Is the formula of the angular momentum conservation wrong?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Wobbly,

the problem is the energy input and the change in vectors during that input. I Personally would expect to see no change in the weights velocity for every meter traveled only a greater RPM the closer they are moved to the axle, but only if the weights could be moved inward without adding energy to the system.

Edit, I will leave you all with this thought, I conclude that the Conservation of Angular Momentum experiments cannot be reproduced without a input of energy.

RIP it was a good pony.

Edit, + experiments

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

This is a correction for a earlier post.

While you are looking at the coat hanger experiment you might notice the vectors of the pull inward (a exertion of force) to the center is required to accelerate the mass, and a constant exertion of force is then require to stop batteries from flying outward, it kind of reminds me of the planetary orbits, and to me it show that constant work needs to be done to maintain orbiting mass. In short all experiments have not been done yet, and there will be a few surprises when they are, so good luck with your experiments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8 ... SM4lz2-aYw

I have replaced Torque force with the exertion of force, I make this mistake all the time. Sorry!

[Grimer]

Everything depend on where you take the datum for acceleration.

For instance if you have a man standing on a rock, A, on the earth and another large rock, B, falling down a very deep hole then relative to A, B is acceleration but relative to B, A is accelerating.

Relative to A, the force of Newtonian Gravity is doing work but relative to B the force of the earth's reaction is doing work. Relative to a midpoint both forces are are doing work.

The trouble is we have a biased anthropomorphic view of things since we are stationary with respect to the earths reaction acceleration force.

The same kinds of consideration apply to motion in a circle and the resulting Ersatz Gravity reaction.

[rlortie]

I find this thread dull reading!

I disagree with all of you! why you may ask?

Conflict creates awareness and innovation, something I have seen little of since the barrel became empty! Good collaboration requires an optimist verses a pessimist.

Is discussing the formula of angular momentum conservation going to help a builder incite the need to build, it does nothing for me! Great for armchair theorists who never plan on building to prove right or wrong!

"The spokesperson caveated the statement with a reminder that certain facts were still unknown."

Ralph

[zoelra]

If you are attempting to build a mathematical model for a design, believing or not believing in the law (adherance to rv=RV) could have a big impact on your calculations and determining whether the design is feasable and worth pursuing.

[Dunesbury]

I thought there was conflict!

[Tarsier79]

Is discussing the formula of angular momentum conservation going to help a builder incite the need to build....

Yes, it does help. IMO, If you see a mathematical anomaly that either creates or destroys energy, a well designed POP test should be constructed in both competent simulation, and a physical build for confirmation.

But, in saying that, I have not seen anything here that would prompt me to build anything.

[Dunesbury]

What would be example of mathematical anomaly ?

[Fletcher]

For those wondering ... here is a ready reckoner.

In a rotational environment Angular Momentum is conserved.

This means a mass moving outwards to 2x it initial radius will have 1/2 its initial tangential/linear momentum [mv] & 1/2 its initial tangential/linear velocity. It will have 1/4 its initial KE & the wheel will have 1/4 its initial RPM [1/2 velocity x 2x distance travelled].

N.B. 3/4's of the KE it lost in contact with the wheel rim. It evaporates as losses. The loss is due to contact at right angles [normal] to the direction of wheel travel, so its KE can not do work in the direction of travel. However that KE could be harvested in a decelerating process or could be stored for later use.

The opposite happens when a mass has energy added to it to move it inwards to 1/2 its original radius. The initial linear momentum & velocity is 2x, the KE & RPM is 4x.

Here, energy must be added to the system. This energy is the same amount as that lost in the outward moving phase. This is symmetrical relationship [what you get out you must put in again]. It is also an ideal situation where there are no other losses or significant mass of the wheel background itself which would slightly distort the sums.

ETA: the changes in either in or out phase of mv, v, KE, & RPM are related to the proportional radius change & not distance.

Hope that helps.

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

IMO, what is interesting to note is that Cf's/momentum/inertial forces can act like a piston in the outgoing phase, except the piston is not accelerated up to a higher velocity like a normal piston analogue BUT decelerated after starting at a high velocity & momentum.

Whether that momentum change can be used to advantage is a different matter for consideration.

[rlortie]

I agree that if you see a mathematical anomaly that either creates or destroys energy, a well designed POP test should be constructed.

Problem is, I do not see it! First off if it is an anomaly one expects to see something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

My question now, is this deviation found in theoretical math or within physical objectivity.

I quote the following and underline the problem:

In its purest sense, the idea of objectivity assumes that a truth or independent reality exists outside of any investigation or observation. The researcher's task in this model is to uncover this reality without contaminating it in any way. This notion - that a researcher can observe or uncover phenomena without affecting them - is increasingly rejected, especially in the social sciences but also in the natural sciences. In qualitative research, a realistic aim is for the researcher to remain impartial; that is, to be impartial to the outcome of the research, to acknowledge their own preconceptions and to operate in as unbiased and value-free way as possible.

