Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


2019 ESTC ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!
PRE-REGISTER FOR THE
2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE

Monero XMR

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Veljko Milkovic - 2 Stage Mechanical Oscillator

  1. #11
    A brief update. I replicated the cart Veljko shows in his video with 20 bucks of parts from a toy store. It behaves the exact same, the effect is anything but subtle. It doesn't follow Newton. One thing you don't get from Veljko's video is there is a great propensity for the cart to also turn in the direction of rotation of the pendulum. I.e if the pendulum were making fullcircle rotations the cart would basically just turn in the direction of the pendulum rotation. As this "toy" defies conventional physics I'll not be too embarrassed to say, apart from friction in the bearings (which must be too small), looking at the various velocities on the swing path, etc. etc, I don't know why this is, but it is. Before going on I will first describe cart Mark 1.0. If a swing of the pendulum drives the cart forward, as I have seen, then one could extrapolate that (with perfectly frictionless bearings) a Grandfathers clock tilted on a dolly would rock forward each swing. So 1.0 is Grandfather's clock cart. How to pulse the pendulum? Initially I wanted to put it at the top (motionless part of each swing). A sensor coil wouldn't work there because it would pull the magnet up (causing a full rotation swing - too much torque and carts swings off path) and/or would repulse on the wrong side of the coil. So I said I'll use a reed switch. I'm an idiot. You can't use a reed switch near an electromagnet as eventually occurred to me. You could extend out your pendulum and use the 180 degrees opposite side but then you are starting to balance the wheel and lose your effect, it might be made to work but I decided to do something which has been done to death by people on this forum. Pulse the pendulum at the bottom of the swing. There will be some change to rotational dynamics but the pulse is in a good place (if my understanding is correct) and most of the swing will likely still be dictated by gravity. The electromagnet at the bottom front of the cart should help dampen out the torque that wants to turn the cart as well. So that's 1.0, it ain't complicated, pulse an inclined pendulum and from what I've seen from dropping an inclined pendulum, the cart should putt, putt, putt forward (How you like them apples Newt?)

    Next is to cancel the torque problem, Now again, this is all Veljko as he mentions how to do this, you just want a contra rotating second pendulum at the same time, like two contra rotating propellers on an airplane. How to do this, how to do this, I though a long time on it, finally it occurred to me you just need a single one-to-one gear between two identical pendulums. Now you should have cancelled the torque problem. This is Mark 2.0 and where things may get interesting. Now you can have full circle rotations and only the linear force component remains. What happens as you increase rpms? I have no idea! Before going on again my theory is that the consistent difference in angular momentum at a consistent single point on rotation is what accounts for the seen linear force. So there are a number of options. 1) the "duty cycle" remains consistent, the difference in velocity between slow and fast points is unchanged, there is no increase in linear force dependent on rpms. 2) The linear force increases as a linear function of the "pulse" rate, the rpms. 3) And this is the one I am actually even a bit frightened is likely correct, while the difference between the slow point and the fast point on the circle remain consistent, the linear force seen is dependent on the square of the velocity. For example, let's take the case where the pendulum does not complete a full rotation, let's say it is at 1 mph at it's fastest and 0 then at it's slowest. Now with full rotations the "pendulum" may be say at 10 mph at its slowest and 11 mph at its fastest. Will it follow a square law? Mass and velocity do this in many other things, as I said almost scary to me. So that is Mark 2.0 and I may or may not have a video there.

    Mark 3.0. If my assumptions on what is going on holds, at least partially, oh and Veljko mentioned you might try this, why not mimic the effects of the gravitational field. No longer incline the pendulum, but now have on one side of a circle electromagnets triggered to attract and accelerate a mass, on the other side to decelerate the mass, exactly as would be seen with a pendulum on an incline. If Mark 2.0 goes well, this could be an interesting experiment. N'est pas? Could be gathering some inductive spikes along the way as well. For some reason I want to break into a Gollum imitation now, "Oh yes Precious, inductive spikes, very nice Precious very nice indeed." Anyways, I don't think I may not be wrong here, and if so it is both simple and powerful.

    Ciao, talk at you later

    Paul
    Last edited by ZPDM; 09-27-2013 at 03:28 AM.

  2. #12
    Hey,Paul.
    Only testing will tell. So many great ideas look good on paper until...
    I am glad you're taking the time to explore these pendulum driven machines. check youtube channels there's some interesting (crazy) contraption to be inspired by.
    Keep up the good work
    NoFear

  3. #13
    Hey NoFear,

    Thanks for the encouragement and I agree with you 100 percent. Look at Dr. Milkovic's video on the cart, despite its simplicity or because of it it takes a while to sink in.

