them up as any kind of "standard/premises" by which all other gravity driven mechanisms should be defined.... you got a quote?

 

Turtle "so, watching emile in the videos "run", "operate", "work", and/or otherwise "use" or "demonstrate" the mechanism, i see that there is no initial input of work that raises a mass as in the clock or the water wheel. that is a factual observation; not an opinion."

 

I've already shown how mass is affected by gravity once the mechanism has been imbalanced in "STAGE THREE - EQUILIBRIUM"....contradict the vectors.

 

Turtle "if emile [or some other active work inputer] nudges the weight arrangment of his mechaism into imbalance and then operates the lever on the mechanism...."

 

The diagrams show how the mechanism is imbalanced by rotating the sun sprocket (N degrees from P) in either direction from either of the two vertical un-stable positions of equilibrium (pendulum up or pendulum down) along with the resulting effect that gravity then has on the mechanism as a whole once it's been imbalanced. It isn't an initial nudge followed by a second action that "operates the lever". Once imbalanced (or nudged) by as little as one degree even with no bearings, if the hand is then taken away, it will proceed to swing of its own accord out the other eighty-nine degrees under the influence of gravity to one or the other of the two possible positions of stable equilibrium F.

 

Turtle "....the mechanism starts & undergoes a complex motion, one characteristic of which is rotation as with the clock & waterwheel. another factual observation/characterization."

 

Rotation.... a characteristic it also shares with the Earth, a car wheel, an airplane propeller, etc., etc.

 

Turtle "however, if emile lets go the lever or some other actor does not constantly operate the lever, the mechanism quickly stops all motion, rotational and otherwise, quite unlike the clock or the waterwheel. while we don't see a video of emile just letting go of the lever, he says himself the mechanism comes to a stop when the operation of the lever stops."

 

It comes to a stop if it's not being periodically imbalanced.

 

Turtle "so to my mind, the raised mass acting in a controlled fall & unattended over time on a mechanism is a, if not the, fundamental quality/characteristic of something "gravity driven" if weight-clocks and water wheels are exemplary of the phrase "gravity driven" . since emile's mechanism does not exhibit this characteristic, i conclude it is not "gravity driven". this is not a minor quibble or mincing of words, rather a fundamental flaw in a very premise of emile's arguments that his mechanism is "gravity driven".

 

I think the key words there are "to my mind" (which is about as subjective as it gets). To your mind, when water wheels and weight-clocks are held up as a standard it's not "gravity driven". Well, to my mind, water wheels and clocks may not be exemplary of all gravity driven mechanisms.

 

Turtle "as to the vector drawings, they have no bearing on the above argument."

 

More importantly, your above argument has no bearing on the vector drawings! Using that method I've already shown how and why the mechanism balances the way it does and also how it's affected by gravity when it's imbalanced. I've also shown that the sun sprocket (by being moved back and forth only a few degrees) doesn't move in such a way as to be capable of imparting rotational motion to the planet sprocket.

 

Turtle "which is to say they do not alter any of the observed facts/characteristics of the mechanism operating in the videos or the facts of those observations as i just described them."

 

Observed facts/characteristics? Your "observed facts/characteristics" as you describe them don't change the vectors.... a more appropriate method of describing the mechanism that eliminates the need for subjective opinion or analgous comparison.

 

Turtle "on the character of the vector drawings themselves.

 

as descriptions of discrete states of the device as constructed, i make no complaint with vectors' suitability to that task. vector away."

 

Vectors are suitable.... Why are none of your "arguments" accompanied by them? Not even one reproduced marked up diagram of mine showing an error or illustrating an alternate explanation.

 

Turtle "on the specific drawings though, if the length of arrows is calibrated relative to one another or some actual scale such as pounds or foot/pounds or "unit force(s)", then i would expect to see a calibrated scale on the drawings. 1" = x units for example, just as the directional part of the vector is calibrated for the force of gravity working "down".

 

"STAGE SIX - FORCE" should predict with reasonable certainty what forces arise when the mechanism is imbalanced (using vectors with assigned values). If you want to assign values now.... just make the length of the arrow representing the force D equal to one inch, then assign a value of two ounces to the force D, or.... one inch equals two ounces. All the values of the other arrows can be derived using that formula.

