Bessler's (4th) Kassel wheel Archimedes screw pump calculations

[cloud camper]

Mr Randall has now exposed fatal error number three.

Randall obviously believes that since CF is in fact non-linear that it must be non-conservative as well. But this is a false assumption.

The fact that CF is non-linear has nothing to do with it being conservative or non-conservative. This is error number three.

Yes, CF is non-linear but CF is still conservative - first because it doesn't really exist at all and second because it is continually and exactly opposed by the REAL force CP. CF - CP always equals zero unless the weight flies off the wheel.

CP is non-linear just as CF is. So the result is nothing left over to power anything.

This is also true while the weight is extending. We just have slightly less CP and therefore slightly less CF during this interval as the weight travels
a slightly more linear path.

[jim_mich]

Mr Randall has now exposed fatal error number three.

Randall obviously believes that since CF is in fact non-linear that it must be
non-conservative.

The fact that CF is non-linear has nothing to do with it being non-conservative. This is error number three.

Yes, CF is non-linear but that does not make it non-conservative. CF is still
conservative (first because it doesn't really exist at all and second because
it is continually and exactly opposed by the REAL force CP). CF - CP always
equals zero unless the weight flies off the wheel. CP is non-linear just as CF
is.

This is also true while the weight is extending. We just have slightly less CF
and therefore slightly less CP during this interval.

Centrifugal Force *is* a force

I'm dismayed to see the amount of damage that has been done to physics literacy by the "Fictitious Force" falacy.

Centrifugal force is just as "real" a force as the one a wall exerts on you if you bang your head against it. And that's what should be done to the so-called educational "experts" who, at some point, decided that there were such things as fictitious, fake, or phantom forces.

How all this started, as best I can determine, is this: an effort was made in middle school curriculum development to "correct" the understanding of the forces that give rise to circular motion. "They" (you know, Them) decided it was misleading to describe that pail on a rope as pulling on the rope, when in fact it was the rope that was pulling on the pail. And that's fine as far as it goes. It is a change in point of view. It describes circular motion as caused by the acceleration of an object, changing its direction of motion from linear to circular, due to the application of a centripetal force. It's true, it's a good way to describe it, and it probably does help in gaining an understanding of circular motion; or would have, except for what happened next.

Somehow, while the new concept was making its way into the hands of middle-school educators, somebody overreacted. Rather than switching the emphasis from the centrifugal to the centripetal force, the thought pendulum swung too far, and people began teaching that there was no centrifugal force. That's rubbish.

Newton's Third Law tells us that unmatched forces do not exist in the universe. In any force interaction between two objects, the forces exist in pairs. Each force of each pair is the same magnitude as, and opposite in direction to, its partner. Furthermore, it does not matter whether any motion occurs as a result of the interaction, or not. The 3rd law holds perfectly whether you are pushing on a brick wall or whether you are pushing on a shopping cart (accelerating it). The force back on your hand by the object is the same as the force of your hand on the object. The cart accelerates not because there is something wrong with the 3rd law, but because the sum of all the forces acting on it (your hand is but one) is non-zero.

If centrifugal force did not exist, it would be the only known example of 3rd law failure. Thankfully, that's not the case. Centrifugal force and Centripetal force are a 3rd-law force pair, just like any other. It's certainly true that centripetal force is the force that maintains circular motion. And it's a wise way to approach teaching the matter. But it's a simple physical fact that when the rope pulls on the pail, the pail does pull back. It has no choice. Forces exist in pairs.

And that's the way centrifugal force should be taught. It is the Newton's 3rd law reaction force to the centripetal force. That doesn't make it false, fake, fictitious, or phantasmic. It's real. All reaction forces are real. If they weren't, rockets would not take off, and you wouldn't hurt your head if you banged it on the wall.

It does not help anyone's understanding of physics to imply that there are phantom or magic forces around us. And the damage done by teaching that centrifugal force does not "really" exist when it can obviously be directly experienced by anyone, fosters a distrust of empirical evidence.

Beyond that, it's just wrong.

Link to the rest of this discussion.

[rlortie]

I have restrained from getting involved here as I condone some of the views given.

I was one of those who was taught that Cf was a fictional force, but I now have one question:

Ever hear or have experience regarding a cream separator, or for that manner a Centrifugal Specific Gravity Separator? Moving and separating mass in respect to its density?

I believe a lot of debate here is between some thinking of solid weights and leavers while at least one is looking at the picture on a molecular level.

Ralph

[pequaide]

Isn't the molecular level totally a matter of speculation? I have never seen a molecule let alone one tied to a string. If it is their only example of kinetic energy conservation (elastic collisions) then it is certainly not repeatable in my lab (how convenient). It seems like we should stay in the real world of repeatable experiments. And after all we are talking about a macro wheel.

Cream separates without artificial gravity but the separator makes it go faster. And isn't this an example of CF doing work?

[rlortie]

And isn't this an example of CF doing work?

My point exactly: is it or isn't it?

