Smith66 should be banned.

[cloud camper]

OK Ralph, I think I see what you're driving at.

CP is simply the force that MUST EXIST that allows a rotating system to rotate as a system.

This is because a rotating system is an INHERENTLY MORE COMPLEX dynamic system than a non-rotating one, requiring the CP force for all elements of the rotating system to remain in equilibrium.

If the CP force did not exist, then everything in the system would continue in a non-accelerated linear path of least action.

So CP is the force that is required to cause all elements of a rotating system to accelerate toward the axis of rotation.

The interesting thing about rotation is that the inward accelerating CP force does not affect the rotational velocity (rim speed) since the CP force is at 90 degrees to the rim direction of rotation.

This is exactly why CP does no work on the system since there is no force
being applied in the direction of rotation, only at 90 degrees to it.

So the CP force is not an impediment to velocity at the rim, only the direction of travel.

We can compare this to accelerating your car. The forward force provided by the engine in this case is required to cause all elements of the vehicle to accelerate toward the horizon.

In the case of the car, the difference is that the accelerating force is directly in line with the direction of the car's travel, so in this case physical work is required to do the acceleration.

A velocity vector of a mass (say the child) is made up of both a scalar quantity (speed) plus a directional quantity (the instantaneous direction of travel at any given instant).

CP only affects the directional part of the velocity vector for a mass in rotation, not the scalar part (rim speed).

And yes, the CP force appears as if by magic when the child makes the decision to translate from a non-rotating environment to a rotating one since a rotating system REQUIRES an inward CP force to continually balance the inertial resistance of the child trying to resume a linear path.

The same CP force instantly disappears when the child decides to no longer be part of the rotating system and destroys the CP force by letting go of the wheel handles, causing the child to depart the wheel, simultaneously eliminating inertial resistance to rotation (CF).

The reason the CP force instantly appears and disappears is because the child is going across the boundary condition between a non-rotating system and a rotating one, where the rotating environment physically requires the inward accelerating CP force to maintain equilibrium.

[rlortie]

Cloud camper,

Your doing a fine job of explaining Cp as a force.

CP is simply the force that MUST EXIST that allows a rotating system to rotate as a system.

But I will stick to my version which in your terms reads as follows:

Cp is not a force, its an impediment that MUST EXIST making for a rotating system to rotate. A physical entity or mass that is present whether the rotating object is moving or not.

Jim_Mitch writes:

If, for some reason, CF is stronger than the restraining CP, then the object in question will be moved outward by the CF.

If Cf is stronger than the impediment creating Cp then the object is free to travel a straight course leaving the former axis of its rotational path at a tangent.

If, CF is weaker than the restraining CP, then the object in question will be pulled inward by the CP.

Cf will not be pulled in unless the physical impediment creating Cp is also moved inward which will reduce the fictional force of Cf. Cf is rated by mass, radius and velocity. Cp is a fixed entity and does not change with mass, radius or velocity.

Why am I being so Knit-picky, you may ask: It has to do with the following that daxwc wrote on another thread.

Edited for brevity:

Strangely Bessler’s words seem to imply there is no net gain in PE. Can pure horizontal displacement be used to generate energy; science says no, but a fulcrum moving horizontally varies the force on a load.

We can vary the fulcrum on a horizontal referenced load, or we can vary the horizontal load on each side of the fulcrum. I take sides with William Kenrick and his molecular disquisition on movement. and pursue the latter.

Tarsier79 will not see this as I am on his "ignore list" but can you think of a better way to move (vary a load) on a fulcrum horizontally than using a Newtonian fluid that seeks its own level, regardless of volume?

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Jim_Mitch writes:

If, for some reason, CF is stronger than the restraining CP, then the object in question will be moved outward by the CF.

If Cf is stronger than the impediment creating Cp then the object is free to travel a straight course leaving the former axis of its rotational path at a tangent.

Your answer implies that you think I'm saying CF makes the object fly straight outward when released. We both know that is not true. The object tries to keep moving at a tangent, in the direction that it already moving.

