Post by: LB7 on 06/09/2018 20:38:44
at start:
edg.png (103.04 kB . 1157x753 - viewed 4913 times)end:
xww.png (26.13 kB . 1091x638 - viewed 4854 times)Post by: LB7 on 09/09/2018 23:34:21
gg.png (70.79 kB . 1118x653 - viewed 4306 times)During the deformation of the device the distance between the disks increases, but I want friction between the disk to have forces. For that, I can increase the diameter of the disk 2, it costs/gives nothing. The force in A3 is high. When I increase the diameter, it is a part of the disk 2 with near no mass, the mass is closer to the center:
ehn.png (29.36 kB . 1033x649 - viewed 4262 times)I don't increase the diameter where there is the mass:
ddv.png (14.15 kB . 390x385 - viewed 4253 times)
Post by: LB7 on 12/09/2018 19:08:48
sun.png (95.8 kB . 1146x723 - viewed 4159 times)I adjust if it is necessary the diameter of the disks to have always the contact between us to have friction.
2 positions in the same images:
dxqh.png (86.97 kB . 1120x620 - viewed 4115 times)The mass of the disks are near the center:
ddv.png (14.15 kB . 390x385 - viewed 4100 times)Hum, it seems correct here, the length needs the same energy to reduce it than the arms give in rotation. I win the friction from the disks (heating).
I don't need to change the diameter of the disks. It is logic than the energy to change the length of the arms is the same than the energy recover from the rotation of the arms. I win the heating from friction, the disks don't turn around themselves but like the arms rotates counterclockwise, each disk sees the other rotate clockwise.
sqz.png (83.79 kB . 930x647 - viewed 4085 times)I drew a fixed small black segment on each disk to see how rotate the disks:
At start:
drf.png (56.42 kB . 851x599 - viewed 4101 times)With 2 positions:
fgy.png (17.96 kB . 544x466 - viewed 4070 times)It is strange, like the disks rotate in the reverse direction.
With a precise construction:
spl.png (68.49 kB . 1185x738 - viewed 4040 times) svtr.png (70.95 kB . 942x589 - viewed 4028 times)
Post by: LB7 on 12/09/2018 23:18:08
Before start, the disks don't rotate. Instead to take 2 disks, I take 1000 disks, each disk has around it others disks and friction, like that the sum of forces on the center of each disk is 0 N. And there is friction, so energy.
defv.png (111.7 kB . 991x666 - viewed 4040 times)I can take any method where each disk sees the others rotate clockwise (I drew some with rotation and one without).
I fill the container with green disks, I choose a method where the disks see the others in rotation. I will move out/in some disk to fill at each time the device because I use a rotation for the arms but at least in theory it could be ok. The container is always filled at 100% with disks. If I choose small disks it will increase the energy, because the friction is proportional at the radius of the disks but the number of disks is proportional at 1/r².
I don't need to attach the disks at top and bottom just at top for example. And to prevent to move out/in, I change the diameter of the disks, it is easier.
yb.png (158.81 kB . 1144x728 - viewed 4042 times)I can have N disks with N black arms (I drew only few) in rotation (the red axes are fixed to the ground). At start the device is filled with 70% of disks at final 100%, I don't increase the number of disks, just increase their diameter:
tfg.png (131.96 kB . 1105x639 - viewed 4003 times)At final:
ujn.png (94.75 kB . 1131x617 - viewed 4000 times)The disks can be arranged to minimize the space:
ddq6.png (19.38 kB . 240x149 - viewed 3963 times)If the surface of the container is 1m², the number of disks is N=0.9*1/(pi*R²) and the work is N*R*pi/4*6-1 with R the radius of the disks, each disk has around it 6 others disks, and the disks rotate of pi/4.
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2018 08:02:29
The disks change their diameter but have ALL the disks have the same diameter at a time. The sum of forces on each disk is 0N except the external layers (top, bottom, left, right) but the energy needed for these layers is very small compared at the energy recovered from the friction. I think the external layer at left and at right need 0 energy. The only layer that lost an energy is the bottom layer because there is a left force on each black arm.
The sum of energy is very high if R is very low !
