Gravity Driven Mechanisms

[Chewbalka]

Its pretty much the same idea just more descriptive.

 

Gravity device/machine

 

A mass must be in a raised position in order to convert the force of gravity into mechanical energy.

 

Raised position? Because it also takes into effect multiple possibilities on how the mass got there in the first place as in manually or by a flowing river on an over shot water wheel. The mass was not raised but it is in a raised position. As well a guillotine needs to be in a raised position and so forth.

[Guest Aemilius]

Turtle raised an objection, but since he doesn't employ any kind of "vocabulary" (namely vectors) that can really show anything one way or the other, it again rapidly degenerates into just another series of subjective opinions and analogies all dressed up as logical "argument"....

 

Turtle "think of emile's little levering as you would a person pushing someone in a swing" and Turtle "think of a car and it's wheels, wherin gravity acts on the car all the time by pulling it down...."

 

....going on to call all this subjective opinion/analogy an "argument" according to his own "observed facts/characteristics" brand of analysis.

 

At one point he says....

 

Turtle "CraigD is your horse in this race...."

 

....because he's not confident enough to evaluate any (vector) calculations, even going so far as to assure everyone that they can all content themselves with CraigD's assessment. At other points though he says....

 

Turtle "the problem i have -and the others if i may speak for them- is...." and Turtle "as if i wasn't writing for all the readers from the git."

 

Interestingly.... though he indicates he doesn't know enough about simple junior high school level vectors to comment, at the same time he claims to be speaking for all the readers, all the while continuing to rely on opinion/analogy as the basis for an obviously foundationless "argument". None of his posts, not even one, addresses any of the thirty-six vector diagrams published so far, nor does he use even one vector calculation to successfully refute anything of what's been described or elucidate any alternate explanation he may have. Instead, he just keeps hammering away by rephrasing and repeating the same previously stated foundationless opinion/analogy based objections, with an occasional reference to my crippling misunderstanding of how locks work thrown in for good measure. Ridiculous.

 

At another point he says....

 

Turtle "the onus is on you to characterize it (the mechanism) in terms agreeable and per se understandable to others."

 

....but when I follow through with that obligation and provide a valid method of describing it in terms agreeable and understandable to others (vectors) he simply refuses to argue using those easily understood terms in favor of his "observed facts/characteristics" method (which is really no method at all).

 

He even says at one point....

 

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

 

....essentially saying that his "observed fact/characteristic" opinion/analogy based argument actually supercedes anything shown by vector analysis. I'm glad he wasn't working at NASA during the Moon Shot!

 

As a matter of fact, he's not even sure whether or not mass is being raised....

 

Turtle "i see that there is no initial input of work that raises a mass...." followed by.... Turtle "imbalancing the device means he is raising some mass...."

 

When it comes to the veracity of the vector calculations, in addition to already having said he lacks the confidence to reach any conclusion (by deferring to CraigD), he nevertheless continues on with his subjective "observed facts/characterics" argument. He doesn't openly object to them (vectors), but he won't use them either, and seems mildly dismissive when it comes to their importance as compared to his "I just know that this is the way it is" style of subjective "observed facts/characteristics" analysis....

 

Turtle "the vector drawings do not change the facts of my statment...." and Turtle "we don't need the diagrams to see how the device responds to a nudge" and Turtle "as to the vector drawings, they have no bearing on the above argument."

 

Now, Turtle says we don't need quotes anymore either, which conveniently frees him to misleadingly say I've implied or said anything he wants to say I've implied or said from a hundred posts ago without proof. This tactic seems especially useful for continuing to hammer away at a simple misunderstanding near the beginning of the thread about locks and how they function, telling everyone I....

 

Turtle "....disagreed that locks are water driven, saying motors pump the water...."

 

....when I never said anything of the sort. Even Chewbalka, in response to this false attribution questions why I would say such a thing. I think this is being done deliberately to attack my credibility, obfuscate the topic and bolster an obviously inadequate opinion/analogy based "argument". There's no other explanation I can think of....

 

From my post (#29).... "Everyone knows how locks work.... electric (or other) motors are used to control the flow of water under the force of gravity through a canal by opening and closing gates. The gates are not powered by the water flowing through the canal. The one system (powered by electric or other motors) is used to control another system (water moving under the force of gravity)."

 

Anyone can see there's nothing there about "electric motors pumping the water". In spite of that, he goes on....

 

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

 

Judging by post #29, there's nothing for me to explain. Turtle should stop endlessly bringing this up as somehow being relevant to the topic since it's been exposed now as an absurd fabrication.... The calculations stand or fall on their own merits independent of any beliefs or misconceptions I may or may not have.... period.

 

Then there's the rest of my last post he was going to respond to "presently"....

 

Turtle "so to my mind, the raised mass acting in a controlled fall & unattended over time on a mechanism is a, if not, 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 explanations?

 

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....

 

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."

 

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?

 

Turtle "(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....

 

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

 

then later you said that....

 

Turtle "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 (using vectors).

 

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

 

As far as classing the mechanism goes, my opinion is that whenever gravity acts on a mechanism causing it to move, it could be considered as gravity driven for just as long as gravity is acting on it and causing it to move.... whether it is performing what could be called "useful work" or not.

 

Emile

Edited November 14, 2012 by Aemilius

[Chewbalka]

Emile my friend lets face the facts together here k! Yes at the current moment your device is too small to do anything... We both know this turtle knows this! But if this device were to be blowen up to lets just say thirty times... Could you imagine the torque output? Its fantastic! Then you add lets say a wind turbine which imbalances the device such as your hand does throw in a generator... Voila! A tiny breeze creates energy with very little input... The fact is your on to something... Dont quite because of critics... Dont get mad either because of them... Ignore them please... I really want to see you succeed... You have created the most efficient transmission... Low input high output... Measure it on your device... You will see at least a three times increase guaranteed... More then likely five times more... Finish it emile if not for the fun of it at least for yourself!

