You are never going to see a perfect mrr relationship because that would require frictionless bearings and massless arms holding the masses. Tarsier's experiment proved to him that mrr was correct (and mr was incorrect) as described in this post here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 3654#93654
Why you saw something different is understandable as described above.
My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing experiments" thread
Moderator: scott
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Last edited by Wubbly on Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
pequaide wrote:
-----------------------------
An analogy of your experiment is if you accelerated a school bus the distance of one inch using a specified force.
Then putting a bowling ball on the school bus and repeating the experiment.
Then replacing the bowling ball with a pea, and repeating the experiment.
Then saying that the bowling ball and the pea both accelerate at the same rate.
Then when someone points out that there's a school bus in your experiment, you say you don't care because it is the same in both experiments, and can be ignored. Then you shift focus back on the bowling ball and the pea.
Except you use rotational motion and different radii, and a fractional mass at a larger radius, and since the angular acceleration is supposedly the same, and since Kinetic energy goes up with velocity squared, then you claim that energy was created.
It is so convenient on your part to ignore the pieces of the experiment that explain where the energy went as if they are some constant that can be discarded.
There you go again, pequaide. You completely ignore the inertia of the pulley and the stiff bearings in your experiment. You are forgetting that the pulley is being accelerated too and since the drive radius is 3/8 inch (or so), the pulley feels like 672 kg (as described here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6912#96912 ). So your 9.5 second argument is fallacious because you are ignoring most of the mass being accelerated.And; mrr predicts that the 1.8 kilograms at the circumference will be 22.8 times harder to rotate than the 41.08 at the shaft. That would be 1/22.8 times the acceleration rate but not 22.8 times as much time. It would only be the square root of 22.8 or 4.77 times as much time; for 2 seconds * 4.77 = 9.5 seconds as stated before.
-----------------------------
An analogy of your experiment is if you accelerated a school bus the distance of one inch using a specified force.
Then putting a bowling ball on the school bus and repeating the experiment.
Then replacing the bowling ball with a pea, and repeating the experiment.
Then saying that the bowling ball and the pea both accelerate at the same rate.
Then when someone points out that there's a school bus in your experiment, you say you don't care because it is the same in both experiments, and can be ignored. Then you shift focus back on the bowling ball and the pea.
Except you use rotational motion and different radii, and a fractional mass at a larger radius, and since the angular acceleration is supposedly the same, and since Kinetic energy goes up with velocity squared, then you claim that energy was created.
It is so convenient on your part to ignore the pieces of the experiment that explain where the energy went as if they are some constant that can be discarded.
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Pequaide,
Thanks again for having posted in this thread.
I had seen before even starting it that you seemed to be doing some of the math correctly. I just wasn't sure where you were getting the numbers to claim energy production.
Now that I see what you are doing, though, my stance is that you are ignoring things that shouldn't be ignored and making assumptions that shouldn't be made concerning the bearing resistance and the rotational inertia of your plywood disk.
I believe Wubbly actually sums it up pretty nicely above.
So, I obviously don't believe your claims.
I do find it fascinating that you so steadfastly hold to them, however.
Maybe we can all be guilty of that at times - even those with formal training.
In that most of us here are looking for excess energy production, maybe we will all eventually get to see things that the best and brightest scientists of old may have overlooked or chose to ignore, too.
...while maybe even seeing things that the most educated of scientists today choose to accept on faith (and in those who they would pay to spoon feed them. ...lol) can't possibly be there.
I'm getting all philosophical again, I think.
As I've stated in other threads, I believe I have some designs of my own that may ultimately show energy production. I just don't have my builds complete yet so that I can know for sure.
In one partial build there's even a possibility that I may have already seen energy production, but in that I had to guide part of a mechanism with my own hand, there's also the quite real possibility that I was just adding the extra energy myself.
Until I have the mechanisms complete so they actually do their things without my own physical intervention, I simply cannot make any definitive claims.
Wubbly, I enjoyed your bus/bowling ball/pea analogy. It even had me laughing for several minutes.
