How does it work? Do you have all of your marbles?
Quite slick I must say...
Also, from their web site this is a Canadian company that does educational stuff for kids. They are not scammers.
Very cool.
They give some pretty good hints how it works. As long as that steel ball keeps moving up to the magnet, and falling due to the wheel rotation, then back again, the wheel should keep spinning.
Didn't you see him winding up the apparatus in the beginning?
I'll bet you thought that was to show there were no batteries?
No, No, wait a minute....
Here is one of my favorites:
Mister Hand is doing it! I'll bet he can't bolt that magnet down and have the wheel keep moving! Ha Ha
That is all I have. I just figured I would preempt the know-it-alls and "NON-BELIEVERS" ( ;D )
The machine, or some version of it has been around for a long time.
I think it might rotate at 7.8 Hz. O0
What is your argument MH? Is it a PMM?
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.03.03, 04:20:03
I think it might rotate at 7.8 Hz. O0
No way!
Maybe it rotates at 468RPM? :o
The last one I saw (seemingly working the same way) had a rim/ball track made of aluminum and the ball wasn't just a ball. It was a ball magnet. That group said they knew how it worked but didn't tell and were later declared frauds.
I think it taps into the Boogie Woogie Man resonance.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.03.03, 04:41:52
I think it taps into the Boogie Woogie Man resonance.
Technically speaking.... wouldn't the machine require two balls to make use of that resonance?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.03.03, 04:11:21
Very cool.
They give some pretty good hints how it works. As long as that steel ball keeps moving up to the magnet, and falling due to the wheel rotation, then back again, the wheel should keep spinning.
If you say that, then it has nothing to do with gravity?
I "think" I can see some possibilities for how that could "maybe" work without gravity. Maybe three or more.
One way involves this effect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBN_cYEgeMA
And the other involves a rubber band or similar to be used.
Can't be sure, but I'll try to explain how I think some ways would work.
1. The most likely in my opinion is a large slowly rotating magnet under the bench (rotated by hand or some other way).
2. The rim of the wheel looks to be aluminium to me, the effect of the steel (I doubt it is pure iron)
ball moving back and forth and the changing flux field of the magnet along
with the eddy current effect in the aluminium and the very slight movement of the magnet
could cause a motoring effect.
3. If there was a small rubber band (or similar) inside the hub connected so as to have tension
placed on it beforehand by winding it backwards, but not strong enough to start rotation
with the weight of the ball on it, then when the ball is moved the weight of the ball temporarily
relieved enough for the rubber band to start rotation and maintain it for a while.
4. Possibly a combination of the two or some other way. :-\ Many possibilities.
I'm not saying any of those things is how it is done, just that that is what I would look for
if I was able to see and check it out.
I don't see how it could possibly do any good to think about it too much unless it is for real
and does actually work like that. Going by some of the other models they have, I think they are all powered.
It's not a perpetual motion machine though because it is a man made machine, it will stop.
Only a natural perpetual motion machine is possible, by definition I think.
Cheers
Electric motor is built into the hub.
There are batteries in the bottom plate.
One reed relay in the bottom plate switch on the motor in the hub
when you put the magnet in.
GL.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.03.03, 04:05:05
How does it work? Do you have all of your marbles?
Quite slick I must say...
Also, from their web site this is a Canadian company that does educational stuff for kids. They are not scammers.
The wheel should rotate only if the ball rolls. The magnet attracts the ball but it doesn't let roll the ball. So the wheel should stop when the ball attains his equilibrium position which is where the resultant of the force of gravity and the force of magnetic attraction is equal to the reaction force of the wheel, oriented toward its center.
Nice fake.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.03.03, 11:27:59
The wheel should rotate only if the ball rolls. The magnet attracts the ball but it doesn't let roll the ball.
...
As long as the wheel rotate, the ball roll. As Poynt pointed out, the rotating wheel will knock the ball down. As the ball roll back up, the wheel roll some more. It's rolling galore imo . lol
I don't think he's winding up a rubber band to start it, he is first winding it by hand anti clockwise and then the device also runs anti clockwise, if he was winding it up first he would need to wind clockwise. It's clearly magic >:-)
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.03, 12:49:54
As long as the wheel rotate, the ball roll.
...
You are reversing the cause and the effect alleged by the inventor. The magnet acts onto the ball, not onto the wheel.
The mistake is obvious: the gravity force alone also attracts the ball, so (if the inventor was logic) the gravity force alone should rotate the wheel for the same reason as the magnet. But it doesn't.
We just face a displacement of the force acting on the ball. Instead of being vertical (ball weight alone), it is oblique (resultant of ball weight + magnet force), so all is happening as if the gravity force was shifted in force and direction. The ball just "fall" at the position of lower potential, the potential being now not only gravitational but gravitational + magnetic. No cause for the wheel to rotate.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.03.03, 13:49:48
You are reversing the cause and the effect alleged by the inventor. The magnet acts onto the ball, not onto the wheel.
The mistake is obvious: the gravity force alone also attracts the ball, so (if the inventor was logic) the gravity force alone should rotate the wheel for the same reason as the magnet. But it doesn't.
We just face a displacement of the force acting on the ball. Instead of being vertical (ball weight alone), it is oblique (resultant of ball weight + magnet force), so all is happening as if the gravity force was shifted in force and direction. No cause for the wheel to rotate.
I don't know what alleged by the inventor, but if he alleged as you said, then I must say he is wrong in my world. lol
You are correct if the ball is welded to the wheel.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.03, 14:00:24
... if he alleged as you said, then I must say he is wrong in my world... :-X
Naturally he is wrong. We all agree it is a fake, isn't it?
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.03, 14:00:24
...
You are correct if the ball is welded to the wheel.
...
You missed the point.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.03.03, 14:02:56
Naturally he is wrong. We all agree it is a fake, isn't it?
Ex, I have the right to remain silence. ;D
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.03.03, 04:05:05
How does it work?
...
The ball is not steady, it slightly oscillates. May be there are magnetic pulses from a hidden coil that unbalance the resultant force onto the ball?
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.03, 14:07:55
Ex, I have the right to remain silence. ;D
Good idea. I'm bored of having to explain elementary steps of the reasoning that I avoided for cause of obviousness. :P
I question we should ask ourselves is:
The motion of the wheel is cause by the ball rolling up, or the motion of the wheel is cause by the ball weight dragging the wheel down.
