Roberval-Merry Rotating Balance

[Projéthée]

Hello to all,

First part: the good news my site at http://brjr.fr

I'm not going to beat around the bush, all the details concerning my concept and several of its variants will be revealed in a time which I hope to be as short as possible. A matter of a few days, the time to finalize some administrative odds and ends.

So, yes I know. I had to advertise half a dozen times, on this forum or another, something if not revolutionary, at least new AND functional before realizing that I was out.
It will be different this time because I have grasped an essential thing. I totally changed my point of view about my favorite mechanics. Instead of wanting to upset its natural internal balance at all costs, I now use it, thus taking the opposite view of the difficulty. I don't fight anymore.
Above all, I no longer try to make it act alone but always in conjunction with another "machine in balance". Each of the two being in the grip of a force and a counter-force, the whole trick consists in setting up the counter-force of one in front of the counter-force of the other. Suddenly, we find ourselves a winner on both counts.
To tickle your sagacity a little, this means that from my point of view, an ordinary electric generator represents a classic example of a “machine in equilibrium” since, to the mechanical power injected corresponds a FCEM which tends to oppose the movement with the same force (except for the yield).
Having neither the time nor the inclination to impose yet another piece of paper / rake, I am looking for a few courageous people who are ready to leave a few neurons behind to examine the first version of "my baby" in exchange for a promise. of confidentiality.

Let us now turn to the subject of "proof". To my great regret, I do not have the resources necessary to build functional models. I use the plural since the mechanism is "generic" and therefore lends itself to an infinity of variants. I need, even for the most trivial, specific mechanical elements beyond the reach of my purse (RSA), tools capable of an accuracy of the order of 1 / 10th of a mm minimum, as well as building materials a little more consistent than plexiglass (aluminum or steel). Nothing extravagant, but my last attempts have proven to me how astute and stubbornness cannot replace certain minimum requirements at a moment's notice.
The real difficulty is neither in the understanding of this mechanics (Terminale class?), Nor in its realization (subject to a minimum anyway), but in the fine adaptation of opposition of the two initial counter couples.
To date, I have two conceptually defined versions, one of which is purely gravitational and another which gives a generator with mechanical reversal of FCEM
I am open to any proposal and ready to have my concept validated by a college of people in whom I trust in exchange for an active collaboration in this direction while awaiting final publication.

And then, beyond the proof, what do you think should be done?
I aim at least for a sort of "BR-JR day", a massive dissemination of information to create a buzz that ordinary media can hardly snub.
I still keep the acronym BR-JR secret, as it can be revealing in itself about my technology.

There is still a long way to go, but I have hope. Hope that this technology, which is much more affordable from certain points of view, does bring about "real life achievements".

[dedeleco]

I advise to read and assimilate the good books and courses of physics on Internet, before any action in the dreams !!!

[Projéthée]

This is a cavalier answer.
What makes you think that I am pursuing a utopia?

On the other hand if you want to make yourself useful, I would like to have your opinion on the behavior of a magnet such as that of the drawing which will translate along a continuation of coil.
Induction in the coils?
Torque imposed on the magnet by the FCEM, or not?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Obamot]

Can it work? Maybe well, yes, maybe not ...

I have grasped an essential thing.

First of all, we must salute such obstinacy. Which by the way, always has the flip side, mebon, let's move on.

We can not talk about the bottom of the bottom of the technical aspect since nothing shows through (no formula no detail ...), so let's see the shape.

Nothing filters this idea as it is, even without that, it is quite easy to see that there are weak points in the reasoning. As Dedeleco seems to say: "back to basics».

I totally changed my point of view about my favorite mechanics. Instead of wanting to upset its natural internal balance at all costs, I now use it, thus taking the opposite view of the difficulty. I don't fight anymore.
Above all, I no longer try to make it act alone but always in conjunction with another "machine in balance". Each of the two being in the grip of a force and a counter-force, the whole trick consists in setting up the counter-force of one in front of the counter-force of the other. Suddenly, we find ourselves a winner on both counts. [...] "real life achievements".