[Guest Aemilius]

Thanks man! I don't know what this thing is going to do.... but yeah, I'll finish it for the fun of it, that's what it's all about! I'm with you on the wind thing (possibly wave motion too).... I'm not getting mad anymore and I'm definitely not going to quit either. Thanks for your supportive and open minded input.... Emile

Edited November 12, 2012 by Aemilius

[Chewbalka]

If i have learned anything from this forum (besides that time post i made lol). Its that this is a place for old ideas... Basically if an actual scientist proved it and you are not trying to figure it out your at the right site... This is my last post... Its been a slice emile i grow bored of this site.... I think ill learn on my own once again lol... This long distance arguing seems un full filling to me... I just wanted to learn.... Instead i fought.... Take care man!

[Guest Aemilius]

Well, my email is on every post along with the Blog.... write any time with comments, questions or other interesting stuff you run accross.... or just to say "Hi!"

 

Emile

Edited November 12, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

DFINITLYDISTRBD "Turtle is not the only one here that thinks something smells off here...sudo science at best more likely pure BS...and last time I checked this is not a BS ,a Sci-Fi, or a sudo-science forum it's a science forum."

 

Hmmm.... I'm getting the distinct impression you disagree with me. Seems you're better at quoting the rules than following them....

 

If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.

 

Do you have an actual argument that would tend to contradict the vector analysis? Can you show where you think I went wrong? What kind of proof are you bringing to the table to base your opinion/argument on.... Got vectors?

 

DFINITLYDISTRBD "Show up making claims you'd better be ready, willing, and able to back them up."

 

I am backing it up. If you think I'm wrong prove it using vectors, find an error in the calculations.... or maybe you agree that Turtle's subjective "observed facts/characteristics" brand of analysis comparing the mechanism to an escapement, a swing, a car and a see-saw supercedes vector analysis as a suitable "vocabulary" for both describing and discussing it.

 

DFINITLYDISTRBD "Referring to the same link over and over and over while ignoring valid questions and passive aggressive attacks do not qualify as making a genuine effort of adhering to the site rules, common decency, or offering legitimate proof of a claim."

 

What link are you talking about? If you're referring to the blog, since that's where the vector analysis is being carried out I'll refer to it just as often as I like. Which specific questions do you think I've ignored? I say an in depth vector analysis does qualify as a genuine effort to legitimately prove my ideas, so if you don't consider an in depth vector analysis as being a genuine effort.... what do you consider a genuine effort? What's your standard?

 

DFINITLYDISTRBD "The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. In this case Emile. It is his responsibility to back up his claims pertaining to his device to the satisfaction and understanding of the reader whether they be Einstein or the village idiot."

 

We've already been around that block....

 

Turtle "the onus is on you (Emile) to characterize it (the mechanism) in terms agreeable and per se understandable to others."

 

....and like I said earlier, when I followed through with that obligation and provided a valid method of describing it in terms agreeable and understandable to others (junior high school level vectors) he simply refused to argue using those easily understood terms in favor of his "observed facts/characteristics" method (which is really no method at all). So whether I'm describing it to Einstein or to you DFINITLYDSTRBD, the vectors stand or fall on their own merits no matter what anyone thinks or believes.

 

DFINITLYDSTRBD "With my firm understanding of physics and engineering 1. I see nothing new or of any practical use."

 

Opinion noted, and my reaction.... supernatural indifference.

 

DFINITLYDSTRBD "2. See someone that knows that a reader sees through his attempts to hide behind information that is incomplete and by itself means exactly bupkis."

 

Nonsense. What's this incomplete information you say I'm attempting to hide behind? Where is it?

 

DFINITLYDSTRBD "3. That said person is set on trying to reduce the credibility of the only person responding here that knows he's full of it because he cannot offer legitimate proof that those gullible enough to believe the rest of his tripe won't see through let alone those of us with both life experience and education."

 

Reducing his credibility? Hah! Turtle doesn't need my help in that department.... He says he doesn't know enough about vectors to comment, but also says he's speaking for all the readers.... He won't use quotes as he misleadingly continues to make an issue of locks (from over a hundred posts ago) saying I don't understand their operation, but I've already proven that to be an outright fabrication.... He actually thinks his "observed facts/characteristics" brand of analysis supercedes the validity of vector analysis.... Hell, he's not even sure whether or not mass is being raised or lowered during rotation! No.... I'm convinced Turtle doesn't need any help from me at all.

 

So, DFINITLYDSTRBD, you say you have a "firm understanding of physics and engineering" and "both life experience and education." It's not that I don't want to believe you but, well.... I don't believe you, call it a hunch. Maybe it's the way you repeatedly misspelled "pseudo" as "sudo" earlier, that's not something an educated person would do. If you're on the level though you'll easily be able to answer this question in a snap (remember, requires only a junior high school level of understanding)....

 

In the diagram below, the mechanism is shown (schematically) in a state of un-stable equilibrium.

 

 

If the Sun Sprocket is rotated (N degrees from P) as shown in the diagram below, the mechanism's center of mass will be....

 

A - Raised

B - Lowered

C - Neither Raised nor Lowered

D - Both Raised and Lowered

 

 

While you're at it, why not briefly explain your solution using vectors (go ahead and mark up a copy of a diagram if you want).... should be easy, only took me a minute. Go ahead and review that damn blog I keep mentioning if it helps.

