Dwayne,
at least for you, this is a non off-topic stuff:
Exactly on today I read on my newspaper the first results of a recent research, where is proved true effects of several WINES on head and some other pains.
Try a google on Dr. 'Abouch Krymchantowski' and word 'wine'.
Don't be so sad... maybe you can change the type or even plant region... 8)
Take care!
M.
My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing experiments" thread
Moderator: scott
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
The experiment that Fletcher and Wubbly want has already been done.
The experiment is the 12 inch and 18 inches double wheel experiment. Tarsier’s 30 cm, 20 cm, and 15 cm wheel experiment was designed after the 12 inch and 18 inch experiment. The 12 and 18 inch experiment did not give the data they wanted so they conveniently forgot about it. The Tarsier's experiment and my experiments got opposite results.
I took these excerpts off of pg 54; the wheel is pictured on page 52.
The 12 inch and the 18 inch wheel experiment; a double pulley Atwood’s. This is a 12 inch wheel solidly embedded center to center on an 18 inch wheel.
There is a grove on the circumference of the 18 inch wheel that the strings ride in; and the diameter is a little less than what I had thought. The wheel's functional diameter is 17.59 inches. Now I did not force numbers (18in/12in) upon the wheel; I added suspended mass until the wheel was balanced: it told me what mass to add by making me balance it. Instead of 1.5 times as much mass on the 12 inch wheel it was 1.466.
The wheel also told me that the 12 inch wheel was out of round. The radius would change a little bit at different angles. This was not surprising because the 12 inch wheel is plywood and was made by hand with a jig saw. There is also tape around portions of the 18 (17.59) inch wheel. I did not want to take the tape off because it holds my throwing pins. These out of round factors increase the margin of error: but apparently not by much.
I used an Allen wrench to interrupt two photo gates that were about 27 mm apart and were secured with wood blocks and tape. I made the wheel accelerate for about 170° before the wrench interrupted the gates. The wheel was accelerated by an extra 57 grams placed (suspended on a string) on the 17.59 inch wheel.
I placed 1.666 kilogram on both sides of the 12 inch pulley.
I placed 1.666 kilogram on the left side of the 12 inch pulley and 1.136 (2.5 lbs bar bell weights) kilograms on the right side of the 18 inch (17.59) pulley.
I placed 1.136 kilograms on both sides of the 18 inch pulley.
The time period between the tripping of the first photo gate and the tripping of the second photo gate (27 mm) was .0612 sec, .0600 sec, and .0589 sec respectively for the three arrangements.
All three arrangement were accelerated by the same quantity of extra mass (57 grams) placed on the string dangling from the circumference of the 17.59 inch wheel.
It appears to me that the same quantity of force applied for the same quantity of time will create the same quantity of momentum (linear Newtonian) no matter what the distribution of the mass is in the freely rotating wheel.
Or; it is just as easy to rotate 2 kilograms at 9 inches as it is to rotate 3 kilograms at 6 inches.
Oh: yes: and The Law of Conservation of Energy is false.
With two 1.66 kilogram masses at 12 inches The flag moves 27 mm in .0612 second; this is .441 m/sec at the flag, but the mass is at 12 inches so it is moving .301 m/sec.
With two 1.136 kilogram masses at 17.59 inches The flag moves 27 mm in .0589 second; this is .458 m/sec at the flag, and the mass is at the flag so it is moving .458 m/sec.
This would be 3.32 kilograms moving .301 m/sec for 1.00 units of momentum and .150 joules of energy; for the larger mass at 12 inches.
This would be 2.27 kilograms moving .458 m/sec for 1.04 units of momentum and .238 joules of energy; for the smaller mass at 17.59 inches.
This motion is from the same 57 grams dropped the same distance. The linear momentum produced is within the margin of error, But the energy produced is not within the margin of error.
This is also an mr to mrr issue. 3.32 kg times 12 inches equals 2.27 kg at 17.59 inches, and this proves the mr relationship. It would be okay to do an experiment that I have already done; but if they don't believe you then they won't believe you. You could do it a thousand times and they would not believe you.
I have done it many more times than what I post and I know it is mr.
