JMJones0424 Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 ...i only see an emile driven mechanism.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? 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. Turtle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Turtle "....i only see an emile driven mechanism." 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? belovelife "interesting reminded me of a couple of things i uses to make when i was a kid...." Hey belovelife.... not gravity driven, but very cool! a couple arms, a couple weights, and a couple magnets, could be gravity driven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Turtle "....i only see an emile driven mechanism." 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? more or less an accurate assessment, yes. on the less i wouldn't say it has nothing to do with gravity because it is operating in a gravitational field. on the more, it does appear you are supplying the energy. to be even of the nature of a weight driven clock you need to show it operating no-hands so to speak. ;) to clarify an earlier comment of mine, that is at least one spring in the back, oui/no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Emile Driven Mechanism? Nope.... First, the magnitude of the very slight imbalancing force delivered to the system by means of the control lever, which, as I said before, is sensibly comparable in every way to standing a pencil on end, holding it at the top and moving it back and forth an inch or so, is wholly insufficient to overcome the inertia of the relatively heavy mechanism whether at rest or in motion, nor can it account for the immediate onset of rotation. Second (and I'm really surprised you guys didn't notice it looking at the video), the actual driving force needed to cause rotation of the mechanism as a whole cannot be imparted to the planet sprocket by the sun sprocket via the chain because the sun sprocket does not move in such a way as to be capable of imparting rotational motion to the planet sprocket, which leaves gravity as the only other driving force available to explain why it immediately begins to rotate in response to the imbalancing force delivered to the system by means of the control lever. So, the waterwheel is continuously provided with mass at a higher potential and turns just as long as the water continues to flow.... the weight driven clock continues to run, but, infrequently, the weight must again be raised for it to continue.... this mechanism continues to rotate only so long as it is being frequently imbalanced.... Three gravity driven mechanisms. 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? Turtle "rather anticlimactic" What did you expect? I made all that clear earlier, but just in case you missed it.... belovelife "How long does it run for?" Well, the fact is it doesn't "run".... this really can't be classed as a motor or engine of any kind (at this point), more just a novel type of balanced pendulous mechanical arrangement. Here's another video of it (in profile).... Emile Edited July 25, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Emile Driven Mechanism? Nope.... Beware making intuitive conclusions, Aemilius! In science, intuition is useful for deciding what measurable phenomena should be formally analyzed, and how, in order to reach conclusions, but must not be confused with the phenomena themselves. Unfortunately, while intuition is something practically all humans have, acquiring the skills necessary to measure and analyze usually requires training. Despite its availability via free public education in the US and many other countries, regrettably few people (including you, it’s apparent from the misunderstanding you exhibit in this thread, and your admission of having dropping out of school prior finishing the eighth grade) get this training. The ideal solution to this, IMHO, would you getting a focused introduction to classical mechanics in a traditional classroom setting. Alas, in my experience, such education is rare and hard to come by – free/low cost adult education tends to be either practical, job, or art/craft focused. A less ideal solution, but one available via forums like hypography, is for me (and others, I add hopefully ;)) to step through an analysis of the operation of your machine, introducing the needed physics as we go. This’ll take some thinking (mostly about how to effectively communicate) writing effort, and more time than I have right now (due to the curse of work with deadlines and scheduled meeting :(), so I’ll commence it later. Before you’ve gained a working understanding of a small collection of basic physics concepts, it’s practically impossible to discuss their application to your machine, or any other physical system, so I won’t yet attempt that, and ask your patience in waiting ‘til we agree you’ve acquired this understanding before making more claims or challenges. If it’s any comfort, waiting tries my patience, too, as I’m champing at the bit to tear into you last post and correct it. ‘Till we can speak the same scientific language, however, all this would be is a waste of our and everyone’s time, analogous to a shouting contest between people speaking related but not quite mutually comprehensible languages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 ok, emile, are you slowing it down in the video once you get it going, and it starts spinning, do you manually slow it down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Hey belovelife.... 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. 