kinetic energy hypothesis

[daxwc]

Preoccupied, why don’t you test your hypothesis with a stripped down bare bones scientific experiment. After you have proof then make your wheel.

[rlortie]

Hi Ralph ,

If the PVC can go over the UHMW plastic , you can easy fit it over , pre heat in hot water , and wind a piece of fishing gut over the joint , it will make a water tight joint that is very sturdy and rigid , roughen up the UHMW plastic first with 80 grid sanding paper . The UHMW plastic is as far as I know a paraffin based plastic and not able to be glued or welded ( heat weld ) to any other plastic like PVC or NYLON or HDPE or POLYPROP .

WOW! Your the first and only person who seems to know anything about plastics on this forum! Surprised you did not mention Nylontron, that is what I would prefer using, but cannot afford it.

Unfortunately its the other way around, getting CPVC to bond inside the UHMW. 5/8" OD to 5/8" ID. And you are right, UHMW is very slippery stuff (molybdenum disulphide) with a very low coefficient of friction and is self lubricating.

Never fear! I will find a way even if it means drilling and pinning! I was hoping to insert the CPVC first so I could then turn it on the lathe. I can always make two stages out of it by machining the UHMW on a 5/8" expandable mandrel.

Thanks again for the feedback!

Ralph

[preoccupied]

daxwc,

My proof is the chain fountain. The chain flies up because of my hypothesis and not the "Mould Effect" described by the Cambridge University team.

understanding the chain fountain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eEi7fO0_O0

I also have a dumbbell experiment. A gravity wheel would go a step further and show undoubtedly that I am right.

There are no other experiments. I could probably do better analysis of my dumbbell experiment but still for the life of me I can't get my camera to work.

[daxwc]

Preoccupied:

My proof is the chain fountain.

As far as I am concerned you might be onto something but not because of your hypothesis, which I believe to be wrong. Yes straight opinion from me, just as you are stating your opinion. What I see when he talks about the table pushing is really a straight leverage problem. A seemingly energy gain; but how much effort goes into making the chain start to move?

[preoccupied]

daxwc,

Are you saying that you agree with the idea that the table could be giving energy to the chain by shifting its center of mass and applying its force to a second class lever against the table? Then are you further saying that even though you agree that you disagree with the Cambridge University team who wrote the paper on the Mould Effect? If so, then I only share one ideal with you, that I disagree with them, but I do not think the second class lever can product any kick to give lift to the chain. I don't care of a super long rod is lifted with all of the force in the universe, I do not think it would arise any further than the initial upwards force.

Why do I have to be wrong? I want to be right!!!! think about it differently, in a way I haven't described as of yet, such as this: The force pulling down on the chain fountain is greater than the force pulling down on the chain being lifted. It is a siphon. This couldn't be simpler to compare to prove that the chain fountain PROVES my motion without external force idea to be correct.

Elaborating I am saying that both sides of the chain seek equilibrium. The lighter side wants just as much force pulling up as the side that is falling and therefore is lifted higher before it falls. That is what is happening. I demand everybody agree that is what is happening instead of believing that there is force being kicked up from the pot. Dumb Cambridge University Professors will not be teaching school children this false idea forever! I will be found to be correct!

Now I am demanding that people eventually believe I am correct because I know that I am correct! The equilibrium demanded by the chain fountain also exists for a singular mass. I will repeat myself, since it is demanded that both sides of the fountain have equilibrium and therefore the lighter side must shoot higher before it falls then it is also true for a singular mass that shifts it position in the opposite direction with the use of a greater force. If a singular mass changes its position with the use of a greater force then it is the same as both sides of the chain seeking equilibrium and the lighter side demanding that it rise higher with that force before falling. I am demanding that everybody agree with me!! I am right!! This is motion without external force!

I'll elaborate again or rather reiterate again: When the chain fountain flies into the air it is because both sides of the chain want to have equal forces applied to it. However it is impossible for the falling side to pull up on the rising side without a fulcrum so the fulcrum is a new force. The chain fountain wants equal forces on both sides and a New Force makes this possible. It's a motion without external force #flyingcar. #ICallBSonCambridgeUniversity for trying to ignore this simple logic that: the chain wants equilibrium on both sides of the fountain which they do not acknowledge, and also the next logical step, that since the chain seeks this equilibrium in order to give it it a new force must exist when weights shift their positions.

I will go off on my idea now to the real root of what I believe. I believe by hypothesis that maybe every shift in movement there is gravity then created. What is gravity? I believe gravity is the firmament that all space resides in which can be moved by mass as if sitting on a surface of some kind that can be pulled and pushed. Every time anything moves, gravity is created and this force is visible when the force that allows equilibrium happens for a siphon in the chain fountain. If my swastika wheel were built, this would be self evident when it turns perpetually. And my flying car design would propel a vehicle beyond any speed capable by man modernly.