 

DFINITLYDSTRBD "Quite frankly both of you would have been warned and then banned long ago if the Mods were not busily trying to resolve spam issues. Your ongoing use of profanity has been reported...."

 

Yeah.... so I lost my temper and swore a couple of times, I caught it and apologized. Nobody's perfect.... I'm walking proof.

 

DFINITLYDSTRBD "....I'm sure a Mod will be in touch with you soon on that matter. I'm sure as well they will have a thing or two to say about your conduct in general upon reading the reported content and posts leading up to it."

 

Nothing yet.... Emile

Edited November 14, 2012 by Aemilius

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Maybe it's the way you repeatedly misspelled "pseudo" as "sudo" earlier, that's not something an educated person would do.

Play around with a Linux based operating system (maybe others I haven't had the opportunity to play with the guts of other systems) enough and you'll start "misspelling" or more appropriately misusing sudo too.

(remember, requires only a junior high school level of understanding)....

 

As far as vectors go, beyond programming them into CNC machines and modeling software my experience is limited (oddly enough we did not cover them in middle or high school) and I'm not familiar with what they have to do with your sketches exactly. Quite frankly they are little more than marginally interesting drawings lacking in detail important to understanding them....could be a cable running around pulleys...could be belts running around pulleys, a couple chains running around sprockets, could be a weight hanging from a cam...in short there is a good deal of information that is not provided, so yes by themselves the "vectors" are of little use to those that do not specifically know what information you are trying to convey when unaccompanied by more information.

 

DFINITLYDSTRBD "....I'm sure a Mod will be in touch with you soon on that matter. I'm sure as well they will have a thing or two to say about your conduct in general upon reading the reported content and posts leading up to it."<br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">

Nothing yet.... Emile

Not surprising, that was specifically directed at Chewbalka and from all appearances achieved the desired result of him posting in a more civilized manner, which apparently did not suit him as he has bailed.

 

Unfortunately in the past I and others have warned members that their behavior is grounds for disciplinary measures and they choosing ignore were banned (by the Admins. I am not able to ban or suspend anyone). Personally I don't like to see anyone get the boot (well except for spammers) but do see how sometimes it is necessary. While I can't say members feeling persecuted and deciding to leave is any better on the whole, they can at least choose to come back and post or contact members they have befriended here if they wish. Something that is not an option for persons banned from the site. With the exception of members that have exchanged contact information once a member is banned they're no longer able to stay in touch with other members here. Unfortunately many interesting folk have disappeared over the years leaving no trace outside of a few posts that weren't deemed necessary to delete.

 

If you're looking for more he said he said, verbal slight of hand, and argument for the sake of argument I've much better things to do with my time. In a thread titled Gravity Driven Mechanisms there is no good reason for it to take 100+ posts of debate and increasing hostility to come to the conclusion that a gravity driven mechanism should be defined as a device that is caused to function by gravity acting upon one or more of it's components. Had there been genuine intent to establish a definition and build from there to discuss your design this thread would either have been much shorter or just as long but containing useful discussion of the merits or lack thereof of your device.

 

As far as your invite goes, I choose not to play for now. If upon digging through this 170+ post peeing contest I feel I have found something useful to contribute and can get it from thoughts to well thought out, plain old ordinary easily understandable english that is difficult to manipulate to suit whatever your agenda is I will post it.

Edited November 14, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

If one wanted to be nit-picky one could argue a pendulum is an inertia driven device for one half of it's travel in each direction gravity on the other after it is set into motion by a third source of energy.

 

A weight driven clock, again half of the work is done be the person raising it's weight half by gravity pulling the weight down. Without the person raising the weight it cannot function.

 

A water wheel, without evaporation, condensation and subsequent runoff of ground water into the river powering it would only be gravity operated until the river dries up.

 

Not only could a lock be built to operate entirely on the power of the water flowing through it, but there are working commercial examples in the United States and Europe. The function of a lock is simple and gravity driven. To raise a vessel the water's path is obstructed and gravity causes water to continue to fill the lock causing the boat to go up. The obstruction is removed and gravity causes water to flow out causing the boat to go down. You argue that the closing and opening of the gates is the function, Turtle argues that gravity acting on water causes the lock's function. Two sides of the same coin AFAIC. Fact is the valves and gates could easily be made to operate autonomously and entirely by the force of water being acted upon by gravity. So with water wheels having been accepted at some points in this thread, locks then become acceptable as well.

A car rolling down a hill unassisted by it's engine is also a gravity driven mechanism...Until there is no more hill, then it becomes an inertia driven mechanism.

Then there is the discussion of "levering" the device. If your providing of mechanical input causes the device to function, then it is you who are powering/driving the device assisted by gravity as the weights "fall" and as well by the inertia of the weights as they pass their "lowest" point of travel. If it promptly stops when you let loose the levers it is not "gravity driven" but "gravity assisted". What fun to play with words.

Edited November 14, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

POST 1- Before launching into any in depth discussion, perhaps it would be useful to compile a list (including illustrations if you'd like to include them) of all the various practical gravity driven mechanisms currently in use. I'll star the list....

POST 3-... thanks for the input but I am limiting this thread exclusively to mechanisms driven by gravity alone.