The question supposes that the wheel rotates. It doesn't except with hidden means.
I think that I've got it!
It's a fake room and the room and the camera rotate together! The axis of rotation of the room is the same as the axis of rotation of the wheel.
So the secret is that the
room is rotating and not the wheel! The inertia of the wheel keeps it stationary while the room rotates. So simple!
They even stole the idea:
I think the inventor they refer to is Bessler, or a variation of his original designs. http://www.besslerwheel.com/
The device is not fake, what you see is what you get. In a static position there is no torque on the rim, since all forces sum up to a radial vector, but when displaced slightly from equilibrium, the restoring force and torque appears. But the real question is, is it OU? I don't think it is because the energy comes from the tension between the ball and the magnet, which is input mechanically by the operator through his hand. If you noticed, the second spin requires the operator to constantly pull the magnet away, and that's energy injection. The Hammel disk is a similar illusion. What all these folks need to do is to mount the "activating" magnet rigidly so it doesn't move, then let's see how long it runs, which won't be long. Another device is that magnetic rail and a steel ball is dropped at on end and it gets pulled to the other. 15 years ago I was corresponding with Naudin from JNL labs and telling him exactly what I'm saying here. He was under the impression that he could loop the rails and have a closed system, and I kept telling him that the energy is injected when the ball is dropped in initially, because magnetic fields are a type of invisible spring that gets "compressed" and then tries to reach equilibrium and dissipates that energy, but the energy content is fixed so it's not OU. I don't think I convinced him, but nature did.
EM
On second thought it could be a Coriolis Vortex Amplifier (CVA). The magnet and the ball are act like a resonant Coriolis flux antenna that opens a portal to the vortex amplification effect.
You should study John Bidinkie, 1823 - 1862.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Coriolis_effect10.svg/630px-Coriolis_effect10.svg.png)
Let's start with some simple thought experiment.
I drew a picture with one of us inside the wheel. Of course we all know if he run, the wheel turn. The twist is that we'll also put needles such that if he moves left or right, no matter how slight, will be poked. Now as long as he run at a constant speed, he life is not in danger. What happens if he accelerate just a tiny winy bit on accident! Would he ever can get back to constant speed or the wheel keep going faster and faster until explode?
the static magnetic field produces a linear force on the steel ball, and not a torque. However, a torque appears if the ball is displaced from equilibrium because there is friction and reaction against the rails. But a picture is worth a thousand words!
EM
Gibbs:
Yes, Dr. Wilhelm Reich experimented with that effect.
QuoteWould he ever can get back to constant speed or the wheel keep going faster and faster until explode?
There was a typo there, it should read as follows:
Would he ever can get back to constant speed or the wheel keep going faster and faster until he explodes?
MileHigh
I feel something really fishy here.
If the guy in my picture walk for 1/4 of the circumference in space with no gravity, he would end up like in the left. He move 1/4 left, the wheel move 1/4 right (let's say they have the same inertia). Now let's turn gravity on this position, he would drag and accelerate the wheel. Now let's combine both superpositions into one (which is the reality of the experiment here), we have the guy walk for 1/4 circumference and the wheel position end up like the right (move twice of his distance).
You think this is weird, but if you put two coins together and roll one coin around the other, the rolling coin will take twice the circumference to get back to its original position.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.03.03, 16:55:30
the static magnetic field produces a linear force on the steel ball, and not a torque. However, a torque appears if the ball is displaced from equilibrium because there is friction and reaction against the rails. But a picture is worth a thousand words!
EM
I agree and here's a question. Let's say the ball is out of balance below the magnet. Of course the ball will try to go up to the magnet. Would the wheel move CW or CCW in your picture?
If the ball is stuck to the wheel, we would certainly know the answer.
So how do we resolve the issue of whether this is real (the wheel spins continually without hidden motor, etc.) or fake?
Will endless debates solve the matter?
I think its fake based on some experience, but I suggest that the way to find out is to do the experiment.
If you guys think there is something interesting to experiment. I propose this experiment.
We can design something similar like a wheel/ball within a wheel/drum. Let it roll down a ramp. Record the initial and final height when it come up on the other side.
I think this one is based on advanced new single-wire Mylow technology.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2012.03.03, 04:13:09
Mister Hand is doing it! I'll bet he can't bolt that magnet down and have the wheel keep moving! Ha Ha
I already told ya'll how it worked C.C
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2012.03.04, 02:59:42
I already told ya'll how it worked C.C
I agree. At least it won't operate for very long in a fixed stator environment.
One thing to observe is that the attraction of the stator magnet is
not in a linear direction. In fact, it follows an inverse cube rule of a spherical nature - but in this demonstration it is probably closer to an inverse square rule. The attraction is such that it lifts the ball in the rail above the centerline of the magnet - whereas if the rail were missing it would attract straight into the centerline as was shown prior.
So what is the result? The rail allows the ball to get closer but at the expense of storing gravitational potential energy as it raises it, however there is an acceleration and associated momentum which carries the ball past a point of equilibrium and the gravitational potential energy is then converted to kinetic energy in the opposite direction. If the rail were immovable, then the ball would oscillate as magnetic and gravitational forces exchange until equilibrium is found. However, because the rail is free to move, all of the various things like bearing friction, air drag, paramagnetic braking, surface irregularities etc. all interact in a way that delays equilibrium.
However, even though we are separating the two fields (gravity and magnetic) into non-conservative quadrants where energy could be extracted, eventually the system will achieve equilibrium and stop moving. Small adjustments are there by Mr. Hand to delay that inevitability.
Q. Would it be possible to fabricate an electronic or mechanical adjustment that utilized less energy than that produced by the turning wheel - thereby removing Mr. Hand and keeping the system in constant imbalance?
This story of ball and wheel is a particular case of a general misconception about dynamics. The dynamics of any thing is due to an imbalanced starting situation. The cause for something to move is this disequilibrium, and the dynamics is to lower the energy and recover the balance by reducing the starting imbalance.
Those who think that the imbalance can be maintained so that there is a perpetual motion are illogical because doing that, they remove the cause for the motion! If a system configuration at time t is the same as at time t+1, what would be the cause for a change?
If a system configuration at time t is the same as at time t+1 then there has been no change. That question was illogical. The question being illogical doesn't make the questioner illogical.