Maybe I'm getting a little ahead of myself. I'm doing all of the elaborating. Why get worked up over your short statements? I'm making a mistake by asserting myself but I still feel like it's necessary because if I don't say anything the Cambridge University Professors will fool the world for who knows how long, before somebody else sees like I do that it's motion without external force.

This is so simple to me. I swear I knew about this before I ever saw Steve Mould say anything or do a video. I might have even posted about it's possible effect on a chain siphon on this forum before his chain fountain video was posted on youtube but I am not going to sift through hundreds of posts by me to find it. My motion without external force by me has been in my mind for some time.

I am not accepting the rejection of my idea here very gracefully... I truly believe that when a weight shifts positions in the opposite direction using a greater force that it has the effect that the chain fountain has and also therefore the chain fountain has this effect because of this new force. It is the force that allows equilibrium to exist when the weights shift opposite direction using a greater force. What is the different between a single mass shifting and seeking this equilibrium and a chain doing it? Nothing according to my hypothesis. That is what I have been trying to say this entire time. I only assume other people know what I am talking about because I think that everybody has the same understanding as I do until they make me explain better some of the time - (slight insight flaw of mine). Do I make better sense now?

I want to be perfectly clear. I want everybody else to agree with me because I know that I am right. If I'm wrong, I will apologize, but I can't be proven wrong without also being proven right, because I am right. You can all only speculate at this point.

[Grimer]

Take for example the chain fountain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eEi7fO0_O0

#2 Do you agree with John S. Biggins?

I don't. #ICallBSonCambridgeUniversity

For the record, I think you should ask John S. Biggins how his lunch is, for I believe he is out to lunch.

He's talking as if the chain is somehow being launched up into the air by the glass or beaker or whatever. Seriously, all the interesting stuff is really happening in the air. The amount of descending mass is constantly increasing as the amount of ascending mass remains fairly constant. That's significant as too the accelerations and the conservation of both angular and linear momentums.

Yes, it's important that the weight of the non-moving part of the chain is being supported, but the chain is then just yanked up and out of the beaker a link at a time. The energy to accelerate the non-moving links and to "fling" them upward obviously comes from the descending part of the chain.

His idea about having a more rigid connection between links is probably somewhat valid, though, but for the behavior in the arc of the chain - not the behavior in the beaker.

I have a demonstration that I can do in Physion that might shed a little light on some of what's going on. I'll try to make a video sometime later.

Dwayne

Okay, I finally made my Physion demonstration. First take a look at this gif animation depicting a couple of collisions showing the conservation of linear momentum.

The first collision shows a large mass colliding with a smaller mass which is at rest in our reference frame, and then the second shows a small mass colliding with a large mass which is at rest.



Now, take a look when I offset the two masses and throw another element into the mix. I've also rotated the gif so that things are oriented more like in the chain fountain videos. This is with gravity turned off in the simulation, btw.



Obviously, the chain fountain is a much more complex dynamics problem that also includes the "flow" of mass along the path of the chain and increasing amounts of mass on the descending side, but I would still humbly suggest that this is a part of the correct solution when modeling what's going on.

The large circle represents the larger amount of chain mass that is already descending. The small circle represents bits of chain that start out from rest in the beaker and have to be accelerated upward into the air. And the beam would represent the part of the chain in the arc which due to its stiffness can transmit a torque.

Dynamically, bits of chain that are initially accelerated upward soon become part of the arc and then part of the descending mass.

Dwayne

Physion seems a remarkably good program.

Notice when the small weight hits the large stationary weight the large weight can be seen to move ever so slowly, pixel by pixel across the screen. I would have certainly found it useful when illustrating the rationale of the Gravity Pulse Motor exchange of momentum between the simple and compound pendulums.

I'll have to find the diagram I drew but didn't actually present because I felt it was too confusing.

[daxwc]

Preoccupied:

Are you saying that you agree with the idea that the table could be giving energy to the chain by shifting its center of mass and applying its force to a second class lever against the table?

Well lets break that sentence up. “to the chain by shifting its center of mass and applying its force to a second class lever against the table?� – Yes
“Are you saying that you agree with the idea that the table could be giving energy� – No the table is giving no energy.

I am going to explain this once where the energy comes from and I am not going to edit it to make it simple or palatable so you will have to reread it many times. The chain as a whole has x amount of PE just as a ball has X amount of PE sitting static and it is this total amount you have to keep your eye on.

Mark the very first link on that chain and video it to a weight dropped and you will find that the weight hits first and the first link of the chain is slower to hit the floor due to lagging to have to drag the tail. That means right from the start of the chain has energy disappearing. Where does it appear again is at the hump. The chain does climb in the air due to the leverage of the second class lever and the distance lost in mechanical advantage is the cause of the arc of the hump. It getting taller is a function of time on the total amount of energy of the static PE though the kinetic energy release.

[preoccupied]

daxwc

The links aren't slowing down and therefore rising up. I disagree with the Cambridge University team and you.

There is extra energy in the falling side compared to the energy required to lift the rising side because it is a siphon. I don't think the beads slow down in order to be create the hump, and maybe that is just what you think you see. The symptom could have a different cause.

