Furcurequs (aka Dwayne) questions Jim_Mich

[rlortie]

pequaide wrote:

I made lighter wheels and that data was ignored too; so you can ignore the data if you like but all good data collected shows F = ma.

Yes your data was ignored! Why, Because I would estimate that over 90% of the members of this forum could care less about what the hell "F" stands for.

Why do you keep prattling about experiments that consume more energy to set up and run than you will ever get in return.

Equate this: Show a sustaining apparatus that objectively shows a useful gain and you can quit your damn weak defense of answering rebuttal by repeating the same wore out explanations of your stupid useless "Atwood" machines.

If your Atwood devices prove over-unity, then connect enough together to show sustaining 360 degree revolution and then maybe someone will show interest.

To all involved: Why argue and make personal something of little value such as; "Radius of Gyration"? If it is of value then show how, otherwise get off the damn soap box. Quit devaluing your self image and wasting others time with this garbage.

Does Jim_Mich's fluid drive design based on CF and inertia require objective knowledge of gyration? If indeed it does, then please explain in what manner. If not then he should spend his time on his proto, not here defending that which would be forgotten if sleeping dogs were left undisturbed.

Debate and refute about whether Jim lied or who lied is not going to get the problem solved. This is not a forum for soap operas or tabloids. To error is to be human, but to repeatedly continue throwing it on the table is stupidity.

To murilo

I convey: As a teacher/mentor, the first thing one needs to learn is to remove the word "can't" or cannot" from ones vocabulary. This is your "Red Flag" that Bill speaks of. In schooling we are told that we must accept certain laws. To fulfill the requirements of a true researcher, we must ignore those teachings, open your mind and explore into the unknown with the premise that man has either never been there or overlooked something.

Each person is born with certain genetic aptitudes (atributes) which allow them to excel in one or more fields such as a musician, mathematician, operating engineer etc... Those who are born without these aptitudes can still learn them, it just takes longer and a lot of patience to achieve. If man has done it, man can duplicate or exceed it.

We are blessed with one member that I am aware of whose autistic aptitude shines bright, he displays it here almost daily, I for one envy his skills and know that if I were to put my heart and soul into it, I could learn these skills and methods. But patience is weak, it is easier to rely upon him to provide what he is capable of achieving.

Ralph

[pequaide]

The 17.82 inch position is moving 17.82 / 12.05 = 1.4788 times faster; 799 grams moving 1.4788 times faster would give you the same amount of energy as1747 g at 12.05 inches.. ½ * 1747 *1 * 1 = ½ * 799 * 1.4788 * 1.4788.

But the same speed (.0630 sec) is not obtained by placing 799 grams at the 17.82 inch position.. You can place 1180 g there for the same speed. This is a 50% increase in the quantity of energy.

If 800 grams were used the time would be shorter and the speed faster and the energy of both the wheel and the 800 grams would be much higher than the system with 1747 grams at 12.05 inches.

Yet the opposition still sets up their sim to conserve energy; which is never conserved. The opposition is not here to learn how to make energy. They are here to promote their own mantra.

Most would rather play games of personal attacks than conduct experiments that will someday be a part of the foundation of Physics. You can't change them, leave them to their silly games, but you can contribute to the world of Physics by doing experiments. The greatest scientific achievements are still before us.

I wrote this before I glanced at R's sappy statements, but he provided a great example of what is wrong with the majority on this forum.

[pequaide]

http://video.mit.edu/watch/mit-physics- ... hine-3138/

This is only 10 gram accelerating 1110g for 5 seconds.

And we were talking about 500 grams on 2 kg working for "someone mentioned' 5 seconds? Only if you use rusty bearing can you go that slow, leverage or no leverage. and Laws of Levers applies.

[Grimer]

...
I convey: As a teacher/mentor, the first thing one needs to learn is to remove the word "can't" or cannot" from ones vocabulary. This is your "Red Flag" that Bill speaks of. In schooling we are told that we must accept certain laws. To fulfill the requirements of a true researcher, we must ignore those teachings, open your mind and explore into the unknown with the premise that man has either never been there or overlooked something.
...

+1

[Mark]

http://video.mit.edu/watch/mit-physics- ... hine-3138/

This is only 10 gram accelerating 1110g for 5 seconds.

Sorry pequaide, but I disagree. You infer that the 10 Gram differential is doing the work all by itself.

It IS NOT: 10 grams accelerating 1110 grams for 5 seconds.

It IS: Gravity accelerating a 560 gram mass while simultaneously decelerating a 550 gram mass through the distance of 1 meter.

There is NO creation of energy!

[murilo]

To murilo

I convey: As a teacher/mentor, the first thing one needs to learn is to remove the word "can't" or cannot" from ones vocabulary. This is your "Red Flag" that Bill speaks of. In schooling we are told that we must accept certain laws. To fulfill the requirements of a true researcher, we must ignore those teachings, open your mind and explore into the unknown with the premise that man has either never been there or overlooked something.

Each person is born with certain genetic aptitudes (atributes) which allow them to excel in one or more fields such as a musician, mathematician, operating engineer etc... Those who are born without these aptitudes can still learn them, it just takes longer and a lot of patience to achieve. If man has done it, man can duplicate or exceed it.

We are blessed with one member that I am aware of whose autistic aptitude shines bright, he displays it here almost daily, I for one envy his skills and know that if I were to put my heart and soul into it, I could learn these skills and methods. But patience is weak, it is easier to rely upon him to provide what he is capable of achieving.

Ralph[/quote]

Ralph,
I know what you mean... I mean... I GUESS I know... B|

[Fletcher]

http://video.mit.edu/watch/mit-physics- ... hine-3138/

This is only 10 gram accelerating 1110g for 5 seconds.