Harvey's question is valid and he is not illogical for posing it. The answer maybe "Nothing.". The answer may be beyond our current comprehension. In any case, it is obvious that none of us have a positive answer for the question.
So, why does the debate continue and the insults begin?
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.03, 16:37:55
Let's start with some simple thought experiment.
I drew a picture with one of us inside the wheel. Of course we all know if he run, the wheel turn. The twist is that we'll also put needles such that if he moves left or right, no matter how slight, will be poked. Now as long as he run at a constant speed, he life is not in danger. What happens if he accelerate just a tiny winy bit on accident! Would he ever can get back to constant speed or the wheel keep going faster and faster until explode?
GibbsHelmholtz,
I love your graphic! Very clearly, it depicts the situation of the engineer with the customer sticking from behind him and the accountants sticking from before him.
It is also applicable to someone attempting to have a fun discussion of the esoteric even under a thread title containing the words "Just for fun". It may be best to give up and simply be impaled. >:-)
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2012.03.04, 12:41:59
If a system configuration at time t is the same as at time t+1 then there has been no change. That question was illogical. The question being illogical doesn't make the questioner illogical.
Are you not able to go beyond a litteral formulation?!
There is no change between a wheel at a certain position and the same wheel after a rotation of some angle. All physical parameters are identical.
If there is no tag on the wheel, you will not be able to distinguish between the two positions by any physical measurement method. Study Newton's first law.
Quote
Harvey's question is valid and he is not illogical for posing it.
...
So, why does the debate continue and the insults begin?
You are assigning me yourself alleged intents. I have not said that Harvey's question is not valid, for the reason that I had not even read Harvey's reply! C.C. If I had replied to Harvey, I would have indicated it.
My reply was a general thought about the idea involved in this thread, because it appears regularly under multiple forms. It was not related to Harvey's post.
Your question is therefore an ad hominem attack due to a biaised mind. Insults come only from you. You are wasting our time with digressions and false accusations, ww.
Quote from: Harvey on 2012.03.04, 05:45:32
...
Q. Would it be possible to fabricate an electronic or mechanical adjustment that utilized less energy than that produced by the turning wheel - thereby removing Mr. Hand and keeping the system in constant imbalance?
My previous reply about imbalance was not related to yours, just a coincidence misinterpreted by ww. It was a likely coincidence because it was obvious that the underlying question of this thread is that of a "perpetual imbalance".
Now a constant imbalance is a static situation. Note that "static situation" doesn't imply stationarity, because Newton's first law and relativity say that there is no difference between something at rest and something moving at constant speed, it is just a question of the observer's viewpoint. This was the confusion from ww between dynamics and kinematics.
Kinematics doesn't imply a change of any physical parameter inside the observed system to be considered as a closed system, when only constant speeds are involved. So there is no possibility to extract energy from this situation which is really static in despite the viewpoint of an external observer who sees a movement.
If we deal with dynamics, it is different. In this case, something must change inside the observed system and so we could expect for producing energy. If there are changes, the system can be in different states, at least between the start point and other positions. So the question becomes: are there means to return to the state of the start point and repeat the cycle? It is very doubtful, because if there is a cause for the system to go from the state A to B, it is still valid when we want the system to go from B to A and so it acts in the reverse direction. And we must keep in mind that this applies even for any elementary action at any instant of time.
I propose that we keep the perpetual motion of the first kind for the time after finding those of the second kind, we will have time to waste... ;)
There is no fancy mechanism for energy to come from Mr. Hand. The acceleration of the fairly large wheel, which appears to be made out of aluminum and possess a decent amount of rotational inertia, is quite abrupt and represents much more acceleration than a wobbling metal ball bearing could possibly transfer to the wheel. That's assuming the Mr. Hand mechanism would even work at all which I seriously doubt.
I think that about 30 turns of fishing line are spooled around the wheel. There are two channels on either side of the wheel rim that are perfect for that. Off camera there is somebody with a similar wheel that is being used as the receiving spool. This person is the mysterious power source for the wheel that we see on camera.
It's the old trick were the camera can't see the fishing line. I use the term "fishing line" as a lay person's term. You can see in their other clips that they have built all sorts of intricate mechanical devices and must know their stuff. There is probably a near-invisible type of transparent filament that is used in the movie industry that is much thinner and much less visible than fishing line. It probably comes in different maximum tension grades and a low-tension version of this filament like you could use for this application would be nearly invisible to the naked eye, and completely invisible to an ordinary camera.
The whole point of the slip is to suggest to you that the ball bearing can make the wheel spin when in fact the vast majority of the forces associated with the ball bearing are radial and therefore can't make the wheel spin by definition.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.03.04, 10:58:27
...
If a system configuration at time t is the same as at time t+1, what would be the cause for a change?
What if I show you a situation where configuration at t is the same as t+1, though we still have a cause for change.
I outlined what I consider a more elegant possible approach to the Bessler wheel prime mover in this thread:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=129.0
I admit the sketches I supplied may be difficult to comprehend, but if you read the thread in it's entirety you will get the idea.
Let us have another thought experiment wherein the device has a similar function as this thread's device.
Most all of us are familiar with the Lenz law demonstration where a magnet is dropped into a copper tube. We have clear evidence that the time involved to traverse the distance is greatly increased due to the magnetic braking. Therefore, the tube being held rigid prevents the magnet from falling as fast as gravity would accelerate it.
Let us make the tube very long. In fact, let us curve the tube ever so slightly so that it represents a gradual arc. To take it further, let us make the tube so long, that eventually it arcs back to itself and makes a circle, a very large circle.
Next, let us mount the circle to a hub at its center with low friction bearings so the tube is now free to move along that path so that our tube stands vertically with its hub and axle in the horizontal.
Inside is a round spherical magnet with good clearance on all sides.
Using an exterior magnet, we raise the internal spherical magnet up to the level of the axle and then we pull the exterior magnet horizontally away from the axle quickly enough so that the internal sphere magnetically centers itself due to Lenz's Law and there is no contact with the tube before it drops scarcely any appreciable distance (especially compared to the immense diameter of the tube).
Keeping in mind Newtons third law of motion and understanding correctly the magnetic principles involved in Lenz's Law, what motion (if any) can we expect from our copper tube?
What conditions would be necessary to keep our sphere magnet suspended at the axle height?