...until, of course, I started wondering just which was the pea and which was the bowling ball and just how big was the school bus. ...lol
Everyone else who posted, thanks for your input, too.
Dwayne
Thanks again for having posted in this thread.
I had seen before even starting it that you seemed to be doing some of the math correctly. I just wasn't sure where you were getting the numbers to claim energy production.
Now that I see what you are doing, though, my stance is that you are ignoring things that shouldn't be ignored and making assumptions that shouldn't be made concerning the bearing resistance and the rotational inertia of your plywood disk.
I believe Wubbly actually sums it up pretty nicely above.
So, I obviously don't believe your claims.
I do find it fascinating that you so steadfastly hold to them, however.
Maybe we can all be guilty of that at times - even those with formal training.
In that most of us here are looking for excess energy production, maybe we will all eventually get to see things that the best and brightest scientists of old may have overlooked or chose to ignore, too.
...while maybe even seeing things that the most educated of scientists today choose to accept on faith (and in those who they would pay to spoon feed them. ...lol) can't possibly be there.
I'm getting all philosophical again, I think.
As I've stated in other threads, I believe I have some designs of my own that may ultimately show energy production. I just don't have my builds complete yet so that I can know for sure.
In one partial build there's even a possibility that I may have already seen energy production, but in that I had to guide part of a mechanism with my own hand, there's also the quite real possibility that I was just adding the extra energy myself.
Until I have the mechanisms complete so they actually do their things without my own physical intervention, I simply cannot make any definitive claims.
Wubbly, I enjoyed your bus/bowling ball/pea analogy. It even had me laughing for several minutes.
...until, of course, I started wondering just which was the pea and which was the bowling ball and just how big was the school bus. ...lol
Everyone else who posted, thanks for your input, too.
Dwayne
Last edited by Furcurequs on Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
I enjoyed the analogy myself.
Furcurequs has the plywood flywheel at a 9.23 lb mass, 4.2 kg. And not all the mass is in the rim so it is hardly a bus. The 1.8 kilograms is all in the rim so the wheel might have a little more inertia than the 1.8 but not much. What seems like 672 kilograms is the bearing not the wheel. And yes it is the same in both runs so it can be factored out.
My confidence is not just in this wheel, I have done it without bearing and in many different ways.
Don't forget you can take the motion of the bus and put it in the pea.
Furcurequs has the plywood flywheel at a 9.23 lb mass, 4.2 kg. And not all the mass is in the rim so it is hardly a bus. The 1.8 kilograms is all in the rim so the wheel might have a little more inertia than the 1.8 but not much. What seems like 672 kilograms is the bearing not the wheel. And yes it is the same in both runs so it can be factored out.
My confidence is not just in this wheel, I have done it without bearing and in many different ways.
Don't forget you can take the motion of the bus and put it in the pea.
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
pequaide,
If you could stop a bus with a pea - while launching the pea into outer space - I'd be impressed.
...lol
(Actually, that made me think of my stomp-powered gun idea.)
...but, wait, don't you first start out accelerating the bus with the pea?
If you could stop a bus with a pea - while launching the pea into outer space - I'd be impressed.
...lol
(Actually, that made me think of my stomp-powered gun idea.)
...but, wait, don't you first start out accelerating the bus with the pea?
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
When Tarsier was doing his r = 2 to r =1 radius experiment he stated and showed that it would take one fourth the mass at twice the radius to drop at the same rate. He showed us the same times for each run to prove mrr. He divided the original mass by the larger r² where the larger r is twice the original r (r² = 4).
I did the same experiment on the 19 inch wheel. My radius difference is 22.8 to one. And r² is 519.8. I then divided the original mass at the small radius by r² just like he did. Which is 20.54 kilograms / 519.8 for 40 grams on each side at the circumference. I placed a 45 gram golf ball on each side at the circumference. The time of the runs where in the 1.5 second category. And the time of the 20.54 times two runs where about 1.95 second. (This wheel has been altered from the 2.00 second arrangements.) The golf balls were removed and some runs were made with no mass at either radius. These runs were only a few hundredth of a second faster than the runs with the golf balls at about 1.46 sec.
mrr is a false concept. It is mr; with 1.8 kilograms at the circumference we are in the 2.00 range.