I redrew the end position: the arms are always in the center of the disks, here like the disks have a big diameter, the angle is not perfect but imagine the radius of the disk 1/1000 of the surface of the container:
ees.png (103.3 kB . 1120x653 - viewed 3917 times)
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2018 10:18:53
atstart.png (170.73 kB . 1127x682 - viewed 3900 times) attheend.png (194.86 kB . 1128x619 - viewed 3932 times)
Post by: opportunity on 13/09/2018 10:32:01
I've seen this work re. "quasicrystals" to explain how the Planck scale can emerge to the atomic: http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org
So, what are you trying to arrive at?
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2018 10:43:09
what's your aim here?
Break the law of conservation of the energy. I described before that deformation and the same move in / move out but I took no friction because I hoped to break the law with pressure and friction is too complicate for me to calculate. But here, friction create a big energy ! and there is no force on the black arm to rotate.
Post by: opportunity on 13/09/2018 10:49:23
The link I sent localises "ideas" central to what you're trying to achieve, yet Planck scale to the atomic, yet doing its best to address all known ideas in Physics.
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2018 11:31:23
Post by: opportunity on 13/09/2018 11:34:49
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2018 11:51:16
So you're not interested in using the Planck scale?It is the first time I heard about that, so I will see this wk. I'm not a scientist, but inventor, I'm looking for solutions.
For now, I would like to be sure my device is correct. The radius of the spheres could be at 1 cm in a container of 1m³, so it is possible to build a motor at least in a lab.
Post by: opportunity on 13/09/2018 11:59:50
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2018 13:45:49
Usually when someone says they're not a scientist they're still at college. Is that you?Not really, too old, but in fact something is right, I'm always a student :)
Post by: opportunity on 13/09/2018 13:52:30
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2018 14:27:53
[ Invalid Attachment ]
At the end:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: opportunity on 13/09/2018 14:30:33
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2018 15:00:48
tgfb.png (179.24 kB . 1134x676 - viewed 3865 times)At the end:
srf.png (203.69 kB . 1147x696 - viewed 3858 times)For the thickness (perpendicularly to the screen) I take only one layer of spheres. And for the dimensions, the surface of the container is 1 m², the thickness 2 cm, the radius of the spheres is 1 cm. All spheres has a mass. There is always the same number of contact around one sphere to have always the sum of forces from friction equal to 0 N on each sphere. I think I can take the same diameter for the spheres I move in: I don't need to move in ALL the blue spheres, just a part of them. I'm sure the green spheres rotates (because they don't rotate but their arm rotates), but the new spheres (the blue I drew) need to rotate with an arm to have friction so I need to move out some I just move in but it is not a problem. The animation I drew for the pressures:
Maybe I can have the same.
animation.gif (462.74 kB . 965x661 - viewed 3908 times)The white part is the green spheres and the blue part is the blue spheres. I move out the bottom spheres and I move in the blue spheres between the green spheres.
The spheres are more like that with 6 contacts around them:
fxy.png (110.29 kB . 786x454 - viewed 3799 times)
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2018 15:47:53
drt3.png (60.48 kB . 1038x710 - viewed 3824 times)It is possible to see how blue spheres enter inside the container. Note each new blue sphere is attached to an arm, the arm rotates.
And the energy recovered is N*Rm*pi/4*5*F
If the force of friction is not dependant of the radius of the contact, then it is possible to cancel the forces on each spheres (except the 4 external layer near the walls) and it is possible to rotate the blue spheres I add.
I think I need to take the size of the blue spheres very small compared to the green spheres. It is possible to have more than 6 contacts for the green spheres, if the size of the blue spheres is 100 lower than the green, then the number of contact is near 100. But the number of contact for the blue spheres is always 6. I think it will not perfect, I mean the green spheres will have a sum of force at 0 except the last at the bottom, and the blue spheres will have the sum of force at 0 too except for them in contact with the green spheres, but if the radius of the blue spheres is small I lost a small energy compared to the energy I win. If I cannot rotate a blue sphere: I move out the container and when there is a hole, I move in a blue sphere.