How does the cyclic nature of the magnetic interaction impact the resultant motion(s)?
Digression: Is the Lenz connection of the sphere to the copper similar to any real connection of the ferromagnetic ball and its rail in this threads device? Is the friction cyclic? If so, how does that impact the involved motion(s)?
8)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.03.03, 20:04:55
I suggest that the way to find out is to do the experiment.
+1
Agreed. Talk is cheap and parts are $, but it's the only valid way.
However, considering this thing has been around since 1823...and it's not used in practice, why would that be? Suppression? Hardly. Probably because it does not work. If it did work, it would...work. And be working out there already.
Secondly, in the video the presenter does not show themselves, and in my observation, such is usual symptom of fake. People with real things want to be known for it, unless they live in paranoia land.
rc
Harvey:
I note from past experience that you are really into "magnetic esoterica." I really think the implicit operative or message in that clip is that they are showing you something specifically for the purpose of ultimately making you realize that what they are showing you is not really true. They are showing you a form of propaganda. So it's an implicit massage saying "beware of what you see because this is performance art illustrating how people can be swayed by false scientific propaganda" or something like that. Will they reveal that in the future is unknown and I somehow doubt it.
Certainly what they say in the description is not true, the ball is not acting like an unbalanced weight on one side of the wheel making it turn. The only way for that to be true would be for the ball to be fixed to the wheel, do an MGh drop through gravity, and them move back up and repeat he whole process again. So that's the explicit message, the ball has to be fixed to the wheel and fall to turn potential energy into kinetic energy. You can see from the comments on the clip that many people are being fooled.
QuoteUsing an exterior magnet, we raise the internal spherical magnet up to the level of the axle and then we pull the exterior magnet horizontally away from the axle quickly enough so that the internal sphere magnetically centers itself due to Lenz's Law and there is no contact with the tube before it drops scarcely any appreciable distance (especially compared to the immense diameter of the tube).
Keeping in mind Newtons third law of motion and understanding correctly the magnetic principles involved in Lenz's Law, what motion (if any) can we expect from our copper tube?
What conditions would be necessary to keep our sphere magnet suspended at the axle height?
How does the cyclic nature of the magnetic interaction impact the resultant motion(s)?
Digression: Is the Lenz connection of the sphere to the copper similar to any real connection of the ferromagnetic ball and its rail in this threads device? Is the friction cyclic? If so, how does that impact the involved motion(s)?
If I understand you correctly you are describing a vibratory motor. A magnet exterior to the big wheel vibrates back and forth horizontally and when the magnet moves away from the wheel the spherical magnet inside the tube can fall and push the wheel forward because of the eddy currents induced in the tube holding he spherical magnet. When the exterior magnet moves towards the wheel the spherical magnet moves back up an the process starts all over. You can imagine a low frequency buzz because the cycle time would be quite short.
One would assume that would make the big wheel rotate. But compared to the clip in this example, any possible energy input from Mr. Hand is minuscule. It's much different from the "Minato motor" case where you are holding a magnet in free space with your arm and making something very small and very low mass turn due to an unconscious motor effect. In this example the hand is just fixing a magnet in place that's in a stable position on the table top. There really aren't any unconscious hand movement effects to deal with. And again, there are no real motor effects. The steel ball in this case is not a magnet either, and the only eddy current effects to speak of come from the rotating wheel passing the fixed magnet, and they cause the wheel to slow down.
There may be some other way they are doing it but invisible fishing line is certainly one distinct possibility. All it would take would be a little bit of rehearsing between two people, one off camera, rotating identical wheels.
MileHigh
There are some related and somewhat humourous incidents that come up from time to time, a kind of self-propagandizing related to observing phenomena and not going the full distance in thinking through the experiment. You can end up taking the data you see at face value even through it is suspect. I suppose Rosie is the champion when it comes to that.
Some of you that may have followed the Steorn saga might be aware of a certain Hugh Deasy. Now, any of you Canadians out there, perhaps more so those from British Columbia might be aware of a former premier named W.A.C. Bennett. He quickly earned the nickname "Wacky Bennett." Similarly Hugh Deasy, being a big proponent of Steorn and apparently having a scientific background, quickly earned the nickname, "Dizzy Deasy."
In this clip he says, "Motor seems to grow lighter when the rotor spins."
The problem is that he is not asking himself how the bloody digital balance actually works. Like for example, is it sampling a few readings and then averaging the results? How would it cope if the object that you want to weigh is vibrating instead of just being a constant "DC" weight? Apparently these issues never entered Dizzy Deasy's mind.
In this clip he says, "I'm not showing any details but this moves without any wheels or any jet. Just an unbalanced force. My invention and I hope it will replace all planes, cars , rockets submarines etc."
I had a football game based on this principle as a kid. You had players that you put on a board. Then you flipped a switch and the board vibrated and you watched the players move down the field. In real life in factories and rock crushing plants and stuff like that they are called vibratory feeders and they are everywhere. Poor Dizzy Deasy has not discovered the "next big thing."
One more fun one from Mr. Deasy.
I have often warned about the dangers associated with short circuiting batteries, etc. For example, if you connected a 12-volt lead-acid battery in parallel with a 9-volt lead-acid battery, you would basically be short-circuiting the 12-volt battery. It would almost be the same as doing a direct short-circuit across the 12-volt battery.
This clip speaks for itself:
In this clip he makes a short circuit and within less than one second all of the plastic insulation around his wiring is already melting and smoking. If he did not disconnect the circuit over the next second all of the insulation would be burnt off and the wires would be glowing red hot. That's after two seconds. Over the next second the wires would have gotten white hot and started to burn through his table and start a fire. So within three seconds he could have been dealing with a fire.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.03.05, 03:59:48
. . . wheel the spherical magnet inside the tube can fall and push the wheel forward . . .
Taking N3 (Newton's Third Law) into account - can you identify the reaction to the falling spherical magnet? Is it opposite?
8)
on the balance add also 100 200 grams extra mass and repeat the experiment
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.04, 16:35:31
What if I show you a situation where configuration at t is the same as t+1, though we still have a cause for change.