Everyone looks at just two conditions. They look at an object held in place, where CF equals CP. And they look at where an object is totally released and flies away at a tangent.

But there exists a middle ground where the object is partially restrained and partially allowed to move outward within a rotating environment. In such a case the object's true trajectory is an outward spiral. And in this special middle ground case, the momentum of the object in conjunction with the object being forced to keep up with the wheel as the object moves outwards, results in a unique situation. The object produces a CF that is greater than the CP. If the two forces were equal the object would not and could not move outward. Thus an unbalanced force is brought into existence.

The object is forced to accelerate as it moves outward so as to keep up with the faster speed of the wheel surface at the increased radial distance. If the weight was not forced to accelerate to the faster speed, then it would force the wheel to decelerate to match the speed of the weight. In reality the wheel and the weight compromise. The combined momentum of the weight and the wheel is conserved and maintained. The weight gains velocity and momentum as the wheel loses velocity and momentum.

So... if a weight is held stationary by CP on a rotating wheel... no work is done. The weight does not move relative to the wheel.

And... if a weight is totally released from a rotating wheel... no work is done. The weight is no longer part of the rotating system. It flies away at a tangent.

But... if the CF is only partially countered by restraining centripetal forces within the rotating system... then work is done... the weight is accelerated by its own CF, coupled with having a limited outward trajectory path.

Of course the usual BS will be thrown around by cloud camper as he tries to convince us that CF is 'fictitious' and therefore cannot do any real work.

But in reality, in this middle ground between a weight held by CP or released completely from CP, there exists situations where CF causes weight to accelerate and causes work to be produced, i.e., force times distance. And of course, like all situations involving weight movement within a wheel, the weight needs to be reset.

Of course all this is well-known physics that cloud camper ignores at his convenience or he is ignorant of the facts that CF can in certain situations produce limited work.

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich,

Please learn to assimilate or absorb what is written before responding.

I wrote:

If Cf is stronger than the impediment creating Cp then the object is free to travel a straight course leaving the former axis of its rotational path at a tangent.

You wrote in response:

Your answer implies that you think I'm saying CF makes the object fly straight outward when released. We both know that is not true. The object tries to keep moving at a tangent, in the direction that it already moving.

A "straight course" does not imply that is flying straight out from its former axis. You say and I say it is moving in a straight line at a tangent from its original radial path axis.

This is my last post regarding this subject, I have posted my opinion and any farther discussion, I consider futile and does not interest me, or change my view of the topic.

Ralph

[daanopperman]

Hi jim_mich ,

Please explain why the weight increases in velocity , as I don't think the weight will move faster , the wheel will slow down , that's all .

[jim_mich]

Dann, don't confuse weight velocity with rotational speed.

When the weight moves outward its velocity increases. But the rotational speed of the weight and the wheel are tied together. The rotational speed of both decrease.

Since momentum is conserved in such a cases, the velocity of the weight increases to absorb the momentum lost as the wheel slows down. The total RPM decreases. The rotational velocity of the wheel decreases. The actual velocity of the weight increases so that it can keep up with the rotational velocity of the wheel at the increased radial distance.

[rlortie]

daan,

Hang a pivotal rod and pendulum close to the wheels outer perimeter, make the rod slightly longer than pivot to axle radius. Now allow the pendulum to pull down on the wheel starting at just past 12:00.

Just before the bob hits the outer rim place a stop protruding from the rim that contacts the lever forcing the bob inward as it continues fall. The bob is now in a state of angular momentum and velocity.

Once the rod contacts the stop you will see a very noticeable increase in rotational speed. In fact, your pendulum dropping from 12:00 will produce acceleration and torque to carry the wheel up to 200+ degrees using the pivot point for reference.

If interested I can explain how to reconfigure the pendulum rod by off-setting it, (I used a 1/2" EMT 'L' and tubing for rod) bringing travel up to 270 degrees. The object is to gain enough radial travel and OB in the the offset bob and rod to fall inward cantilevering over the axle.