  4. #14
    A "brief" update. I am making great progress and will post a video of the grandfather's clock go-cart in the very near future. The problem I am running into is that as the magnetic pendulum is swinging relatively slowly I either need a heck of a lot of turns on the sensor coil and/or a Darlington pair to boost the signal. I'll probably work on both solutions. Relatively speaking I am still dmn fing inept at electronics. I have a hobby article on how to build a magnetic pendulum and if need be I will drop everything and build everything exactly to that spec (I built it previously but dismantled it, didn't know I might need it in future). There is much broader applicability to the concepts Veljko lays out but I want to start at square one. I'll make a video of that, maybe not of square two, this simplicity is absurd. Amazingly none of this even touches on precession. I said earlier we don't understand circular motion. The following occurred to me today, below is a link of various people doing the hammer throw. While I am not looking to generate discussion, I would say in light of Newton's laws does anything seem off to you? Hint, how is the hammer thrower still standing, or, let's suppose the hammer thrower is in space. Having just recently occurred to me I know I should do the big humble pie of maybe this maybe that, but no, I don't see it, I see a big heavy f'ing hammer that just went 200 feet in one direction. Do you see what's wrong with this picture? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbgg2TRCuw
    Last edited by ZPDM; 09-30-2013 at 05:05 AM.

  5. #15
    I worked on a different project for awhile, but this week will go back, time permitting, to the Grandfather's clock gocart as I wait for other parts which I will detail in a moment. Not to be a broken record but I will express this in one more way. And again I find nothing non-Newtonian here. Consider a slingshot with a stone as you swing it in a circle with a pivot at your wrist, as you pick up speed your wrist no longer wants to stay immobile, your wrist wants to move in a circle with a stronger immobile pivot point set at your elbow by stronger muscles in your arms. Why? because at each point on the rotation the sling rock is straining to leave. If you had a large enough rock or fast enough rotation your elbow would not do either, and you would need to be like the hammer throwers using legs and back to maintain a pivot. If the hammer thrower loses balance or sprains his leg is he expected to fall away from the hammer, no the hammer would pull him over on his face at the point of lost balance. It follows straightforwardly from here (and I have to think in complete accord with Newton) if you had a hammer thrower on a cart, where on one half of his rotation the hammer goes 1 mph (if that is enough to counter gravity) and let's be absurd on the other half 100 mph there would be a net linear force to move the cart.

    Now then there is another force at play as well, that is as the hammer moves around the fixed pivot point there is a translational force, per Newton attempting to keep the center of gravity in one place. However, as Dr. Milkovic pointed out to us with his inclined pendulum these two forces do not need to sum to zero. I built his cart, it is subtle, if the floor is 2 percent off the cart will rock backwards, but on a level surface the centripetal force focused on one point by gravity overwhelms the translational force. And if I am correct, err. if, ah hell I'm correct we just need to build it, we know where to increase and where to decrease angular momentum, one can augment what Veljko showed. There is also a torque which wants to spin the cart and one wants two contra rotating pendulums (propellers) to eliminate this. Uh lastly if the cart accelerates this would deform the circular motion of the pendulum, no idea how it fits in, but it is still a fun toy.

    So now I get to why I wrote. Someone on this board or maybe energetic forum mentioned Tsigrakigakiakis (sorry "Tsiriggakis") to me. When I first looked at his work I thought, well I don't know maybe he's right, but it sure would make a great disco ball. I am pretty to more than pretty sure he's right now and he is either a genius or an alien or an alien/genius but I suspect he is another scientific hero of mine because how in heaven did he come up with this. He released this around 2009 I think but most of the links are now dead (ooh must be a fraud) I was able to find a paper or two discussing this in English which detailed what he was doing. I will present this now as a discussion of one of his videos, ah heck I'll break this up into two posts as if someone isn't interested this is a good quit point, but as a teaser, he doesn't use differences in rotational velocity.
    Last edited by ZPDM; 10-07-2013 at 11:04 AM.

  6. #16
    So Tsiriggakis is to my understanding a previous Greek military engineer who has posted about 6 videos, one or two related to a "gearless different" he has patented which he said was based from his study of the Antikythera mechanism (I say, God rest his soul, but it is better than Tom Clancy). He has 2-3 videos for his "counter-gravity mechanism". He also has a simulation of his counter gravity mechanism flying a plane off into space. Here is an informative 1-2-3 video of his counter gravity mechanism. I'll discuss both exactly what he is doing and why I think it may work. We will reveal the secrets of the sandbox not known for the ages

    Antigravity Mechanism - http://www.tsiriggakis.gr - YouTube

    So we notice from from about 0.15 - 0.20 two counter rotating pendulums (which again is why I thought to look at this again). Now, and it took me a while to realize this, in this machine this motion never happens in isolation. I.e. I thought there was a motor in the center box, there isn't. You can look at the built machine working here Antigravity Mechanism - http://www.tsiriggakis.gr - YouTube

    Next is the second motion added, this is from 0.23 -0.30 of the video. So, if not a motor in that center box, what is it? I puzzled a long time on that. I finally got a description from a paper which I still had to learn what it meant. It is a 1:1 planetary gear 2 suns two planets with one sun locked in place. If I were a gear head, maybe I am now, I would have known to call it another name, it is a differential. I'll be honest, I basically replicated things up to here with gears from a hobby shop, enough to see that the motions were as presented but the darn gears would not stay in place. This led me to learn of "bevel gears" for right angle differentials. I thought I am going to have to go to a machine shop they will charge me a thousand dollars I don't care if it flies to Mars I want something cheap. Again it has to be a 1:1 differential, but low and behold I found that as a robot kit add on. One inch 1:1 plastic differential gears about 20 bucks, so I'll order that soon, but again I got far enough to see it is a differential driving the motion in the center, maybe I should have taken a clue from his patent.