I would say that the observed system is either not closed or closed but in a state of movement at constant speed or in a state of periodic oscillation.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.03.05, 10:14:11
I would say that the observed system is either not closed or closed but in a state of movement at constant speed or in a state of periodic oscillation.
not sure what you mean but I was saying imagine a disk turning another disk through gear coupling. If you take a picture at time t and at time t+1, they both are identical. We can argue that a source is powering one of the disk, but the source is only providing a torque/force just like gravity argument.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.05, 14:05:48
not sure what you mean but I was saying imagine a disk turning another disk through gear coupling. If you take a picture at time t and at time t+1, they both are identical. We can argue that a source is powering one of the disk, but the source is only providing a torque/force just like gravity argument.
I don't see how they can be identical. If meshed in a gear-gear fashion they rotate opposite directions. If coupled by a belt/chain then any point on the belt/chain is changing positions.
QuoteI would say that the observed system is either not closed or closed but in a state of movement at constant speed or in a state of periodic oscillation.
I would say that the observed system is either not closed or closed but in a state of acceleration. Unless, we consider extra dimensions :o
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2012.03.05, 20:40:43
I don't see how they can be identical. If meshed in a gear-gear fashion they rotate opposite directions. If coupled by a belt/chain then any point on the belt/chain is changing positions.
I would say that the observed system is either not closed or closed but in a state of acceleration. Unless, we consider extra dimensions :o
I think the basis of the argument is that if a wheel is under constant motion, t and t+1 is the same. Ex argues that even the wheel is out of balance, but as long as t and t+1 is the same, there is no cause of motion.
If friction is presents, it can take place for acceleration.
Harvey:
QuoteTaking N3 (Newton's Third Law) into account - can you identify the reaction to the falling spherical magnet? Is it opposite?
Yes, it's the Earth falling towards the magnet. I 'learned' that the hard way. It's something so obvious that you can forget it. It's also not relevant. Worry about everybody in China jumping up and down at the same time if you must.
For the experiment, the gravitational potential energy relative to a fixed datum point is the only thing that you need be concerned with.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.03.06, 00:01:41
Harvey:
Yes, it's the Earth falling towards the magnet. I 'learned' that the hard way. It's something so obvious that you can forget it. It's also not relevant. Worry about everybody in China jumping up and down at the same time if you must.
For the experiment, the gravitational potential energy relative to a fixed datum point is the only thing that you need be concerned with.
MileHigh
Correct.
Since the fall is perfectly balanced by the Earth's attraction, the Lenz effect must be an entirely separate action demanding its own equal and opposite reaction.
The Lenz effect is caused by the differential motion of the sphere to the conductive tube and seeks to stop that motion.
What is the reaction?
There is another impressive video similar to the one discussed here, except it is a smaller device with embeded magnets in the rim, and the "activating" magnet is brought close to the rim and makes the disk spin very fast. At the end of the presentation, the guy dissasembles the device so we can see that nothing is hiden. Some speculate that he has a hiden rotating magnetic field under the table, because obviously this thing is OU, but these types of devices are not OU.
Just because something spins does not mean energy is dissipated in any significant quantities, (maybe just a bit of energy due to air friction and bearings). The act of bringing a magnet close to a magnetic wheel, against the wheel's magnetic field, produces a force that pushes the approching magnet and so the operator's hand INJECTS energy into the system as he opposes this force that pushes his hand away while holding the magnet. This injected energy then manifests itself as rotational kinetic energy, so all is fine, no laws of physics violated. However, what is interesting to contemplate is how the mag fields interact to convert this injected potential energy into rotation.
EM
Quote from: Harvey on 2012.03.06, 00:27:50
Correct.
Since the fall is perfectly balanced by the Earth's attraction, the Lenz effect must be an entirely separate action demanding its own equal and opposite reaction.
The Lenz effect is caused by the differential motion of the sphere to the conductive tube and seeks to stop that motion.
What is the reaction?
Since this sphere isn't a magnet I think some would say the fall of the sphere wouldn't drive anything. However, magnet or not, it is an extension of the bar magnet since it is under attraction.
Also, the sphere is changing the dynamics of the magnetic field every time it moves from below the magnet's center-line to the center-line and above the center-line and back.
I think the action of the ball is driving the wheel. There would be no point in adding hidden fishing line and no need.
Is it free energy? No, I'm sure it isn't, but it is interesting and the possibly complex eddy currents involved make it more interesting.
Well I had a eureka moment and I have a new and much better explanation for how this was faked.
It's being done with compressed air. There is an airline running up through a hole in the table top. One or two jets of compressed air are blown into the troughs on either side of the outer part of the wheel. That's why the wheel is so low to the base, so you can't see the angled air holes to direct the compressed air to make the wheel turn.
So they just doctor up the audio track which is a trivial thing to do.
The funny thing is that they are practically trying to giveaway the answer to everybody. It just goes to show how easily we can be swayed by misdirection, even our own unconscious self-imposed misdirection. Even when the clues are in our face.
At 0:58 in the clip you hear a short burst or compressed air. That's not there by accident, it's there on purpose. They want to tell you how it's being done, they really do.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.03.06, 08:12:16
At 0:58 in the clip you hear a short burst or compressed air.
MileHigh
I do airbrush, and agree that sure sounds like one popping the valve all the way open briefly, about 40-60 psi.
But is it under the table, or just in the background...?
rc
I think it is unlikely that is a burst of air. If it was, it is awfully close to the camera judging by the sound the wheel makes in comparison.
Also, the guy turns the base of the wheel around a few times prior to the demo. Indeed the centre does not deviate from its origin, but I find it difficult to believe it would be done with air. There is no air sound that corresponds with the wheel running.
@All
The ball is like any other ball. It has no axis point unless two forces are exerted upon it. In this case the forces are gravity and magnetism. Gravity is pulling the ball down, magnetism is keeping the ball up. It is only when the distance of the magnet to ball is just right that the wheel will turn because too far away and gravity wins and too close the magnet wins. At the perfect distance, both forces have both the time (wheel slope) and direction to act on the ball and make the wheel turn.
When the ball falls it follows the direction and cadence of the turning of the counterclockwise wheel. As soon as it gets far enough the magnet drags it back up against the CCW wheel that is already giving the ball a turning direction (axis) so it follows that direction and turns going back higher again. The ball turns CCW and the wheel turns CCW.
In slow motion (hic,hic) I noticed that every time two (1 per side) of the eight (4 per side) wheel support bars are at the magnet, the ball drops slightly probably due to the added bar mass dissipating some of the magnets strength at that point in time.