 

Turtle "emile disagreed that locks are water driven, saying motors pump the water and/or operate the valves. i gave examples of locks operating in Britain that have no motors; humans open the valves and move the chamber gates by hand. emile ignores that, reasserts locks are not "gravity driven mechanisms" and says that discussion is over."

 

I never said that locks work because motors pump the water.... Got a quote from somewhere? I recall saying the gates were opened and closed by electric motors (and sometimes even little old ladies as you pointed out). The misunderstanding between us consisted of what you were saying, that the descent of water through a canal is a gravity driven mechanism.... which is true, and what I was saying, which was that the actual machinery that opens and closes the gates is not a gravity driven mechanism (electric motors, little old ladies, etc.).... which is also true. That's all there was to that.

 

Turtle "so to my mind, if emile can not give an accounting for why locks are not "gravity driven mechanisms" in the same sense as weight-clocks and water-wheels per my argument of raised & released masses, then emile does not have a proper definition in his mind of what constitutes "a gravity driven mechanism" as are weight-clocks and water-wheels."

 

Again, that misunderstanding consisted of nothing more than you saying the descent of water through a canal is a gravity driven mechanism and me saying that the actual machinery that opens and closes the gates is not a gravity driven mechanism (electric motors, little old ladies etc.).

 

Turtle "this of course calls into question his analysis that leads him to declare his mechanism a "gravity driven mechanism".

 

It looks more and more to me like you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.... The only way the analysis being carried out can be called into question is by finding an error in the calculations.... find an error in the calculations.

 

Turtle "again this is not some off-topic symantic quibble. the whole point of this exercise is to class "gravity driven mechanisms" [presumably] using logical means, which is exactly what my arguments do."

 

Which usually translates to "this is some off-topic symantic quibble".... the whole point of my exercise is more about investigation than it is classing.

 

Turtle "....when emile suggests that were he to make some additions to his mechanism, those additions would activate the lever and he wouldn't have to. in that case, as there is still no raised mass beforehand, the mechanism would have to be operating of itself, which would be the very definition of a perpetual motion machine."

 

What I said was.... "What I'm aiming for is engineering a mechanism that rotates forcefully in response to an input force that is as small as possible. It's not complete yet, but if I see that the rotational force of the mechanism appears to be greater than the input force needed I will try for self rotation (why not?)." I said I'll try it.... why not? It's not the stated goal of the research (I have other applications in mind), but it looks interesting.

 

Turtle "imbalancing" the device means he is raising some mass."

 

but...but... a few posts earlier you said.... "i see that there is no initial input of work that raises a mass...." and then later you say "imbalancing the device means he is raising some mass...." Which is it? Why is it you're unable to use or address the vectors directly to illustrate alternative explanaitions?

 

Turtle "i did not say he is cranking it, rather i gave a crank as an example of a lever imparting rotational motion."

 

Got it.... levers can crank mechanisms.

 

Turtle "ps think of emile's little levering as you would a person pushing someone in a swing. once the swing is got going, the pusher need only add a little push at the top of the swing's arc [emile's all important timing] to get the swing to just as high -or higher- on its next opposite top of arc as the last."

 

Well you can think of it as a swing, you can think of it as an escapement or you can think of it as a refrigerator.... I think of it as a novel balanced experimental mechanism. It's definitely not like a swing, a swing is essentially a simple pendulum with a person on the end. A major difference between a simple pendulum and my mechanism is that my mechanism doesn't have to be "got going" using a series of small pushes in order to reach a point where just one more small push will take it over the top like a simple pendulum.... When imbalanced, this mechanism goes right into full rotation. A second major difference between them is that a simple pendulum will have two possible positions of equilibrium (one stable and one un-stable), unlike my mechanism which has four possible positions of equilibrium (two stable and two un-stable).

 

Turtle "(note that the time of each cycle is more or less constant and independent of the height of the swings, which is what makes a pendulum ideal for a clock escapement.)"

 

That would be a third difference between them, unlike a simple pendulum, mine has no discernable natural periodicity.... Other than that, sure, it's just like a swing.

 

Turtle addressing Chewbalka "so you reword the definitive characteristics and their application to "gravity driven mechanisms" that i introduced in my summary."

