energy producing experiments

[Wubbly]

double facepalm.

[pequaide]

Six.

[pequaide]

http://lecturedemo.ph.unimelb.edu.au/Me ... of-Inertia

I measured the system again and I got about a 5.7 radius relationship.

I also noticed that the short radius begins to discontinue acceleration at about 110 frames in. So I compared the angular changes for both at about 100 frames in. This stall is probably caused by air resistance.

At around 100 frames the short radius is covering 360° in 11 frames; and the long radius takes about 65 frames. 65/11 = 5.9

And 5.7 squared is 32.49.

So is 5.9 closer to 5.7 or 32.49

Data shows that energy can be made from gravity; those that have junior high insults say it can not.

[ruggerodk]

As I see it, they both have the string around the pulley unwind 9-10 rotations before starting to wind up again.
BUT...the small radius wind up approx 3 rotations and the large radius wind up approx 5 rotations.

With a pulley of even smaller radius, you'll have a wind up of 80-90%.
It takes some more time of course.

So - why is that?

regards
ruggero ;-)

[pequaide]

Always envision releasing the masses at highest velocity, always think of energy as 1/2mv². You would need a really well built system to wind back up; but releasing and throwing is relatively simple. The question is: what are the two velocities of the masses at the two radii?

I had this prepared:

Their proposed super slow can go the other direction, to super fast.

Let’s start with the full masses on the end. Let’s say they are moving one meter per second after the drive mass drops one meter.  As you notice the motion tries to return the drive mass to its original height. And in fact under ideal conditions this is expected.  The energy of the dropped mass is in the motion of the spin and the motion should be able to return the dropped mass back to the same potential energy. This is the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Now lets move the same tube masses to the inside position, to one sixth the radius. But according to others the rotation rate after a one meter drop is 36 times greater than the drop with the masses at the end. With a radius of one sixth and a rotation rate of 36 times then the tube masses are moving 6 meters per second after the drive mass has dropped one meter.

Now  let’s detach the 1/6 radius masses and let them fly out tangentially and recapture them in the longer radius on the end and we now have the same masses on the end and they are moving 6 m/sec instead of 1 m/sec.

That is a nice increase in energy because energy is velocity squared. So either way you only have a 'want to' problem to get energy.

But you might do an experiment first and see if it is 6 or 36 so you are going in the right direction.

[Wubbly]

At around 100 frames the short radius is covering 360° in 11 frames; and the long radius takes about 65 frames. 65/11 = 5.9

And 5.7 squared is 32.49.

So is 5.9 closer to 5.7 or 32.49

peq.
You need to go back to high school and take a physics course because you don't know which equations to use to analyze this experiment.

If the radius is 5.7 times longer, then the rotational mass is 32.49 times larger, not the time.

You are confusing mass with time.

[pequaide]

W stay off of the thread; you are not welcome. Quit reading here and I will not bother you. I don't go looking for you. Why do you waste time with someone you think is a waste of time; well quit wasting your time; go away.

[daxwc]

Wubbly I am sure know that you are not obliged to stay off Peq’s thread. He doesn’t mind posting on other people’s threads when he feels like it.

[Grimer]

W stay off of the thread; you are not welcome. Quit reading here and I will not bother you. I don't go looking for you. Why do you waste time with someone you think is a waste of time; well quit wasting your time; go away.

If you can't take criticism, pequaide, why not get your own private forum. You will then be able to control who posts and who doesn't.

Any threads on the General Discussion Forum are open to all members.

If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[pequaide]

There is a difference between making a scientific or math contribution and playing the cut down game.

I see ideas posted here that have no ghost of a chance; and you see them as well. I don't go posting old startreck scenes (guess that is what that was) or referencing pigeons. These are not innocent little pumpkin that we are talking about here; they are viscous stalkers. They want me transferred to the fraud section; they have called me a liar and anything else they choose; and all the while they have made almost no scientific contribution.

I post on newbie threads; but I don't go looking for anything from these stalker fellows; and all I am asking is the same.

If you don't like what I say then don't come here. This request is not rude; I am just asking them to be polite and stay away. And I already do the same for them.