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. Does that answer your question? Edited July 27, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) CraigD "Beware making intuitive conclusions, Aemilius!" Thanks for that sagely advice CraigD, I'll remember it if I'm ever tempted.... this isn't some computer animation though where you can make anything you want to happen, it's a physical mechanism about which conclusions can be empirically arrived at through extensive testing and observation. CraigD "In science, intuition is useful for deciding what measurable phenomena should be formally analyzed, and how, in order to reach conclusions, but must not be confused with the phenomena themselves." I would have to disagree with that, at least in part. I think intuition is a useful tool in the initial stages when considering the possible viability/wokability of an idea before investigating it further, but using it to decide what is or is not worthy of consideration/measurement at any point in an actual investigation (from an empirical standpoint anyway) leaves the door wide open to the possibility of arriving at conclusions that are skewed in some way, and as a result unreliable. CraigD "Unfortunately, while intuition is something practically all humans have, acquiring the skills necessary to measure and analyze usually requires training. Despite its availability via free public education in the US and many other countries, regrettably few people (including you, it’s apparent from the misunderstanding you exhibit in this thread,and your admission of having dropping out of school prior finishing the eighth grade) get this training." Well, that's your opinion. The fact is I enjoyed full access on a daily basis to all the various libraries at the University of Washington for almost a decade following a brief association with the University of Washington Hospital as a volunteer, so any opinion you may have of my intuitive abilites is a matter of indifference to me, as I'm sure my opinion of your abilities (I won't go there, I don't know you) is a matter of indifference to you. CraigD "The ideal solution to this, IMHO, would you getting a focused introduction to classical mechanics in a traditional classroom setting. Alas, in my experience, such education is rare and hard to come by – free/low cost adult education tends to be either practical, job, or art/craft focused. A less ideal solution, but one available via forums like hypography, is for me (and others, I add hopefully ) to step through an analysis of the operation of your machine, introducing the needed physics as we go. This’ll take some thinking (mostly about how to effectively communicate) writing effort, and more time than I have right now (due to the curse of work with deadlines and scheduled meeting), so I’ll commence it later." We're not talking about some enormously complicated machine like the Babbage Difference Engine here, this only has four relevant moving parts (unless you really want to complicate things by counting the individual links in the chain). The fact is it's no more complicated than a DC motor, whose characteristics and manner of operation can be clearly elucidated empirically without the aid of mathematics (no mathematics were involved with the invention of the DC motor either). In view of that, I'm at something of a loss when it comes to understanding why you would think that this obviously simple mechanism should require any lengthy time consuming step by step mathematical analysis (at least from an empirical standpoint). GraigD "Before you’ve gained a working understanding of a small collection of basic physics concepts, it’s practically impossible to discuss their application to your machine, or any other physical system, so I won’t yet attempt that, and ask your patience in waiting ‘til we agree you’ve acquired this understanding before making more claims or challenges." Oh, I don't know, you did a fine job describing the commutation of a DC motor without resorting to even one equation. Why should this be any different (rhetorical)? As for making claims I've tried to be careful not to and I apologize if it came across that way. I think the only real challenge I've made so far was the perfectly reasonable request I made of Turtle and JMJones0424 to cite their source when they said (open to correction) that as a rule gravity driven mechanisms must not be augmented by any outside force during operation. I'd like to apologize if anything else I said was interpreted that way. CraigD "If it’s any comfort, waiting tries my patience, too, as I’m champing at the bit to tear into you last post and correct it. ‘Till we can speak the same scientific language, however, all this would be is a waste of our and everyone’s time, analogous to a shouting contest between people speaking related but not quite mutually comprehensible languages." My feeling is that if you can't correct me empirically, you can't correct me mathematically either. You really haven't, up to this point, disproven any of the empirically arrived at conclusions/results I've reported here.... wish you had more time, I would've liked to discuss it more with you. Mathematics is not the only scientific language.... Emile PS - Hope you liked the drawing, this is a great forum and thanks for having me! For any one else looking on.... the next video (or two) will illustrate the four possible positions of equilibrium. Edited August 9, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 I think the only real challenge I've made so far was the perfectly reasonable request I made of Turtle and JMJones0424 to cite their source when they said (open to correction) that as a rule gravity driven mechanisms must not be augmented by any outside force during operation. 