Lets call left and right clockwise and counter clockwise. Objects have real energy if their movement is in any direction.
I just did a real experiment for you.
My sports cam provides 240 frames per second. A frame by frame analysis shows that the velocity increase, for the spheres, of my latest despin experiment is proportional to the difference in the spheres mass to the total mass. This difference in mass of the spheres to the cylinder and spheres is about 1 to 14; and the video tape shows a corresponding increase in velocity of about 14x.
This corresponds with F = ma; or mv in equals mv out.
For Leibniz's mv² formula to be correct you would have expected a velocity increase of about 3.75x. Because Leibniz said his formula would not work for masses that interact; then I guess we can not say that Leibniz is wrong. But we can say that anyone that applies his formula for this event is wrong.
14 does not equal 3.75; both formulas can not be correct; one is wrong. This is not a sim it is a real world experiment with fairly sophisticated equipment. Each frame is good and they are only 1/240th of a second apart.
Newton is correct and energy is being made with despin devices. I like the one from Taiwan; Dec 22nd 2014 yo-yo despin device for a sounding rocket.
Bessler did not know this was against the rules. He may have flipped something using this CF. And indeed may be Jim is doing this as well.
Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit
Moderator: scott
re: Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit
Yep .. still making a mistake is always on the table ME.
BUT .. reasoning and finding the break in kinetic symmetry that allows a gain to accumulate is the key differential IMO.
Mr V calls it the N3 break (equal and opposite reactions) - I previously visualized it as a means to accumulate linear momentum - others probably have different perceptions of what it needs to be.
BUT .. identifying the math to explain the divergence it is at least as important, ipso facto, IMO !
BUT .. reasoning and finding the break in kinetic symmetry that allows a gain to accumulate is the key differential IMO.
Mr V calls it the N3 break (equal and opposite reactions) - I previously visualized it as a means to accumulate linear momentum - others probably have different perceptions of what it needs to be.
BUT .. identifying the math to explain the divergence it is at least as important, ipso facto, IMO !
re: Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit
Dax wrote:
And here is the problem; Centrifugal force is nothing more than inertia, that which attempts to keep what is in motion on a straight course. Centrifugal force does not pull radial outward from the axis but rather at a tangent.
Constraint forces determine the movement of components in a system, constraining the object within a boundary (in the case of a slope plus gravity, the object is stuck to the slope, when attached to a taut string it cannot move in an outwards direction to make the string any 'tauter'). Constraint forces ensure the velocity in the direction of the constraint is zero, which means the constraint forces do not perform work on the system.
If the system doesn't change in time,[4] they eliminate all movement in the direction of the constraint, thus constraint forces do not perform work on the system, as the velocity of that object is constrained to be 0 parallel to this force, due to this force. This only applies for a single particle system. For example, in an Atwood machine, the rope does work on each body, but keeping always the net virtual work null. There are, however, cases where this is not true.[4]
For example, the centripetal force exerted inwards by a string on a ball in uniform circular motion sideways constrains the ball to circular motion restricting its movement away from the center of the circle. This force does zero work because it is perpendicular to the velocity of the ball.
Many wheel ideas (possibly including Jim_Mich) have relied on Cf working on an outward weight to pull in a connected weight of less radius. Many trials and tribulation have been spent on this concept to only find that it does not work!
The use of ropes and pulleys re-routing the inertia we call Cf, from a tangent or perpendicular force to a radial force emanating through the axis is the only way I know of to gain an advantage from Cf.
Ralph
WORK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29I don’t understand your argument, help me with it please, is not the acceleration a squared function? Or “Unlike the other two fictitious forces, the centrifugal force always points radially outward from the axis of rotation of the rotating frame, with magnitude mω2r,â€�
And here is the problem; Centrifugal force is nothing more than inertia, that which attempts to keep what is in motion on a straight course. Centrifugal force does not pull radial outward from the axis but rather at a tangent.
Constraint forces determine the movement of components in a system, constraining the object within a boundary (in the case of a slope plus gravity, the object is stuck to the slope, when attached to a taut string it cannot move in an outwards direction to make the string any 'tauter'). Constraint forces ensure the velocity in the direction of the constraint is zero, which means the constraint forces do not perform work on the system.
If the system doesn't change in time,[4] they eliminate all movement in the direction of the constraint, thus constraint forces do not perform work on the system, as the velocity of that object is constrained to be 0 parallel to this force, due to this force. This only applies for a single particle system. For example, in an Atwood machine, the rope does work on each body, but keeping always the net virtual work null. There are, however, cases where this is not true.[4]
For example, the centripetal force exerted inwards by a string on a ball in uniform circular motion sideways constrains the ball to circular motion restricting its movement away from the center of the circle. This force does zero work because it is perpendicular to the velocity of the ball.
Many wheel ideas (possibly including Jim_Mich) have relied on Cf working on an outward weight to pull in a connected weight of less radius. Many trials and tribulation have been spent on this concept to only find that it does not work!
The use of ropes and pulleys re-routing the inertia we call Cf, from a tangent or perpendicular force to a radial force emanating through the axis is the only way I know of to gain an advantage from Cf.
Ralph
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
re: Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit
Not kept up with comments, will review when i get time.
As before with the previous examples, the interesting effect here is only momentary, while the dice are still up in the air so to speak. Any useful application will require some further breakthrough to be able to do this cyclically (as is ever the case with these things), so i totally accept that this renders these results utterly pointless and trivial. Probably.
But interesting, nonetheless.
In the example below, we have two masses on either end of a scissorjack, 4kg and 2kg, each accelerated from 0 to 2 meters / sec.
The total input work is thus 8J plus 4J = 12J.
Yet there's a 16J rise in KE of the scissorjack itself - its whole reference frame gains the unbalanced momentum of the larger 4kg mass.