Nothing in this looks fake or tricked. Needless to say this would not work in zero gravity.
I wonder, if the wheel was simply supported by a ball bearing base so the wheel has no axle or support bars, would it still turn as it does since I think those support bars may be the cause of the magnet/gravity oscillations that make the wheel turn.
Man could it be so simple?
wattsup
Quote from: wattsup on 2012.03.06, 15:30:16
I wonder, if the wheel was simply supported by a ball bearing base so the wheel has no axle or support bars, would it still turn as it does since I think those support bars may be the cause of the magnet/gravity oscillations that make the wheel turn.
Man could it be so simple?
I wonder if the contraption would turn if he turns the magnet around.
Simple? Judging by the comments, I would say not. ;)
I just had some time to watch the video under high zoom.
Of course, the ball is spinning. Is this spinning an action or a reaction? The latter makes sense but who knows? Not me ;D
Poynt:
For the burst of air, it's just an audio sample, it could have come from anywhere. It's just a cue, a big hint to try to tell the audience what they are doing. Likewise, you just have to record what the wheel and ball sound like while the magnet is in place and you rotate the wheel manually. Then you swap out the portion of the audio track with the constant hissing of the compressed air with the recording. You use the computer-controlled mixer in your video editing program to make a perfectly seamless audio crossover to the fake audio track. Managing the audio portion of things should be quite trivial.
All:
It appears that some of you actually believe that this thing is running from the magnet-ball interaction. That might be where the magnet is purely static, or when the magnet might be moving very very slightly from Mr. Hand. No way! All the magnet is doing is changing the direction of "down." So, who cares if "down" is the pure gravitational straight down or if it is a skewed down that has changed angle because of the influence of the magnet. Look at the wheel for the "regular" down. The ball can roll back and forth, big deal. The regular down is as dead as a doornail and the skewed down is also as dead as a doornail. In both cases the wheel can turn independent of the down direction. There are no continuous unbalanced forces on the wheel that can keep it turning. I am amazed that some of you believe that this is real.
Here is what I posted on the clip:
QuoteWell congratulations guys because it took me a week to figure out the true explanation. And I am embarrassed because you were trying to tell us all along. At 0:58 you hear a compressed air burst. Doh! So indeed, you are just doing some good old-fashioned audio editing and the whole thing is powered by compressed air coming up through a hole in the bottom of the table. Damn good fake, my compliments and thanks for the "Doh!" moment.
User2718218
The response from the author of the clip:
Quote@User2718218 Thank you for the understanding the purpose of my educational program: History of attempts that have been made to construct p.m. machines.
veproject1
The token tinfoil hat comment times two:
QuoteInteresting to note that the nay-say comments are invective rather than inquisitive. More inciteful than scientific, if you ask me. Reeking of paid disinformation shills. Like the Rush Limbaugh of YouTube. Who are you, and will you ever reveal your name?
BachelderMark 19 hours ago
Impressive, too, considering that the wheel is overcoming the inductive drag of the magnet on the aluminum. It would be interesting to see this done with a plastic wheel.
BachelderMark
And that's why you have a free energy cottage industry!!!! lol
MileHigh
MH,
OK, I watched it again full screen and listened carefully to the audio. I tend to agree with you now. The audio does not perfectly match what is actually happening with the ball and wheel. It also seems that they used the same audio file for both runs.
As I said before, they don't reveal below the centre of the base, and there is most likely a hole there to channel the air to the wheel.
A nice fake.
O0
Well they need to think up a new fakery method because I think from memory one of their other models used compressed air
to power it too. All their models are powered, I challenged them last year to reveal that they are all powered but got no reply.
Here's a quote of the post at the other forum.
QuoteQuoteQuote:
Originally Posted by veproject1
Dear Slider2732,
Thanks for your post.
When I've published my video I didn't have the aim to trick people and I've never expected such a heated discussion about obvious things: whether perpetual motion devices are possible or not. I just had in mind to show models that I use at my lectures of Impossibility of Perpetual motion.
As you can see from my website at my lectures/presentations at Schools and Universities I use more than 60 different models that I designed to demonstrate basic mechanical principles.
Hi veproject1, I understand the purpose of the video. Right from the start.
And since you are not trying to trick anyone. Is there a pump in the self filling
flask ? And do the other ones rely on electric motors or inertia devices to
keep running ?
Your video description.
"Thanks for seeing my models and for your comments. Yes, I did all these
machines workable. Not to trick but to inspire...
Please come again and visit my Charity at www.veproject1.org"
And this from the video
" Perpetual motion machines are they impossible ? or..... The best way to be
sure to try to build one"
It's ok to speak in questions when teaching a class. But to be helpful, a public
video should have an explanation if the contents are not obvious and
discernible to the average person.
So will you say publicly that all the devices are powered by stored energy or
the energy you impart to the devices when you spin them ?
Cheers
Regardless of their intent I think they are just adding to the confusion if they don't say they are faked.
C.C
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.03.06, 23:45:52
It appears that some of you actually believe that this thing is running from the magnet-ball interaction.
No. I do enjoy a little fun with speculating how something could be done, once in a great while. The puff of air sticks out like a sore thumb but I already knew it was a fake.
Declaring these things a fake, even when it takes a day or two to see how it was faked, is easy.
I suppose the fun is over, now. :(
Quote
The response from the author of the clip:....
He has been around a very long time and is more known as an artist.
In fact, this wheel is nothing compared to his other works.
Why should he claim or admit to anything except what is needed to turn attention to buying his work?
There is a pretty good chance he has sold a half dozen of these things in the last week. You can bet he won't ship an air compressor with it.
Farmhand and WW:
I can see how this is like a kind of sculpture-enigma kind of deal. In that sense Farmhand I don't think the creator is compelled to reveal what's behind the curtain. For me, I looked at his other clips which were obviously powered and made no real attempt to claim a perpetual motion device. Plus you go to his web site and see that he is some kind of artist/educator type of person not looking to sell licenses for a fake free energy device or anything like that. So this is more whimsical artwork than anything else and it's designed to make you think. The secret is all part of the mystery and fun. How do you get the caramel in the Caramilk?
On the other hand, if this clip was associated with some kind of Joe Newman-ish guy with billowing silver hair and he was begging you to send him money then that would be another story. If that were the case he should be fully exposed for what he is. (Where is po' ol' Joe these days?)
