It is working who are you going to listen to?
This is from usc.edu
M.7(4) - HINGED STICK AND FALLING BALL
The free end of a falling hinged stick (a narrow board) falls faster than a free-falling ball placed at the other end of the stick, when their center of masses accelerate at an equal rate.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
The center of mass is well defined; it is mr. And if the center of mass is moving at the same speed as the ball then the stick is an energy producing machine. Truth is often very simple. This is the simple truth.
Don't listen to the liars; look at the truth.
Don't listen to the liars; look at the truth.
re: energy producing experiments
Careful Dunesbury, pequaide will brand you a trouble maker and a liar with questions like that :D
Re: re: energy producing experiments
Pequade,justsomeone wrote:Pequade, I think you and Murilo should work together.
I'm not sure if justsome1 is only trying to extend the novella, but I guess this could be a good stuff... Hm? Hm? B∫
Do you know quit well my baby? Hm? B]
Any intelligent comparison with 'avalanchedrive' will show that all PM turning wheels are only baby's toys!
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: energy producing experiments
Someone is confusing linear acceleration with angular acceleration and coming to the wrong conclusion.Tarsier79 wrote:Wubbly, what do you think?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) If you double your radius, your balls are travelling Twice the linear distance in one rotation.
2) If one rotation takes you twice as long (59 frames), your linear acceleration got cut in Half.
3) If your Linear Acceleration got cut in Half, and your radius Doubled, then your Angular Acceleration is down to One Fourth.
4) Since you are applying the same input torque, your moment of inertia is Four times larger.
5) This just proved I=mr².
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since your rod isn't massless, you are not going to see a perfect doubling in the times when the radius doubled. That is why you see (33 frames) and (59 frames) instead of (33 frames) and (66 frames). The non-massless rod will draw the two times closer to each other, instead of farther apart.
Also the other factors you mentioned will draw the times closer together, such as the friction and the relative weight of the driver mass to the balls on the rod. When peq includes a large flywheel, it makes things look like they accelerate the same and he draws the wrong conclusion.
It is unfortunate peq has been unable to understand any of this over the last five years, and continues to claim he is creating energy in the lab.
- Attachments
-
re: energy producing experiments
Man oh man; you would think you guys W and L would be hiding under rocks by now. But oh well.. You are not read; go away.
To others: The stick also has further to go in the arch, and it is under Cos F acceleration; and it still wins. It is mr no doubt; and that is just like the double pulley, levers, wheels, etc.
Calculate the energy of the stick; I hope the prof doesn’t lose his job. I am sure he would if W and L were on the board.
To others: The stick also has further to go in the arch, and it is under Cos F acceleration; and it still wins. It is mr no doubt; and that is just like the double pulley, levers, wheels, etc.
Calculate the energy of the stick; I hope the prof doesn’t lose his job. I am sure he would if W and L were on the board.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: energy producing experiments
pequaide.
You need to re-read my last post. It is very simple and easy to understand. Even you should be able to understand it. It describes exactly why your I=mr theory is flawed. Instead of changing the subject (which is one of your tactics), you need to understand the post.
You can even download the zip file from here and step through it. You might have to install adobe flash player to get it to run.
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu. ... ation.html
Here, let me post it again in case you missed it:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) If you double your radius, your balls are traveling Twice the linear distance in one rotation.
2) If one rotation takes you twice as long (59 frames), your linear acceleration got cut in Half.
3) If your Linear Acceleration got cut in Half, and your radius Doubled, then your Angular Acceleration is down to One Fourth.
4) Since you are applying the same input torque, your moment of inertia is Four times larger.
5) This just proved I=mr².
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since your rod isn't massless, you are not going to see a perfect doubling in the times when the radius doubled. That is why you see (33 frames) and (59 frames) instead of (33 frames) and (66 frames). The non-massless rod will draw the two times closer to each other, instead of farther apart.
Also the other factors you mentioned will draw the times closer together, such as the friction and the relative weight of the driver mass to the balls on the rod. When peq includes a large flywheel, it makes things look like they accelerate the same and he draws the wrong conclusion.
It is unfortunate peq has been unable to understand any of this over the last five years, and continues to claim he is creating energy in the lab.
You need to re-read my last post. It is very simple and easy to understand. Even you should be able to understand it. It describes exactly why your I=mr theory is flawed. Instead of changing the subject (which is one of your tactics), you need to understand the post.
You can even download the zip file from here and step through it. You might have to install adobe flash player to get it to run.
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu. ... ation.html
Here, let me post it again in case you missed it:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) If you double your radius, your balls are traveling Twice the linear distance in one rotation.
2) If one rotation takes you twice as long (59 frames), your linear acceleration got cut in Half.
3) If your Linear Acceleration got cut in Half, and your radius Doubled, then your Angular Acceleration is down to One Fourth.
4) Since you are applying the same input torque, your moment of inertia is Four times larger.
5) This just proved I=mr².
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since your rod isn't massless, you are not going to see a perfect doubling in the times when the radius doubled. That is why you see (33 frames) and (59 frames) instead of (33 frames) and (66 frames). The non-massless rod will draw the two times closer to each other, instead of farther apart.
Also the other factors you mentioned will draw the times closer together, such as the friction and the relative weight of the driver mass to the balls on the rod. When peq includes a large flywheel, it makes things look like they accelerate the same and he draws the wrong conclusion.
It is unfortunate peq has been unable to understand any of this over the last five years, and continues to claim he is creating energy in the lab.
- Attachments
-
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
re: energy producing experiments
pequaide,
I wrote up something last night for this thread, but after reading Wubbly's post this morning I've decided not to post it. He has explained what I was going to try to say and has probably done a better job than I would have, even, so I really now must just strongly suggest that you go back and read his words.