When the two golf balls were placed on the circumference of the 19 inch wheel they did not significantly slow the motion of the wheel; over the time for no mass added. The driven wheel barely noticed their presence. If mrr were true those 90 grams should have kicked the wheel's motion in the head. It takes 1800 grams for the time to come back to that of the balancing mass at the shaft.
There is just so much proof but nothing has an effect on some people; and I am afraid nothing ever will.
The experiment is the 12 inch and 18 inches double wheel experiment. Tarsier’s 30 cm, 20 cm, and 15 cm wheel experiment was designed after the 12 inch and 18 inch experiment. The 12 and 18 inch experiment did not give the data they wanted so they conveniently forgot about it. The Tarsier's experiment and my experiments got opposite results.
I took these excerpts off of pg 54; the wheel is pictured on page 52.
The 12 inch and the 18 inch wheel experiment; a double pulley Atwood’s. This is a 12 inch wheel solidly embedded center to center on an 18 inch wheel.
There is a grove on the circumference of the 18 inch wheel that the strings ride in; and the diameter is a little less than what I had thought. The wheel's functional diameter is 17.59 inches. Now I did not force numbers (18in/12in) upon the wheel; I added suspended mass until the wheel was balanced: it told me what mass to add by making me balance it. Instead of 1.5 times as much mass on the 12 inch wheel it was 1.466.
The wheel also told me that the 12 inch wheel was out of round. The radius would change a little bit at different angles. This was not surprising because the 12 inch wheel is plywood and was made by hand with a jig saw. There is also tape around portions of the 18 (17.59) inch wheel. I did not want to take the tape off because it holds my throwing pins. These out of round factors increase the margin of error: but apparently not by much.
I used an Allen wrench to interrupt two photo gates that were about 27 mm apart and were secured with wood blocks and tape. I made the wheel accelerate for about 170° before the wrench interrupted the gates. The wheel was accelerated by an extra 57 grams placed (suspended on a string) on the 17.59 inch wheel.
I placed 1.666 kilogram on both sides of the 12 inch pulley.
I placed 1.666 kilogram on the left side of the 12 inch pulley and 1.136 (2.5 lbs bar bell weights) kilograms on the right side of the 18 inch (17.59) pulley.
I placed 1.136 kilograms on both sides of the 18 inch pulley.
The time period between the tripping of the first photo gate and the tripping of the second photo gate (27 mm) was .0612 sec, .0600 sec, and .0589 sec respectively for the three arrangements.
All three arrangement were accelerated by the same quantity of extra mass (57 grams) placed on the string dangling from the circumference of the 17.59 inch wheel.
It appears to me that the same quantity of force applied for the same quantity of time will create the same quantity of momentum (linear Newtonian) no matter what the distribution of the mass is in the freely rotating wheel.
Or; it is just as easy to rotate 2 kilograms at 9 inches as it is to rotate 3 kilograms at 6 inches.
Oh: yes: and The Law of Conservation of Energy is false.
With two 1.66 kilogram masses at 12 inches The flag moves 27 mm in .0612 second; this is .441 m/sec at the flag, but the mass is at 12 inches so it is moving .301 m/sec.
With two 1.136 kilogram masses at 17.59 inches The flag moves 27 mm in .0589 second; this is .458 m/sec at the flag, and the mass is at the flag so it is moving .458 m/sec.
This would be 3.32 kilograms moving .301 m/sec for 1.00 units of momentum and .150 joules of energy; for the larger mass at 12 inches.
This would be 2.27 kilograms moving .458 m/sec for 1.04 units of momentum and .238 joules of energy; for the smaller mass at 17.59 inches.
This motion is from the same 57 grams dropped the same distance. The linear momentum produced is within the margin of error, But the energy produced is not within the margin of error.
This is also an mr to mrr issue. 3.32 kg times 12 inches equals 2.27 kg at 17.59 inches, and this proves the mr relationship. It would be okay to do an experiment that I have already done; but if they don't believe you then they won't believe you. You could do it a thousand times and they would not believe you.
I have done it many more times than what I post and I know it is mr.