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. Turtle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) interesting though it takes little energy to unbalance it right? Edited July 27, 2012 by belovelife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) JMJones0424 "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." I think I understand.... What you're saying here is that the initial input of energy is the most important, and even if gravity does take over as a result of that, it's irrelevant because gravity would clearly not have acted on it or taken over anything if the original input of energy had not occurred. Would that be a fairly accurate interpretation? By the way, did you ever actually manage to find anything backing up your previous assertion that, as a rule, gravity driven mechanisms must not be augmented by any outside force during operation, or was that just your opinion? belovelife "interesting thoughit takes little energy to unbalance it right?" Hey belovelife.... Right, very little energy! If you take a pen or pencil and stand it on end, then hold it at the top and move it back and forth about an inch or so you'll be feeling exactly the same thing I'm feeling when moving it back and forth during testing.... nothing at all. Edited July 28, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 I think I understand.... What you're saying here is that the initial input of energy is the most important, and even if gravity does take over as a result of that, it's irrelevant because gravity would clearly not have acted on it or taken over anything if the original input of energy had not occurred. Would that be a fairly accurate interpretation? No. What I'm saying is the only energy input in this device is through your manipulation of the balancing lever. Perhaps a simpler, yet far less artistically pleasing, model would be easier for me to illustrate. Take a bicycle and flip it upside down so that the front wheel spins freely. Place a weight on the wheel so that it is imbalanced. Rotate the wheel so that the weight is nearly at the top. If you give the wheel a slight nudge, since the center of gravity is off of the axle of the wheel, the wheel will rotate so that the weight goes down towards the ground. Inertia will carry the weight almost back up to the top, but not quite. A slight amount of force is needed to carry the weight over the balancing point to begin a second rotation. While admittedly far more elegant and beautiful, if I understand the operation of your machine correctly, there is no fundamental difference between your machine and this example. You alone are supplying 100% of the energy required for it to operate. And no, I haven't tried to find a source that a gravity operated machine be gravity operated. It is true by definition. It is your claim that your machine is gravity operated. After viewing your videos, it is not apparent to me that this is an accurate claim. Turtle, DFINITLYDISTRUBD and CraigD 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Perhaps introducing a new model may not be the best way to explain why your machine is not a gravity driven machine. I think I can clearly show that your machine cannot be gravity driven if I take a different route. At the start of a cycle, your machine has a particular configuration. At the end of a cycle, your machine is in exactly the same configuration. As such, any gain experienced due to gravity during part of a revolution is lost in the latter part as the machine goes back to its starting configuration. The only thing that has changed from one revolution to the next is that you've expended a small amount of energy moving the balancing lever. Compare this to a clock. While the gears and hands are at the same position at the same time from day to day, the weights that drive the clock are lower. The weights have moved from a position of higher potential energy to a position of lower potential energy. Likewise, in a waterwheel, the wheel is in the same configuration every rotation, but the mass of water that drives the wheel has moved from a position of higher potential energy to lower. There is no corresponding driving force in your machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) Well, I think you've made yourself very clear indeed! Thanks for that clarification.... JMJones0424 "No. What I'm saying is the energy input in this device is through your manipulation of the balancing lever. Perhaps a simpler, yet far less artistically pleasing, model would be easier for me to illustrate. Take a bicycle and flip it upside down so that the front wheel spins freely. Place a weight on the wheel so that it is imbalanced. Rotate the wheel so that the weight is nearly at the top. If you give the wheel a slight nudge, since the center of gravity is off of the axle of the wheel, the wheel will rotate so that the weight goes down towards the ground. Inertia will carry the weight almost back up to the top, but not quite. A slight amount of force is needed to carry the weight over the balancing point to begin a second rotation." That model of what's happening can easily be shown to be incorrect. With reference to the series of images I posted on page four of this thread, I've already clearly demonstrated how the mechanism balances out regardless of position or mass distribution at any point around 360 degrees, which directly (and successfully) contradicts any comparison of it to an imbalanced wheel. Also, if you review the