I don't even read what they post on my thread. I was hoping that they had posted an experiment but it was a pigeon instead. I just no longer have any patience for them.

Please note that I respond politely (I hope) to others.

[Tarsier79]

...and all the while they have made almost no scientific contribution.

I find that offensive. Wubbly and others have sought to explain to you the physics in both your tests and videos online. I performed (what was supposed to be) the same experiment you did, in order to test your theory. I think that is significant scientific contribution. Part of the process of scientific proof of breakthrough is replication and confirmation.

You have not conclusively proved a gain in energy in any of your tests, yet you refuse to see the flaws in your tests, even when they are pointed out directly to you. You would be better to work with, rather than against members willing to give their time and energy to your theories. If there is a point of conflict regarding a test, then design a workaround.

Peq. I applaud the openness with which you have conducted your thread. If you truly can create energy, then what you have to do is clearly in front of you, and a single valid replication of that will silence your critics.

[ruggerodk]

I will politely try to ask again....hoping that someone more scientific minded than I, be willing to give their time and energy answering:

The smaller the radius of the driving pulley, the longer time for the driving weight to fall and the more KE (up to 99% of total KE/RKE) transfered to the driven flywheel...and the more wind up.
Also, at smaller pulley radius we experience a much higher RPM after 10 cm fall of driving weight (134% compared to a 1:1 ratio of pulley:flywheel radius).

Why is that?

NB: My experiment shows 80% wind up @ pulley radius of 4 mm and a 52 mm radius flywheel. Both falling mass and flywheel (mass at rim) weigh 0.660 kg.
Using rude ball bearings from rollerskate and rough cotton string.

Time seems to play an important role here...

Best regards
ruggero ;-)

[ruggerodk]

As you notice the motion tries to return the drive mass to its original height. And in fact under ideal conditions this is expected.  The energy of the dropped mass is in the motion of the spin and the motion should be able to return the dropped mass back to the same potential energy. This is the Law of Conservation of Energy.

The large radii spinning mass has a better wind up rate than a small radii: 50% vs 33%.
So it seems that a spinning weight at larger radii is better suited to collect and save energy...
Why is that?

Also seems to be related to my post above on pulley radius.

best
ruggero ;-)

[Fletcher]

Time seems to play an important role here...

I doubt that it does very much Rugger - this is what you'd need to prove if you feel it has any effect.


This is what you need to consider in analysing these types of experiments.

First - you need to do an energy budget - the masses will have linear velocities & translational Ke's - in a balanced system it gets these from the drive mass lowering in the gravity field - because of Conservation of Energy it holds that the flywheel will only gain no more energy than the lost potential energy of the driver.

Second - the driver mass loses Pe and also gains KE - at ANY height loss the Pe lost equals [ideally] the Ke gained by the driver .. BUT .. obviously depending on the inertia of the flywheel [the radius of the masses & mr^2 relationship] then the drive mass will fall faster or slower.

Third - note that the driver does not have ALL the Ke of the PE lost - by deduction that difference must be contained in the flywheel - experiments prove this over & over - remember that I = mr^2 applies for a massless rod & center pulley etc - I = ? is actually found by experimentation but I = mr^2 is a good approximation for a lossless system with massless rod etc.

Forth - there is no gain in energy [translational or rotational] with this experiment.

Fifth - time makes no difference to these conclusions - IF your experiments prove otherwise we would all like to see your experiment & how you analysed it.

Sixth - we have covered this multiple times, including with pequaide ad nauseam [no offense intended]

Seventh - study again the sims I did for you some time ago & I recently loaded in Mr Vibrators thread where I show drive weights falling & turning different flywheels - note that whilst the drive weights are attached to the flywheel it makes absolutely no difference if that mass falls with the wheel of drives off the perimeter like an Atwoods.

[pequaide]

I can remember some good gentlemanly scientists; the last to leave was Jim Mich. And now all you have left is WFFT. You joke about staying in the kitchen; but I work in a Lab. Fletcher you are the third letter in WFFT. And we know who T is. Please stay off of the thread; you can trash me right next door in partial.