Here is a thought: In the double Atwood's, with 20.54 kilograms on the shaft and .8964 kilograms balanced on the other side at the circumference, the energy remains the same after it moved. If the 20.54 kilograms goes down one centimeter then the .8964 kilograms goes up 22.9 cm. The 20.54 kg * 9.81 N/kg * .01 m = 2.015 joules of energy. The .8964 kg * 9.81 N/kg * .229 m = 2.014 joules.
But while they are moving the energy is not the same. If the 20.54 kilograms is moving .01 m/sec then the .8964 kilograms is moving .229 m/sec; for .001027 joules and .0235 joules. It takes 22.9 times as much energy for the .8964 kg to have the same energy change. In other words the Law of Conservation of Energy disproves itself. How can you put in different quantities of energy and get the same energy out? What kind of conservation law is that?
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
I posted a new video on the Isaac pequaide site (bottom of page 89).
It begins by showing the .903 kilogram mass (bolt, nut, washer) suspended from the 19 inch circumference. As you scan up you can see an empty clip from which the second 20.54 kilogram mass is suspended off of the shaft in other runs.
From the other clip is suspended 20.54 kilograms and 7.5 pounds (3.41 kg). This 7.5 pounds is made up of a 5 pound force and a 2.5 pound force, it is hard to see the second mass because it is behind the other.
As you scan further up you catch sight of the wheel. You can see the .75 inch shaft in the center, it is inside of the hub that bolts the shaft to the wheel. On the other side the 23.95 kilograms (20.54 + 3.41) is suspended off of the shaft on the right side.
The 20.54 kilograms off the right side is balanced by the .903 kilograms on the left side. That means that the .903 kg has a leverage advantage of 22.75 to one. It also means that the .903 kilograms is moving 22.75 times faster than the 20.54 kilograms.
I then step forward and release the wheel and I allow it to rotate one half rotation. This allows the .903 kilograms to rise .758 meters and it allows the 23.95 kilograms to drop .0333 meters. The center of mass of the 20.54 kg and the .903 kilograms is unchanged, so only the 7.5 pounds actually drops.
The wheel rotates one half rotation in less than 2 seconds.
If the .903 kilograms were to be replaced with a second 20.54 kilograms on the empty clip the rate of rotation would be the same.
The 7.5 pounds finds it no harder to rotate .903 kilograms at a diameter of 19 inches as it does to rotate 20.54 kilograms at a diameter of a little over .75 inches.
But the energy of the .903 kilograms is immensely higher.
It begins by showing the .903 kilogram mass (bolt, nut, washer) suspended from the 19 inch circumference. As you scan up you can see an empty clip from which the second 20.54 kilogram mass is suspended off of the shaft in other runs.
From the other clip is suspended 20.54 kilograms and 7.5 pounds (3.41 kg). This 7.5 pounds is made up of a 5 pound force and a 2.5 pound force, it is hard to see the second mass because it is behind the other.
As you scan further up you catch sight of the wheel. You can see the .75 inch shaft in the center, it is inside of the hub that bolts the shaft to the wheel. On the other side the 23.95 kilograms (20.54 + 3.41) is suspended off of the shaft on the right side.
The 20.54 kilograms off the right side is balanced by the .903 kilograms on the left side. That means that the .903 kg has a leverage advantage of 22.75 to one. It also means that the .903 kilograms is moving 22.75 times faster than the 20.54 kilograms.
I then step forward and release the wheel and I allow it to rotate one half rotation. This allows the .903 kilograms to rise .758 meters and it allows the 23.95 kilograms to drop .0333 meters. The center of mass of the 20.54 kg and the .903 kilograms is unchanged, so only the 7.5 pounds actually drops.
The wheel rotates one half rotation in less than 2 seconds.
If the .903 kilograms were to be replaced with a second 20.54 kilograms on the empty clip the rate of rotation would be the same.
The 7.5 pounds finds it no harder to rotate .903 kilograms at a diameter of 19 inches as it does to rotate 20.54 kilograms at a diameter of a little over .75 inches.
But the energy of the .903 kilograms is immensely higher.
re: energy producing experiments
There are two ways to make free energy. You can make energy by transferring the momentum of a large mass to a small mass, or you can place a small mass at a leverage advantage over a large gravitational force. Jim-mich's question prompted these thoughts. Both methods conserve a force time relationship.
re: energy producing experiments
On the same 5/16 inch shaft that has bearings on the ends; I have mounted a 1.5 inch wheel an 3.0 inch wheel and a 6 inch wheel. All three wheels are solidly fixed to the shaft for all runs.