video, you'll notice that the weights start out at the bottom, not the top, which further illustrates the glaring inadequacy of your oversimplified comparison.... This is a balanced mechanism, not an imbalanced one. JMJones0424 "While admittedly far more elegant and beautiful...." Thanks for that, very nice of you to say. JMJones0424 "....if I understand the operation of your machine correctly, there is no fundamental difference between your machine and this example." At this point then (in view of the above) I would have to say that I don't think you understand its operation at all, or even how it's balanced and why, so it naturally follows that any conclusions you've arrived at, based on a faulty model (or example) of whats actually happening, will be inaccurate/incorrect. JMJones0424 "You alone are supplying 100% of the energy required for it to operate. And no, I haven't tried to find a source that a gravity operated machine be gravity operated. It is true by definition. It is your claim that your machine is gravity operated. After viewing your videos, it is not apparent to me that this is an accurate claim." Appreciate your opinion, but without a clear idea of what's actually happenning or why, it doesn't even begin to rise to the level of being any kind of rebuttal.... just a poorly formulated opinion. Edited August 9, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 JMJones "Perhaps introducing a new model may not be the best way to explain why your machine is not a gravity driven machine. I think I can clearly show that your machine cannot be gravity driven if I take a different route. At the start of a cycle, your machine has a particular configuration. At the end of a cycle, your machine is in exactly the same configuration. As such, any gain experienced due to gravity during part of a revolution is lost in the latter part as the machine goes back to its starting configuration. The only thing that has changed from one revolution to the next is that you've expended a small amount of energy moving the balancing lever." That's not a different route, you've only rephrased the same faulty comparison you presented in your last post. Videos to be posted (as time permits) will further illustrate the obvious inadequacy of this comparison. JMJones0424 "Compare this to a clock. While the gears and hands are at the same position at the same time from day to day the weights that drive the clock are lower.The weights have moved from a position of higher potential energy to a position of lower potential energy. Likewise, in a waterwheel, the wheel is in the same configuration every rotation, but the mass of water that drives the wheel has moved from a position of higher potential energy to lower. There is no corresponding driving force in your machine." The gears and the hands are at the same position at the same time from day to day? You lost me, I don't even know where you're going with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 I'm not sure what you don't understand. At 12:00 today, a grandfather clock is in the same configuration as at 12:00 yesterday with one notable exception. The weights are lower. A grandfather clock can be shown to be gravity driven because the energy that drives it comes from a mass going from a position of higher potential energy to a position of lower potential energy. You have not yet demonstrated that this can be said of your machine. Turtle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MacPhee Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Perhaps introducing a new model may not be the best way to explain why your machine is not a gravity driven machine. I think I can clearly show that your machine cannot be gravity driven if I take a different route. At the start of a cycle, your machine has a particular configuration. At the end of a cycle, your machine is in exactly the same configuration. As such, any gain experienced due to gravity during part of a revolution is lost in the latter part as the machine goes back to its starting configuration. The only thing that has changed from one revolution to the next is that you've expended a small amount of energy moving the balancing lever. Compare this to a clock. While the gears and hands are at the same position at the same time from day to day, the weights that drive the clock are lower. The weights have moved from a position of higher potential energy to a position of lower potential energy. Likewise, in a waterwheel, the wheel is in the same configuration every rotation, but the mass of water that drives the wheel has moved from a position of higher potential energy to lower. There is no corresponding driving force in your machine. That's the point. Surely Gravity only pulls a thing downwards, towards a centre of mass. It won't make a thing go upwards, away from the centre of mass. Therefore gravity can't have a permanent reciprocating action. Because once the thing has fallen down, and arrived at the centre, it stops. Further motion ceases, the engine is permanently stalled. So a "gravity-driven" engine can only have a limited life-span - the time the falling object takes to reach the centre. It can't go on endlessly, like a proper engine should - like a car engine. Which, given enough petrol, oil and adequate maintenance, would enable a car to run along a road round the edge of the Universe, forever. A perpetual circumnavigation. By contrast, the gravity engine would just make the car fall, once, from the edge to the centre. Then kaputt! What flaw can there be in this reasoning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.