When the two golf balls were placed on the circumference of the 19 inch wheel they did not significantly slow the motion of the wheel; over the time for no mass added. The driven wheel barely noticed their presence. If mrr were true those 90 grams should have kicked the wheel's motion in the head. It takes 1800 grams for the time to come back to that of the balancing mass at the shaft.
There is just so much proof but nothing has an effect on some people; and I am afraid nothing ever will.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Why don't you spend as much time & effort "improving" Tarsier's experiment, to both your satisfactions, where you can both agree that the result [whatever it is] is true & correct ?
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Do I have to spell it out ; his times are false. Tarsier did not even know he did not want twice the time, but he found those numbers any way. And you did not see his error; either. If you follow false reports go ahead, I know the truth.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
I'll say it again - design an experiment you are both happy with & can both replicate instead of a war of useless words.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
If Tarsier had done the middle experiment on page 54 his wheel (with ¼ m at 2r) would not have balanced; and the experiment would have been impossible. I placed 1.66 kilograms on the 12 inch wheel and 1.136 kilograms on the 17.59 inch wheel and I could conduct a balanced run; this run also came in at the same time. Balancing sides works. Tarsier did not have balanced side with ¼ mass at 2r. His experiment simply could not have worked. You can't repeat an experiment that will not work.
And you are correct; the chitchatting should be repalced with experimentation.
And you are correct; the chitchatting should be repalced with experimentation.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
At the time Tarsier said that he wasn't trying to disprove your theory but confirm [or not] the physics as they were known to him - he asked for your input into his experiments to be fair tests.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Okay: I will start cutting circles. I already have the bearings.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
That sound good - a low mass lever has a lot less inertia than a circle - that is a consideration if you are trying to isolate the positional effects of masses in relation to rotational inertia.
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Hey murilo,
Thanks. I Googled Dr. "Abouch Krymchantowski" and "wine" and I saw that he did a study where he tested different kinds of red wine with migraine headache sufferers. Apparently he found that wines containing more tannin triggered more migraines.
I've had a few migraines in the past, but my current head and neck pains seem to be due to actual physical problems in my neck and temporomandibular joints (TMJ). So, they're probably not as severe in magnitude as migraines, but unfortunately to some degree they're nonstop.
My right TMJ was damaged when I had a wisdom tooth extracted many years ago now and the rest seems to have been caused by an infection of some sort that set up in and around the joints which was ignored and left untreated for quite some time. ...not ignored by me, of course, but by some of the near incompetent doctors I had at the time, I'm sad to say.
Anyway, even though I don't have problems with migraines and I don't typically drink much wine, maybe I'll still use this as an excuse to experiment and drink more. ;)
I have tried my hand at making some of my own fruit wines in the past. I've made some blackberry and elderberry wine which turned out to be pretty good. Someone I know even told me the blackberry was the best wine he had ever had. I may have to rack that up to "beginner's luck," though, and some pretty awesome blackberries that I found near the local limestone quarry.
I also have 5 gallons of very old blueberry wine sitting on my hearth that I never bottled (nor tried) - if I haven't let it turn to vinegar. Some friends of mine and I handpicked the blueberries at a local farm.
Well, thanks again.
(Sorry everyone else for the off topic stuff.)
Dwayne
Thanks. I Googled Dr. "Abouch Krymchantowski" and "wine" and I saw that he did a study where he tested different kinds of red wine with migraine headache sufferers. Apparently he found that wines containing more tannin triggered more migraines.
I've had a few migraines in the past, but my current head and neck pains seem to be due to actual physical problems in my neck and temporomandibular joints (TMJ). So, they're probably not as severe in magnitude as migraines, but unfortunately to some degree they're nonstop.
My right TMJ was damaged when I had a wisdom tooth extracted many years ago now and the rest seems to have been caused by an infection of some sort that set up in and around the joints which was ignored and left untreated for quite some time. ...not ignored by me, of course, but by some of the near incompetent doctors I had at the time, I'm sad to say.
