My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing experiments" thread

[Wubbly]

pequaide wrote:

You three have delayed a lot of good research.

Ignoring the Moment_of_Inertia of your pulley is good research? -- I don't think so.

Ignoring Bearing Friction is good research? -- I don't think so.

.

The bottom line is still the same:

Your "energy producing Atwoods" experiment looses energy.

Where is the energy being created?

There is none.

.

[jim_mich]

Ignoring the Moment_of_Inertia of your pulley is good research? -- I don't think so.

I agree. Ignoring Moment of Inertia skews the results making them meaningless.

Ignoring Bearing Friction is good research? -- I don't think so.

Most bearings have very little friction. That is the way bearings work. They allow rotation with little friction. In many cases air resistance/friction is much greater than bearing friction.

Bearing friction has been discussed many times. See this post from 2004

[pequaide]

Jim: I think you are jumping into a discussion without knowing the particular argument. So I shall explain.

I am claiming that 88 grams suspended from a .75 inch radius will rotate the same wheel at the same acceleration as 22 grams suspended from a 3 inch radius. This has experimentally been proven to be true, with one wheel making one rotation in 3.60 second for both the 88 grams and the 22 grams at their appropriate radius.

I assume that the bearing resistance over the 3.60 second in the 88 gram run is very nearly the same as the bearing resistance over the 3.60 seconds in the 22 gram run. With the bearing resistance the same we can focus on the effect of the 88 grams at .75 and the 22 grams at 3.

I am not pretending there is no bearing resistance I am just arranging an experiment were it is the same for both run.

As far as 'moment of inertia' I am not ignoring that either; I am saying it is wrong. It is not mrr it is mr. Which is clearly proven by the 88 at .75 and 22 at 3 experiment.

[Wubbly]

I think Jim understands your argument.

I think everyone understands your argument.

Your argument is extremely easy to follow.

But your argument is wrong because it ignores the pulley's moment of inertia and bearing friction.

The only one that still doesn't get that is you, pequaide.

.

pequaide, you need to review this post here:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6912#96912

It is a vital part of what you are still missing and continue to ignore.

.

pequaide wrote:

As far as 'moment of inertia' I am not ignoring that either;

Really pequaide? Where in your analysis do you account for your pulley's moment of inertia and the affects of accelerating it at different radii?

The effect of the pulley's Moment_of_Inertia is not the same for both runs because you are changing your drive radius. Remember your experiment with the "unsatisfactory results" where you didn't change your drive radius. What did you see when you didn't change the drive radius and screw with the effects of the pulley's Moment_of_Inertia between experiments? Your mr theory broke down. It broke down, pequaide. So you had to change your experiment where the effects of the pulley's Moment_of_Inertia was different between experiments, but got the results you want.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that there's a bus in your experiment. Almost 66% of your system mass is hanging at a 3" radius, and about the other 33% of your "system mass" is tied up in the moment of inertia of your pulley, which you are accelerating at different radii. And then there's the bowling ball and the pea (about 1% of your system mass) that you are trying to get everyone to focus on. We are trying to get you to focus on the bus in your experiment, that you are intent on ignoring. For the mass breakdown, see this post here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 654#101654


pequaide, there's a bus in your experiment. And it's not even the same bus between experiments, so you can't ignore it, which you insist on doing.

[pequaide]

Wubbly wrote: At one fourth the radius, the pully mass and the bearing friction feel like 15 kg which is SIXTEEN times heavier than experiment 1.

Well if it feels like it is 16 time heavier then why does it accelerate it like it was the same. If we view the force of 88 grams as being reduces by the one fourth radius then it is accelerating as 22 grams is at 6 inches. If it feels heavier then why doesn't it slow down?

[Wubbly]

Your input force is greater (88 grams x 9.81 instead of 22 grams x 9.81). The force number is in the numerator of the acceleration equation, which would make the fraction larger.

But it feels 16 times heaver TO THE DRIVER MASS. The 16 times is in the denominator of the acceleration equation. This would tend to make the fraction smaller.

So you are increasing the numerator by a factor of four, but a part of the demoninator is increasing by a factor of 16. This will probably make the fraction smaller depending on how major a role the piece in the denominator is playing.

But the acceleration equation was derived from the perspective of the driver mass. The driver mass for the 88 grams did have a smaller acceleration (four times smaller based on the radius being 4 times smaller than the radius of the balanced mass). So you ended up with a smaller number. But since we are concerned about the acceleration of the "balanced mass" you have to multiply that number by the appropriate scale factor to get the linear acceleration of the "balanced mass". In this case that scale factor is 4.

[Wubbly]

Apparently neither side is going to budge on pequaide's last experiment. pequaide thinks it proves his mr hypothesis, and it was shown how it is perfectly in line with the Atwoods acceleration equation that inlcudes the pulley's moment of inertia and mr².