POST 34-So, let me "spill my agenda" as you put it.... I started out many years ago by looking into the whole "motor running the generator that powers the motor" scenario. Not surprisingly, I couldn't make it work. <br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); "><br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">Next, I spent some time trying to devise a permanent magnet arrangement that would result in something comparable to what an electric motor does. Again, not surprisingly, I couldn't make that work either.<br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); "><br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">Then, I started to think about gravity.... like over balancing wheels, pendulums, etc. I built several but again, not surprisingly, encountered negative results. <br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); "><br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">Not ready to give up, I wondered whether there might be some way of applying direct current electric motor theory with its accompanying periodic reversal of electromagnetic polarity to the gravitational force in the sense of finding some way of mechanically "commutating" it (the gravitational force) in order to achieve the desired result. That's where I'm at now and I think I may finally be on to something.... probably not, but that's what I'm here to find out.

Following the same line of thought

POST 38- Well, I do have a mechanism I've been working on for about the last fifteen years. It does seem to commutate the gravitational force in the same way a DC motor does, though not by periodically reversing the force of gravity itself, but rather by periodically reversing the effect gravity has on it.

Implying the device can operate unassisted on gravity alone once started

POST 45- Agreed, generally, but mine is no hunch. I have devised and constructed a well balanced mechanism that immediately begins to rotate (in either direction) with an imbalancing displacement of as little as one degree (even with no bearings). With a repeated periodic displacement of as little as three to five degrees its rate of rotation rapidly approaches 70 to 80 rotations per minute over the course of just eight to ten repetitions, all while overcoming only frictional mechanical resistance.

Post 49- This mechanism was never intended to be a “perpetual motion”, “over unity”, “something for nothing” or "zero point energy" machine/device. It's just an experimental research mechanism, nothing more.... and I've never claimed it was. Ultimately though, if it should turn out that it works as intended if/when completed, it will work for all the same well known reasons a water wheel or weight driven clock works, differing only in the way it responds to the force of gravity acting on it.

But but you just said in post 34^..... Moving on

Turtle, on 23 July 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:...i only see an emile driven mechanism.Aemilius, on 23 July 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

 

I take it (you didn't give me much to work with) from that you're saying the mechanism's rotation has nothing to do with gravity and that it's me supplying all the energy to the system, causing it to rotate. Would that be an accurate assessment?<br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); "><br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">

Yes, at least that also is the impression I got after watching your video. This impression is easy to refute. Gravity driven mechanisms, like a clock, waterwheel, and all the others mentioned in this thread, do not require a continuous input of energy to operate other than the potential energy that is released by gravity. If your machine was gravity operated, you shouldn't have to manipulate a lever to supply energy for it to operate.

Compare this to your arguments as to why locks do not qualify as "gravity driven" mechanisms. Moving on.

POST 73- Also, you both (JMJones0424, Turtle) appear to agree that, as a rule, no gravity driven mechanism should ever be augmented by any outside force while in operation. I can't find anything in the literature to support that prohibition.... Can you cite your sources here for declaring that to be a requirement, or is this just your opinion?

Here's one

POST 3- thanks for the input but I am limiting this thread exclusively to mechanisms driven by gravity alone.

further reinforced

POST 9-Again, I'm interested exclusively in listing gravity driven practical mechanisms currently in use.... Emile

POST 12-. I think locks would fall more into the category of being a gravity driven "process" rather than "mechanism", since the gates themselves are not opened and closed as a direct result of the gravitional force but electric motors (generally).... so I would be inclined to disqualify that one. Any others?

A quick recap: locks no good because their gates require outside input (though not necessarily), "levering" aka "repeated periodic displacement" provided by Amilius is somehow different completely unrelated to the operation of the device. Moving on

POST 76- It will rotate (start, speed up, slow down or speed up again) depending on the rate at which it's imbalanced. Whatever the rate of the imbalancing action is, the mechanism will respond by rotating at the same rate. When the imbalancing action is removed, it simply comes to a stop. <br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">In other words, when initially imbalanced it begins to rotate. If the imbalancing action is being applied twenty times per minute, it will rotate at twenty revolutions per minute. If one then (while it's rotating twenty revolutions per minute) increases the rate of the applied imbalancing action from twenty times per minute to forty, it will, after a very slight delay, be rotating at forty revolutions per minute. While rotating at forty revolutions per minute, if one slows the rate of the applied imbalancing action back down to twenty per mimute, again, after a very slight delay, it will be rotating at twenty revolutions per minute. <br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">

Moving on

POST 78-Let's be clear. You claim to have created a gravity driven machine. When seen in action, it appears to me that the driving force of the machine, the input of energy without which it cannot operate, is not in fact a weight falling from higher to lower potential energy in a gravity field. It is instead you, moving a lever, which if I understand correctly, changes the balance of the machine. That gravity takes over after your initial push is irrelevant. The machine stops after one revolution unless you intervene and again initiate an imbalance. Thus, an Emile driven machine.

And here is where i call it a day. By your own posts you admit in a round about way though never directly the device cannot operate without your repeated input. A car engine will revolve without fuel for a couple revolutions, a flywheel will spin for little while after it's power source is disengaged, an electric motor will continue to rotate briefly after power is disconnected, and an original Amilius device will continue to operate until "levering" ceases and the device balances itself. So far not a gravity driven device as defined by both agreed upon rules and those both implied and contradicted by Amelius in his own posts. Either implying or denying each as they suit his particular need at a given moment.

Edited November 14, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[Guest Aemilius]

DFNITLYDSTRBD "Play around with a Linux based operating system (maybe others I haven't had the opportunity to play with the guts of other systems) enough and you'll start "misspelling" or more appropriately misusing sudo too."

 

I think I'll stay away from Linux.