    So what do we have now, two counter rotating pendulums which draw out a figure eight over half a hemisphere of a sphere. A paper went on to describe how this motion led to an oscillating increase and decrease in force registered on a scale. This makes sense from what I have thought about previously. Yes they are always going at the same speed, but when the two masses meet up at the top there will be an upward force, when they both hit bottom, a net downward force of the same amount. It would just want to vibrate or oscillate.

    So now we have from 0.33 to 0.40. I haven't replicated this and here is where he is either a liar or something much different. Why do I think this may work? Because I've toyed around with gyroscopes. A spinning gyroscope can sit over the end of a table without falling. He is introducing a gyroscopic or precessional aspect of motion. Now when the two weights meet at the top they are at the center of the circle of gyroscopic motion and there would be no or almost no effect. At the bottom they are at the circumference and the gyroscopic effect would be most pronounced. Bruce DePalma spoke of an anisotrophic change in mass with rotation.

    I got 90 percent through steps one and two and three seems pretty easy. Once I have beveled gears for a differential I may be able to replicate it but if I am not mistaken, Tsiriggakis, instead of employing a consistent change in velocity, has employed a consistent "anistrophic" change in mass. For me this may take weeks (hopefully not) to replicate, for you gear heads out there, it is a differential to make this motion, it may take you an afternoon or day or two. Have fun and may we all be just, peaceful and productive.
    Last edited by ZPDM; 10-07-2013 at 12:27 AM.

  7. #17
    Fist off, I want to apologize in that going over my previous posts as I struggled to understand things I was borderline to just plain incoherent. I will also say, as regards experimenting, I have received my bevel gears and will replicate Tsiriggakis (whether it works or not) with parts from a toy store in the next day or two (week or two?). I said a couple things earlier though that I think are likely correct and one simple one being, we don't understand circular motion. Having had time to think on all this I will present it again. I will be doing the experiments on this over the next few weeks to months and if, which I strongly suspect, this is correct it is almost too simple to mention. Before starting, let's also just ignore anything related to precession and circular motion because I don't believe it applies to these examples.

    OK, let's go! First imagine ("a bright blue ball just spinin spinin free" - sorry, Grateful Dead) a perfectly balanced rotor spinning at say 5000 rpms. Now chop off half the rotor, can it continue to spin at 5000 rpms? No. Why not? Because it is unbalanced. But what does this mean? Two forces come into play. The first is the translational force. By this I mean if one were on a railroad cart and had a 50 lb weight on a vertical rotor in the middle of the cart and picked up the weight and heaved it to the other side the cart would move in the other direction proportional to the change. (In my thoughts at least, it wouldn't matter whether you walked the weight slowly or flung it quickly, the cart would move the same amount to preserve the center of mass, and that is all - I think) The second force is the centrifugal (def: moving or tending to move away from a center) force. What Milkovic demonstrated with his pendulum cart is that the translational and centrifugal forces do not need to equal and that is significant. As we know they don't need to sum to zero let's consider the centrifugal force in more detail. Let's reduce the half rotor to a single rock on a string. It can't spin at 5000 rpms like the balanced rotor because at each point it is striving to leave the center and it pulls the fulcrum with it leading to vibration or worse.

    Now then, and here is where we get down to it, what factors affect the centrifugal motion? Well mass is obviously one, a three ounce weight won't pull outward like a 3 lb weight. The other obvious one is speed, a 10 mph rotation will pull much less than a 100 mph rotation. There you have it. In Milkovic's cart gravity pulls a weight (on an incline) so it consistently accelerates to a maximum speed at the bottom of the swing and this "drags" the cart forward (three times more than an inelastic collision per Veljko).

    The other thing I said in my previous ramblings which I would return to and I believe is obviously (how could you even patent something like this) entirely correct is "a consistent repeated push of (an unbalanced) wheel at the exact same spot" leads to a linear force. This just seems now obvious to me, and even Newtonian. What will be well worth determining, as to whether this is a hobby shop novelty or something else would be whether a stone swinging at say 10 mph at 0 degrees and 20 mph at 180 degrees behaves the same as one going 40 mph at 0 degrees and 50 mph at 180 degrees or does it follow a square law? Questions, questions, questions!
    Last edited by ZPDM; 10-12-2013 at 05:12 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •