Click here for instructions on how to upload pictures. Note that you can go back and edit your post (up to 24 hours later) to add the picture.honza wrote:but I cant work our how to upload them here.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
You have 6.1 sec with 9.8 second, and 4.6 seconds with 11.4 second. You need to doctor your numbers a little more carefully.
re: energy producing experiments
I am repeating the cylinder and spheres experiment with a little longer tether.
To produce the same event in the upper cylinder you need a mass of 443 g for a 4.25 inch diameter lower cylinder or 606 g for a 3.25 inch diameter lower cylinder. This is within 5 % of momentum conservation and 25 % from energy conservation. If you use statistical probability this would make momentum conservation probable and energy conservation extremely improbable.
Or the cylinder and spheres is making energy.
The upper cylinder has a mass of 234 g and the spheres 132 grams, So this is a missile to wheel ratio of roughly (606 g * 3.25/3.75) = 525 g + 234 g +132 g = 132 / 891 1/7. I view the event with frame by frame video.
I think some pictures of the old one are on page three.
To produce the same event in the upper cylinder you need a mass of 443 g for a 4.25 inch diameter lower cylinder or 606 g for a 3.25 inch diameter lower cylinder. This is within 5 % of momentum conservation and 25 % from energy conservation. If you use statistical probability this would make momentum conservation probable and energy conservation extremely improbable.
Or the cylinder and spheres is making energy.
The upper cylinder has a mass of 234 g and the spheres 132 grams, So this is a missile to wheel ratio of roughly (606 g * 3.25/3.75) = 525 g + 234 g +132 g = 132 / 891 1/7. I view the event with frame by frame video.
I think some pictures of the old one are on page three.
re: energy producing experiments
Thanks for the guidance re uploading photos.
Here thy are.
Here thy are.
- Attachments
-
-
-
-
re: energy producing experiments
You are right pequaide. When typing in the numbers from my hand written page I have misplace them.You have 6.1 sec with 9.8 second, and 4.6 seconds with 11.4 second. You need to doctor your numbers a little more carefully
The correct record is as follows:
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 (11.3s / 11.5s / 11.4s)
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 (9.8s / 9.7s / 9.8s)
re: energy producing experiments
After the flexing of the three rotation start up; they both take 5.2 seconds to cover the same remaining distance. I will let you tell me what that 5.2 seconds means.
re: energy producing experiments
If the 81.6 g half radius is rotating faster and has a double acceleration rate then why does it cover the same remaining (after the three rotations) distance in the same time (5.2 to 5.3 seconds)?
Even though the 40.8 grams at one radius stalls at first (flex) it seems to have caught up by the end of the first three rotations. Not only is the rotational velocity (of the 81.6 g at half radius) similar to the 40.8 g at one radius but the angular acceleration rate has to be similar as well.
The fact that the two spinning arrangements cover the remaining distance (from the end of the first three rotations) in the same period of time confirms that they have the same rate of angular acceleration. If the short radius, with twice the mass, had twice the acceleration it would be ripping through this distance; but it is not.
I have done this type of experiment at least four times with different devices and I also got F = ma results. And this experiment also confirmations that an equal quantity of momentum is produced in the two arrangements; not equal quantities of energy. The energy of the two is very different.
Even though the 40.8 grams at one radius stalls at first (flex) it seems to have caught up by the end of the first three rotations. Not only is the rotational velocity (of the 81.6 g at half radius) similar to the 40.8 g at one radius but the angular acceleration rate has to be similar as well.
The fact that the two spinning arrangements cover the remaining distance (from the end of the first three rotations) in the same period of time confirms that they have the same rate of angular acceleration. If the short radius, with twice the mass, had twice the acceleration it would be ripping through this distance; but it is not.
I have done this type of experiment at least four times with different devices and I also got F = ma results. And this experiment also confirmations that an equal quantity of momentum is produced in the two arrangements; not equal quantities of energy. The energy of the two is very different.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: energy producing experiments
And yet another experiment pequaide forces himself not to see.
Honza used the same input torque to accelerate twice the mass at half the radius.
If pequaide's "mr" hypothesis were correct, they would have the same drop time.
6.1 seconds is not equal to 4.7 seconds, and yet pequaide forces himself not to see it.
11.4 seconds is not equal to 9.8 seconds, and yet pequaide forces himself not to see it.
OOp's forgot I was kicked out 8/
Honza used the same input torque to accelerate twice the mass at half the radius.
If pequaide's "mr" hypothesis were correct, they would have the same drop time.
6.1 seconds is not equal to 4.7 seconds, and yet pequaide forces himself not to see it.
11.4 seconds is not equal to 9.8 seconds, and yet pequaide forces himself not to see it.
If they had the same rate of angular acceleration, the times would have been the same. pequaide, 6.1 seconds is not equal to 4.7 seconds, and 11.4 seconds is not equal to 9.8 seconds. What don't you understand about this? Apparently Torque and Moment_Of_Inertia are not the only rotational concepts pequaide is confused about. Now we can add angular acceleration to the list..pequaide wrote: ... in the same period of time confirms that they have the same rate of angular acceleration.
OOp's forgot I was kicked out 8/
re: energy producing experiments
Wuggly; go away; please do not read this thread and please do not post here.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: energy producing experiments
pequaide, I don't read it. I only skim it occasionally, and I try to keep one eye closed. Seriously, you had to force yourself not to see that the Honza experiment did not conform to your hypothesis that you supposedly use to create energy. I'll stop skimming this thread when it gets moved into the fraud section (or the jokes section) - either one would be appropriate.
honza, if you want to duplicate pequaide's results, you need to use really stiff bearings. Fill them with honey if possible, or a really thick wheel bearing grease so most of the energy goes into overcoming bearing friction and skews the results into the meaningless. Also, a really massive flywheel can be used instead of those light dowels. The more massive the better. Then instead of using a constant input torque to accelerate the system, you need to vary the input torque to further skew the analysis. Then you will be able to reproduce his "energy producing experiments" where, after final analysis, they end with less energy than they started with.
honza, your numbers are in line with what the 3 mass atwoods spreadsheet predicts. The drop times in the attachment are highlighted in yellow.
If you want the Excel file, the Atwoods 3 mass spreadsheet can be found at this post here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 617#101617
I had to manually input various moment of inertia numbers to "dial-in" the moment of inertia of your rods, but once that was determined, the same MOI number was used for all three experiments. pequaide might think this is "working the numbers backwards", but I didn't feel like pulling out the physics book and looking up the MOI calculation for a rod.
edited to add:
- Just looked up the MOI of a rod rotated about its center. It's I = 1/12 * m * L². Your rotor and rod assembly had a mass of 53g. If all of this mass was rod mass (which it isn't), the MOI would calculate out to 0.00636 kg m², which is fairly close to the .0051 kg m² that was obtained by working the numbers backward. If you put the .00636 number into the spreadsheet, the drop times change by a few hundredths of a second. I would have to say that Honza's experiment conforms to the known laws of physics, and the pequaide hypothesis of "mr" is yet again debunked.
honza, if you want to duplicate pequaide's results, you need to use really stiff bearings. Fill them with honey if possible, or a really thick wheel bearing grease so most of the energy goes into overcoming bearing friction and skews the results into the meaningless. Also, a really massive flywheel can be used instead of those light dowels. The more massive the better. Then instead of using a constant input torque to accelerate the system, you need to vary the input torque to further skew the analysis. Then you will be able to reproduce his "energy producing experiments" where, after final analysis, they end with less energy than they started with.
honza, your numbers are in line with what the 3 mass atwoods spreadsheet predicts. The drop times in the attachment are highlighted in yellow.