Anyway, even though I don't have problems with migraines and I don't typically drink much wine, maybe I'll still use this as an excuse to experiment and drink more. ;)
I have tried my hand at making some of my own fruit wines in the past. I've made some blackberry and elderberry wine which turned out to be pretty good. Someone I know even told me the blackberry was the best wine he had ever had. I may have to rack that up to "beginner's luck," though, and some pretty awesome blackberries that I found near the local limestone quarry.
I also have 5 gallons of very old blueberry wine sitting on my hearth that I never bottled (nor tried) - if I haven't let it turn to vinegar. Some friends of mine and I handpicked the blueberries at a local farm.
Well, thanks again.
(Sorry everyone else for the off topic stuff.)
Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Yes: a double armed, low mass, lever is probably the easiest way to do it. The lever should have equal length arms on both sides. Hang 10 kilograms at one decimeter on the left and one kilogram at 10 decimeters on the right. Place an extra mass at one decimeter and see how long it takes to rotate 15°. Then run 10 at 1 on the left against 10 at 1 on the right; and then run one at ten against one at ten etc. Then compare the three time periods for each run to cover 15°.
If the time periods are the same then applied force of the extra mass (dropped the same distance over the same time) tells us that it is no more difficult to rotate 1 at 10 than 10 at 1: mr.
If the time periods are the same then applied force of the extra mass (dropped the same distance over the same time) tells us that it is no more difficult to rotate 1 at 10 than 10 at 1: mr.
Re: re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy produc
Dwayne,Furcurequs wrote:Hey murilo,
Thanks. I Googled Dr. "Abouch Krymchantowski" and "wine" and I saw that he did a study where he tested different kinds of red wine with migraine headache sufferers. Apparently he found that wines containing more tannin triggered more migraines.
I've had a few migraines in the past, but my current head and neck pains seem to be due to actual physical problems in my neck and temporomandibular joints (TMJ). So, they're probably not as severe in magnitude as migraines, but unfortunately to some degree they're nonstop.
My right TMJ was damaged when I had a wisdom tooth extracted many years ago now and the rest seems to have been caused by an infection of some sort that set up in and around the joints which was ignored and left untreated for quite some time. ...not ignored by me, of course, but by some of the near incompetent doctors I had at the time, I'm sad to say.
Anyway, even though I don't have problems with migraines and I don't typically drink much wine, maybe I'll still use this as an excuse to experiment and drink more. ;)
I have tried my hand at making some of my own fruit wines in the past. I've made some blackberry and elderberry wine which turned out to be pretty good. Someone I know even told me the blackberry was the best wine he had ever had. I may have to rack that up to "beginner's luck," though, and some pretty awesome blackberries that I found near the local limestone quarry.
I also have 5 gallons of very old blueberry wine sitting on my hearth that I never bottled (nor tried) - if I haven't let it turn to vinegar. Some friends of mine and I handpicked the blueberries at a local farm.
Well, thanks again.
(Sorry everyone else for the off topic stuff.)
Dwayne
I'm very sorry that your case is not that so simple, as the change of drink.
Be sure, I envy you and soon as possible I'll get a blueberry wine bottle! 8)
To make my own wine is absolutely out of question... 8(
My taste is simple, so my best wine will always be those very simple and natural, that italian and oriundi guys make for private and family consume, and even kid will drink with water or snow. 8)))
TAKE CARE!
Murilo
-
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:
And he conveniently forgets to calculate the energy in the pulley, as if it is not part of the experiment.
And he also conveniently forgets to calculate the energy lost in the bearings, as if it is also not part of the experiment.
.
Why would two people do a similar experiment and get opposite results? It must come back to those stiff bearings pequaide is using. He keeps making the same mistake over and over again and getting the same results.The Tarsier's experiment and my experiments got opposite results.
And he conveniently forgets to calculate the energy in the pulley, as if it is not part of the experiment.
And he also conveniently forgets to calculate the energy lost in the bearings, as if it is also not part of the experiment.
.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
I built an arrangement very similar to Tarsier's and I got less than satisfactory results. In a 4 to 1 radius difference I got 1.6 seconds for the small wheel and 1.9 seconds for the larger wheel. The large wheel had one fourth the mass on the circumference and four times the radius. The drive was at a 3 inch diameter, the small wheel had a diameter of 1.5 inches and the larger wheel had a diameter of 6 inches. All three wheels were cut from ply wood but the diameters were very close to the measurements given.