I placed 2000 gram on the 1.5 inch wheel. That is with 1000 grams on each side. I then placed an extra 176 grams on one side. The wheels and shaft made one rotation in an average of .88 seconds.
I then removed the extra 176 grams on the 1.5 inch wheel and replaced it with 44 grams on the 6 inch wheel. The wheels and shaft made one rotation in .87 seconds on the first run.
I then removed the 2000 grams from the 1.5 inch location and placed it on the 6 inch wheel, and I added an extra 44 grams. The wheel and shaft made one rotation in an average of 2.43 second.
I then removed the extra 44 grams on the 6 inch location and placed 176 grams on the 1.5 inch location. The wheels and shaft did one rotation in an average of 2.44 seconds.
There is still a lot of energy being lost to the bearings; but the point is that 176 grams dropped a certain distance can accelerate 2000 grams to the same velocity whether or not it is at a radius disadvantage. In fact; the 2000 grams is moving a little faster when it is at the 6 inch wheel instead of the 1.5 inch wheel. Which is probably caused by bearing resistance. ???
Experiments show that: If you had a perfect bearing set; both inertial mass and the drive forces will always be in an mr or Fr relationship.
With 88 grams on one side at 3 inches and 2000 grams at the 6 inch wheel. The rotation is a little faster at 2.40 seconds for one rotation. Well within experimental error. We have 176 * 1.5 = 88 * 3 = 44 * 6 = 264: which is mr or Fr.
The 2000 grams (in this experiment) has .7878 units of momentum. For 176 grams to have .7878 units of momentum it would be moving 4.476 m/sec and would be able to rise 1.02 meters. The 176 grams was dropped .1196 meters.
.176 kg * .1196 m * 9.81 N/kg is .2065 joules and .176 kg * 1.02 m * 9.81 N/kg = 1.761 joules.
I placed 2000 gram on the 1.5 inch wheel. That is with 1000 grams on each side. I then placed an extra 176 grams on one side. The wheels and shaft made one rotation in an average of .88 seconds.
I then removed the extra 176 grams on the 1.5 inch wheel and replaced it with 44 grams on the 6 inch wheel. The wheels and shaft made one rotation in .87 seconds on the first run.
I then removed the 2000 grams from the 1.5 inch location and placed it on the 6 inch wheel, and I added an extra 44 grams. The wheel and shaft made one rotation in an average of 2.43 second.
I then removed the extra 44 grams on the 6 inch location and placed 176 grams on the 1.5 inch location. The wheels and shaft did one rotation in an average of 2.44 seconds.
There is still a lot of energy being lost to the bearings; but the point is that 176 grams dropped a certain distance can accelerate 2000 grams to the same velocity whether or not it is at a radius disadvantage. In fact; the 2000 grams is moving a little faster when it is at the 6 inch wheel instead of the 1.5 inch wheel. Which is probably caused by bearing resistance. ???
Experiments show that: If you had a perfect bearing set; both inertial mass and the drive forces will always be in an mr or Fr relationship.
With 88 grams on one side at 3 inches and 2000 grams at the 6 inch wheel. The rotation is a little faster at 2.40 seconds for one rotation. Well within experimental error. We have 176 * 1.5 = 88 * 3 = 44 * 6 = 264: which is mr or Fr.
The 2000 grams (in this experiment) has .7878 units of momentum. For 176 grams to have .7878 units of momentum it would be moving 4.476 m/sec and would be able to rise 1.02 meters. The 176 grams was dropped .1196 meters.
.176 kg * .1196 m * 9.81 N/kg is .2065 joules and .176 kg * 1.02 m * 9.81 N/kg = 1.761 joules.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
Hi Pequaide - you are onto something, but you need another angle to convince the nay sayers.
Go back to linear mechanisms, so you can avoid all this confusion about angular momentum etc.
Most of us are too lazy to try to follow your exact experiments, so we need basic concepts rather than exact measurements.
This thread is so full of rubbish that it really should be closed and start afresh.
Go back to linear mechanisms, so you can avoid all this confusion about angular momentum etc.
Most of us are too lazy to try to follow your exact experiments, so we need basic concepts rather than exact measurements.
