c.f question

[johannesbender]

if you gain anything on the right of a wheel ,it will diminish on the bottom because of the amount of energy it would take to lift weight back up , from there on it will diminish further on the left as it battles gravity towards the top again where you need to push the weight up again ..

this cycle of losing the amount of energy to do the work will continue 3 times no matter if you gained it on the right left top or bottom .
that is to say that a wheel could be seen as 4 sections (actualy endless sections but okay) left right top bottom , if you gained at right section you lose on bottom left and top .. if you gained at bottom you lose at left top and right etc etc so theres 3 sections that works against you 1 section where you gained and that says something to me , you need atleast gain during 2.5 or 3 of these sections of rotation to have enough to overcome a full rotation ..

[pequaide]

That is why you throw past the third and fourth sections.

Do the experiments with a vertical axis with the wheel rotating in a horizontal plane and you can forget gravity. Energy can be made without gravity playing any part.

[johannesbender]

you can also forget unbalance . by the way i am in no way
arguing here i just wrote little sudden light bulb moments when thinking of somethin that was said and ended up in something else in my haid ;-)

[JohnF]

hi . why dont object on earth show c.f
but as soon as you attach it to something else c.f is shown
is this because everything moves with the atmosphere and earth and gravity also has a hand in it ?

imagine a long rod with a sliding weight , placed into the
ground so it stands upright ...why doesnt earth rotation
impart c.f on this weight ?

im not good at physics , is this some kind of reference frame situation ?

johannesbessler,
What you might not have thought of is jet lag. Why are people often more tired getting off of a plane than when they board it ?
Could moving through the Earth's combined electrical and gravitational field drain a person's body of energy ?
The Earth does spin on it's surface at about 1,000 mph. That's extremely fast. A likely explanation is that we are moving in the Earth's gravitational field which probably has an equally opposite potential. Otherwise a fundamental belief in physics would be violated.
By the way, pretty good question you asked :-)

[Andyb]

Johannesbender hi ,the point that you make about having to lift weight again using the energy you have created is the age old problem i believe i have seen the solution but i have said that every time but the solution is to keep every thing moving all the time you go back to lifting things every where it will not go when you roll across the zenith lift at the right angle lift closer to the center stay in motion reduce weight after 9 oclock and keep everything flowing then your cf which would normally be the same on both sides will now have a small advantage on the fall not that it would create any real difference in my opinion, some how you have to get the weights to lift them selves i believe ,any how all the best and good luck.

[johannesbender]

thank you all for the advice and help , i am full of questions ;-)

[pequaide]

We had an accident occurred at work on Monday of this week, no one was hurt but it will cost the corporation several thousand dollars. We had a tank lid that a tech was bringing back into the building on the forks of a hilo, he made a slight turn as he entered the building.

The 4' x 8' tank lid is made of HDPE and is slick material, and the hilo forks are polished steel.

As he made the turn the friction on the hilo fork provided centripetal force that tried to force the lid into a circular path; the previously existing centrifugal force was greater than the centripetal and the lid continued on its linear path. The lid slid off of the forks and broke up as it hit the floor.

Now hear is the question? How can centrifugal be a reactionary force to centripetal. There was enough centrifugal to equal the centripetal.

But there was not enough reactionary centripetal to equal the centrifugal.

The original force was from the fact the the lid was moving in a straight line; and the forks could not provide enough centripetal to make it do other wise.

Centrifugal is not a mysterious force; it is a plain and simple fact that we all know. Objects will continue to move in a straight line unless compelled to do otherwise.

And maybe just a little harder to see; All points of mass in a moving circle are moving in a straight line that is tangent to the circle. But the points of mass are continually compelled to move out of that straight line by a constant application of centripetal force. And the centripetal force is a reactionary force to the previously existing straight line motion.

A proper conceptual understanding helps you make wheels that work; as opposed to dumping $2,000 lids on the floor.

[eccentrically1]

or, tie your lids to your forks when you move them.
the lid would have fallen off if he had come to a sudden stop. was it centrifugal force that would have done the deed?

[rlortie]

pequaide wrote;

"As he made the turn the friction on the hilo fork provided centripetal force that tried to force the lid into a circular path; the previously existing centrifugal force was greater than the centripetal and the lid continued on its linear path. The lid slid off of the forks and broke up as it hit the floor."

First off, there was no previously existing centrifugal force, but inertia that offered the properties for the tank lid to continue in a straight path. The created centrifugal force did not exist until the hilo (forklift) operator turned the steering wheel leading into a curved path.

Yes, HDPE is very slick, slicker than glass. That is why I am now recycling it for rotational and linear bearings. I would say the operator was either unskilled in what he was doing or plain flat careless.

What I do not understand and interests me, is you state it broke up as it hit the floor. HDPE is noted to be highly impact resistant. Can you elaborate on exactly how this falling off the forks caused it to break? Was he carrying it at excessive height or did he drive over it after it fell? Was it an older lid that had been exposed to UV for a lengthy time? I would appreciate any offerings you have regarding this.

@ eccent, if he had come to a sudden stop. it was not centrifugal force that would have done the deed, but inertia and the kinetic force behind it.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

I know, just pointing out fictitious forces.

[johannesbender]

yes as i understand cf is to flee from the centre , so this was momentem etc i think ..

and tying down and providing a rubber mat may help next time perhaps or have safety issue a new procedure based ob tge investigation of the incedint but thats not your point and moral of the story , i do get your moral though nicely put! .