Unfortunately I never achieved enough momentum to bring the pivot point back to 12:00. Once it ran out of inertia it would stop. There was little to no fall-back.

Ralph

[cloud camper]

Ralph

Why am I being so Knit-picky, you may ask: It has to do with the following that daxwc wrote on another thread.

Strangely Bessler’s words seem to imply there is no net gain in PE. Can pure horizontal displacement be used to generate energy; science says no, but a fulcrum moving horizontally varies the force on a load.

We can vary the fulcrum on a horizontal referenced load, or we can vary the horizontal load on each side of the fulcrum. I take sides with William Kenrick and his molecular disquisition on movement. and pursue the latter.
Ralph

Yes, absolutely, this is what Bessler was showing us in all the MT's, encouraging us to think "laterally" with all the stork's bills and tongs.

Unfortunately this cannot be achieved while weights are still rotating with the wheel as we run smack into the "work for distance" or "height for width" issue, which includes the effects of CF. This is simply the result of the first law in action.

A mechanism must be found that translates the weights exactly horizontally apart from the other weights still circulating with the wheel.

The only way energy can be created internal to the wheel is by translating weights laterally out from the center axis to the rim before letting them fall. This is a rotational PE (torque) creation process that does not violate the 1st law as the horizontally translating weights are not part of the rotating system during this time interval.

Vertical PE (mgh) cannot be a power source as this is simply a wash in the overall rise and fall of the weights. It is the creation of rotational PE internal to the mechanism that creates a differential torque powering the wheel.

daanopperman

Please explain why the weight increases in velocity , as I don't think the weight will move faster , the wheel will slow down , that's all.

Yes, absolutely daano. As a weight moves out to the rim in a spiral path due to a temporary reduction in CP, the weight is forced to accelerate as it
is moving to a larger radius. Unfortunately, this increase in speed must be paid for by reducing the rpm of the entire wheel, as called for by the 1st law preserving total angular momentum (AM) of the wheel.

This shows that there is no energy in CF. If there were energy in CF, the weight would gain a radial component of velocity that would be observed if and when it left the wheel.

But this never happens. The only velocity a weight retains when it leaves the rim is strictly a tangential one. Therefore there is no energy in CF that is not paid for by the overall wheel slowing down conserving AM by the first law.

JM has made the fatal error here of confusing inertial resistance to rotation as an actual force. This is exactly why physics calls CF a fictitious force as it only APPEARS to be a force. If CF were an actual force, we would have been zipping around in CF powered vehicles long ago.

If JM ever chose to construct his fabulous flipper widget, he would discover his obvious error. And JM cannot describe any plausible mechanism that would bypass the 1st law in a rotating system.

Inertial resistance (CF) is not a force, only a resistance to the CP force. It takes work to overcome inertial resistance but inertial resistance never performs work as it only tries to resume linear non-accelerated motion.

In JM's flawed example of the cellphone sliding across the dashboard when the car's wheels are turned and then supposedly performing work,
JM has ignored the fact that the cellphone never did anything but continue in a linear unaccelerated path.

An object just continuing in a straight path does not spontaneously gain energy. It can only resist energy trying to deflect it's linear path of least
action.

This exactly explains why the wheel must slow down as the weight moves out. This is not a case of producing energy, rather a case of requiring energy which is then subtracted from the remaining AM of the wheel in complete accordance with the 1st law.

[jim_mich]

Inertial resistance (CF) is not a force.

Since when is a force (i.e., centrifugal force) NOT a force? Go back to grade school and learn the real meaning of words.

[Fletcher]

Interesting discussion fella's ..

Last night I updated an old sim I built about 6 years ago, when jim_mich got serious about Cf's - I added more Outputs & Inputs & tidied it up a bit.

It is s'Gravesande's horizontal spinning disk experiment [in 2D] where a Cf mass can slide outwards [tangentially] under rotation & raise a Lift Mass via a pulley - I wanted the experiment to use a gravity Drive Mass as input energy to establish rotation & an Energy Budget approach, & so I used an external pulley/flywheel.

You can change the Platform vertical position by changing the Input from -4.0 m to say -5.2 m, & any other Input you want.