WW, yes the fun was taken out of it. I'm sorry. It's like believing in Santa Claus when you are a child, and then not believing in him when you get older, and then believing in the spirit of Santa Claus when you get even older. So I am sure that there still are some entranced YouTubers out there that are still not quite sure.
So sorry to spoil the fun but we are on a free energy research web site and not in the twitter space. Have you seen the twitter-based comments on Sterling Allen's web site? It's like are they people or are they just an army of blind free energy bots on the march?!
It's a wonderful life! The bells still ring! Resonance! lol
When in doubt there is always the mystery of the flying bumblebee if you need a fix.
MileHigh
Or the Caramilk bar.....
When it comes to things like this, I have my own evaluation system. Haven't perfect it yet, but I think it's the right track.
You assign negative and positive points and add them up:
Fishing line -1
Air blow -1
Fake to make people buy product or donate -1
Fake to educate young kids as claimed -1
If kids says cool and later find out it's fake, they feel tricked and loose interest. +10
lol
Quote from: Farmhand on 2012.03.07, 01:17:06
Regardless of their intent I think they are just adding to the confusion if they don't say they are faked
Farmhand,
If you witnessed a magic trick performed by a magician, would you expect the magician to tell you that his act was indeed a trick and then continue by telling you how he did it?
Why should he declare his work as fake? Isn't that what we are here for?
Besides, he has already provided the evidence for those looking for signs of quackery. I'm sure he expects them to be satisfied and then move along so he may continue what ever really happens in the dark recesses of his shop.
Maybe, he is just trying to poison young minds with empiric evidence :o
@MH
All right - All ready. Can't a guy have some fun around here. lol
I know how he did it.
At 00:52 to 00:53 when he places the magnet on the magnet block, it pivots. There is a switch there.
At 00:54 look at his right index finger how its pressed hard onto the magnet to hold it down on the switch.
That's why he has to stick the magnet completely into the wheel end to attract the ball inwards so the ball does not block the air path that has to exit under the ball and hit each side plate on those four wheel supports. You can notice the acceleration occurs each time a wheel support is at 6 o'oclock.
You don't need much air to make that wheel turn AND THAT IS because of the magnetism and gravity are already active on the system. It just needs a little nudge to keep it going.
Image below shows no shadow on one object and shadow on the magnet base showing it is slightly raised to provide a place to suck in air.
Also notice he turns the wheel completely around so you can see it from all sides, but he does not do the same for the magnet base. The same side of the magnet base profile is always towards the camera. Not normal.
This means he can take his wheel anywhere he wants and his trick will work just fine.
Blah blah blah.
Party poopers anonymous.
No fun at all.
wattsup
Wattsup,
You wouldn't just happen to be one of the group 'proving' all of manned space flight was faked, would you?
OMG! The reed switch did it!
Think........
What other reason would require him to press so hard on the magnet?
Why else would shadows appear under the block?
Why is it not a simple change in the direction for 'DOWN'?
Why pay the shipping charges for the product and the air compressor system to make it run? If you buy it.... the air compressor will come.... with it :) Yea, right C.C
How could this be made to work? (Too hard...... Never mind)
Jeez! What a bunch of Carl Saganized Flatlanders!
Have you ever read "Broca's Brain"?
We have to think a little.
Magician performs tricks, but we know before hand he is a magician. If someone shows a p.m. and does not say it's a trick, then he is auto classify as serious, at least these days.
Second point I do not get is this guy build over 60 quality models for museums, science fairs, and universities. These organizations only interest in serious science, not trickery. I could be wrong, but I just point out things to balance the absurdity level.
Hi all,
I've performed an experiment today. A ball is point contacted with a friction surface. The surface is being pull left or right. I used a marble and a square container.
The result was when the surface move, the marble move and roll, when the surface stop moving, the marble also stop moving. I still needs confirmation that this is the result but I'm very certain it is. Now the question is this: Why does the marble stop and has no residue motion?
This is quite a fascinating experiment to me.
I can't imagine how you see those results.
The momentum in the rolling ball would be angular but it is still momentum. When the friction surface is stopped abruptly that angular momentum should be converted to linear motion.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2012.03.08, 02:23:49
I can't imagine how you see those results.
The momentum in the rolling ball would be angular but it is still momentum. When the friction surface is stopped abruptly that angular momentum should be converted to linear motion.
I know huh, this is why I conclude Bessler was for real. lol
Gibbs:
The answer is as follows. We are assuming that the ball never slips when you move the surface.
There are three phases to your experiment.
1. You accelerate the surface.
2. The surface is moving at a constant velocity.
3. You decelerate the surface.
During phase 1, you impart angular momentum to the ball because you are applying torque to the ball simply because the surface is accelerating. Therefore the rotating ball has rotational energy R associated with it at the end of the acceleration.
During phase 2, the ball is rolling on the moving surface. The rotational energy remains constant at a value of R.
During phase 3, you remove angular momentum from the ball because now you applying torque on the ball that is in the opposite direction of the ball's rotation. The amount of rotational energy that you remove from he ball at the end of the deceleration phase is is also R.
Therefore, rotational energy of the ball goes from zero to R and then back to zero. Thus the ball stops rolling.
MileHigh
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.08, 02:42:56
I know huh, this is why I conclude Bessler was for real. lol
What a shame >:(
All the time since I was a toddler I thought my toy cars weren't special. You know, the ones that throw sparks with the inner flywheel spinning after you scoot them across the floor?
They were special :) They should have stopped when I placed them on the floor after spinning them up ! Now, I think I may have some difficulty finding one of those for use in free energy research. :'(
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.03.08, 02:55:46
Gibbs:
The answer is as follows. We are assuming that the ball never slips when you move the surface.
There are three phases to your experiment.
1. You accelerate the surface.
2. The surface is moving at a constant velocity.
3. You decelerate the surface.
During phase 1, you impart angular momentum to the ball because you are applying torque to the ball simply because the surface is accelerating. Therefore the rotating ball has rotational energy R associated with it at the end of the acceleration.
During phase 2, the ball is rolling on the moving surface. The rotational energy remains constant at a value of R.
During phase 3, you remove angular momentum from the ball because now you applying torque on the ball that is in the opposite direction of the ball's rotation. The amount of rotational energy that you remove from he ball at the end of the deceleration phase is is also R.