I did the same experiment on the 19 inch wheel. My radius difference is 22.8 to one. And r² is 519.8. I then divided the original mass at the small radius by r² just like he did. Which is 20.54 kilograms / 519.8 for 40 grams on each side at the circumference. I placed a 45 gram golf ball on each side at the circumference. The time of the runs where in the 1.5 second category. And the time of the 20.54 times two runs where about 1.95 second. (This wheel has been altered from the 2.00 second arrangements.) The golf balls were removed and some runs were made with no mass at either radius. These runs were only a few hundredth of a second faster than the runs with the golf balls at about 1.46 sec.
mrr is a false concept. It is mr; with 1.8 kilograms at the circumference we are in the 2.00 range.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
A spring can only apply its force over the distance of it compression. A massive object, being accelerated, stays in the compression distance longer than a small object. Therefore the total Ft of the small object is less. Motion is lost in the transfer when a large object first loads the spring and then the force is unloaded on a small object. I would guess the pneumatic loading of your stomp gun will be like a spring. You need to make sure that the two times over which the force acts are equal. Or at least the input and output Fts are equal.
I was also thinking that Tarsier's flywheel mass, in his two radius experiment, is about the same as in the 19 inch wheel if you compare drive mass to wheel mass. So the only major difference is the bearings.(And the results)
The fact that the two golf balls have little effect upon the acceleration is not made easier by the motion resistant greasy bearings. In fact the bearing resistance would multiply any resistance presented by the golf balls at the circumference. The fact that the golf balls have little effect at the circumference means that F = ma works for levers with an mr relationship.
The fly wheel motion can be recovered; or at least calculated, and the fly wheel can be made lighter. So the only thing that needs to be dealt with to get actual F = ma proofs is the bearing.
I was also thinking that Tarsier's flywheel mass, in his two radius experiment, is about the same as in the 19 inch wheel if you compare drive mass to wheel mass. So the only major difference is the bearings.(And the results)
The fact that the two golf balls have little effect upon the acceleration is not made easier by the motion resistant greasy bearings. In fact the bearing resistance would multiply any resistance presented by the golf balls at the circumference. The fact that the golf balls have little effect at the circumference means that F = ma works for levers with an mr relationship.
The fly wheel motion can be recovered; or at least calculated, and the fly wheel can be made lighter. So the only thing that needs to be dealt with to get actual F = ma proofs is the bearing.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Right now your "energy producing Atwoods experiment" (with the two .9 kg masses) starts with about 1.00 Joule of potential energy, and ends with 0.66 Joules of kinetic energy, resulting in a 0.44 Joule net energy loss.
If I=mr as you claim, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate an experiment that ends with more energy than it starts with.
All you need to do is:
(1) Reduce the friction of the bearings (wash them out with gasoline or replace them with something with significantly less friction).
(2) Accelerate the pully from a radius ten times larger (e.g. 10 cm instead of 1 cm - to make the pulley feel lighter to the system).
(3) Drop the drive mass a longer distance (1 meter instead of 0.03 meters).
(4) For your drive mass comparison, use half the mass at twice the radius (instead of 1/22.8 of the mass at 22.8 times the radius - which makes you run out of space to drop a meaningful distance).
If you fix those things, and if I=mr as you claim, then it should be easy for you to setup and perform an experiment that ends with more energy than it started with.
Tarsier79's experiment had these fixes and he got different results than what you are seeing. If you make these changes, and still can get an I=mr relationship, then you'll be up for your Nobel prize.
Right now all you have is an experiment that demonstrates a net energy loss.
-----------
Oh, and make sure you do the experiments in the proper order (larger mass, smaller radius experiment first). If you do wrong experiment first (smaller mass, larger radius as the baseline), then your second experiment will end up with an energy loss. I think it may have something to do with quantum entanglement and the causality effect, but don't quote me on that.
