Tarsier79 wrote:Grimer. Do you understand what happens when you multiply any mechanism around a wheel? Why don't you think the same will happen with your device?
Priority Claim
Moderator: scott
- Attachments
-
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: Priority Claim
Grimer, that was a legitimate question. Why do you think multiplication will solve this designs issues?
re: Priority Claim
That's allright Frank. The purpose of the quesstion was to get you to think for yourself. Now you plead the fifth, neither of us know if you got my intended point.
re: Priority Claim
Nope. I was a volunteer that went out with a crew to patch up peoples houses. Amazing the damage in just a few hours.
re: Priority Claim
I was looking through my list of quotes and came across this comment by Ted-X on the E-Cat World Forum. At first I thought Ted-X was someone's handle but on looking it up I found it's the name of some kind of organisation. To get back on track, the quote is as follows:
"The principle of conservation of energy (in the mechanical systems) is just based on observations and may not be exactly true (in spite of we are being told by the physics professors). In fact, a machine generating energy by pure mechanical means has been constructed by Bessler (about 300 years ago). It was in the time when Newton himself was alive; however, Newton declined to comment about Bessler's invention. The trick might not be in extracting energy from the gravitational field (which is considered to be "conservative", but in utilizing apparent contradiction between the law of preservation of momentum and the law describing kinetic energy of matter (m*v = const and 0.5*m*v^2 = const). If we could manage to transfer momentum (partly or fully) from a ball moving slower to a ball moving faster (so the slow ball would slow down or stop), a simple calculation shows that the kinetic energy would be gained. Apparently, Bessler achieved just this, using rotating weights."
I know that this kind of hiatus has been commented on before in the forum but I've never seen it expressed in such simple terms - so I thought I would work through an example.
Suppose we have two equal weights of mass M moving a a velocity v.
the total momentum is.................. M.v + M.v = 2.M.v
the total KE is .............................. M.v² + M.v² = 2.M.v²
If we move the momentum from the first term to the second term then
the total momentum is.................. M.0 + M.2v = 2.M.v
which is the same as before so momentum is conserved.
However, the total KE is................. M.0² + M.(2.v)² = 4.M.v²
So the kinetic energy has doubled.
I thought about this for some time and came up with one of my "famous 'now I see' moments". ;-) This apparent contradiction is the underlying reason for the gain in energy of the Gravity Pulse Motor - Mark 5. Funnily enough it was only because I was too damn lazy to choose different masses in my illustrative example that I saw the answer.
Back later.
"The principle of conservation of energy (in the mechanical systems) is just based on observations and may not be exactly true (in spite of we are being told by the physics professors). In fact, a machine generating energy by pure mechanical means has been constructed by Bessler (about 300 years ago). It was in the time when Newton himself was alive; however, Newton declined to comment about Bessler's invention. The trick might not be in extracting energy from the gravitational field (which is considered to be "conservative", but in utilizing apparent contradiction between the law of preservation of momentum and the law describing kinetic energy of matter (m*v = const and 0.5*m*v^2 = const). If we could manage to transfer momentum (partly or fully) from a ball moving slower to a ball moving faster (so the slow ball would slow down or stop), a simple calculation shows that the kinetic energy would be gained. Apparently, Bessler achieved just this, using rotating weights."
I know that this kind of hiatus has been commented on before in the forum but I've never seen it expressed in such simple terms - so I thought I would work through an example.
Suppose we have two equal weights of mass M moving a a velocity v.
the total momentum is.................. M.v + M.v = 2.M.v
the total KE is .............................. M.v² + M.v² = 2.M.v²
If we move the momentum from the first term to the second term then
the total momentum is.................. M.0 + M.2v = 2.M.v
which is the same as before so momentum is conserved.
However, the total KE is................. M.0² + M.(2.v)² = 4.M.v²
So the kinetic energy has doubled.
I thought about this for some time and came up with one of my "famous 'now I see' moments". ;-) This apparent contradiction is the underlying reason for the gain in energy of the Gravity Pulse Motor - Mark 5. Funnily enough it was only because I was too damn lazy to choose different masses in my illustrative example that I saw the answer.
Back later.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: Priority Claim
Shouldn't the re-arranged 2nd example (above) be ...However, the total KE is................. M.0² + M.(2.v)² = 4.M.v²
M.0² + M.2.(v)² = 2.M.v²
The velocity hasn't changed.
You can't win, Vader. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. - Obi Wan
"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five." - Groucho Marx
"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five." - Groucho Marx
Re: re: Priority Claim
The "momentumists" have been banging on about this for an age, as you observe.Grimer wrote:
"If we could manage to transfer momentum (partly or fully) from a ball moving slower to a ball moving faster (so the slow ball would slow down or stop), a simple calculation shows that the kinetic energy would be gained. Apparently, Bessler achieved just this, using rotating weights."
I know that this kind of hiatus has been commented on before in the forum but I've never seen it expressed in such simple terms - so I thought I would work through an example.
Suppose we have two equal weights of mass M moving a a velocity v.
the total momentum is.................. M.v + M.v = 2.M.v
the total KE is .............................. M.v² + M.v² = 2.M.v²
If we move the momentum from the first term to the second term then
the total momentum is.................. M.0 + M.2v = 2.M.v
which is the same as before so momentum is conserved.