Sorry pequaide, but I disagree. You infer that the 10 Gram differential is doing the work all by itself.

It IS NOT: 10 grams accelerating 1110 grams for 5 seconds.

It IS: Gravity accelerating a 560 gram mass while simultaneously decelerating a 550 gram mass through the distance of 1 meter.

There is NO creation of energy!

Couldn't agree more with you Mark.

Here is a sim of p's MIT Atwoods experiment [pic attached - start configurations] - in this case I made the experiments all linear relationships - so, A is a control where 560 g drops 1 meter & pulls a sliding 550 g sideways - B is just like the Atwoods except I use two zero radius pulleys & a 35 g inertial mass moving sideways to approximate the Atwoods pulley inertia - C is the zero radius pulleys & raising & falling masses on their own.

Note the times & accelerations achieved in the table below, also that Ke of the components never exceeds Pe lost.

The sim predictions very closely match the actual experiment.

I also broke out the F = M*A => A = F/M relationship that p keeps banging on about to cross check against the sim Outputs - they match.

The important thing is that Force = Net Force in a direction [vector] & since it's a linear sim then total mass is the inertia, & that's why the accelerations & times are so slow.

................................

I think I start a business employing people to ride elevators, cable cars, ski lifts, & perhaps escalators, to create free energy & then I'll sell it - after expenses I should have a healthy profit - Whoaaa, Houstan we could have a problem !

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

I think I start a business employing people to ride elevators, cable cars, ski lifts, & perhaps escalators, to create free energy & then I'll sell it - after expenses I should have a healthy profit - Whoaaa, Houstan we could have a problem !

Shouldn’t be a problem with one hard rule; they always walk up.

[Tarsier79]

I am going to have to disagree with you mark.

I have edited Fletchers sim: see A compared to C

A: 10g accelerates 1100g horizontally

C: 560g accelerates 550g in the atwoods system.

The drop time is equal. In this system, 10g is the mass which has to deal with the total inertia.

What I don't know, is if you have to include the 10g in the inertia, or due to it being the driving mass, it may not have to be.

[Fletcher]

You do - inertia is a facet of mass regardless of any field [or not] it may be located in (think of fast moving microscopic space junk punching holes in satellites).

The difference for objects falling vertically in a gravity field is that the acceleration 'g' is always constant 9.08665 m/s^2 whilst Force changes according to mass & inertia [for linear => m = I].

The Force however is Mass x Acceleration, therefore a massive object has more gravity force.

jim_mich once simplified the explanation for me by putting it this way - think of a falling mass as being made up of many discreet atoms - each atom is subject to the same acceleration but the force is made up of the acceleration x mass in kgs.

P.S. you need to adjust the Pe Output for your 'A' so it will match the system Ke.

[Tarsier79]

I modified the sim once again. The sim agrees with your statement.

I applied the same force to 1100g and 1110g. Unless you have a substantial physics lab, this would be very difficult to do prove real world.

What bothers me, is the falling mass supplies the force, and the only thing slowing it from freefall is the inertia of what it is trying to pull.

If the 10g mass wasn't tethered, its inertia would be irrelevant, as it would fall the same speed as a 1kg mass.

[Mark]

Thanks, Fletcher and Tarsier79. Although I certainly do appreciate both of you going to the trouble of simming this out... I have to tell you, I don't have wm2d. It's not likely that I will, at least not in the near future. Too much going on here, no time for a learning curve, etc. Besides, I have enough respect, admiration and trust in you guys that are already familiar with it [is my nose brown yet?] to take you at your word and blindly trust your conclusions based on said simware. :-)

Now it's my turn to disagree with you, Tarsier79. :-D
The falling mass does not supply the force, gravity does.
Yes, inertia slows the 560g mass in it's free-fall, but the larger force is gravity's force against the rise of the 550g mass. <-- EDIT - I just now realized that you may be referring to Fletcher's alternate setup, if that's the case then disregard this sentence and the next paragraph.

Referring back to my other post, I know that saying it's "10 grams accelerating 1110 grams for 5 seconds" is comparable to saying that it's "Gravity accelerating a 560 gram mass while simultaneously decelerating a 550 gram mass through the distance of 1 meter.", but the devil's in the details, right?

Now, please understand that I am in no way accusing you of doing the same thing. But a point I was subtly trying to make to Pequaide was that it seems to me [and to others, as he's been accused of this before] that he tends to cherry-pick instead of considering all the factors of his experiments when generating his conclusions. As a result, he seems to have developed a knack for interpreting things in a way that allows the conjuring of energy.

[Tarsier79]

Now it's my turn to disagree with you, Tarsier79. :-D
The falling mass does not supply the force, gravity does.
Yes, inertia slows the 560g mass in it's free-fall, but the larger force is gravity's force against the rise of the 550g mass.

Ha ha, you got me. Of course gravity is supplying the force. I was trying to compare a 10g mass (accelerated by gravity) on a string to an equivalent force of unknown origin pulling on the string. Do we now find the source of the force to calculate its inertia? Surely we wouldn't care, as long as we know with what force it is pulling on the string.

[Mark]

I'm glad to see that you got the jest in my "it's my turn". Some folks around here wouldn't see the humor.

And thanks for the image.
Yep, I agree. My favorite analogy is the old river-side mill waterwheel one. We don't really need to understand the details of the Sun being the energy source, or that the Sun and the Earth are actually powering the wheel, to understand that the water is what's directly driving the wheel around and getting the job done.

[Fletcher]

Do we now find the source of the force to calculate its inertia?

Surely we wouldn't care, as long as we know with what force it is pulling on the string.

A force is a force - it is mass [inertia for the linear example where m = I] x acceleration - so you are right, we don't care about the source of the push or pull.