This thread is so full of rubbish that it really should be closed and start afresh.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
Linear mechanisms won't show the same results. What peq is seeing is centrifugal in action.
Just one more message, folks, makes page 91.
Just one more message, folks, makes page 91.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
re: energy producing experiments
Hmmm, another theory in tatters...nicbordeaux wrote:Just one more message, folks, makes page 91.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
When a bullet strikes a ring in the side, with the masses in line, we know that linear Newtonian momentum is conserved.
We also have tons of experiments were a bullet strikes a ring tangent and linear Newtonian momentum is conserved.
I don't know how anything else, other than Linear Newtonian Momentum, can be envisioned when the ring gives the motion back. All experiments prove it is Linear Newtonian Momentum.
We also have tons of experiments were a bullet strikes a ring tangent and linear Newtonian momentum is conserved.
I don't know how anything else, other than Linear Newtonian Momentum, can be envisioned when the ring gives the motion back. All experiments prove it is Linear Newtonian Momentum.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
That isn't in dispute. Linear motion is conserved at 100% MINUS energy losses which are manifest as noise, vibration and deformation of the materials, energy necessary to overcome "moment of inertia". Even in a perfect world for conservation at 100 %, you would still be at slightly less than 1 to 1 , not energy gain.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
re: energy producing experiments
I found a stack of old photographs in a drawer; this one was first to catch my eye.
This is a strobe light photograph of a black cylinder; I also painted the spheres black. The strobe is flashing about 50 times per second. As I recall my procedure was to turn on the strobe light, open the camera lens; and trigger the mechanical release on the mechanical arms that were spinning the cylinder at 3.25 rps. The cylinder appears white because the strobe light hits it for a half second before release. The black cylinder is marked with a white triangle. You can see that the spin of the white triangle is stopping as it drops below the white exposed area.
The triangle is noticeable dropping after it has moved a few centimeters to the left of the release point of the spheres. The cylinder will not be accelerating when the tether strings enter the slits in the wall of the cylinder. While in the slit the cylinder may be spinning forwards, sometimes backwards, or it may be stopped. If the cylinder has exactly the correct mass the cylinder's rotation will be stopped. When the cylinder is stopped the back side of the triangle will form a straight vertical line. This pictured cylinder is a little light.
Once you achieved the vertical straight line the addition of just a few grams to the cylinder will skew the line with the cylinder moving forward. The removal of just a few grams from the cylinder will skew the line with the cylinder moving backward.
You can then remove 300 grams from a 2 inch radius cylinder and replace it with 200 grams at a radius of 3 inches. The vertical line will not be skewed even though there is a 50% increase in kinetic energy. Therefore the experiment disproves the law of conservation of energy, and mrr.
It is less demanding to do this with a frame by frame video tape, then you just hold a paper on the monitor and watch the angle of the drop. But I though you might be interested in seeing this old picture.
This is a strobe light photograph of a black cylinder; I also painted the spheres black. The strobe is flashing about 50 times per second. As I recall my procedure was to turn on the strobe light, open the camera lens; and trigger the mechanical release on the mechanical arms that were spinning the cylinder at 3.25 rps. The cylinder appears white because the strobe light hits it for a half second before release. The black cylinder is marked with a white triangle. You can see that the spin of the white triangle is stopping as it drops below the white exposed area.
The triangle is noticeable dropping after it has moved a few centimeters to the left of the release point of the spheres. The cylinder will not be accelerating when the tether strings enter the slits in the wall of the cylinder. While in the slit the cylinder may be spinning forwards, sometimes backwards, or it may be stopped. If the cylinder has exactly the correct mass the cylinder's rotation will be stopped. When the cylinder is stopped the back side of the triangle will form a straight vertical line. This pictured cylinder is a little light.
Once you achieved the vertical straight line the addition of just a few grams to the cylinder will skew the line with the cylinder moving forward. The removal of just a few grams from the cylinder will skew the line with the cylinder moving backward.
You can then remove 300 grams from a 2 inch radius cylinder and replace it with 200 grams at a radius of 3 inches. The vertical line will not be skewed even though there is a 50% increase in kinetic energy. Therefore the experiment disproves the law of conservation of energy, and mrr.
It is less demanding to do this with a frame by frame video tape, then you just hold a paper on the monitor and watch the angle of the drop. But I though you might be interested in seeing this old picture.
re: energy producing experiments
Hi all,
I have decided to make an experiment which would bring clarity to this subject. I have taken few photos but I cant work our how to upload them here.