As I said the 1.9 seconds is very unsatisfactory, but on the other hand it is far faster than would be predicted by mrr. The concept of mrr would predict that it would take 1.6 seconds * 2 or 3.2 seconds and it is well under that. It is .3 seconds long of mr but 1.3 seconds too fast for mrr.
I suspect that there is lateral movement of the string as it wraps and unwraps from and into the groove in the wheel, In fact the string wants to come out of the groove and fall off of the wheel. Maybe this is because of swinging masses or maybe that wheel is none vertical; I don't know. The 1.5 inch wheel has a deeper groove and of course it wraps and unwraps one fourth as much. I suspect there is a problem with the rough surface of the plywood groove.
At any rate I have to explain a frictional loss but you are already moving too fast. Maybe I am not making the mistake; maybe you are.
Oh; this experiment has bearings, but so did Tarsier's.
As I said the 1.9 seconds is very unsatisfactory, but on the other hand it is far faster than would be predicted by mrr. The concept of mrr would predict that it would take 1.6 seconds * 2 or 3.2 seconds and it is well under that. It is .3 seconds long of mr but 1.3 seconds too fast for mrr.
I suspect that there is lateral movement of the string as it wraps and unwraps from and into the groove in the wheel, In fact the string wants to come out of the groove and fall off of the wheel. Maybe this is because of swinging masses or maybe that wheel is none vertical; I don't know. The 1.5 inch wheel has a deeper groove and of course it wraps and unwraps one fourth as much. I suspect there is a problem with the rough surface of the plywood groove.
At any rate I have to explain a frictional loss but you are already moving too fast. Maybe I am not making the mistake; maybe you are.
Oh; this experiment has bearings, but so did Tarsier's.
-
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
What are you measuring - the distance the driver mass drops, or a certain rotation angle of the wheel? And what is the value?
What are your hanging mass values?
What is your driver mass value?
You are still ignoring your "overall system" and focusing on individual pieces of it instead. The linear acceleration equation for your latest Atwoods would be the force divided by the mass.
Your input force would be your driver mass times the acceleration due to gravity minus the frictional force of the bearings.
Your total system mass would be
(A) your driver mass,
(B) plus your hanging masses times some scale factor representing how hard they are to rotate
(C) plus the rotational mass (moment of inertia) of the pully divided by the radius from which you are accelerating it.
Perhaps you can ignore the frictional force of the bearings if you make the moment of inertia of the pully larger to account for it.
Or you can input your exact moment of inertia of the pully, but then you would have to input a value for the frictional force of the bearings.
The point is that you are focusing on the acceleration of the hanging masses and ignoring the system. In one of Tarsier's experiments, he made the driver mass small compared to the mass he was trying to accelerate. This was to ensure the time represented mostly the acceleration of the masses he was trying to measure. The driver mass still contributes to the acceleration time numbers, but if it is small comprared to the hanging masses, you get more accurate acceleration times.
What are your hanging mass values?
What is your driver mass value?
You are still ignoring your "overall system" and focusing on individual pieces of it instead. The linear acceleration equation for your latest Atwoods would be the force divided by the mass.
Your input force would be your driver mass times the acceleration due to gravity minus the frictional force of the bearings.
Your total system mass would be
(A) your driver mass,
(B) plus your hanging masses times some scale factor representing how hard they are to rotate
(C) plus the rotational mass (moment of inertia) of the pully divided by the radius from which you are accelerating it.
Perhaps you can ignore the frictional force of the bearings if you make the moment of inertia of the pully larger to account for it.
Or you can input your exact moment of inertia of the pully, but then you would have to input a value for the frictional force of the bearings.
The point is that you are focusing on the acceleration of the hanging masses and ignoring the system. In one of Tarsier's experiments, he made the driver mass small compared to the mass he was trying to accelerate. This was to ensure the time represented mostly the acceleration of the masses he was trying to measure. The driver mass still contributes to the acceleration time numbers, but if it is small comprared to the hanging masses, you get more accurate acceleration times.