There is extra energy in the falling side compared to the energy required to lift the rising side because it is a siphon. I think this is what is wanted but not what nature allows. To explain the relatively similar speeds of both sides of the chain fountain and the over x2 energy on the falling side, I want to believe that there could be a kind of force created when the weights shift at the top of the fountain. I think this force that I'm inventing is the medium for the difference in energy. I think where we might fundamentally split on our theories is that you believe that energy can be exchanged to the hump or the lifted side and I don't think that's accurate or even possible. If no extra energy is transferred to the lifted side or hump then no amount of second class lever action(if it could produce kick), ever will be able to. I think there cannot be equilibrium of this energy to the two opposing sides and therefore this medium has to exist to accept this change in equilibrium, that is motion without external force. It should be true for the chain fountain and an individual mass shifting while using greater force in the new direction.

If you and other scientists are going to take symptoms you see and make up crazy baloney, you might as well make up the craziest baloney the ladies could possibly expect, like I am. You should have immediately sought after motion without external force, because it's the coolest thing you could have speculated about. Instead this dolt over here, Me, not only speculated it, but is probably right, right, right.

When I am found to be right, daxwc, I demand an act of penance from you and anybody else like you who have questioned me. You will be compelled to show your respect to me when the time comes. I self lashing might be a little much but I supposed you could do whatever you are compelled to do.

Who be me to disagree with the likes of an engineer or Cambridge University Professor? What are my credentials? Am I a Sir Isaac Newton or some greater scientist than you all? If I am right, then I might as well be.

[daxwc]

I think you should change your name from Preoccupied to Obsessed. 8P

The links aren't slowing down and therefore rising up.

The links never get up to speed of freefall gravity in the first place on the down leg.

Does Center of Mass of the entire chain ever get above Center of Mass of the static chain in the bowl?

[preoccupied]

daxwc,

There is no center of mass and there is no fulcrum as the chain rises above the pot. There must be an axle or fulcrum to have a center of mass on beads that are falling straight down or straight up. There must be some kind of angle to move on or axle for a lever to have center of mass, but these are not only not levers but a chain and there is no angle or axle but they are going straight up and down. Fundamentally I believe that should be the first thing that should be noticed about the chain fountain that that there is not a fulcrum and there can't be an exchange of forces to the lifted side while beads are above the pot floating in the air. I am not uneducated to believe this. You and anybody else who thinks that there can be such exchanges without a fulcrum are making assumptions to describe what you are observing instead of carefully considering what you are observing. If you were put up to invent calculus before it was invented, like Sir Isaac Newton was, you would have written a mistake, but I would not have, if I had invented calculus from nothing, I would not have made a mistake because at least I can see what the chain fountain is by looking at it as first glance. You will be guessing for decades what I am telling you right now without me coming out and telling you it. You might even disagree with me for a longer than necessary period of time. I believe I'm right and you can't prove me wrong, you can only prove me right, because I am right. All you can do at this point is speculate. Axle is necessary to produce leverage for a lever. I think that's true for the necessary exchange of energy to the lifted side to lift it and also to the second class lever that is being speculated to produce kick, which it probably won't, at all. It is absolutely absurd to me that it's automatically assumed energy just magically goes to the destination it's supposed to because science says there is energy there or you see it in an observation. What ever happened to mechanically inclined logic taking precedence over wild ideas about scientific measurement? Anybody who disagrees with me is wrong. The chain fountain produces motion without external force for the reasons that I've said.

This is what I'll do to you mentally (0:09 - 0:13) when I eventually obliterate you with my logic. You will come around to my opinion and accept it as your own in eventuality.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntc0YyQWdBU

Sincerely,

Obsessed

[daxwc]

Preoccupied:

There is no center of mass and there is no fulcrum as the chain rises above the pot.

I think you should rethink the hypothesis, if it was due to CF the chain in the film of just beads would rise too… but it doesn’t... just the chain with the links does.

[preoccupied]

"posing such problems to school children to improve their physics skills"
I will save the school children from these hooligans!!

Understanding the chain fountain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eEi7fO0_O0

At 10:27 to 10:56 is the example being discussed here for the two chains and the idea for why they create or don't create a chain fountain.

My MS painting explains my viewpoint.

[triplock]

I think that the attached freeze frame of the chain fountain is most telling.

We can see that the chain going down is straight, and the up leg is bunched.

We can therefore say that the rate of chain discharge is greater than the rate of chain fall, hence the bunching.

Therefore discharge energy > fall energy.

Therefore discharge energy - fall energy = reactive energy.

Reactive energy can only come from the elevated beaker pile.

The additional energy is used up elevating the chain. At the peak, that additional energy has been used up.

The beaker tilt creates that curved trajectory.

Agree ?

[triplock]

ooh daxwc,

Which explanation are you going to going with ??

Drum roll please........

Chris

[daxwc]

The chain bunching is from the reactive torque of the leverage of each link coming out of the beaker floor.

Again nothing happens when just beads are used.