For the centre bearing I have used new computer fan and stripped from it what wasn't needed.
I have glued both sides of the bearing assembly onto soft timber blocks using flexible epoxy paste.
The rotor remnant (after removing fins) had OD exactly 40mm where the string is wound on.
I have drilled 2 parallel holes ID 6.5mm 30mm spaced in the timber block of the rotor and passed through the holes 2 round wooden rods 6mm OD x 1200mm long, securing it in centre position with 5mm neoprene O rings. This rotor complete with wooden rods assembled weighted exactly 53g.
For the string I have used braded fishing line 0.2mm OD.
As the suspended weight on the end of the string I have screwed together few plumbing fittings with combined weight of 171.5 g
For adjustable / removable rotor weights I have used square washers (total of 4) and drilled in each of them two 6.5mm OD holes to fit onto the wooden rods. The weights were secured in position with neoprene O rings 5mm OD.
These 4 weights and O rings weighted together 163.2g => each of these weights when in position would have average weight of 40.8g
I have used stop watch to obtain times and eyesight to judge positions.
I have repeated every step 3 times / took 3 readings
The data gathered.
Rotor with wooden rods R= 600mm / without any weights attached on on it
Time to obtain first 3 rotations (2.4s / 2.3s / 2.4s)
Rotor with 2 weights (40.8g each) on rotor spaced 1180mm apart (R=590mm)
Time to obtain first 3 rotations (6.1s / 6.0s / 6.1s)
Time it took for the string weight to drop first 1.100mm (9.8s / 9.7s / 9.8s)
Rotor with 2 double weights (81.6g each) on rotor spaced 590mm apart (R=295mm)
Time to obtain first 3 rotations (4.6s / 4.6s / 4.7s)
Time it took for the string weight to drop first 1.100mm (11.3s / 11.5s / 11.4s)
Conclusion
Pequaide phenomenon not confirmed.
Can somebody with suitable software please crunch the numbers and check for any meaningful deviation from the currently accepted theories ?
I have decided to make an experiment which would bring clarity to this subject. I have taken few photos but I cant work our how to upload them here.
For the centre bearing I have used new computer fan and stripped from it what wasn't needed.
I have glued both sides of the bearing assembly onto soft timber blocks using flexible epoxy paste.
The rotor remnant (after removing fins) had OD exactly 40mm where the string is wound on.
I have drilled 2 parallel holes ID 6.5mm 30mm spaced in the timber block of the rotor and passed through the holes 2 round wooden rods 6mm OD x 1200mm long, securing it in centre position with 5mm neoprene O rings. This rotor complete with wooden rods assembled weighted exactly 53g.
For the string I have used braded fishing line 0.2mm OD.
As the suspended weight on the end of the string I have screwed together few plumbing fittings with combined weight of 171.5 g
For adjustable / removable rotor weights I have used square washers (total of 4) and drilled in each of them two 6.5mm OD holes to fit onto the wooden rods. The weights were secured in position with neoprene O rings 5mm OD.
These 4 weights and O rings weighted together 163.2g => each of these weights when in position would have average weight of 40.8g
I have used stop watch to obtain times and eyesight to judge positions.
I have repeated every step 3 times / took 3 readings
The data gathered.
Rotor with wooden rods R= 600mm / without any weights attached on on it
Time to obtain first 3 rotations (2.4s / 2.3s / 2.4s)
Rotor with 2 weights (40.8g each) on rotor spaced 1180mm apart (R=590mm)
Time to obtain first 3 rotations (6.1s / 6.0s / 6.1s)
Time it took for the string weight to drop first 1.100mm (9.8s / 9.7s / 9.8s)
Rotor with 2 double weights (81.6g each) on rotor spaced 590mm apart (R=295mm)
Time to obtain first 3 rotations (4.6s / 4.6s / 4.7s)
Time it took for the string weight to drop first 1.100mm (11.3s / 11.5s / 11.4s)
Conclusion
Pequaide phenomenon not confirmed.
Can somebody with suitable software please crunch the numbers and check for any meaningful deviation from the currently accepted theories ?
re: energy producing experiments
honza
Opp's forgot I was kicked out 8/
Please, you will have to stand in the back of the line 8PConclusion
Pequaide phenomenon not confirmed.
Opp's forgot I was kicked out 8/
What goes around, comes around.