I apologize for making the mistake of believing that it was Furcurequs who started this topic.
Once again, no matter if the discussion regarding your refute is finalized, but still open to other members input, I see that pequaide ignores my plea to post his experiments on his own thread.
Yet a non-wobbly smoothness accelerating hand held drill motor gives 300% more energy to one side than the other.
Very interesting to know! I thought a motor would push the same amount as it can pull. When you reverse direction, you get the same results.
I find that if I take the battery out of my cordless it produces zero torque, now can you imagine and explain; why is that?
The MIT Atwood’s shows you that the input energy need not be much greater than the output energy. Both are about .0981 J.
Therefore the input energy for 1.860 kg moving 4 m/sec (for the drill motor experiment) is ½ 1.860 kg * 4 m/sec* 4 m/sec = 14.88 Joules, for one side. With 1.860 kg on both sides, at 4 inches of radius, it would be 29.76 Joules.
The experiment showed that the same smooth turning of the hand held drill would also produce .620 grams rotating at 12 inches. So we have 620 gram at 12 inches equals 1860 grams at 4 inches. Or 3720 g at 2 inches. Balancing will naturally adjust the mass so that the total momentum remains the same.
Kinetic energy however does not remain the same when the balancing mass is removed at one location and moved to another radius and balanced with a different mass. The same quantity of energy (10 grams dropped one meter for instance MIT Atwood's) would always give you the same quantity of Newtonian momentum; but it does not give you the same kinetic energy. It only gives you the same energy, as the 10 grams dropped one meter, at one location for the balancing mass; and that is when the drive mass (10 g from MIT Atwood's experiment) and the driven mass (1100 grams; MIT Atwood's) have the same radius.
From the drill motor experiment with 1860 gram moving 4 m/sec.
1860 g at 4 inches is 14.88 * 2 = 29.76 J --- the momentum is 14.88 units
3720 g at 2 inches * 2 is only = 14.88 J --- the momentum is 14.88 units
620 gram at 12 inches *2 is = 89.28 J --- the momentum is 14.88 units
So you could arrange the drill motor experiment so that there were 6 times as much energy on one side as the other (14.88 J and 89.28 J).
Since the drill motor is accelerating smoothly without wobble it is far more likely that the motor is giving the same quantity of motion to both sides; which is linear Newtonian Momentum. And energy can be manipulated about any way you choose.
Yes I have noticed that pequaide has asked a number of members not to post on his thread.
I have an energy producing experiment for him: I note that he is down to two greens. I wonder how long and amount of energy it would require for him to either burn out another or bring the count back to three?
I have been trying to do an F = ma with the double wheel; with a target velocity of .43 m/sec I only get .39 m/sec. I guess I will have to let MIT show me up. Bearings no doubt.
While I had the double wheel up and running I made it a triple. I put in another wheel with a diameter of 7.1 inches. So that is 18 in, 12 in, and 7.1 in. And mr was dead on with the new radius of course. Hit it within a gram or two. Remember this wooden part of the wheel was made by hand. So 120.8 g at 12 in. is the same as 204 g at 7.1 in. The photo gates often hits the same 1/10000 of a second in four runs. This is not stop watch stuff this is deadly accurate.
The wheel was more massive than I remembered; it is about equal to 3.2 kg on the rim.
I believe there are more than one here who needs to up their meds!
For three weeks now, I have been stuck in a weather inversion layer full of fog, smog and freezing temperatures.
Tending to my bed ridden wife and attempting to keep a five year old Great Granddaughter from going stir crazy while we all loose our patience with cabin fever.
Granddaughter is living here allegedly filling the roll of cook, housekeeper and caregiver. She does not meet my expectations, leaving me with short fused temper.
Right now Pequaide is a good candidate for me to release my frustration, he certainly has no consideration or respect for those who disagree with him and his repeatedly experiments which IMO are absolutely useless.
The value is that the experiments prove that laws of levers are correct; and true for both the mass and the force. Which seems rather obvious because the force is used to move the mass. In fact in Newtonian physics mass is defined by how a force acts upon it and force is defined by how mass acts upon it.
The fact that I can predict what equivalent inertia can be placed at the different radii is something the simsters can not not. They have to live in their own world away from real experiments.
And you should care: that the different arrangements make different amounts of energy. But that is not why you are here; is it.
Pequaide, you're here because you still don't understand your 'experiments'. If you did understand your 'experiments' then you would not be stuck at first base perpetually repeating yourself like a broken bot. Perhaps you should care less about why others are here and care more about you moving forward. I think you should take your personal struggle back to your own thread, invite those who disagree with you back into the discussion there and try to keep an open mind about your current pet beliefs. Someone might learn something. Or you could just keeping crying and flailing about and people will simply ignore you.
Ralph, no matter how bad it gets, things always get better. No matter how good it gets, things always get worse. It's a roller-coaster ride :D
"The value is that the experiments prove that laws of levers are correct; and true for both the mass and the force. Which seems rather obvious because the force is used to move the mass".