 

DFNITLYDSTRBD "As far as vectors go, beyond programming them into CNC machines and modeling software my experience is limited (oddly enough we did not cover them in middle or high school) and I'm not familiar with what they have to do with your sketches exactly. Quite frankly they are little more than marginally interesting drawings lacking in detail important to understanding them....could be a cable running around pulleys...could be belts running around pulleys, a couple chains running around sprockets, could be a weight hanging from a cam...in short there is a good deal of information that is not provided, so yes by themselves the "vectors" are of little use to those that do not specifically know what information you are trying to convey when unaccompanied by more information."

 

Right.... so if I understand you correctly simple vectors are of little or no use to those who don't understand simple vectors and the rationale behind exploratory research is baffling to those who don't understand the rationale behind exploratory research.... makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification.

 

DFNITLYDSTRBD "If you're looking for more he said he said, verbal slight of hand, and argument for the sake of argument I've much better things to do with my time."

 

Well, it wasn't me that sought you out, it was you who burst on the scene calling it all "sudo" science, pure BS, bupkis, tripe, accusing me of hiding behind incomplete information, actively avoiding and ignoring valid questions and trying to fool gullible people.... all the while waving around your so called "life experience and education" and a "firm understanding of physics and engineering".

 

DFNITLYDSTRBD "In a thread titled Gravity Driven Mechanisms there is no good reason for it to take 100+ posts of debate and increasing hostility to come to the conclusion that a gravity driven mechanism should be defined as a device that is caused to function by gravity acting upon one or more of it's components. Had there been genuine intent to establish a definition and build from there to discuss your design this thread would either have been much shorter or just as long but containing useful discussion of the merits or lack thereof of your device."

 

Sometimes debate can be a little on the "spirited" side. No one is forcing you to read it so if you don't like it.... don't read it. I've said before I don't know exactly how this will turn out, it's exploratory research, but I already have a couple of ideas for possible applications based on the current configuration. I'm just not there yet (the analysis is only about half complete).

 

DFNITLYDSTRBD "As far as your invite goes, I choose not to play for now."

 

My gratitude knows no bounds!

 

DFNITLYDSTRBD "If upon digging through this 170+ post peeing contest I feel I have found something useful to contribute and can get it from thoughts to well thought out, plain old ordinary easily understandable english that is difficult to manipulate to suit whatever your agenda is I will post it."

 

Marvelous.... Emile

Edited November 15, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

About post #181, that deserves some attention....

 

I'm not going to respond to that post point by point DFINTLYDSTRBD, it wouldn't be productive, but I want to say I understand exactly what you're saying and also how it appears. I know I may not have started this thread out properly and there was a lot of back and forth (actually eating up the first 88 posts) when it came to the locks and a bunch of other analogies and comparisons of the mechanism to a variety of other mechanical arrangements as we all attempted to describe what's happening and nobody agreed with me on one damn thing!

 

I finally realized it wasn't going to go anywhere when CraigD wrote in post 87 that....

 

"What all the classical physics-aware folk, such as JMJones, Turtle, and I, have been saying since seeing your machine, is that the Work your hand is doing on the machine’s lever – its input – is equal to the work the machine is doing to the surrounding universe – its output.

Its input work is the force your hand is applying to the lever, times the distance it moves. It’s output is the force its various parts apply to everything it isn’t, times the distance over which it applied it."

 

So, have I made mistakes? You bet. Did I fail to phrase things flawlessly? Yeah I did, there's no question about it.... I owned that the best I could though in post 88 when I wrote....

 

"I'll just say thanks here to all of you (especially JMJone0424, Turtle and CraigD) for continuing to comment. I can see that all the misunderstanding up to now is my fault.... I've failed to communicate clearly what I have in mind. I thought it would be obvious with the posting of the video, but it seems that may actually have only served to confuse the issue further.

 

For example, I thought I had shown clearly with the series of stills (page four) how it's a balanced system, yet it's still being compared analgously to an imbalanced bicycle wheel or a conventional pendulum, so it must not be as self explanatory as I thought and therefore remains largely open to interpretation as to what's actually happening, evidenced by our continuing disagreement. That's my fault."

 

Then I wrote (in the same post)....

 

"I have to find a way to bridge that gap and find a language we all understand that eliminates, or at least minimizes any need for subjective interpretation, leading, hopefully, to some form of consensus."

 

I naturally assumed VECTORS would be an appropriate LANGUAGE I could use to address THE CLASSSICAL PHYSICS-AWARE FOLK here in this SCIENCE FORUM! So when Turtle finally commented after three stages of the analysis had been completed, he not only said he wasn't familiar enough with them (the introductory diagrams) but also said that he really (tee hee) never agreed to anything when he initially commented on them anyway.... then he went right on to compare the mechanism to a swing, a car and a damn see-saw! Then you show up and it's all "sudo" science, pure BS, bupkis, tripe, and accuse me of hiding behind incomplete information and actively avoiding/ignoring valid questions and trying to fool gullible people too! Needless to say.... I was really bummed out man!

 

This isn't what I planned to write, but it's intertesting the way things turn out. All that adversity paid off.... Thanks (indirectly) to you and Turtle I can now eliminate "STAGE TWO - COMPENSATION" from the analysis, there is no need for a calibrated spring.... a huge improvement (to me) and it's even more sensitive. I'll have to shoot some new more descriptive videos to go along with the written explanation. I think you guys will like it (hopefully a little anyway, we'll see).

 

Once again, for what it's worth.... I don't know exactly how this will turn out. I'm still convinced gravity is responsible and I think it qualifies as exploratory research, but I already have a couple of ideas for possible applications too based on the current configuration. I'm just not there yet (the analysis is only about half complete).