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2018 18:29:11
At start:
sydn.png (192.89 kB . 1133x730 - viewed 3768 times)After:
ddtg.png (201.08 kB . 1130x735 - viewed 3776 times)More later:
sci.png (228.16 kB . 1160x775 - viewed 3766 times)All the spheres, green and blue, are in rotation with an arm. I didn't draw the black arm. Each black arm is in rotation around an axis fixed to the top. Each sphere (green and blue) is taken by the black arm in the center of the sphere. I fix the priority to the green line and I control the rotation of the blue spheres to have all the contacts I want. When a blue sphere cannot rotate because a green sphere block, I start to move out perpendicularly to the screen, with a sphere is progressive (not inside or outside) so the movement is continuous. I consider the force of the friction constant even the radius of the contact change like that when I move out/in the force is the same.
Post by: LB7 on 13/09/2018 21:39:48
syh.png (42.45 kB . 1035x689 - viewed 4160 times)A disk with spheres all around:
sbbv.png (43.9 kB . 526x476 - viewed 4127 times)An example with the blue spheres bigger than I drew:
iij.png (225.76 kB . 1103x685 - viewed 4122 times)Again: each sphere or disk is taken by an arm and the length of the arms is constant, then I need to move out the green disks and even the blue spheres I move in just before. Move out/in don't need/give an energy.
Note: I need the contact between the disks/disks, spheres/spheres, or disks/spheres, so I need a little pressure inside the container, it is easy to do because I move out/in a volume inside the closed container. The pressure could be realized by something else.
I don't think I have a problem with the sum of forces for the blue spheres in contact with the disk because it is symmetrical. But there is a problem with some spheres inside the areas I move out/in because it is very difficult to have the sum of forces always at 0N. But the number of blue spheres that have 0N is high in comparaison.
I drew the arms for the disk and the spheres:
plm.png (77.82 kB . 723x571 - viewed 4109 times)Each disk or sphere can rotate around itself (orange axis in the center of the disk of the sphere). At start they don't turn around themselves but like the arms rotate counterclockwise, then the disks and the spheres see the others rotate clockwise. There is contact between the spheres and the disks so there is friction and energy from heating (a lot). The sum of forces for near all the spheres and the disks is 0N. Even there is problem with the last layer at bottom (where I move out) I have 6 contacts for near all spheres so the energy created could be (6-1)*k/6 with k the sum of energy from heating.
Post by: LB7 on 14/09/2018 06:35:25
The only problem arrives when there is no a number integer of blue spheres in a space given, but if I reduce the size of the blue spheres that number is constant but I increase the number of contact of blue spheres: each time I have a blue sphere I win 6 because I have 6 contact and I lost 2 because at the bottom (where I move out) I don't have a contact. So, in theory the energy won by friction increase like 1/R and the energy needed because the number is not an integer is constant. The energy lost because there is no an integer doesn't mean I lost all the energy, it is only a part.
The expression of the energy could be:
N1*(6-2)/6 - N2*f
with f a factor 0 ≤ f ≤ 1 and N2<√N1, f depends of the efficiency to cancel all forces on all blue spheres I move out/in an around them
with N1=0.9*(1-S1)/(πR²), 0.9 because there is a circle packing, S1 is the surface occupied by the green disks, the container is 1m² with a thickness equal at R
The energy from friction is a square law, the problem of the integer is a linear law.
The sum of energy is (6-2)*k/6 with k the sum of energy from heating.
The only problem arrives when there is no a number integer of blue spheres in a space given, but if I reduce the size of the blue spheres that number is constant but I increase the number of contact of blue spheres: each time I have a blue sphere I win 6 because I have 6 contact and I lost 2 because at the bottom (where I move out) I don't have a contact. So, in theory the energy won by friction increase like 1/R and the energy needed because the number is not an integer is constant. The energy lost because there is no an integer doesn't mean I lost all the energy, it is only a part.
The expression of the energy could be:
N1*(6-2)/6 - N2*f
with f a factor 0 ≤ f ≤ 1 and N2<√N1, f depends of the efficiency to cancel all forces on all blue spheres I move out/in an around them
with N1=0.9*(1-S1)/(πR²), 0.9 because there is a circle packing, S1 is the surface occupied by the green disks, the container is 1m² with a thickness equal at R
The energy from friction is a square law, the problem of the integer is a linear law.