OK! so your experiments prove to you that the laws of levers are correct. So what do you expect to achieve by your repetitive posting of this?
Do you not understand that this forum is based on research and discovery of how your so called "proven' experiments can be breached.
"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm."
Winston Churchill
no matter how bad it gets, things always get better. No matter how good it gets, things always get worse. It's a roller-coaster ride
Very true! it is the "yin & yang" of life. One does not learn to appreciate one without experiencing the other.
Here I sit, trying to keep a five year old entertained that has no friends or toys to occupy her time. My roll of "Filon" plastic still sits in my pickup with seasoned lumber laid out to build a frame to lift it. I have been advised that I should wait for the temperature to get above 45 degrees F (7.22 C) before attempting to handle it.
I think about good times past and sending you a picture of a ton of buoyant naked females in a swimming pool, but it only takes five to prove Archimedes was on to something with his laws of displacement. :-)
At Edith Cowan University in Perth (uniserve.edu.au, computer assisted experiments) the students did an experiment to determine the moment of inertia of a platter. The formula they used (and worked) was I = m (drive mass) * g standard gravitational acceleration * r radius (drive mass radius) / angular acceleration. I = m * a * r / ang acc.
I, of course has to remain the same, because it is the same solid disk.
If we double m then angular acceleration has to double for I to remain the same.
Likewise: if we double r then angular acceleration has to double for I to remain the same.
If we double r and halve m then angular acceleration will remain the same.
If we halve r and double m then angular acceleration will remain the same.
If you double r of a portion of the mass and halve that mass angular momentum will remain the same, etc.
If we are capable of changing the physical structure of the disk itself; the rule for restructuring will be the same; but in reverse. That is m * a * r / angular acceleration. If we double the mass angular acceleration halves, etc.
Within this truth from Perth you have an energy producing concept. Halving the mass and doubling the speed doubles the energy, etc.
If the 100 gram drive mass at the 2 cm radius is moved to a 4 cm radius then the angular acceleration would have to double so that the moment of inertia of the disk would remain the same. I = m * g * r / ang acc.
If the radius of the accelerated mass of the disk were then doubled the system would be returned to a congruent arraignment of force against wheel. That is; the mechanical advantages would be returned to the original state. The angular acceleration of the second larger wheel (100g at 4 cm) would be identical to the first wheel driven by the 100 g at 2 cm. The mass of both wheels would remain the same.
If the 100 gram at 2 cm accelerated a mass at 5 cm then that would be a mechanical advantage of 2/5.
If the 100 gram at 4 cm accelerated the same quantity of mass at 10 cm then that would be a mechanical advantage of 2/5.
When the 100 g was moved to 4 cm the acceleration doubled; that would mean that the angular acceleration halved when the disk mass was moved from 5 to 10 cm. Because the larger and smaller wheels have the same acceleration.
This means that the same conceptual rules apply to the radial placement of the driven mass as applies to the radial placement of the driving force. Which is Laws of Levers.
In any balanced wheel , including an Atwood's, 100 gram at 10 r is equal to 1000 grams at 1 r. A very small mass will accelerate either the same. But the energy is not the same.
I used the heavy triple radius wheel to check and see if 'I = m * g * r / Angular acceleration' is correct.
The two radii of the wheel are 223.6 mm and 151.75 mm for a difference of 67.9% the smaller from the larger. This would mean that if I placed the same drive mass at each radius the angular acceleration should be 67.9 % for the smaller radius over the larger radius. For I to remain the same (as it must) then angular acceleration must decrease the same amount as the r decreased.
I placed an unknown drive mass (about 310 grams) on a suspended string at the large radius. The flag tripped the gates at .0322, .0323, and .0323 seconds. With the gate distance of .027 m this gives us a velocity of .8359 m/sec and an acceleration of .9656 m/sec/sec.
I placed the same drive mass (about 310 grams) on a suspended string at the smaller radius. The flag tripped the gates at .0380, .0380, and .0380 seconds. With the gate distance of .027 m this gives us a velocity of .7105 m/sec and an acceleration of .6977 m/sec/sec.
This is a percentage change of .6977 / .9656 = 72.3%; which is off by about 6% which is consistent for experiments with these bearings. And it is higher than the value expected.
The oppositional theory of mrr would predict the the smaller radius would be slower by 151.75² / 223.6² = 46% which is off by 57%
So which is closer; off by 6% or off by 57%.
So it appears that the formula used in Perth is correct.
It is also interesting to note that doubling the radius of the drive mass would be identical to halving the radius of the platter on which the force is applied. If the drive mass radius were to remain the same, and the masses remains the same, then the only way to get the angular acceleration to double (as it would if we doubled r) is to have I be reduced by half. I = m * g * r / ang acc; or ang acc = m * g * r / I .
