Jim_Mich's beef with Ralph

[jim_mich]

On a large rotating wheel I doubt you would be aware of the actual rotation.

My point was that when riding on constantly rotating wheel you are able to sense the rotation due to the constant outward force of all object against the wheel and that this is not true with straight line motion.

Any object that is allowed to move outward on the wheel will also move rotationally around the wheel. (of course outward movement is actually a straight line tangent to the wheel. Again this is why I bring up relativity.) This rotational movement around the wheel will allow the rider to sense which direction the wheel is rotating, for the weight will move backwards around the wheel.

[ovyyus]

My point was that when riding on a constantly rotating wheel you can not sense the rotation, even though you sense a force. You never mentioned anything about moving your position on the wheel in order to detect the actual rotation.

[CADMAN3D]

Note that the Professor says, "there is no force radially outward on the body."

Indeed he does. He said otherwise, but then he corrected himself. The difference is subtle.

But the weight does cause a force to develop due to the constant rotation. Contrary to what many are taught to believe, this force is very real.

Without seeming glib, based on what? It would be cool if a new theory like this were true, but Newtons laws seem to have stood fairly well for the last 300 years.

But as soon as the weight is allowed to move away from its curved path into a straighter path then this force diminishes. We might say this force is only momentary. It is an inertial force and like all inertial forces if you use/consume the force then it only lasts until the weight is forced to stop moving.

Inertia is not a force at all- it's kind of like a property of a body at any given time. Force can be used to slow down or stop inertia, but it is not a force. (again, not my theory) As such, it cannot generate a torque. But the force used to slow it down or stop it (i.e. a rope) can generate torque, but it's in the opposite direction.

The need to invent a force that is mysteriously appears and disappears, is momentary, etc only comes about if you choose to simplify the tried-and-proven F = mA formula. If you leave it "as is", inertia stays on the right side where it belongs (changing the acceleration of a mass) and forces say on the left side where they belong (pulling pushing, etc). That's why you can find many references to "centripetal acceleration" being the right way to describe the effect of a rotating object- force is not mentioned anywhere.

This also simplifies the whole "reference frame" concept- just sum all of the true forces (humor me- leave out CF!) pointing in any direction and then set them equal to the mass * the true, net acceleration in that direction. If you're riding on a teacup ride, this acceleration will include not only local spinning with your friends but rotating around the larger group. Determining that acceleration is the hard part, but vector math does it if you're patient, and it works out every time. Bring an accelerometer onto your next teacup ride and give it a try! (I wonder if security would have a problem with that?!)[/quote]

[jim_mich]

Kevin,

You state that inertia is not a force. This is very true. But inertia causes forces to develop in certain situations.

It seems we are about to get into a pissing match concerning semantics. I fully understand that academicians have relegated centrifugal force to being non-real. This is an attempt to dispel the erroneous concept that there is a force causing the weight to fly outward. The weight does not want to fly outward; it wants to move in a straight tangent line in the direction that it is/was moving. And the force that develops is not a force acting on the weight. No, it is the other way around. The weight's inertia causes the weight to exert a reactionary force against the restraint that is forcing it to travel in a circle.

But for academicians to say that these forces between the weight and a wheel don't exist is just plain wrong. Again quoting the Professor Miller, "There is a force which the string exerts on the body. And there is a force which the body exerts on the string."

According to academician parlance a weight moving in a circle is in a state of constant acceleration, so we have F = m•A. And for every force there is an opposite and equal force. In the case of a mass rotating around a center we name these two forces centrifugal force and centripetal force. They are both real forces. "There is a force which the string exerts on the body. And there is a force which the body exerts on the string. But there is no force radially outward on the body." Academicians attempt to throw out these first two forces in their attempt to dispel the false concept of a radial outward force acting on the body.

I'm not creating any new theory or going against Newton's laws. I'm just trying to dispel the false concept that centrifugal force is not a real force. It is a very real force. It is the dynamic force which a body exerts on a string/restraint due to the body's attempt to continue moving in a straight line caused by the body's inertial momentum. The equal but opposite centripetal force is causing the body to accelerate in a curved path. Both forces are real forces, but care must be taken when dealing with them in equations. This is because they do magically appear and disappear depending on the situations, but this is also true of all dynamic forces. And aren't we looking for some magical force to appear and power our PM wheels?