However, the total KE is................. M.0² + M.(2.v)² = 4.M.v²
So the kinetic energy has doubled.
But the quote in red above doesn't go far enough IMO. Ideally there should be a difference in the masses & the relative velocities, which your algabraic example doesn't show. Say a 4kg mass travelling at 2.5m/s impacts/impulses at stationary 1kg mass for example - the KE is conserved because the 4kg mass still has a residual velocity of 1.5m/s after impact i.e. it couldn't give all its momentum to the 1kg mass.
Interestingly this can be achieved if we give the 1kg mass a reverse velocity of 3.75m/s - then the 4kg mass is stopped dead & the 1kg mass reverses direction & shoots away - but still we are bound to COE :(
See my simple linear momentum & KE calculator spreadsheet to see for yourself.
So far no mechanical device has been found that allows complete momentum transfer that increases system KE - I am working on it however.
- Attachments
-
- Linear_Calculator_Simplified1.xls
- Linear_Calculator_Simplified1
- (35.5 KiB) Downloaded 144 times
-
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: Priority Claim
Probably have Nic - I literally have thousands of sims of all types.
As you can appreciate I need a design or experiment detail to sim before I would know for sure whether I'd done something similar to what you are suggesting - I no longer try to interpret what others say in words.
cheers
As you can appreciate I need a design or experiment detail to sim before I would know for sure whether I'd done something similar to what you are suggesting - I no longer try to interpret what others say in words.
cheers
re: Priority Claim
Yesterday I had an interesting conversation with a forum member (Charles) on Skype, a fabulous free facility for having free intercontinental discussion.Grimer wrote:.............................................Mv?mV
I've now realised where the Gravity Pulse Motor's energy is coming from.
Unlike linear momentum, angular momentum has a datum, an "absolute zero".
You can simply illustrate this with a bucket of water.
If you rotate it clockwise about its vertical axis the surface will deform into the shape of a parabola. Likewise if you rotate is counter clockwise. These deformations show that the bucket is rotating significantly with respect to the absolute frame of reference for acceleration.
There is no known datum for linear momentum, no datum, no "absolute zero, no known frame of reference for velocity.
Thus the angular momentum is analogous to temperature and considerations of entropy come into play.
This means that a small mass at a higher velocity is at a higher "temperature" than a large mass at a lower velocity. Hence the colours I have chosen in the above equation. A short period pendulum is obtaining a higher quality of heat from the gravitational field than a long period pendulum.
Now energy can be obtained from temperature differences as the Carnot cycle shows.
The Gravity Pulse Motor is simply demonstrating on a macro engineering scale what the Carnot cycle demonstrates on a micro scale.
Talk got around to the behaviour of a Yo-Yo. Charles instinctively felt that a fuller understanding its behaviour might lead to harnessing gravity energy.
I remarked that a Yo-Yo demonstrated transduction of 2nd order motion of freefall (the Yo-Yo dropped without holding the end of the string, into 3rd order motion, the Yo-Yo dropped whilst holding the end of the string).
Charles could see that the free fall was 2nd order motion, ok, but stumbled over the notion that the string-held case was third order motion - and one can see his point of view. The free fall energy is being turned into rotational energy, fine. But surely, rotational energy is just a case of acceleration towards the centre. So isn't one is just converting one form of acceleration into another?
Nope.
One must remember that as the held string Yo-Yo slowly falls it is accelerating.
Accelerating far more slowly than it accelerates in free-fall, certainly, but accelerating never the less.
This means that the rate of rotation of the Yo-Yo is increasing and its acceleration towards the centre is also increasing. This is different from the free-fall case where both the acceleration towards the ground AND the acceleration towards the centre are BOTH constant, the acceleration towards the centre being zero since the Yo-Yo isn't rotating.
So in free-fall, the velocity (1st derivative) towards the ground is increasing but the acceleration (2nd derivative) towards the ground is constant.
One has to be careful here not to get confused because we can easily observe that a velocity is increasing and see that it is different from a constant velocity but we cannot see that an acceleration is constant. When one thinks about it, the discovery that acceleration of a body towards the ground IS constant was quite a landmark in the history of physics because it's not at all obvious from simple observation.
More specifically, we have a situation with the Yo-Yo where the acceleration towards the ground of the yo-yo as a whole is constant but the acceleration towards its centre of the individual parts of the yo-yo is increasing.
It's a bit like Analysis of Variance, isn't it.
The Between Batch (the Yo-Yo and the Ground) acceleration is constant.
The Within Batch (the parts of the Yo-Yo and the Centre of the Yo-Yo) is increasing.
A difference in acceleration is the 3rd derivative, Jerk.
So one can see that a Yo-Yo is a very good physical model of most of the external 2nd derivative energy being transduced into internal 3rd derivative energy.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
why does this remind me of yoyodyne LOL
http://yoyodyne.com/
All kidding aside. I believe that we have had discussions about yo yo wheel possibilities here a few years back.
http://yoyodyne.com/
All kidding aside. I believe that we have had discussions about yo yo wheel possibilities here a few years back.