If I=mr as you claim, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate an experiment that ends with more energy than it starts with.
All you need to do is:
(1) Reduce the friction of the bearings (wash them out with gasoline or replace them with something with significantly less friction).
(2) Accelerate the pully from a radius ten times larger (e.g. 10 cm instead of 1 cm - to make the pulley feel lighter to the system).
(3) Drop the drive mass a longer distance (1 meter instead of 0.03 meters).
(4) For your drive mass comparison, use half the mass at twice the radius (instead of 1/22.8 of the mass at 22.8 times the radius - which makes you run out of space to drop a meaningful distance).
If you fix those things, and if I=mr as you claim, then it should be easy for you to setup and perform an experiment that ends with more energy than it started with.
Tarsier79's experiment had these fixes and he got different results than what you are seeing. If you make these changes, and still can get an I=mr relationship, then you'll be up for your Nobel prize.
Right now all you have is an experiment that demonstrates a net energy loss.
-----------
Oh, and make sure you do the experiments in the proper order (larger mass, smaller radius experiment first). If you do wrong experiment first (smaller mass, larger radius as the baseline), then your second experiment will end up with an energy loss. I think it may have something to do with quantum entanglement and the causality effect, but don't quote me on that.
- Attachments
-
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
In the 19 inch wheel I compared one acceleration (41.08 at the shaft) to another acceleration (1.8 at the circumference). These masses at their r are the same mr and the accelerations are the same.
If you can reduce bearing resistance you should be able to compare the experimental results directly against the formula F = ma.
I see no problem with the small drop of the drive mass and I see no problem with large radius differences. The difference between 40 grams and 900 grams is more obvious than 100 grams to 200 grams. Either would work; but I prefer the large radius differences.
It should not matter to the bearing what the radius of the drive mass is, 10 kilograms at one cm provides the same torque as 1 kilogram at 10 cm. I think I will stay with the drive at the shaft.
“A meaningful distance�? I have no idea what you mean by that. 3.4 kilograms dropped 3 cm is just as meaningful as .34 kilograms dropped 30 cm. Do you mean meaningful measurable velocity?
As far as picking up motion with the photo gates, the circumference should give you consistent measurable velocity.
I got some electric motor type bearing in the mail, I will get out the gas. I could not bring myself to soak a pillow block in gas.
If you can reduce bearing resistance you should be able to compare the experimental results directly against the formula F = ma.
I see no problem with the small drop of the drive mass and I see no problem with large radius differences. The difference between 40 grams and 900 grams is more obvious than 100 grams to 200 grams. Either would work; but I prefer the large radius differences.
It should not matter to the bearing what the radius of the drive mass is, 10 kilograms at one cm provides the same torque as 1 kilogram at 10 cm. I think I will stay with the drive at the shaft.
“A meaningful distance�? I have no idea what you mean by that. 3.4 kilograms dropped 3 cm is just as meaningful as .34 kilograms dropped 30 cm. Do you mean meaningful measurable velocity?
As far as picking up motion with the photo gates, the circumference should give you consistent measurable velocity.
I got some electric motor type bearing in the mail, I will get out the gas. I could not bring myself to soak a pillow block in gas.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Furcurequs: I went back and reviewed the square tube experiment on page 59 of 'energy producing experiments' that is also a very good experiment. That experiment proves the same mr relationship between force and acceleration. The acceleration of the tube is the same in both arrangements which allows you to compare the acceleration of the 133.6 g at about 35 inches to 1341 grams at about 3.5 inches.
The tube is the equivalent to the flywheel in this experiment. But you get good data even though you only rotate 13°.
I looked this experiment up in response to the 'meaningful drop distance' statement, any drop distance is useful if you can get consistent data. This is only 7.1 g dropped 2 cm. Any experiment that has high velocity would require photo gates (which is okay too but it gets dangerous for the gates).
The tube is the equivalent to the flywheel in this experiment. But you get good data even though you only rotate 13°.