 

 

It may take a week or so.... Emile

Edited November 15, 2012 by Aemilius

[CraigD]

My apologies for being away from this thread for so long – the usual combination of work, family and friend emergencies, our recent spam-stopping efforts here at hypography, and a binge of pointless classic video gaming (which started with introducing my wife to the Doom series, then degenerated into a ... binge) has limited my posting time.

 

First regarding some terminology misunderstanding:

Turtle is not the only one here that thinks something smells off here...sudo science at best more likely pure BS...and last time I checked this is not a BS ,a Sci-Fi, or a sudo-science forum it's a science forum.

Maybe it's the way you repeatedly misspelled "pseudo" as "sudo" earlier, that's not something an educated person would do.

Play around with a Linux based operating system (maybe others I haven't had the opportunity to play with the guts of other systems) enough and you'll start "misspelling" or more appropriately misusing sudo too.

sudo is a 30+ year old command common in unix computer operating systems, of which Linux is among the most popular. Like many computer commands, it’s an acryonym, in its case for super user do. It allows a unix user to execute (“do”) commands with the identity and privileges of another user. It’s also a double entendre of the sort computer programmers delight in, as the computer process that executes the commands is commonly called a pseudo terminal session.

 

Given the rarity of spelling and grammar mistakes in his writing, I find DD’s excuse for confusing these two homophones convincing, versus Aemilius’s aspersion that he’s poorly educated.

 

I think I'll stay away from Linux.

Too late! :) You’re using the internet, most of which is served up by computers running unix, most of them (including hypography’s) Linux.

 

:thumbs_up Aemilius, your sketches and videos have done a great descriptive job, given me and anyone else interested in doing so all we need for a classical mechanical analysis of your machine (not to mention a hankering to have one of my own). I hope I’ll be able to do a thorough one in the next week or two – not to settle any semantic disputes (physics assumes a shared understanding of terminology, so really can’t settle semantic disputes), but because number-crunchers like me find such work fun.

 

Returning to Turtle and DD’s suspicious that you’re up to something vaguely pseudoscientific, I, too get the impression you suspect your machine is putting out more work (swirling air, making sound, etc) than is going into it (your pushing and pulling its lever). Aemilius, please, be open with us all and say if this is or isn’t the case. If it is, you’re describing a perpetual motion/over unity machine, as one could in principle connect such a machine’s power (recall that power = work/time) output to its input, and have a machine that did work without the need for external energy, such as fuel.

 

A correct classical mechanical analysis used the principle of conservation of energy (recall that work essentially is a synonym of energy), so can never show such a thing unless one intentionally introduces extra, novel work inputs. The force of classical gravity on bodies can’t be such an input, because they too follow conservation of energy.

 

If a machine really is over unity (that is, getting energy from some source not accounted for in an obvious analysis), one can design and conduct an experiment to demonstrate this, though unlike an analysis, this takes actual building and experimenting, not just internet forum posting.

 

I think I understand folk who like to imagine, or better, build real machines hoping to find violations of classical mechanical law. I did much such imagining, and a bit of building along these lines myself, before I learned enough physics and math in school to find the fatal faulty assumption in my designs. I think Norman Rockwell put this state of mind well in his famous 1920 magazine cover:

(from this wikipedia article section)

 

PS: I did an analysis of the classic overbalanced wheel shown in this painting in this 2009 post

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

CraigD- I think I understand folk who like to imagine, or better, build real machines hoping to find violations of classical mechanical law. I did much such imagining, and a bit of building along these lines myself, before I learned enough physics and math in school to find the fatal faulty assumption in my designs. I think Norman Rockwell put this state of mind well in his famous 1920 magazine cover:

I'll admit one of my guilty pleasures that occupies a great deal of my time (thank goodness I can do other things at the same time) is building devices in my head that use waste energy from other processes or very little input while providing significant work output as close to equal to input as is possible with currently available materials and technology. I've always been fond of staggered multi-phase generators, and permanent magnet motors. Though lately my concepts revolve around hybrid peltier-effect/solar power generation and developing large diameter low consumption electric motors to replace the more compact but less efficient conventional designs currently in use. My baby though is a sliding vane multi-fuel rotary with a large diameter and vane surface area but a small internal displacement vs. the conventional large displacement designs currently in use. Though all of these designs are focused on getting more out of the same or less energy input, for lack of better terminology reducing the amount of wasted energy for the same amount of work.

Example Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 25% to 30% That means there is a lot of room for increases in efficiency without finding oneself trying to work in the realm of PPM.

Permanent magnet powered motors hold a great deal of fascination for me. So far I've been studying the concept since 1983 when I dismantled a small battery powered car to learn how it worked. "Discovering" that the mass of wire in there also became a magnet when hooked to the battery the next logical question was "if the battery just turns the wires into a magnet, why then do you need the wire or the battery? Why not just put magnets there to begin with?" Just as fascinating is their dismissal by supposedly educated people as PPM machines. Permanent magnets have a fixed amount of useful force and a useful life expectancy much like a battery and like a battery must be charged and if their use is expected to be ongoing must be recharged at some point which will be determined by how strong opposing or attracting fields are (a strong opposing magnetic field will eventually "discharge" and/or reverse the field of a magnet). Hardly PPM.

 

Before I move on to get back on subject.

Thank you for the clarification of SUDO CraigD.

Amilius- analogies and comparisons of the mechanism to a variety of other mechanical arrangements as we all attempted to describe what's happening and nobody agreed with me on one damn thing!

Seems to me there was some agreement after a good deal of debate.

POST 168- 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.