 

but...but... a few posts earlier you said.... "emile then introduces a mechanism that he says is "gravity driven", in some [exactly?] same way or ways as the clock or the water wheel he gives as standards/premises." First you say I introduced water wheels and clocks as a suitable standard for defining gravity driven mechanisms.... then you say you introduced water wheels and clocks as a standard in your summary post defining gravity driven mechanisms. Like I said before, I never held up those two particular examples as any kind of standard by which all gravity driven mechanisms should be defined. You introduced that standard in your summary.... Got any precedent setting links to support the artificial standard you're imposing?

 

Turtle "based on what emile has shown of his mechanism, -chewi et al- do you believe it is a gravity driven mechanism just as are a clock & water-wheel? if so exactly how, and if nay excatly how nay't."

 

How could my mechanism be seen as the same as as a clock or water wheel when it has four possible positions of equilibrium and they don't? It's an unprecedented artificial standard that you're applying.

 

Turtle "for extra credit, please favor a verdict on whether or not locks are gravity driven mechanisms with the appropriate whys or why nay'ts."

 

Again, that misunderstanding early on consisted of nothing more than Turtle saying that water descending through a canal is a gravity driven mechanism.... which is correct, and me saying that the actual machinery that opens and closes the gates is not a gravity driven mechanism (electric motors, little old ladies etc.).... which is also correct. There's nothing to it, but he's playing it up pretty good!

 

Turtle "the problem with your assessment of emile's device is that it cannot operate/work -say rotate- for more than 1 cycle without someone or something continuously attending to moving the lever. if he doesn't touch the lever, but simply moves the rotor to a point of imbalance and lets go, the unattended device will move back to one of the [4] positions of stability and stop, not even completing 1 rotation."

 

Shows you don't clearly understand it.... there're four possible positions of equilibrium shown in the diagrams, two stable and two un-stable.... not "[4] positions of stability". I think maybe you were right, maybe CraigD is my horse in this race.

 

Turtle "think of a car and its wheels, wherin gravity acts on the car all the time by pulling it down, but the car will not drive -move as we want- on its own unless of course it's on a hill. great if you're always on a hill and want to go down it; not so great for an uphill or flat road. naturally, the engine/motor is the "driving force" for cars, nothwithstanding gravity effects on the car. (indeed, a heavier car requires a larger engine to do its work, than the engine required of a lighter car.)"

 

Hah! We've actually moved on now from the last absurd analgous comparison of the mechanism to a swing to an altogether new level of absurdity.... analgous comparison of the mechanism to a car! What do you think he'll compare it to next Chewbalka, the Eiffel Tower maybe?

 

Turtle "quite simply, again, if you cannot put emile's mechanism in place of the motive power of the water-wheel, the lock, the car, or the clock, then whatever emile's mechanism is, it is not a "gravity driven mechanism" in the same way as what it is meant to replace."

 

Again, an unprecedented and artificially imposed standard (got links?) all dressed up as logic.... now with the addition of a whole new feature.... namely that I implied or suggested somewhere the mechanism was somehow meant to replace something. Where did I ever say it was intended to replace anything.... Got any quotes at all?

 

(trivilly, if emile's mechanism weighed a kilo, then you could hang it as replacement to a 1 kilo clock-wieght and while we could then say "emile's mechanism is driving the clock", it would still be the clock that is the gravity driven mechanism and not emile's mechanism.)"

 

That must be some good bud!

 

Turtle "....kinetic energy is energy of movement, and because movement is a requirement of a "mechanism", [see definitons below], then kinetic energy is a player. but since it is a player in all mechanisms, i.e. all mechanisms exhibit movement when working, seeing movement in an "assemblage of fixed and moving parts" just tells you the device fits the category "mechanism"; it says nothing about the potential energy the mechanism converts to kinetic energy. i.e., the source of power. no one is contending this is not a mechanism. clearly it is."

 

Yup.... that's definitely some good bud.

 

Turtle "for one thing, the weights work in opposition to each other, so they effectively cancel one another when you consider their movment through one cycle. one weight has moved around counterclockwise and one has moved clockwise once around."

 

Again, shows you don't clearly understand it.... The force of torque on the planet sprocket B, attributable to the pendulum attached to it, balances the weight of the planet sprocket D (after the weight of the counterweight E is subtracted) as is clearly illustrated in "STAGE ONE - BALANCE" of the analysis on the blog.

 

Turtle "now, as i explained with the see-saw simple lever, if you lengthen your side of a lever, you can lift a heavier load on the other. however, you have to then move your longer end a greater distance to move the load side the same distance as when you pushed harder on a shorter side. so there is no gain in how many calories you have to burn to lift the load distance (height) x. push hard for a short distance to get to x, burn 75 calories: push lighter but for longer time over a longer distance to lift to x, burn 75 calories. in terms of emile's machine i suspect were the weight arms longer, he would have to move the lever further, (or reduce the weight of the weights) and were they closer he would have to move the lever a shorter distance (or increase the weight of the weights. (or, if the arms were shorter the device wouldn't work as it does for the reasons above.) in any case, the total energy is preserved."

 

You "explained with the see-saw simple lever"? Are you kidding.... and what's with the whole "calories" thing connected to the distance a lever must be moved (and a bunch of other stuff) depending on its length.... Huh? Is there an "Emiles mechanism is like a Richard Simmons 'Deal-Emile' weight loss plan" comparison coming up? Let's talk about the vectors, you know.... the vectors?

 

Turtle "gravity exerts its force on a raised/suspended mass, and that mass is connected to a mechanism in such a way as to cause the mechanism to operate, i.e. move & do work. the mass driving a "gravity driven mechanism" is not the mechanism; it's a component of the mechanism."

 

Really? Because earlier you said that.... "i see that there is no initial input of work that raises a mass...." then later you said that.... "imbalancing the device means he is raising some mass...." When you finally decide which one of those contradictory positions you want to stick with let me know and we can certainly revisit the issue.

 

Tutle "as i said above, gravity acting on a mechanism is not the same as gravity driving a mechanism."

 

Got vectors?

 

Turtle "i think i covered your questions."

 

That's rich.... Emile

Edited November 6, 2012 by Aemilius

[Turtle]

Well I just can't block you Turtle, I only end up wondering when reading responses to your posts....

 

yes; i know. ;) i'll split up your pent-up replies.

 

Turtle "emile'] introduces the thread by givng 2 examples of what he considers to be [definitionally] "gravity driven mechanisms". the examples were a water wheel & a weight driven clock."

 

You're really going all the way back to the beginning of the thread? I started the thread out with those two examples, it was an invitation to comment in a generalized way on what constitutes a gravity driven mechanism.

 

yes; back to the beginning. recall i was talking to chewey who apparently hadn't read the whole thing, so by going back i put his errors/questions in context.

 

Turtle "in both cases of these example mechanisms there is an intial input of work from an outside source that raises mass. for the clock, a person winds up the weight with a key; for the water wheel the sun evaporates water which rises in the air as vapor & then falls as rain on high elevations and runs downhill."

 

Agreed, about those two examples.

 

good. some value in going back after all then, inasmuch as we get to a point of agreement you & i have and inasmuch as chewey et al see the facts in that agreement.

 

Turtle "in both cases, after the initial input, and starting activation, each mechaism will "run", "operate", "work", and or "function" without further input of energy to raising the active mass and that "running" of the mechanism will have at least a characteristic motion of rotation. start the clock by swinging the pendulum (or setting whatever escapement into action with a nudge) and it runs [rotates the hands] until the weights land on the bottom of the case as gravity draws them down. start the water wheel rotating by putting it in a downhill water-flow and it runs until no more rain falls as gravity pulls down the raised water."

 

Sure, agreed about those two examples.

 

good.

 

Turtle "emile then introduces a mechanism that he says is "gravity driven", in some [exactly?] same way or ways as the clock or the water wheel he gives as standards/premises."

 

Right.... the same way as in "gravity driven". The first two examples provided at the beginning of the thread were to foster discussion (which they did). I never held them up as any kind of "standard/premises" by which all other gravity driven mechanisms should be defined.... you got a quote?

 

i don't need a quote. if you -anyone- holds up something -anything- as an example, then by examining the characteristics -describing the character- of the something is a means of getting at what characteristics of a thing do and do not properly put the something in the class it is meant to exemplify. yes emile, mechanisms have a character because we can characterize a mechanism.

 

Turtle "so, watching emile in the videos "run", "operate", "work", and/or otherwise "use" or "demonstrate" the mechanism, i see that there is no initial input of work that raises a mass as in the clock or the water wheel. that is a factual observation; not an opinion."

 

I've already shown how mass is affected by gravity once the mechanism has been imbalanced in "STAGE THREE - EQUILIBRIUM"....contradict the vectors.

 

the vector drawings do not change the facts of my statment; we do not see you start the mechanism in the video(s). moreover, while masses are raised in your device, it is not a mass raising "as in the clock or the water wheel." where the mass is raised once prior to the operation of the clock and water-wheel and then the driving mass is not raised again during operation.

 

Turtle "if emile [or some other active work inputer] nudges the weight arrangment of his mechaism into imbalance and then operates the lever on the mechanism...."

 

The diagrams show how the mechanism is imbalanced by rotating the sun sprocket (N degrees from P) in either direction from either of the two vertical un-stable positions of equilibrium (pendulum up or pendulum down) along with the resulting effect that gravity then has on the mechanism as a whole once it's been imbalanced. It isn't an initial nudge followed by a second action that "operates the lever". Once imbalanced (or nudged) by as little as one degree even with no bearings, if the hand is then taken away, it will proceed to swing of its own accord out the other eighty-nine degrees under the influence of gravity to one or the other of the two possible positions of stable equilibrium F.

 

we don't need the diagrams to see how the device responds to a nudge; we only need to see the device respond to a nudge. we have not seen the device respond to a nudge. (if you have added a video that does show that, then i missed it and you can direct me/we to it.)

 

Turtle "....the mechanism starts & undergoes a complex motion, one characteristic of which is rotation as with the clock & waterwheel. another factual observation/characterization."

 

Rotation.... a characteristic it also shares with the Earth, a car wheel, an airplane propeller, etc., etc.

 

yes; i made that very distinction in a post following the one you quote. i pointed out rotation is a sufficient motion for a "gravity driven mechanism", but rotation is not a necessary motion of a "gravity driven mechanism". since you do not give a definition of "gravity driven mechanism", rather you give examples, readers can only look to examples you/we agree on in order to get a definition, i.e. come to understand what makes any "gravity driven mechanism" a "gravity driven mechanism". since we can point to an agreed on "gravity driven mechanism" lacking rotation (such as the guillotine), we eliminate rotation as a judging characteristic when we set out to decide if some othe mechanism is [by definition] gravity driven or not.

 

[Turtle "however, if emile lets go the lever or some other actor does not constantly operate the lever, the mechanism quickly stops all motion, rotational and otherwise, quite unlike the clock or the waterwheel. while we don't see a video of emile just letting go of the lever, he says himself the mechanism comes to a stop when the operation of the lever stops."

It comes to a stop if it's not being periodically imbalanced.

 

good; i properly characterized your machine there. no emile driving the lever, no mechanism moving.

 

also a good place to stop this post. i'll take up the rest presently.

 

edit: speeling airs.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Turtle

[Chewbalka]

Sorry for digging up the past on this post emile, turtle but I felt it was nessecary in order to see the argument at hand with the right questions for me to understand the heart of the problem. My conclusions on this problem is the difference in definition to what a gravity driving device is exactly... And since it is impossible to even get a definition on the net this will always be an ongoing argument because it is allowed to be a personilized definition... So what we need to do is create a definition in order to come to some kind of plateau of agreement.

 

I am going to initiate a list of components that initiate to a ending i ask for your inputs to see if we can agree to something.

 

An outside source of kinetic energy (none electrical) acts on the potential energy of a mechanisum with the intent to direct the force of gravity into kinetic energy to drive or power another none gravity driving device.

 

Hows this? I would like to hear any edits in case i screwed it up all ready lol!

[Turtle]

Turtle "so to my mind, the raised mass acting in a controlled fall & unattended over time on a mechanism is a, if not the, fundamental quality/characteristic of something "gravity driven" if weight-clocks and water wheels are exemplary of the phrase "gravity driven" . since emile's mechanism does not exhibit this characteristic, i conclude it is not "gravity driven". this is not a minor quibble or mincing of words, rather a fundamental flaw in a very premise of emile's arguments that his mechanism is "gravity driven".