The sim predicts an increase in the Cf Masses velocity as long as the Drive Mass is still falling.

Cf/Cpf starts to raise the Lift Mass once Cf/Cp rises above 9.80665 N's at about 45 rpm - for the Cf Mass to double its radius the Cf/Cp force rises to around 40 N.

It appears to be a ZERO ENERGY SUM game when energies are Netted Out as you can see in the Outputs.

If you think there is a bug in the build or I have failed to take account of anything important or got it all wrong then either fix it & repost the sim or discuss it.

cheers.

[eccentrically1]

It didn't explode from all that force calculation?
It must be a built in sceptical bias so you can't program it to design perpetual motion.

[jim_mich]

Cloud camper, you do realize that you are only digger yourself deeper into an ever deeper hole. You keep mentioning the "1st law". You don't even understand the meaning of the words you're using.

The First Law is usually considered to be Newton's First Law of Motion which states, "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." And of course there is the Second Law of Motion that concerns acceleration of a body, and the Third Law of Motion that concerns equal and opposite forces.

But it seems that the "1st law" that you keep mentioning has a longer name. It is called the First Law of Thermodynamics. It has this longer name for good reason. The First Law of Thermodynamics is concerned with the conversion of energy from one form to another. This law states that when energy is converted from form to form, there is no spontaneous gain or loss of energy. Thus when converted back to its first form, the amount of energy remains the same, when losses of friction and such are accounted for. The First Law of Thermodynamics basically relates to heat engines and similar situations. It is not an all-inclusive law.

The second Law of Thermodynamics also relates to heat engines and says that the internal entropy always increases, thus the usable energy within the system always decreases. This is because heat is the source of the energy. And as the heat differential is used up, the usable energy of the system is also used up. This is a prime reason why PM is considered as impossible. The assumption is that conversion of heat to motion is the only method of producing work, (You can argue this fact, but all harnessable forces trace back to pressure caused by heat.)

Probably what you are really meant to write, cloud camper, is the Conservation of Energy Law which states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change — it is said to be conserved over time. This law says energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change form; for instance, chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy and heat energy to kinetic energy.

The Conservation of Energy Law is based upon the belief that perpetual motion is impossible. It tries to use the First Law of Thermodynamics as proof. James Clerk Maxwell showed why such concepts of are not valid. His Demon shows that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a certainty. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically probable.

If you have a way of separating, sorting, or manipulating kinetic motion so as to condense it from one material into another material, then you have increased the amount of usable energy without increasing the total energy. Such a process would not break any of the previously mentioned laws. One must understand the limits of each of these laws.

If a PM wheel gains usable energy without gaining total energy then no laws are broken. If the usable energy is then used to cause increased wheel rotation, again no laws are broken. These are two separate processes, one follows the other which then increases the first.

[rlortie]

JIM_Mich, cloud camper, daan,

Jim wrote:

When the weight moves outward its velocity increases. But the rotational speed of the weight and the wheel are tied together. The rotational speed of both decrease.

Your missing one major item that I explained about a pivotal weight dropping from 12:00. The weight is hanging straight down from the pivot and actually lags behind the radiating outward moving pivot, Cf does not apply here. It is inertia attempting to keep the bob in a straight linear vertical drop.

Once the rod hits the stop then and only then does Cp come into play forcing the bob inward (which inertia is already holding inward) without Cf ever showing up until contact is made.

It is not that hard to pivot a pendulum at the rim with a rod allowing the bob to hang slightly below the axle. let it go and watch the weight fall vertically, accelerating as the pivot moves outward as it falls with the likewise accelerating wheel. Once it hits the stop, more acceleration is noted as Cp has met with no Cf to overcome. actually Cp has a "heads up" as inertia is still attempting to hold to a straight line fall.

Under these conditions, the wheel does not decelerate as the weight moves inward.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

How much usable energy would a simulation of a pm wheel have?

[justsomeone]

Can we take this conservation over to another thread?

In the future it will be difficult to find this content in this thread.