To have a continuous movement with the move out of the green disks I replace the green disk by half green spheres, when I move out/in the blue spheres I move up/down (perpendicularly to the screen) :
str.png (50.73 kB . 899x728 - viewed 4093 times)But I move out the green half spheres up:
sybb.png (41.04 kB . 640x734 - viewed 4092 times)To have f=0, maybe I can use arms with a fixed but different length in rotation too. In the following image, the sphere has the red arm but it gives the red trajectory (red dotted line), but I need the green trajectory (even for a small movement) so I can replace and use the green arm, move out/in cost nothing. The green arm rotates too, so I the sphere can give force from friction to others. It is difficult in practice but in theory, if I can have f=0, the job is done.
ryg.png (26.79 kB . 637x448 - viewed 4078 times)If the sum of forces on each blue sphere is 0 I can without any energy change the arm. I recover energy from the friction not from the move out/in.
Even when the blue spheres rotate, I will have space between them, so I need to add not one but two smaller spheres to have 6 contacts for the friction:
sdx.png (125.52 kB . 795x434 - viewed 4051 times)Post by: opportunity on 14/09/2018 11:11:47
You're using the idea of circles, proposing the idea of spin, as a one-dimensional idea, lines, circles, rotations, projecting I assume to a 3-d reality.
You're then assuming the annexation of points in space as though such points represent "mass", something that can confer a reality. Am I right?
Post by: LB7 on 14/09/2018 11:28:56
You're then assuming the annexation of points in space as though such points represent "mass", something that can confer a reality. Am I right?Yes, here I need mass, because I use friction between disks or spheres. Is that your question ?
I drew that example:
avf.png (73.47 kB . 1120x609 - viewed 4010 times)after a little rotation it is:
rer.png (87.25 kB . 1145x665 - viewed 4012 times)like it is drew it is like there is a perspective, I don't know if you see it. So my goal is to have in that example 4 contacts to cancel the force on each sphere or disk. I have the lateral contact but I have more and more space between the elements in the height. So, if I use part of cone like that:
cone.gif (2.1 kB . 168x138 - viewed 4001 times)I can set a horizontal layer like that:
sdt.png (12.81 kB . 454x253 - viewed 4009 times)And to resolve the friction for the upper layer, I can use another plane:
sedd.png (19.51 kB . 386x250 - viewed 3995 times)Ok, maybe I need to set the mass at the inner of the cone and change a little the diameter for one cone:
ghh.png (24.82 kB . 472x279 - viewed 3998 times) rf.png (115.9 kB . 1202x733 - viewed 4008 times)Like that I don't need to change the shape:
rb.png (51.03 kB . 909x517 - viewed 3986 times)
Post by: opportunity on 14/09/2018 11:37:30
I think what you've done is marvellous.
However, your description of spheres assumedly as mass-points "do not" wash with actual reality (and any theoretical physicists in the forum, go easy).
Your whole matrix of thought is a giant circle itself, and so well constructed at that, and of course as a giant circle it is balanced with energy. "Yet".....do that with known facts of the atom, and "then" you'll have your theory.
Take a look at mine, I should know. I've done pretty much what you have done, yet I acknowledge particle physics:
http://www.equusspace.com/index-2.htm
Post by: LB7 on 14/09/2018 11:55:39
as mass-pointsYou mean a dot = mass ? I use mass at the inner of the cones if I need to change the shape if not, the mass can be all in the shape.
I drew 2 positions for the layer 2 in 2 times to show how I can have friction always:
ess.png (61.36 kB . 925x530 - viewed 3980 times)And for the planes if I watch from the left in the front view:
swxx.png (26.85 kB . 251x778 - viewed 3989 times)It is important to note that the friction between the cones is not all along the cones but only at ONE point (not the segment in contact between the cones).
Post by: opportunity on 14/09/2018 12:01:46
Post by: LB7 on 14/09/2018 12:04:15
Yeah, of course, but friction of "theoretical what"?I don't understand
Post by: opportunity on 14/09/2018 12:14:42
On a gross level, you have a "circular" idea, a butter-zone for the layman of physics, yet there is an entire absence of all the terms you use, such as "friction", "energy", "mass", and so on...….that for a scientist are terms defined and held according to the atomic level, and must be, and the intricacies of those mechanics and inter-relationship......defined as "absolutely necessary", and thus "ultimate".