If you want the Excel file, the Atwoods 3 mass spreadsheet can be found at this post here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 617#101617
I had to manually input various moment of inertia numbers to "dial-in" the moment of inertia of your rods, but once that was determined, the same MOI number was used for all three experiments. pequaide might think this is "working the numbers backwards", but I didn't feel like pulling out the physics book and looking up the MOI calculation for a rod.
edited to add:
- Just looked up the MOI of a rod rotated about its center. It's I = 1/12 * m * L². Your rotor and rod assembly had a mass of 53g. If all of this mass was rod mass (which it isn't), the MOI would calculate out to 0.00636 kg m², which is fairly close to the .0051 kg m² that was obtained by working the numbers backward. If you put the .00636 number into the spreadsheet, the drop times change by a few hundredths of a second. I would have to say that Honza's experiment conforms to the known laws of physics, and the pequaide hypothesis of "mr" is yet again debunked.
- Attachments
-
re: energy producing experiments
Good work Wubby.
I am hopeless with any software so I am grateful for your presentation of results.
There is no more doubt in my mind.
I am hopeless with any software so I am grateful for your presentation of results.
There is no more doubt in my mind.
re: energy producing experiments
They are moving at the same speed 5.2 seconds. How can you look at the data but then turn to some fake software. But Wubbley does his dirty work again.
Honza; I am not irritated with you but start your own thread. If you choose to fail don't fill space here.
Honza; I am not irritated with you but start your own thread. If you choose to fail don't fill space here.
re: energy producing experiments
Failing by choice is endemic :D
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: energy producing experiments
Actually honza, there was something wrong with your post. Three turns would be a 0.377 meter drop of the driver mass. This was done in 6.1 or 4.6 seconds. Then you say a 1.1 millimeter drop takes more time than a 0.377 meter drop. Obviously a typing error in there somewhere.
There never should have been any doubt. People have been looking into pequaide's posts for years and have only found failure to create excess energy.honza wrote:There is no more doubt in my mind
Yes, it is a dirty job trying to decipher pequaide posts and look for the holes, but someone's gotta do it.pequaide wrote: Wubbley does his dirty work again.
re: energy producing experiments
If the 81.6 gram had an angular acceleration that was twice as fast; it would cover the distance from the end of three rotations to the end of a 1.1 meter fall of the drive mass in 3.67 seconds. You told us it was 5.2 seconds.
If it had the same angular acceleration it would be 5.2 seconds. You told us it was 5.2 seconds.
If you can’t do the math you are at the mercy of the charlatans with the magic software.
I stayed awake in high school physics; I know the formulas, and I can do the math.
You know Wubbly its funny: I have never once looked for or depended upon a piece of software, to do for me, or even to show me how to do high school physics problems. But neither do I hang out on threads where I know I am not welcome.
Honza: You are hardly approaching your own experiment with an open mind; it is telling you momentum is produced not energy. I have done these experiments backwards and forwards; it is momentum. But if you don’t believe this; then start a tread and tell everybody it can’t be done. I don’t think it is too much to ask that one measly tread is left to those that think it can be done.
Your experiment is a good one; but you have to be ready to let it tell you something.
Wubbly; I hold a piece of paper over your posts, I suggest you do the same for mine. Go away.
If it had the same angular acceleration it would be 5.2 seconds. You told us it was 5.2 seconds.
If you can’t do the math you are at the mercy of the charlatans with the magic software.
I stayed awake in high school physics; I know the formulas, and I can do the math.
You know Wubbly its funny: I have never once looked for or depended upon a piece of software, to do for me, or even to show me how to do high school physics problems. But neither do I hang out on threads where I know I am not welcome.
Honza: You are hardly approaching your own experiment with an open mind; it is telling you momentum is produced not energy. I have done these experiments backwards and forwards; it is momentum. But if you don’t believe this; then start a tread and tell everybody it can’t be done. I don’t think it is too much to ask that one measly tread is left to those that think it can be done.
Your experiment is a good one; but you have to be ready to let it tell you something.
Wubbly; I hold a piece of paper over your posts, I suggest you do the same for mine. Go away.