[LustInBlack]

I'm not involved as much as you are in the mathematics of forces and energy..

However, I have a point to make, that reflect my opinion ..

You say this force if fictious, is that because you have to create it out of nowhere in your math equation so the net energy of a system balances or more, because you need your equation to equate reality !? ..

Again, I'm not into math physics ..

So, if that is true, then, that force comes from nowhere, and the reason is, you need a framework so the force spawn into reality..

That framework tap into an outgoing process in the reality..

So basicly, it's possible to tap into forces / energy with a corresponding framework ..

So far, is that true!? ..

I think my observation is that without a specific framework, we can observe how objects are acting with observable forces..

However, when you see strange things happening as CF which it seems, is not something that is observable outside of a frame of reference, you don't have the same thought process to observe the effect. .

The force disappears when you destroy the framework (the string that attach a weight for example) ..


Again, I'm not involved in physics math, so I might be off-topic to some..

[Michael]

Centrifugal and centripetal forces are real but only as they pertain to the system they are in reference to. But there's a better understanding. Physics is all about understanding structure and processes in the simplest and best ( the correct ) possible way. Refer to Occam's razor, or the K.I.S.S. theory if you will. The correct way concerning CF is they aren't real forces but are manifestations/deviations of something greater occuring, the foundation of which are Newtons Laws. And since they are only deviations, and not " energy created", they cannot be used as an " additional" power source.
The best one can ever make use of any deviation is balance, the worst entropy.

[rlortie]

LIB,

I love it, for me and my opinion it is all a play on words.

Gravity is theory yet Newtons findings are called laws based within or on said theory. I am told that one cannot form a new theory or hypothesis based on an accepted law even though it is based on theory. But it is OK if I use the word "pretense"

If you are standing in the middle of the road and an automobile is coming directly at you or away from you, you are supposed to say: wow! look at the speed that car is going. But if you stand off to the side of the road and that same car passes by you, (vector) you are supposed to say; Wow look at the velocity of that car.

That is my opinion, respond at your discretion!

Ralph

[LustInBlack]

I agree it's a play on words..

The fact is, there is a force involved, real or not.. Does it matter!?

[jim_mich]

Lib, I don't say these forces are fictitious, it is academicians that say such. The forces spawn into reality (to use your words) due to inertial resistance to motion. Yes it takes a framework to cause these to happen. And yes they disappear when the framework is destroyed (the string is cut).

Michael, in order for a PM wheel to work it must exhibit ectropy, which is the reverse of entropy. Inertial momentum forces can cause two weights on a rotating wheel to change speeds with one giving up it inertial momentum to the other so that one weight speeds up and the other weight slows down. This is ectropy. It is like having a machine that intakes luke warm water and spits out hot and cold water. A PM machine must intake medium speed motion and output fast and slow motion. In both cases energy can then be extracted from the outputs.

[rlortie]

Gordy (racer270) just posted a link for Youtube in "off topic" I suggest all take the time to watch it.

Ralph

[Gregory]

Well, one thing is true:
Academicians would knock their heads hard into the wall, if Jim could make his wheel work.
By the way, it would be the greatest disaster for academicians to found a non-real force to actually doing something for real. (let's save them from this, Lol :)

Yes it takes a framework to cause these to happen. And yes they disappear when the framework is destroyed (the string is cut).

Interesting things may happen, when the string is not "constant", so it can be cut & not at the same time. (?)
(like pulling or pushing on a spring, and other things)

[CADMAN3D]

It's a bit of a shame this is buried in the "beef" thread... it's really quite generalized now! Anyway...

LIB: It only matters when one is doing force and torque balances, in an attempt to figure out what the other forces in the system are... One can only consider "real" forces on a body for those, or they will quickly get tripped up into thinking they've found anomolies that the real world doesn't seem to support.

Jim,

"There is a force which the string exerts on the body. And there is a force which the body exerts on the string. But there is no force radially outward on the body."