Let's see these "flaws". It is very clever. This is possible reasoning, but unlikely in fact and for a simple reason:
- it's not US who decide interactions, but the laws of physics / chemistry etc!

Yes it is "raw" to say it like that, but it is the truth. Again, it is not a question of breaking a hypothesis on a simple a priori (try your project you will see well) but the reasoning will sooner or later collide with the realities on the ground. And sooner or later, "personal will" will likely lead to a return to the original thought pattern: "Interact to find untapped potential ...". However, it is difficult to start from such a premise: what must be understood in R&D is that we must remain humble, it is not "we»Who decide, and we put nothing else in evidence than what potentially already exists ... To find what has not yet been discovered, we must meet the solid conditions, described many times in the threads of this site.

Even I really like to see this type of approach and motivation. The skepticism encountered should not discourage - at the same time we must not give false hope - because we must "ensure" with a well-established concept before making others join, out of altruism or interest, to connect on a work in progress, on a simple hypothesis not expressed.

Indeed hypothesis there is. Because the interactions between these two "machines" will necessarily create others which will be their own, starting from the same reasoning: it will then be necessary to create other "common interfaces", and so on! Remember the basic rule: at the end "it is not us who decide ”. And so you have to keep in mind the whole problem even before its implementation, what as it seems far from having been achieved. We feel a clear trial and error.

So I said "hypothesis", it remains so before being validated or not. Can it work? Maybe well, yes, maybe not ... Good study and good luck.

[Projéthée]

Thank you for your Obamot response. it indicates a minimum of respect for the modest researcher that I am. More of a mechanic at heart than a physicist, who does his best not to offend the laws to which we are all subject.
I'm going to expand a little bit and talk about the gravitational version; I start from a first "balanced" machine therefore subjected to a C1 hourly torque and a C2 counter torque (anti-clockwise). A second machine of the same type but "tuned" differently (I have no other expression) is subjected to a single C3 torque, therefore unbalanced.
As you said, the important thing is the interaction between the two. I arrive by a purely mechanical trick to oppose C2 and C3. The first machine therefore gives the other one of the components of its equilibrium and no longer manages to maintain its own.
You were talking about stubbornness. It took me almost 3 years to properly build on the initial concept. All this time because like many others, I was taking the problem backwards. It is not a question of building a machine out of balance and of "wanting" to maintain this imbalance by means of artifices. I started from a machine in balance on which it is possible to intervene. It's a very important reversal of logic because knocking down a balance is "a little" less difficult than saying to an imbalance: "stay as you are".
Mechanics is like a language. This is evident in certain works where it rises to the rank of art. I do not claim to master this art but I use as a link between the two machines a mechanical element that I have never seen so far in any so-called "unbalanced" construction. It took me a long time to work on the interactions between the machines to get my hands on it. Without this element, no favorable outcome is possible (in this case). It is he who allows an action of the second machine on the first without return effect. It is also the only element common to both machines.
When you see it, it will seem obvious and in complete accordance with known principles and laws.

[dedeleco]

This is a cavalier answer.
What makes you think that I am pursuing a utopia?

On the other hand if you want to make yourself useful, I would like to have your opinion on the behavior of a magnet such as that of the drawing which will translate along a continuation of coil.
Induction in the coils?
Torque imposed on the magnet by the FCEM, or not?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Because lots of others have the same vocabulary, without knowing the basics known over 190 years of work (early 1820), measured repeatedly in all the technology we use every day, everywhere, phones, TGV, engines, etc. .

So if you have not assimilated this knowledge, Ampère, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein, Lagrange, Hamilton, Dirac, Fermi, Pauli, exchange of spins, spin and orbital magnetism, etc ..., you do not realize the contradictions in your sentences.

Your drawing is not clear, not precise, even without saying who is the magnet and who are the coils, with what orientationqs.
Are the coils open or closed circuit on a resistor that dissipates ???
Open, no effect on the magnet (well known on alternators which do not draw current)
closed with dissipation in a load, then forces and complex couples as if the coil is a magnet proportional to the induced current which circulates inside (Ampère). see wikipedia
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9 ... mp%C3%A8re
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_generator
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell

In French wikipedia is less often.