Chewbalka POST 166-Gravity driven mechanism/machine. (Edit)<br style="color: rgb(8, 8, 8); font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">

"Converts the force of gravity into mechanical energy"

I've lost count of the ongoing use of a water wheel and weight driven clock as the "rule of thumb" so I've not included quotes pertaining to them, mostly because hopping all over the thread over and over and over to find everyone's version saying pretty much the same thing with slightly different wording is getting exhausting. Add to that repeated assertions by you that you are only interested in gravity driven devices and that your's fits into that category, the only disagreement I see is whether your ''levering" the device disqualifies it as a strictly gravity driven device as clearly specified in post 3 and alluded to in numerous posts after.

 

 

 

Leaving this question to be answered. Can your device once started follow the rules you set forth in this thread and operate with only gravity as it's power source as you've repeatedly stated? Since you've made no assertion that it can drive an external load I see no reason to pursue an answer for this possible aspect of the device at this time. It would be far better to establish the answer to the first question.

 

I will address the several posts where you plainly state you will not answer ongoing questions from turtle and your subsequent claims that you have not refused to answer any questions later. Fatigue is setting in, time for a breather.

 

On a side note- I don't know if your responses are intended to sound hostile in nature or not. (Though very frequently it seems to be the case.) If it is not deliberate it would be appreciated if you were to take a look at those that got fairly hostile seeming posts in return and take note that frequently it seems that your intent is indeed hostility. There is really no good reason for things to get as heated as they seem to have gotten throughout this thread. Especially as one can take as much time as they need to allow themselves to cool off before posting.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Aemilius]

CraigD "Aemilius, your sketches (scale drawings) and videos have done a great descriptive job, given me and anyone else interested in doing so all we need for a classical mechanical analysis of your machine..."

 

Vector analysis is the method I've chosen. It's a valid method well suited for carrying out a complete mechanical analysis of this mechanism, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say I've "....done a great discriptive job...." and given "....all we need for a classical mechanical analysis...." when the analysis is already under way.

 

CraigD "I hope I’ll be able to do a thorough one in the next week or two...."

 

Why not simply critique this analysis once in a while as it progresses (very easy to do)?

 

CraigD "Given the rarity of spelling and grammar mistakes in his writing, I find DD’s excuse for confusing these two homophones convincing, versus Aemilius’s aspersion that he’s poorly educated."

 

Agreed, sorry about that.... I've only been on the internet for a little over three years so I didn't recognize it. Even so, it still irks me the way DFNTLYDSTRUBD jumps up to call it all pseudo science, pure BS, bupkis and tripe from the vantage point of someone having a "firm understanding of physics and engineering" when he can't even solve one simple vector diagram problem or use them to show how any of the other diagrams are incorrect. Can one really have a "firm understanding of physics and engineering" without even a rudimentary grasp of simple vectors? What's his conclusion based on.... "I just know that this is the way it is"?

 

That all came right on the heels of Turtle, described by you as being "classical physics-aware folk", writing his absurd "tee-hee I only agreed to one drawing" remark and deferring to you on the rest of it (the analysis) because he doesn't understand simple vectors. Then, finally, when you do comment, there's no meaningful mention of the analysis at all.... Huh?

 

CraigD "Returning to Turtle and DD’s suspicious that you’re up to something vaguely pseudoscientific, I, too get the impression you suspect your machine is putting out more work (swirling air, making sound, etc) than is going into it (your pushing and pulling its lever). Aemilius, please, be open with us all and say if this is or isn’t the case."

 

In terms of the analysis, it no longer matters what anyone thinks, what anyone suspects, what anyone believes or what anyone claims. With the ongoing vector analysis the only thing that matters is whether or not the calculations are correct. No one (including you) has challenged the calculations to date or shown them to be incorrect in any way.... I can't even get anyone to discuss them!

 

I was charged with finding an agreeable "language" with which to describe the mechanism that the "classical physics-aware folk" here could understand for the purpose of discussion. I did that.... only to find now that all the people who demanded I speak their language (vectors) either can't or won't speak the very language they demanded I speak.... How does that work?

 

I started the vector analysis in an effort to shift the focus from the subjective (what I believe, suspect or think) to the objective (vectors that can easily be seen at a glance as either correct or incorrect).

 

I'd really hoped that when you finally found a little time to comment you would use that time to either make corrections, state objections or confirm them (the diagrams) as correct. Instead, no meaningful mention was made of any of the (very simple) diagrams in your post other than to collectively characterize them as "a great descriptive job" before quickly returning to questioning what I believe, suspect or think. Man.... what a let down!

 

Judging by your response (or the complete lack of it really) to the diagrams and your immediate return to questioning what I believe, suspect or think, it's clear to me now that shifting the focus of this thread from that of classing the mechanism to consideration of the analysis isn't going to work. I'm going to retreat (not concede) from this thread for now. I'll start another thread called "Exploratory Research Mechanism - Analysis" devoted exclusively to analysis, and I'll format it in such a way as to prevent any beliefs, opinions, analogies or comparisons from entering the discussion. When that's completed I'll revisit this thread (which is locked into classing it) with the results that confirm or deny the classing of the mechanism as gravity driven.

 

About this model....CraigD "(not to mention a hankering to have one of my own)."

 

Once I build the next (scaled up) model I'll have no further use for this one, so if you'd like I'll be happy to send it to you.... Emile

Edited November 22, 2012 by Aemilius

[CraigD]

CraigD "Aemilius, your sketches (scale drawings) and videos have done a great descriptive job, given me and anyone else interested in doing so all we need for a classical mechanical analysis of your machine..."