I looked this experiment up in response to the 'meaningful drop distance' statement, any drop distance is useful if you can get consistent data. This is only 7.1 g dropped 2 cm. Any experiment that has high velocity would require photo gates (which is okay too but it gets dangerous for the gates).
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
pequiade .. part of the experimental method is that an experiment should be repeatable - that also means testing the assumptions in different formats or modes, as wubbly is suggesting - if your theory of mr is correct it will hold up in all reasonable circumstances.
Tarseir did not need to show that it was mr^2, just that even once it was not mr - you could perform the experiments as has been suggested - if the relationship is not mr then you will have to look at your experimental technique to find out why - if it is then people here would have to find out why by rigorously testing the theory with experimentation ?
But this has all been said before & you don't feel like humouring anyone, even to prove your own case, yet others have taken the trouble to experiment & discuss it.
Tarseir did not need to show that it was mr^2, just that even once it was not mr - you could perform the experiments as has been suggested - if the relationship is not mr then you will have to look at your experimental technique to find out why - if it is then people here would have to find out why by rigorously testing the theory with experimentation ?
But this has all been said before & you don't feel like humouring anyone, even to prove your own case, yet others have taken the trouble to experiment & discuss it.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
I have already proven it is mr many many times. It is eminently obvious you do not want to see. Otherwise you would believe the real data. You follow false data because it says what you want. There are an infinite number of ways to do it let wuggly do an experiment if he wants to.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
I was expecting that childish response !
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
2500
edit
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Hello pequaide,
In regards to my stomp gun idea, I wasn't really thinking of a pneumatic device. Actually, it may even be a bit of a misnomer for me to even call a device based upon my still somewhat vague ideas a "gun". I guess a "stomp powered projectile launching mechanism" might be a better generic name.
In that the muzzle energy of a bullet from a handgun is about the same as the kinetic energy of a person of average weight falling a foot or two, I just thought it might be a rather interesting engineering challenge to see if there was a way to efficiently transfer most of the energy of a human jump and fall or stomp to a projectile.
I have some ideas I would still like to test, but I've really not actively pursued them much. If you think of how a compound bow is more efficient at transferring energy to an arrow than a regular bow, that may give you a bit of an idea as to how I was thinking - though I have some ideas for a different sort of mechanism or combination of mechanisms.
So, I was already thinking about ways to come up with the proper impedance matching for the energy transfer.
Anyway, I still need to look up your other test before I can comment on it.
(You'll have to forgive me if I don't always respond in a timely manner. I have lots of head and neck pain that makes it difficult for me to sometimes gather my thoughts. I typically find it much easier reading than writing when my pain is an issue.)
Wubbly, I'm glad you posted the pie chart. I was thinking about doing an accounting of the "lost" energy myself before you posted that.
Thanks.
Dwayne
In regards to my stomp gun idea, I wasn't really thinking of a pneumatic device. Actually, it may even be a bit of a misnomer for me to even call a device based upon my still somewhat vague ideas a "gun". I guess a "stomp powered projectile launching mechanism" might be a better generic name.
In that the muzzle energy of a bullet from a handgun is about the same as the kinetic energy of a person of average weight falling a foot or two, I just thought it might be a rather interesting engineering challenge to see if there was a way to efficiently transfer most of the energy of a human jump and fall or stomp to a projectile.
I have some ideas I would still like to test, but I've really not actively pursued them much. If you think of how a compound bow is more efficient at transferring energy to an arrow than a regular bow, that may give you a bit of an idea as to how I was thinking - though I have some ideas for a different sort of mechanism or combination of mechanisms.
So, I was already thinking about ways to come up with the proper impedance matching for the energy transfer.
Anyway, I still need to look up your other test before I can comment on it.
(You'll have to forgive me if I don't always respond in a timely manner. I have lots of head and neck pain that makes it difficult for me to sometimes gather my thoughts. I typically find it much easier reading than writing when my pain is an issue.)
Wubbly, I'm glad you posted the pie chart. I was thinking about doing an accounting of the "lost" energy myself before you posted that.
Thanks.
Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.