Therefore, rotational energy of the ball goes from zero to R and then back to zero. Thus the ball stops rolling.
MileHigh
Thanks MH,
But I think you're still in the category as WW thought. During phase 2, the ball is rolling on the surface, so as long as you stop the surface, the ball will shoot the other way and stay rolling.
During phase 1, the ball gain angular momentum, but it also gain linear momentum. Now that's cool. lol
Gibs , like MH said all forces are opposite upon deceleration, so if there is no slippage, the marble will come to rest, but if you decelerate faster then you accelerated, and overcome the static friction, the ball will roll like you were expecting.
Guys, I see there's speculation that compressed air is used, and that's a very sad and a pathetic conclusion considering the fact that the experiment is not an OU experiment. So whenever we don't understand something we fall back to simpler concepts? For example a TPU has to have powerful batteries inside, right? or a obviously heavy metallic boat must have underwater "legs" that's why it does't sink? Lol
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.03.08, 15:54:27
Gibs , like MH said all forces are opposite upon deceleration, so if there is no slippage, the marble will come to rest, but if you decelerate faster then you accelerated, and overcome the static friction, the ball will roll like you were expecting.
EM
I know, but when you pull the surface to the right, the ball rotate left but also moving right. The rotational energy is exactly equal the translational energy.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.08, 01:03:53
Hi all,
I've performed an experiment today. A ball is point contacted with a friction surface. The surface is being pull left or right. I used a marble and a square container.
The result was when the surface move, the marble move and roll, when the surface stop moving, the marble also stop moving. I still needs confirmation that this is the result but I'm very certain it is. Now the question is this: Why does the marble stop and has no residue motion?
This is quite a fascinating experiment to me.
Hi Gibbs,
What do you think would happen if the ball were much heavier and the friction surface was sufficiently long so that when you pulled it fast the ball rotated in place as the sheet was moved under it. Assuming we never lose friction, what would happen when you instantly stop pulling the sheet?
I think it would roll off in the opposite direction that you pulled the sheet. Hmmm, I wonder if this could be modeled in PHUN (aka Algadoo) :) . . .
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.05, 14:05:48
...
imagine a disk turning another disk through gear coupling. If you take a picture at time t and at time t+1, they both are identical. We can argue that a source is powering one of the disk, but the source is only providing a torque/force just like gravity argument.
Not correct. You could say this,
only if there are losses due to friction or if there is a useful work extracted elsewhere in the system.
Otherwise there is no reason for such rotating disks to stop after having been put in motion and no need for force to maintain the rotation.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.03.09, 10:22:41
Not correct. You could say this, only if there are losses due to friction or if there is a useful work extracted elsewhere in the system.
Otherwise there is no reason for such rotating disks to stop after having been put in motion and no need for force to maintain the rotation.
I assumed that friction was presented, that's the only reason for cause of motion.
Quote from: Harvey on 2012.03.09, 04:39:43
Hi Gibbs,
What do you think would happen if the ball were much heavier and the friction surface was sufficiently long so that when you pulled it fast the ball rotated in place as the sheet was moved under it. Assuming we never lose friction, what would happen when you instantly stop pulling the sheet?
I think it would roll off in the opposite direction that you pulled the sheet. Hmmm, I wonder if this could be modeled in PHUN (aka Algadoo) :) . . .
Hi Harvey,
I've seen you work with PHUN. I hope it can be modeled. I think it's impossible for the ball to rotate in place without moving in the direction of pulling. Because the energy of moving and rotation are equal, they will come to a stop. If rotation energy is more, it will roll off in the opposite direction, and if the translation is more, it will roll off in the direction of pulling. I've seen both in experiment and analysis that they are of equal. You can imagine a force diagram. The force that makes the ball rotate is the same force that makes it move in the direction of pulling. It's the friction force at surface contact. They act on the ball to move and rotate at equal amount of time.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.09, 13:43:20
I assumed that friction was presented, that's the only reason for cause of motion.
What do you mean? Friction is cause of stopping rotation, not the contrary. If you mean that there must be a cause of motion because there is friction and the cause have to overcome the friction, I agree.
Now, back to the reason of this question. If you take a photo at t and another at t+1 and you see the same state, then your system is not closed (it has radiated the heat from friction). If it is closed the photo of the state of the system shows that the temperature has increased between t and t+1, the state has changed. This is what I said in Reply #51.
Oh man, what the heck. lol
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.09, 13:52:35
Hi Harvey,
I've seen you work with PHUN. I hope it can be modeled. I think it's impossible for the ball to rotate in place without moving in the direction of pulling. Because the energy of moving and rotation are equal, they will come to a stop. If rotation energy is more, it will roll off in the opposite direction, and if the translation is more, it will roll off in the direction of pulling. I've seen both in experiment and analysis that they are of equal. You can imagine a force diagram. The force that makes the ball rotate is the same force that makes it move in the direction of pulling. It's the friction force at surface contact. They act on the ball to move and rotate at equal amount of time.
I actually made a short film with my cellphone that demonstrates this. But, in my case I used a sheet of paper and a roll of masking tape, but it does perform as stated. The roll begins rotating in place and then when the paper reaches the end (or stops, same difference) the tape rolls off in the other direction. :)
Quote from: Harvey on 2012.03.10, 04:53:51
I actually made a short film with my cellphone that demonstrates this. But, in my case I used a sheet of paper and a roll of masking tape, but it does perform as stated. The roll begins rotating in place and then when the paper reaches the end (or stops, same difference) the tape rolls off in the other direction. :)
Hm... It doesn't work for me. Unless you have a bias upward component when pulling, it shouldn't happens.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.03.10, 14:43:07
Hm... It doesn't work for me. Unless you have a bias upward component when pulling, it shouldn't happens.
You are correct, I do have that bias. :P
However, if we replace that bias with a very large linear inertia combined with a relatively small moment of inertia (long thin heavy rod), then we should be able to experience it with little or no upward bias.
In this case, the objective is to convert the energy to rotational motion without a linear translation - so we use the inertial mass of the rod as an anchor against linear translation, but we use the small diameter to minimize the MOI.
At some point, the traction, speed of acceleration and geometries just mentioned should intersect and allow the rod to remain in place (or very near the starting point) as it is accelerated rotationally.
At least that's my perspective on it :)