 

Vector analysis is the method I've chosen. It's a valid method well suited for carrying out a complete mechanical analysis of this mechanism, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say I've "....done a great discriptive job...." and given "....all we need for a classical mechanical analysis...." when the analysis is already under way.

By saying you’ve done “a great descriptive job”, I mean you’ve described your machine clearly – the only deduction I had to make is that the two weights on the end of its arms have equal mass, which I didn’t find explicitly stated anywhere, but was able to understand from one of your videos.

 

By “classical mechanical analysis”, I mean the work of writing a collection of equations able to describe the state of a numeric representation of the machine as a function of time. This is more-or-less what classical physicists do – reduce physical systems, which are difficult to describe without appeals to intuition, with numeric ones, which a computer or a person capable of following a program using arithmetic can compute, using no intuition.

 

Natural language is bad for describing what I’m trying to in the previous paragraph. Traditionally in math and science, we communicate with examples, and know one person has successfully communicated a technique to another when both can consistently use it on the same starting data and reach the same result. Hence, textbooks usually end chapters of explaining concepts with “review problems” which the reader solves using the described techniques, then checks against the writer’s results.

 

Here’s an example of the problem similar to, but less complicated, than an analysis of your machine:

We have a machine consisting of two rigid arms, one length 3, the other 4, joined at a right angle, with bodies of equal mass on their ends, as in this sketch:

It is hung from a freely moving pivot (or a string, etc) at the joint of the two arms in such a position that it doesn’t move. What is the angle a?

 

Here’s a solution:

 

The problem is actually asking “at what angle a is the torque of the unit force in that direction of one arm equal and opposite that on the other”. Torque is Force_{perpendicular} x Length_arm, so with obvious trigonometry, the question to solve is

[math]3 \cos a = 4 \sin a[/math]

which gives

[math]a = \arcsin \frac34 \dot= 0.6435 \dot= 36.87^o[/math]

 

 

 

The main difference, I hope is obvious, between this kind of analysis and the drawing-based kind you’ve done in this thread, Aemilius, is the use of numbers.

 

Why not simply critique this analysis once in a while as it progresses (very easy to do)?

I’ve not wanted just to interject natural language comments, but to give a reasonably complete description of at least a few special cases of a numeric, classical physics description of your machine, like the simple example above. Because I’m out of practice, short of free time (the two combine, as my lack of practice means it might take me hours to get up to speed enough to start) and a pretty severe procrastinator, I haven’t yet, but will try to soon.

 

Talking about something like such an analysis isn’t, I think, very useful compared to showing one, so I’ve been avoiding the former ‘til I could do the latter.

 

 

In terms of the analysis, it no longer matters what anyone thinks, what anyone suspects, what anyone believes or what anyone claims. With the ongoing vector analysis the only thing that matters is whether or not the calculations are correct. No one (including you) has challenged the calculations to date or shown them to be incorrect in any way.... I can't even get anyone to discuss them!

As I hope I’ve conveyed above, my main objection is that what you’ve done so far aren’t “calculations” of the sort I understand to be in the domain of physics, because they don’t have equations and numbers based on natural laws in them. I gotta' lay much of the blame for this on myself (and other readers out there who know how) for not bringing some numeric physics into the discussion, and hope to remedy this failing soon.

 

I started the vector analysis in an effort to shift the focus from the subjective (what I believe, suspect or think) to the objective (vectors that can easily be seen at a glance as either correct or incorrect).

This “at a glance” step is what I mean by “appeal to intuition”, and hope to replace with “appeal to arithmetic”.

 

Judging by your response (or the complete lack of it really) to the diagrams and your immediate return to questioning what I believe, suspect or think, it's clear to me now that shifting the focus of this thread from that of classing the mechanism to consideration of the analysis isn't going to work.

I’m truly interested in what you believe, because it informs about what you’re interested in showing via an analysis of any kind.

 

Classical physics assumes laws like conservation of energy, AKA “you can’t get more work out of a machine than you put into it”, so it’s important up front to state that you’re trying to show that a particular work output (eg: that could be extracted from the moving arms of you machine) exceeds what’s put into it (eg: the work exerted on the tilting lever by your hand), because it means some “hidden” work input must be included in the analysis (eg: something involving gravity)

 

I don’t really need this yet, but like to know where everyone’s hoping to eventually go, even early in the trip.

 

About this model....CraigD "(not to mention a hankering to have one of my own)."

 

Once I build the next (scaled up) model I'll have no further use for this one, so if you'd like I'll be happy to send it to you.... Emile

I’d like that very much – I’m only a minor art collector, but find your machine truly beautiful. :)

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Can your device once started follow the rules you set forth in this thread and operate with only gravity as it's power source as you've repeatedly stated?

Still waiting on an answer.

I was charged with finding an agreeable "language" with which to describe the mechanism that the "classical physics-aware folk" here could understand for the purpose of discussion. I did that.... only to find now that all the people who demanded I speak their language (vectors) either can't or won't speak the very language they demanded I speak.... How does that work?

Really, specifically who demanded vectors?

In terms of the analysis, it no longer matters what anyone thinks, what anyone suspects, what anyone believes or what anyone claims. With the ongoing vector analysis the only thing that matters is whether or not the calculations are correct. No one (including you) has challenged the calculations to date or shown them to be incorrect in any way.... I can't even get anyone to discuss them!

You've yet to present any. Among key details conveniently left out, the force you are applying, the mass of the weights, distance to the fulcrums, and distance of any concentric offsets from center. What information a person can glean from a few sketches with arrows is not nearly enough to make any sort of determination of accurate or not. Yes, a person can see that it is intended to move in a specific manner but one cannot determine if the device is capable of functioning by the force of gravity alone.