 

I think the key words there are "to my mind" (which is about as subjective as it gets). To your mind, when water wheels and weight-clocks are held up as a standard it's not "gravity driven". Well, to my mind, water wheels and clocks may not be exemplary of all gravity driven mechanisms.

 

then please specify now for us all, what exactly to your mind is exemplary of all gravity driven mechanisms before we consider the rest of your arguments.

[Turtle]

Sorry for digging up the past on this post emile, turtle but I felt it was nessecary in order to see the argument at hand with the right questions for me to understand the heart of the problem. My conclusions on this problem is the difference in definition to what a gravity driving device is exactly... And since it is impossible to even get a definition on the net this will always be an ongoing argument because it is allowed to be a personilized definition... So what we need to do is create a definition in order to come to some kind of plateau of agreement.

 

I am going to initiate a list of components that initiate to a ending i ask for your inputs to see if we can agree to something.

 

An outside source of kinetic energy (none electrical) acts on the potential energy of a mechanisum with the intent to direct the force of gravity into kinetic energy to drive or power another none gravity driving device.

 

Hows this? I would like to hear any edits in case i screwed it up all ready lol!

 

i just made a similar request of emile.

 

as to your suggested definition. there is no reason/justification to restrict electrical or any worker that raises a mass. how a mass is raised is superfluous to how it is acted on by gravity once it is raised.

 

saying acts on the potential energy is not suitable because gasoline is a form of potential energy. we are concerned with "the potential energy of a mass raised against gravity."

 

as to with the intent to direct the force of gravity into kinetic energy to drive or power another none gravity driving device. well, yes... but, that is covered by my giving a dictionary definition of a machine as "A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or a jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment."

changing that wording confuses the issue as well as the track of the logic & references that established the original wording.

 

while not all machines do usefull work, all of our examples accepted as "gravity driven mechanisms" do do useful work. i suppose now someone is going to challenge whether or not milling grain is useful work. :doh:

[Chewbalka]

Thats a good point so a review is in need.

 

An outside source of kinetic energy imbalances, lifts or counters a mechanism in order to convert the force of gravity into kinetic energy to drive or power a machine.

 

Hows that!

 

An overshot waterwheel is an example of a gravity driven Imbalance

A pendulum clock is an example of a lift

A trebuchet is an example of a counter

Edited November 4, 2012 by Chewbalka

[Turtle]

Thats a good point so a review is in need.

 

An outside source of kinetic energy imbalances, lifts or counters a mechanism in order to convert the force of gravity into kinetic energy to drive or power a machine.

 

Hows that!

 

if you mean a review of emile's definition, i don't recall him ever giving one. if he did, then he can direct us to it; if not then he can give it to us now.

 

as to your new definition. since masses don't elevate themselves, there is no need of specifying "outside" source. "lifts a mechanism" could simply mean the mechanism is picked up; it says nothing about the mechanism itself so it's not a definitive statement. "countering" a mechanism is an ambiguous statment. what does it mean to counter a clock? if i said go over there & counter that clock, what would you do? so out with those words.

 

"convert the force of gravity into kinetic energy to drive or power a machine." the only change i would make is remove the word "drive". since we are defining "gravity driven machine", we oughtn't use a term being defined in the definition. so, modified. "convert the force of gravity into kinetic energy to power a machine." this is a characteristic of all the examples we have, so that much we can keep. don't change a word!

 

i'll leave it at that for now. before i move on i'd like to hear emile's proposal for an all-encompassing definition.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Turtle

[Chewbalka]

I like it turtle...

 

"convert the force of gravity into kinetic energy to power a machine."

 

Simplest way of putting it...

 

Now we just wait to see if this works with emile like you said.

 

I don't see why he would not the only thing his device does not do is power a machine... Well its too small to do so... I am not sure if it were to be blown up to a much larger size would it actually work to drive something... I am sure some math can confirm that once it is running properly...

[Guest Aemilius]

Turtle "then please specify now for us all, what exactly to your mind is exemplary of all gravity driven mechanisms before we consider the rest of your arguments."

 

I don't think I could define it exactly (narrowly). I have an opinion though, I would say generally that....