The only way I know to follow the above guidelines is to physically build what you think might solve the mystery. You can talk about it until doomsday and gain nothing. Math as we know it will not solve the mystery, that is why after 300 years there are still assumptions where the historic and present mathematicians do not agree with Newtons Principia on Motion.

This is probably not a nice thing to say, but I believe jim_mich made a prime example of his bias, (prejudice in favor of his theory) and not heeding the above.

There is a loophole in assuming that what laws we live by cannot be broke, apparently Bessler found it. It was not in a text book or by abiding to mathematical equations of his time and apparently not in our time.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

The problem here is that a few people, as recently as TLW, expect the tangential/linear velocity & momentum to remain the same regardless of any new radius.

That would take some new math.

Of course if you don't consider other losses or influences such as background wheel mass ... OR .. sticky bearings, then you might conclude erroneously that the math is wrong when your physical model doesn't match the predicted by the math.

[rlortie]

HI! Fletcher,

Our last posts overlapped.

I fail to see why anyone would expect the tangential/linear velocity & momentum to remain the same regardless of any new radius. To stay the same, something has to give and it is usually velocity.

My problem comes from what we have interpreted from Bessler, It is OB and the weights gain force from their own swinging, am I right so far? As his wheels got bigger in diameter did the RPM raise or drop?

Is it not true that inertia creates Cf (tangential/linear velocity) and that this force hits the rim at 80 degrees and not 90 degrees to the axis? Isn't this why it is called tangent, If not true, then we have a discrepancy in the definition of 'Work".

I seldom wonder into space, but TLW often uses it, if the planets orbited at right axis to the sun and not at a tangent there would be but one immovable Barycentric coordinate. The planets in a sense gain force by their own swinging.

Where is the Barycenter in Bessler's canvas covered drum?

Ralph

[Dunesbury]

Which was first, nuclear reactors or math for nuclear reactors?
You wouldn't build dam without using math, or even waterwheel. You have to use basic math for any "build".
If perpetual motion, overunity, or free energy are possible, it will be mathmetician that discovers it.
That is why sims will not sim it. Math is classical mechanics.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

I see no anomaly, only flawed experiments wherein there is a energy input into all the experiments I have seen thus far, it is the pull of the weight inward that give the unexpected higher RPM than the expected, because KE is added to the frame and weights greatly increases their velocity, and when CF pulls the weights outward KE is lost not only to the collision at the end of the travel but also to the dramatic slowdown of the weights RPM and thus the frames RPM, CF vector clashing with the AM vectors. your maths are not real world and only real experiments with measured added energy inputs can provide the correct maths.

Every experiment I have see relating to Angular Momentum has firstly had large amounts of energy put into the experiment, and in natural Angular Momentum it is only possible because of constant work being done by gravity's against the constant pull outwards by Centrifugal force, this can be seen in the battery experiment as the hand lets go of the string CF become the true and dominant force in the experiment whereas orbital AM Gravity is a constant hand on the string, and when acceleration is need it pulls the mass inward, it is CF and gravity working hand in hand so to speak both being the near equal and opposite forces CF the draining force and Gravity the input force needed to top up the lost KE. given the very low RPM of the Earth, AM play very little in the orbiting game. and a CF speed governor should tell you all you need to know about AM advantage in the BW game.

As for the ice skater you will have to track all the force and AM vectors and all the energy input vectors to find the truth, note the acceleration into the spin and then the low friction pivot point, then the pull in of all the mass against the effect of CF on the mass, its a lot of energy input.

Edit,Hi Ralph, I was typing the above when you posted. It is hard for me to put into word my thinking, I think the definition of work has been reduce by all who are in the planets and stars gravity's does no work on there orbits camp, they think it was the 3.5 billion year old velocity that was the only input of energy into the system, and a straight line pull against other forces does no work, I think I now why the phrase go fly a kite was invented, yes the wind is pulling it away from you but you have to pull back against it if not it fly's off and you may not see it again, its the same as CF and Gravity, without the exertion of the force of gravity, CF could take the earth away and the Sun may never see it again. Newton's mass it motion will continue in a straight line path unless acted upon by another force, that mean to take away mass in motion from a straight line path there needs to be the exertion of force which is work done no matter what the vectors are the exertion of force or to bring to bear a force is work done or doing work, there is no way in nature that all work can only be done with restricted torque vectors you could not even plough a field.

Edits, spelling + Old.

[Fletcher]

Oh Boy ..

Here is s'Gravesande's Cf experiment in sim form - Gravity is turned off so we only have masses inertia to contend with - I have created artificial gravity force to act on the Lifted Mass.

Note the sim oscillates - first the Lift Mass loses PE then rebounds upwards as Cf's become the stronger force - then gravity wins out again & so the oscillation continues.

There are no system losses else it would slow down quickly & the Lift mass would lose height & PE.

N.B. at no time does the Lift Mass GAIN in PE.