Post by: LB7 on 14/09/2018 20:49:48
yet there is an entire absence of all the terms you use, such as "friction", "energy", "mass", and so onIf I understood, physics don't recognize friction, energy and mass ? I don't know if you read my theory about gravity, for me the mass doesn't exist really. But the energy, the friction, why not ?
Post by: LB7 on 15/09/2018 09:12:40
ruj.png (238.81 kB . 1228x765 - viewed 3909 times)The goal is to have the sum of forces on each cone equal to 0 N. Like in the front view for the lateral friction I can have only a friction for one point (in rotation) I do the same the vertical friction up/down (I do not use the line of the cone only a point).
With one device I don't need to cancel the up/down forces but like that I can do that:
drbv.png (292.12 kB . 1088x676 - viewed 3992 times)Or at least, sure, use my parallelogram continue it and form a circular shape like a rectangular torus:
tore.jpg (11.51 kB . 194x112 - viewed 3895 times)All the external surface has cones or disks
Yes, the vertical forces from friction (if the cones turn around themselves at start) give the heating from friction, the cones lost the same energy in kinetics but there is a net sum of torque for the last layer at bottom:
yhy.png (108.67 kB . 975x776 - viewed 3935 times)There is a small distance between disks
Post by: LB7 on 15/09/2018 11:42:37
ubf.png (90.98 kB . 1076x750 - viewed 3890 times) hyk.png (68.63 kB . 1094x477 - viewed 3880 times)I would have 2 times the distance of the rotation of the basic circle but I have more. So even the disks rotate and lost a kinetic energy they will have more friction than the disks lost. The difference is 2*0.76-1.78 = 0.26 for 5° of rotation in my example.
Post by: LB7 on 15/09/2018 14:07:29
F12.png (115.21 kB . 806x735 - viewed 3855 times)The disks don't rotate around themselves before start. I deform the device (the arms rotate), the disks rotate clockwise and there is the force F1 and F2 from the belt. Like I use cones it is easy to adjust. I use the "belt" to have friction. Maybe it is possible to use a timing belt and a "brake" is one each cone to recover heating but the friction must be a the points:
trfg.png (116.73 kB . 786x750 - viewed 3870 times)Mechanically it is better to give the friction to the next arm (the left cone give a force to the next arm):
dyhs.png (111.22 kB . 801x658 - viewed 3846 times)
Post by: LB7 on 15/09/2018 16:10:51
tuu.png (102.35 kB . 1002x661 - viewed 3860 times)
Post by: LB7 on 15/09/2018 17:28:42
stg.png (87.81 kB . 1029x809 - viewed 3832 times) dun.png (77.18 kB . 1120x692 - viewed 3850 times)There a difference so I think I can use it to change the sum of energy.
In fact, the important thing is d1-d2 ≠ 0
Or I fixed a spring between the dot A (orange disk, at R, not to the arm on the disk) and B (center of the red disk):
detv.png (72.41 kB . 866x606 - viewed 3784 times)If the disks don't turn before start and if they have a big inertia, it gives:
duj.png (82.68 kB . 995x604 - viewed 3800 times)d1 ≠ d2 the springs increases less but the arm lost the same.
Post by: LB7 on 15/09/2018 22:44:07
sxt.png (183.19 kB . 1149x704 - viewed 3789 times) iko.png (149.22 kB . 1097x618 - viewed 3747 times) rtg.png (164.25 kB . 1006x724 - viewed 3789 times)Or with a belt for vertical cones:
gui.png (154.58 kB . 967x686 - viewed 3798 times)The yellow lines show if there is a belt between 2 vertical cones, the torque on the arms are not the same.
I can place the axis of rotation of the black arm far away like I drew or at vertical:
DTEE.png (121.73 kB . 930x663 - viewed 3782 times)
Post by: LB7 on 16/09/2018 09:36:03
Post by: LB7 on 17/09/2018 06:28:42
Post by: LB7 on 17/09/2018 10:21:45
Post by: LB7 on 17/09/2018 13:28:35