[LB7 (OP)]

Maybe like that:

at start:

edg.png (103.04 kB . 1157x753 - viewed 4984 times)
 
end:

xww.png (26.13 kB . 1091x638 - viewed 4930 times)

[LB7 (OP)]

I can deform that device:


gg.png (70.79 kB . 1118x653 - viewed 4384 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 4320 times)

I don't increase the diameter where there is the mass:


ddv.png (14.15 kB . 390x385 - viewed 4321 times)

[LB7 (OP)]

Or like that:


sun.png (95.8 kB . 1146x723 - viewed 4219 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 4169 times)

The mass of the disks are near the center:


ddv.png (14.15 kB . 390x385 - viewed 4171 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 4152 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 4157 times)

With 2 positions:

fgy.png (17.96 kB . 544x466 - viewed 4131 times)

It is strange, like the disks rotate in the reverse direction.

With a precise construction:

spl.png (68.49 kB . 1185x738 - viewed 4100 times)


svtr.png (70.95 kB . 942x589 - viewed 4087 times)

[LB7 (OP)]

Why not imagine this device and mix it with the device of the blue spheres ?

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 4099 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 4106 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 4067 times)

At final:

ujn.png (94.75 kB . 1131x617 - viewed 4057 times)

The disks can be arranged to minimize the space:

ddq6.png (19.38 kB . 240x149 - viewed 4041 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.

[LB7 (OP)]

Each black arm takes its disk in the center of each disk (center of the circle), not really like I drew at final just because I drew big disks. The energy recovered is the mean Rm of the radius R of each disk during the deformation : (N*Rm*pi/4*6-1*1.2)*F with F the force of friction.

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 3974 times)

[LB7 (OP)]

No, I need to move out and move in the disks, so I use spheres like that there is always the contact and all forces on each disk is 0 N.


atstart.png (170.73 kB . 1127x682 - viewed 3968 times)


attheend.png (194.86 kB . 1128x619 - viewed 3984 times)

[opportunity]

LB7, what's your aim here?

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?

[LB7 (OP)]

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.

[opportunity]

Ok, trust me though, the conversation goes south when you say, "but I took no friction because I hoped to break the law with pressure and friction is too complicate for me to calculate".


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.

[LB7 (OP)]

My device is in 3 dimensions, I don't need more. Before I took simplifications (no mass, no friction, no volume for the springs) just because the calculations are easier but there is always mass, volume and friction, I know but I reached something an extra energy from the move out/in or the sum of torques. Here, I don't need springs, the arms keep constant their length. I need mass for the disks and I need friction ! I DON'T HAVE A POTENTIAL ENERGY AT START (before start the disks don't rotate). I can suppose I have always 6 contacts for each sphere inside the container (even during the spheres move out /in). So the only energy I need to give is for the last layer at bottom but so small compared to the sum of energy from the friction.

[opportunity]

So you're not interested in using the Planck scale? A lot of scientists are. I'm not a fan of it. Yet I've been muzzled about my work, so I'm asking you.

[LB7 (OP)]

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.

[opportunity]

Usually when someone says they're not a scientist they're still at college. Is that you?

[LB7 (OP)]

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

[opportunity]

Thankfully no one discriminates in this forum.....any forum...…

[LB7 (OP)]

I number the lines I move out (l8, l9 and l10). In the same time the container is deformed I move in the small spheres:


tgfb.png (179.24 kB . 1134x676 - viewed 3870 times)

At the end:

srf.png (203.69 kB . 1147x696 - viewed 3869 times)

[opportunity]

Like, I've seen episodes on Star Trek where people have lost their memory and need to be reminded, because....well...you have seen that episode, right?

[LB7 (OP)]

I number the lines I move out (l8, l9 and l10). In the same time the container is deformed I move in the small spheres:



tgfb.png (179.24 kB . 1134x676 - viewed 3924 times)


At the end:

srf.png (203.69 kB . 1147x696 - viewed 3921 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 3968 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 3866 times)

[LB7 (OP)]

I drew the top view (the others last I drew are side views):


drt3.png (60.48 kB . 1038x710 - viewed 3881 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.

[LB7 (OP)]

The blue spheres are so small I drew like water, it is difficult to draw so many spheres.

At start:


sydn.png (192.89 kB . 1133x730 - viewed 3826 times)

After:

ddtg.png (201.08 kB . 1130x735 - viewed 3834 times)

More later:

sci.png (228.16 kB . 1160x775 - viewed 3832 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.