What can be seen in this video really is consistent with the moment of inertia being equal to mr².
I will add, though, that since the linear position of the drive mass is tied directly to the angular position of the rotating part of the system, you could pick a spot below the drive mass and then count the number of frames it takes for the drive mass in each demonstration to descend to that spot and then use those numbers to calculate the relative accelerations. The numbers I get are a bit shy of a 2 to 1 ratio, so that would correspond to something shy of a 4 to 1 acceleration rate - but still close enough considering the experimental setup to indicate I=mr²
Also, if you let the video play until the drive mass in the middle demonstration reaches the level of the table, let's say, and stop it there and then proceed to advance the video one frame at a time, you can fairly easily compare the different angular velocities of the rod in the demonstrations. (...though the demonstration on the right looks like it got a four frame head start. ...lol)
When I do this, the rod in the middle video takes 2 frames to go about 90 degrees whereas the rod in the demonstration on the right takes about 6 frames to move the same angular distance. That, of course, is a 3 to 1 ratio of the angular velocities after approximately the same acceleration time. It's not the 4 to 1 one would get under ideal conditions, but it is certainly greater than a 2 to 1 ratio.
Dwayne
I wrote up something last night for this thread, but after reading Wubbly's post this morning I've decided not to post it. He has explained what I was going to try to say and has probably done a better job than I would have, even, so I really now must just strongly suggest that you go back and read his words.
What can be seen in this video really is consistent with the moment of inertia being equal to mr².
I will add, though, that since the linear position of the drive mass is tied directly to the angular position of the rotating part of the system, you could pick a spot below the drive mass and then count the number of frames it takes for the drive mass in each demonstration to descend to that spot and then use those numbers to calculate the relative accelerations. The numbers I get are a bit shy of a 2 to 1 ratio, so that would correspond to something shy of a 4 to 1 acceleration rate - but still close enough considering the experimental setup to indicate I=mr²
Also, if you let the video play until the drive mass in the middle demonstration reaches the level of the table, let's say, and stop it there and then proceed to advance the video one frame at a time, you can fairly easily compare the different angular velocities of the rod in the demonstrations. (...though the demonstration on the right looks like it got a four frame head start. ...lol)
When I do this, the rod in the middle video takes 2 frames to go about 90 degrees whereas the rod in the demonstration on the right takes about 6 frames to move the same angular distance. That, of course, is a 3 to 1 ratio of the angular velocities after approximately the same acceleration time. It's not the 4 to 1 one would get under ideal conditions, but it is certainly greater than a 2 to 1 ratio.
Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: energy producing experiments
I went through it frame by frame and counted zero when he let go of each one. He doesn't let go of each one at the same time so your start point is slightly different for each case. That's OK though. Then I counted the number of frames until the ball made one complete revolution. That's where I came up with 33 frames and 59 frames. Looks like Tarsier79 got something similar.
re: energy producing experiments
There is something to be considered about the quality of person that takes over another persons thread.
To others:You have heard of the center of mass and all the things you can do with it. It has also been called the center of gravity. It could be referred to as the center of balance; and when there is motion you could call it the center of centrifugal force; the center of balanced rotation. You could also call it the center of linear (or arch) momentum because the quantity of arch momentum on one side is equal to the quantity of momentum on the other side. The center of mass is mr.
Did you ever wonder why there is no center of mrr?  Nobody cares about a point where the angular momentum on both sides are equal. Well: isn’t that funny.
Are W and L going to call the professor with the hinged board a liar too?
Do you remember the pictures of the thrown wrench; that is spinning? All you need to remember is; object spin about their center of linear momentum, and linear momentum is a conserve quantity.
To others:You have heard of the center of mass and all the things you can do with it. It has also been called the center of gravity. It could be referred to as the center of balance; and when there is motion you could call it the center of centrifugal force; the center of balanced rotation. You could also call it the center of linear (or arch) momentum because the quantity of arch momentum on one side is equal to the quantity of momentum on the other side. The center of mass is mr.
Did you ever wonder why there is no center of mrr?  Nobody cares about a point where the angular momentum on both sides are equal. Well: isn’t that funny.
Are W and L going to call the professor with the hinged board a liar too?
Do you remember the pictures of the thrown wrench; that is spinning? All you need to remember is; object spin about their center of linear momentum, and linear momentum is a conserve quantity.
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
re: energy producing experiments
Wubbly
Thanks for the explanation.
At the point where both rods have completed 1 rotation, the actual velocity of the mass in both cases is close to the same, obviousely the drive mass has dropped the same distance at this time as well. No energy creation here.
Peq. Would you like to have a civilised conversation about the stick and ball falling? Your choice.
Thanks for the explanation.
At the point where both rods have completed 1 rotation, the actual velocity of the mass in both cases is close to the same, obviousely the drive mass has dropped the same distance at this time as well. No energy creation here.
Peq. Would you like to have a civilised conversation about the stick and ball falling? Your choice.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: energy producing experiments
Dwayne, your method is fine too. There's more than one way to debunk a pequaide post.
Tarsier, It's obvious pequaide wants to quickly change the subject, since the experiment by an unbiased third party easily debunks his "mr" hypothesis, blowing a huge hole in his energy creation experiments.
Tarsier, It's obvious pequaide wants to quickly change the subject, since the experiment by an unbiased third party easily debunks his "mr" hypothesis, blowing a huge hole in his energy creation experiments.
re: energy producing experiments
The r for the force and the mass on the hinged board are the same, so mr and mrr are equal. r/R = 1