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

the problem with thinking cf did the work of separating the cream is extending that conception to CF must be rotating the separator.

[cloud camper]

Once again Randall tries to dodge the issues by throwing fairy dust, but in fact, he has only diverted back to fatal error #1.

Even per his own link, inertia is not a force. Inertia has only to do with mass and nothing to do with velocity. But according to Randall's fairy physics law #1, mass traveling in a linear path must spontaneously gain energy out of nowhere, simply because it is now allowed to resume a more linear trajectory.

This is very entertaining and mystical, unfortunately no one has ever observed this phenomena.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force which Randall must completely avoid to keep from going into seizures, CF can be considered
"real" only if the observer is part of the rotating system.

In the case of the boy swinging a pail of water, the force seems "real" because he is the one supplying the CP force. But in actuality to an outside non-rotating observer, there is no CF force, what is really happening is the boy is simply fighting against the water pails inertia that desires a linear non-rotating path. Again, inertia is never a force, does not create one and only resists an applied force. Inertia is only a property of mass and therefore not a source of energy unless one would
invoke e=mc squared.

Three strikes and fairy physics is out.

[ovyyus]

Getting back to the topic of the Kassel water screw: Jim, it's been 2 years since I estimated the water screw power at less than 25 Watts (on page 2). I note you haven't yet put forward your own power estimate. Did you give up on it?

BTW, it's interesting that Bessler chose to use a relatively cumbersome water screw as a load demonstration for his wheel. Karl's need to lift water for his cascades project could have been influential in the decision. It may even have been stipulated as part of the sponsor agreement. If so then Karl was indeed interested in buying the technology. Until he saw inside the wheel.

[rlortie]

I have read this and other comparable examples many times in as many years.

CF can be considered "real" only if the observer is part of the rotating system.

In the case of the boy swinging a pail of water, the force seems "real" because he is the one supplying the CP force. But in actuality to an outside non-rotating observer, there is no CF force,

I am not saying it is wrong, just rather lame! When I see an airplane or a car go by I am an outside observer, I do not see or feel any force driving either, there is no force.

Ralph

[rasselasss]

I used to enjoy coming to this Forum and reading the blogs on a daily basis,whats happening with you guys,trading personal insults with words such as "retard"and vendetta's attacking one another...you do yourselves or this Forum any favours.......IMO

[cloud camper]

I have read this and other comparable examples many times in as many years.

CF can be considered "real" only if the observer is part of the rotating system.

In the case of the boy swinging a pail of water, the force seems "real" because he is the one supplying the CP force. But in actuality to an outside non-rotating observer, there is no CF force,

I am not saying it is wrong, just rather lame! When I see an airplane or a car go by I am an outside observer, I do not see or feel any force driving either, there is no force.

Ralph

We know there is no actual force there since when the pail is released, it flies off strictly tangent to the rotation direction, expressing only the circular velocity it had attained and nothing more.

If CF were an actual force, it would fly off in a radial direction. This shows there is no new energy generated by CF, which comes from inertia,
which is not a force. Clear as a bell.

[jim_mich]

Why would anyone but a dumb idiot think that CF would make a weight fly radially outward. That is not how CF works. The weight attempts to move in a tangent direction. The restraining rope or whatever attempts to pull the weight in a radial path. The inertia of the weight resists the inward pulling. The inertia of the weight, attempting to keep moving in a straight line, creates the CF that pulls against the restraining rope or whatever that is forcing the circular path. This restraining inertial force that we label as CF appears and disappears, (sort of magically) depending upon the centripetal force. But it is totally ignorant to say that the centrifugal force doesn't really exist.

You also misunderstand the meaning of CF being non-linear. This is a mathematical term meaning that the value of CF increases in a non-lineal fashion. But that went way over your head. It was much too complex of a thought for you to comprehend. And this is why I often write things using more simple words and phrases and leave out more complex details. You simply are unable to comprehend complex thoughts. This is an example. You very obviously did not know what I was talking about when I said that CF is non-linear. You posted comments that showed your ignorance.

But according to Randall's fairy physics law #1, mass traveling in a linear path must spontaneously gain energy out of nowhere, simply because it is now allowed to resume a more linear trajectory.

I never said the words that clod camper attributes to me. Clod camper hasn't a clue what linear and non-linear means when referring to a force. But then again, clod camper thinks centrifugal force is not a force.

So how in the world can we have any intelligent conversation with clod camper, when he twist he doesn't t have the intelligence to understand what is plainly written.

[rlortie]

Good answer cloud camper, but I am not the one you have to convince. I know about such things as centripetal force and how it can be explained in engineering terms such as "modular elasticity" and "moment".

Now, although I take credit for getting this thread back off track, lets give Jim_Mich a chance to respond to Ovyyus's question, his calculations on torque value of the Archimedes screw pump. I await his input impatiently!

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

That is not how CF works.

how does it work?

[rlortie]

Laughing!

HUmmmm! Now let me see, how can we twist these words around?