You're misunderstanding this a bit. You're obviously correct about equal and opposite forces. Since the string is pulling inward on the body (to keep it from traveling in a straight line; accelerating it toward the center constantly), the body is, in turn, pulling outward on the string. This is obvious if you view each part in isolation, which is what the free-body diagram is- draw any portion of a machine, and anywhere you cut it, you can draw in forces and solve for their values with torque and force balances such as F=mA, T=I*alpha (for rotational torque), or (if you're lucky enough to not have any acceleration in any given direction) F = 0 and T = 0.

So cut the rope and draw the ball by itself and you'll only see gravity and the rope force, pulling the body inward. The F=mA for this requires the horizontal component of rope tension to create the inward acceleration. Now draw the rope only- you can obviously use the rope force value, but you'll need to point it in the other direction- the ball is pulling on the rope! That's all that Professor Miller is talking about.

I'm just trying to dispel the false concept that centrifugal force is not a real force. It is a very real force.

I hope you're right- then when your theory is proven, I can say I had a lively technical discussion with one of the greatest technical minds of the century! I'm in no position to argue; I can only parrot what they fed me in my Physics and Engineering classes, which makes sense to me, and seems to be capable of solving all the dynamics problems I've seen to this point.

And aren't we looking for some magical force to appear and power our PM wheels?

Ahhh yes- the crux of the matter. I warned of this in my very first or second posting- if one follows the current wisdom verbatim, it can only point to the futility of the effort. Maybe I'm not the best person to have this discussion with- I'm hoping there is something that Newton missed, which is why I'm here at all. But in that respect, I shouldn't be pointing to Newtons equations and telling you how things must work! I wish you nothing but good luck in your quest! Maybe lurking is a better approach, so I don't discourage everyone...

-Kevin

[rlortie]

Kevin,

I'm hoping there is something that Newton missed, which is why I'm here at all. But in that respect, I shouldn't be pointing to Newtons equations and telling you how things must work!

It is my opinion that Newton missed it. He formed his objective conclusions to his satisfaction and to the point of being considered laws, then terminated his search a little to soon! Thus my term "theory within a law"...

I believe that even people like Newton were not beyond "Tunnel vision". The fact that some historians describe him as somewhat autistic, displayed as a social behavior not unlike Bessler promotes my reasoning.

Bessler said something to the effect that it was where everybody has looked.

Not unlike troubleshooting; ; If it cannot be found in the probable then it must lie in the (considered) improbable. A place where Newton possibly ignored. I feel sGravensende in defense of his letter to Newton reflects on the improbable we seek.

Ralph

[Michael]

Inertial momentum forces can cause two weights on a rotating wheel to change speeds with one giving up it inertial momentum to the other so that one weight speeds up and the other weight slows down. This is ectropy.

I'd agree with you Jim that ectropy is the reverse of entropy, and that's about it. I'm going to ask of you again, if you have a source that's proven and credible which shows a case where a closed system ( and that would include weights in motion on a wheel with no outside energy supply ) where the entropy is in reversal, then please state it. An exchange of energy where one weight speeds up is ectropy for the one weight, yes. It's entropy for the other. At best its balance for both ( as I stated ). In the real world is worse than that, it's entropy for the complete system due to energy losses in other ways.

Kevin Newtons Laws are flawless and I think you to know this is true. Of course Newton was only enunciating what many people new in one way or another over many centuries. These "laws" even show up as the rule in the simplest to the most complex forms of math.
Kevin you won't be discouraging those on here who feel if Bessler's wheel worked at all, it worked on an ambient energy source.

[rlortie]

Michael,

Does this statement feel practical and on track?

Ectropy - Entropy;

Two masses in motion same path, the latter having greater velocity than the leading. The osculation (act on both bodies) reactation by the change in momentum in both of them is the same. The difference of motion is equalized between both masses. Thus the lead mass speeds up and the latter slows down. (Reference; Newtons law of motion part three)

Inertial momentum forces can cause two weights on a rotating wheel to change speeds with one giving up it inertial momentum to the other so that one weight speeds up and the other weight slows down. This is ectropy.

I believe my version is a little more explicit as it explains that there must be a differential factor in speeds of the two masses. Newton acknowledged this, but it is also where I believe Newton missed the boat that Bessler caught.

Ralph