 

Any time gravity acts on mass causing mass to move, the mass so moved could be considered as part of a "gravity driven mechanism" for as long as gravity is acting on the mass causing the mass to move.

 

Answering "what exactly to your mind is exemplary of all gravity driven mechanisms before we consider the rest of your arguments." would, I think, effectively bog down the thread pending some form of broad agreement or consensus that could take weeks or even months with no guaranteed consensus at the end of it. The arguments having to do with the calculations can easily be explored concurrently regardless of whether any special definition is arrived at or not.... the vector calculations are either right or they're wrong based on their own merits.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Aemilius

[Turtle]

Turtle "then please specify now for us all, what exactly to your mind is exemplary of all gravity driven mechanisms before we consider the rest of your arguments."

 

I don't think I could define it exactly (narrowly). I have an opinion though, I would say generally that....

 

Any time gravity acts on mass causing mass to move, the mass so moved could be considered as part of a "gravity driven mechanism" for as long as gravity is acting on the mass causing the mass to move.

 

if you can't define it narrowly, then you have nothing. by your opinion, anything that falls is a gravity driven mechanism. oh wonder of wonders what amazing insight we all get from that. can i get a vector with that opinion? :rolleyes:

Edited November 5, 2012 by Turtle

[Chewbalka]

K so this was the original.

"convert the force of gravity into kinetic energy to power a machine."

 

Reworded for one more time lol hopefully for the last! Not holding my breath these things take time...

 

Gravity driven mechanism/machine. (Edit)

 

"Converts the force of gravity into mechanical energy"

 

Hows this?

 

Turtle? Emile?

 

It seems to fit? Any tips?

Edited November 5, 2012 by Chewbalka

[Guest Aemilius]

Turtle "can i get a vector

with that opinion?"

 

[Guest Aemilius]

Turtle "if you can't define it narrowly, then you have nothing."

 

That's your opinion.

 

Turtle "by your opinion, anything that falls is a gravity driven mechanism."

 

Technically? Yes.... that's my opinion. Can you give an example of anything that falls which, as it's falling, can't be considered a gravity driven mechanism?

 

You said at one point....

 

Turtle "in both cases (clock and water wheel), after the initial input, and starting activation, each mechanism will "run", "operate", "work", and or "function" without further input of energy to raising the active mass and that "running" of the mechanism will have at least a characteristic motion of rotation."

 

Then at another point you say (about the mechanism)....

 

Turtle "i see that there is no initial input of work that raises a mass...."

 

Followed later by (about the mechanism)....

 

Turtle "imbalancing the device means he is raising some mass...."

 

Just so I'm clear on your definition so far (elaboration welcome)....

 

To be considered a gravity driven mechanism, mass must first be raised. Once mass has been raised, gravity can then act on it causing movement. The resulting movement can be rotational (like the clock and water wheel) or even linear (like the guillotine).... but in any case, without exception, mass must first be raised. No raising of mass - no gravity driven mechanism. No energy input - no energy output.

 

Accurate? Like I said, feel free to elaborate if necessary.... Emile

Edited November 6, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

Chewbalka "convert the force of gravity into kinetic energy to power a machine." and "Converts the force of gravity into mechanical energy"

 

Those both sound like very reasonable assessments.

 

 

.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Aemilius

[Chewbalka]

Great! Then we seem to have a definition that fits everyones opinion... So far... It is a rather short and open which suits the definition quite well... Since to be gravity driven is not a narrow topic it seems good so far...

 

"Converts the force of gravity into mechanical energy"

 

I am going to stick with this one if it is allright with everyone, mainly to keep it as simple as possible to prevent misconceptions or destortions of what is. As long as the device shows to do what the definition states, then it is by definition a gravity device or machine.

 

Any points? Anyone? I am hoping we have this issue closed in order to move onto the next point of interest.

[Guest Aemilius]

How about this....

 

To be considered a gravity driven mechanism, mass must first be raised. Once mass has been raised, gravity can then act on it causing movement. The resulting movement can be rotational (like the clock and water wheel) or even linear (like the guillotine).... but in any case, without exception to convert the force of gravity into mechanical energy mass must first be raised. No raising of mass - no gravity driven mechanism. No energy input - no energy output.

 

....let's see what Turtle thinks.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Aemilius