So let's go back to his example before where he got "unsatisfactory results". He used 4 times the mass at 1/4 the radius, he kept the drive radius the same between experiments, and his "mr" theory fell apart.

Since he didn't give us his mass numbers, let's plug some numbers into the Atwoods acceleration equation and see what we get.

His pulley looks like the pulley from his last experiment, so let's assume he used the same pulley. From his last experiment we determined that his pulley has a moment of inertia of 0.0055 kg m², so let's use that number in the calculations.

----------------------
Experiment 1
For the large mass, small radius, let's use 2 x 1000 grams at a 0.75" radius.

For the drive mass, let's use 83 grams at 1.5" radius.

Let's assume his wheel made one complete revolution.

The Atwoods Acceleration equation would predict a drop time of 1.6 seconds, which is what pequaide saw.

----------------------
Experiment 2
Now let's do his other experiment.

For the small mass, large radius, let's use 2 x 250 grams at a 3" radius. (1/4 the mass at 4 times the radius)

The drive mass remains the same at 83 grams at 1.5" radius.

Let's assume his wheel made one complete revolution.

The Atwoods Acceleration equation would predict a drop time of 1.9 seconds, which is what pequaide saw.

----------------------

The Atwoods acceleration equation (which inlcudes the pulley's moment of inertia and includes mr² like terms for mass) accurately predicted the times that pequaide saw. His mr theory fell apart while the Atwoods acceleration equation accurately predicted both experimental setups.

[pequaide]

With 88 grams (.863 N) suspended from the 1.5 inch wheel I can measure 22 gf .216 newtons of force at the 6 inch wheel. This force, .216 N, will give you the same acceleration as if the 22 grams were actually at the 6 inch location. Why get more complicated than this; mr or Fr.

[Wubbly]

Because it doesn't work in all cases.

Your theory failed in your experiment at your post here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 346#101346

Your first experiment with 1x mass at 1x radius got 1.6 seconds.

Your second experiment with 4x mass at 1/4 radius got 1.9 seconds.

If your theory was correct, both times would have been the same.

Your theory failed, therefore you proved your own theory is wrong.

[pequaide]

No: I proved your theory wrong; yours is further off than mine.

I proved several thing; that I present real data not made up stuff like some others.

I proved that experiments don't always cooperate; I think the 5/16 shaft can not handle the shifting of large masses. 1000 gram or 2000 grams.

But it can handle the shifting of small masses.; 88 or 22 grams.

The 88 and 22 prove that it does work, and I have done it with levers and other wheels. So I am not bothered.

[Wubbly]

If you are using your "mr" theory to create energy, where is your experiment that creates more energy than it starts with?

You still don't have one.

You are not fooling anyone pequaide.

Well, OK, maybe you are still fooling one person. That person would be Scott, as evidenced by the fact that the energy producing thread (in which not a single microjoule of energy has ever been created), still has not been moved into the fraud section.

[nicbordeaux]

Peq, you need to build an apparatus that with a known driver weight released from a given position will fling a golfball through wubbly's window from a distance which is agreed on by all. If the energy gain is as great as you say, just make it big enough and there will be no dispute, just insurance claims.

[pequaide]

I like these drawings, I don't want the thread to be to far back.

What if you kept the force at a radius of one and changed the position of the inertial mass to one half radius?

Your mrr would be; 1 kg *1/2 r * ½ r = .25; it would be four times easier to move.

You have to be consistent. This is the same way you treated moving the mass to 2r; m * 2r* 2r. Which made it four time harder to move.

With it four times easier to move angular acceleration should be four times as great. And because the radius is only at one half. It would be moving twice as fast.

But what do experiments show?

[Wubbly]

https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLordAbo ... permPage=1

[Tarsier79]

Nice Wubbly!

Peq. When I started my experiments based on your theory, I wanted them to be correct, so at that stage I was unbiased. After 2 different forms of experiments disproving mr, atwoods and spinning levers, you accused me of making up values, even though I posted a video. After seeing, feeling and measuring the difference in rotational inertia in those tests, I cannot see how you got the values you did. I suspect it is you who is making up values to try to confirm your own unworkable theory.

Peq. Build yourself a low mass, low friction setup, where the masses form a significant part of the inertia, then perform your tests and post them with video. Video can be taken on all smart phones these days, and nearly everyone has one, so that shouldn't be too much to ask.

Repeating the same theory over and over for 100 pages does nothing without proof. There is a mountain and over 300 years of proof against you. I think it is time for you to step up, or step off. Prove your theory and you will get all the help you want. Otherwise you are just another crackpot with an inability to perform proper scientific tests.