But your imprecision in words shows that you have never read and assimilated the necessary scientific bases.

The integral equations of electromagnetism show the conservation of energy, and therefore your magnet will move to its equilibrium position after more or less long oscillations.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vecteur_de_Poynting
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9or ... e_Poynting


Without this knowledge, verified and proven endlessly in any cell phone, you are wasting your time.

[Projéthée]

This is a cavalier answer.
What makes you think that I am pursuing a utopia?

On the other hand if you want to make yourself useful, I would like to have your opinion on the behavior of a magnet such as that of the drawing which will translate along a continuation of coil.
Induction in the coils?
Torque imposed on the magnet by the FCEM, or not?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

.

Either I answered a little quickly. Maybe stung. Let's move.

So let's say that for my drawing, the magnet is mounted in free rotation on an element which translates parallel to the coils. The magnet is cylindrical and has a polar orientation, North on the internal face and South on the external face. The Coils (in brown) are mounted in line and connected to a load by a suitable electronic system.
The consumption of this electrical energy will therefore create an FCEM for each coil which will "see" the magnet in its close environment, so there will be feedback on the magnet. My intuition tells me that this will result in a torque of the magnet rotating on itself. Is she good?
I ask this question of people whom I know are more competent than I to answer it. I don't really have time to eat up the amount of knowledge that the links you gave me contain (especially in English). I thank you for that, but the advantage of forum is it not to pool knowledge and skills? You will also notice that I do my best not to overload the forum trivial questions. Classic generators do not have the behavior that my drawing simulates. I therefore wonder about this singular geometry.
If there is a couple, it will be a great thing. Otherwise, I will review my copy.

[Christophe]

What does the title mean?

[Projéthée]

The title is an acronym that I will reveal in a while.
If it's annoying you can rename it to "new balance machine".

[dedeleco]

This is a cavalier answer.
What makes you think that I am pursuing a utopia?

On the other hand if you want to make yourself useful, I would like to have your opinion on the behavior of a magnet such as that of the drawing which will translate along a continuation of coil.
Induction in the coils?
Torque imposed on the magnet by the FCEM, or not?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

.

Either I answered a little quickly. Maybe stung. Let's move.

So let's say that for my drawing, the magnet is mounted in free rotation on an element which translates parallel to the coils. The magnet is cylindrical and has a polar orientation, North on the internal face and South on the external face. The Coils (in brown) are mounted in line and connected to a load by a suitable electronic system.
The consumption of this electrical energy will therefore create an FCEM for each coil which will "see" the magnet in its close environment, so there will be feedback on the magnet. My intuition tells me that this will result in a torque of the magnet rotating on itself. Is she good?
I ask this question of people whom I know are more competent than I to answer it. I don't really have time to eat up the amount of knowledge that the links you gave me contain (especially in English). I thank you for that, but the advantage of forum is it not to pool knowledge and skills? You will also notice that I do my best not to overload the forum trivial questions. Classic generators do not have the behavior that my drawing simulates. I therefore wonder about this singular geometry.
If there is a couple, it will be a great thing. Otherwise, I will review my copy.

still not clear how are the coils, how connected to each other, biting on what.
The magnet is how with its poles where, because there are plenty of varied possibilities still.
The magnet is made of electrically conductive or insulating steel.

Finally the magnet moves how quickly at what speed, with what force, because it is an assembly of alternator with poorly fixed magnet that can turn if I understand ???
The magnet is hanged at the end of a wire like a pendulum.
If the magnet is stationary at first, nothing will happen.
The coils with the induced current in are equivalent to a magnet which by its field acts on the exciter magnet, opposing the movement of the magnet; so especially in translation.

Given the cylindrical symmetry of the field of this magnet, if I understood its structure, (in principle so perfect cylindrical symmetry of the field, which is not certain in reality), this field does not change by rotation, so the energy does not change and so it should not turn.

Every detail is important, however.
The spatial structure of the magnet field is crucial and not always known!
Example earth, is a dipole magnet, plus quadrupoles and hexapoles, weaker.