So that's where the 16J came from... however, it gets worse - from the stationary frame the consequent 2m/s acceleration of the jack's frame adds its displacement to the effective displacement of the weights it's pushing...
So if we subtract 2m/s from the 4kg weight going the other way, it's now stationary relative to us, with zero KE, while adding that velocity to the 2kg mass means it's travelling at 4m/s relative to the static frame, so its KE has risen to 16J.
So relative to the static frame the large red mass is stationary, the small blue mass has 16J, the jack itself has 16J, a total of 32J vectored to the right... from a 12J input.
Must be some mistake i think... not sure what to make of any of this yet..
As before with the previous examples, the interesting effect here is only momentary, while the dice are still up in the air so to speak. Any useful application will require some further breakthrough to be able to do this cyclically (as is ever the case with these things), so i totally accept that this renders these results utterly pointless and trivial. Probably.
But interesting, nonetheless.
In the example below, we have two masses on either end of a scissorjack, 4kg and 2kg, each accelerated from 0 to 2 meters / sec.
The total input work is thus 8J plus 4J = 12J.
Yet there's a 16J rise in KE of the scissorjack itself - its whole reference frame gains the unbalanced momentum of the larger 4kg mass.
So that's where the 16J came from... however, it gets worse - from the stationary frame the consequent 2m/s acceleration of the jack's frame adds its displacement to the effective displacement of the weights it's pushing...
So if we subtract 2m/s from the 4kg weight going the other way, it's now stationary relative to us, with zero KE, while adding that velocity to the 2kg mass means it's travelling at 4m/s relative to the static frame, so its KE has risen to 16J.
So relative to the static frame the large red mass is stationary, the small blue mass has 16J, the jack itself has 16J, a total of 32J vectored to the right... from a 12J input.
Must be some mistake i think... not sure what to make of any of this yet..
- Attachments
-
re: Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit
Centrifugal force does not pull tangent it pulls radially. If it pulled tangent the end mass would accelerate, arc velocity, while the object rotates in the circle, and they do not.
The force in the string that is not centrifugal is the force that accelerate the spheres and at the same time decelerate the cylinder. May be I should not use the term Cf F because the only thing the centrifugal forces do is hold the whole system in circular motion or in a circular orientation. What causes the acceleration is the force, in the string, between the preexisting momentum of the cylinder and spheres. At first release the Cf F almost disappears from the string to the spheres, Cf F still holds the cylinder in place but it has no effect on the changing motion of the cylinder and spheres. And full extension the Cf F again hold the spheres in circular motion but the Cf F has had no effect on the acceleration of the spheres.
The centrifugal force only cause the shape of the experiment; I stand corrected.
The force in the string that is not centrifugal is the force that accelerate the spheres and at the same time decelerate the cylinder. May be I should not use the term Cf F because the only thing the centrifugal forces do is hold the whole system in circular motion or in a circular orientation. What causes the acceleration is the force, in the string, between the preexisting momentum of the cylinder and spheres. At first release the Cf F almost disappears from the string to the spheres, Cf F still holds the cylinder in place but it has no effect on the changing motion of the cylinder and spheres. And full extension the Cf F again hold the spheres in circular motion but the Cf F has had no effect on the acceleration of the spheres.
The centrifugal force only cause the shape of the experiment; I stand corrected.
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
This last interaction seems to be both a KE and momentum asymmetry.
Surely the acceleration of the net frame presents as a workload on the input energy? Ie. it's all paid for?
Yet this would imply that the input energy required to activate the jack would spontaneously increase by 16J just because the jack and the base it's attached to are allowed freedom of movement... to put it another way, resting on the ground we could activate the jack by releasing 12J of PE from a spring mounted to the unit, but if we then sat it on rollers the spring would no longer have enough energy to do its job, the workload having risen by 16J. That can't be right - the workload from within a reference frame should remain velocity-independent. Airport travelators save you energy - if it cost you twice as much energy to walk on them it'd defeat the object.
The thing about an N3 break is that the resulting acceleration of the net system is free - the interacting masses, for their part, are only moving relative to one another. The KE gained by the net system is a function of the asymmetric distribution of momentum between the masses, rather than the closed-loop input work..
Although i may as well be describing the anatomy of el chupacabra, if we had one, this is what it would look like. Not just an artist's impression, either - this is what the maths say.
So while this isn't yet a closed loop, and probably useless (if not entirely erroneous), we may be seeing tantalising hints of something more fruitful here..
Surely the acceleration of the net frame presents as a workload on the input energy? Ie. it's all paid for?
Yet this would imply that the input energy required to activate the jack would spontaneously increase by 16J just because the jack and the base it's attached to are allowed freedom of movement... to put it another way, resting on the ground we could activate the jack by releasing 12J of PE from a spring mounted to the unit, but if we then sat it on rollers the spring would no longer have enough energy to do its job, the workload having risen by 16J. That can't be right - the workload from within a reference frame should remain velocity-independent. Airport travelators save you energy - if it cost you twice as much energy to walk on them it'd defeat the object.
The thing about an N3 break is that the resulting acceleration of the net system is free - the interacting masses, for their part, are only moving relative to one another. The KE gained by the net system is a function of the asymmetric distribution of momentum between the masses, rather than the closed-loop input work..
Although i may as well be describing the anatomy of el chupacabra, if we had one, this is what it would look like. Not just an artist's impression, either - this is what the maths say.
So while this isn't yet a closed loop, and probably useless (if not entirely erroneous), we may be seeing tantalising hints of something more fruitful here..
re: Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit
Attached test: blue=almost massless wheels rolling on the ground.
When done like this the green weight goes two times faster (horizontally) then the red weight. I think as could be expected.
When done like this the green weight goes two times faster (horizontally) then the red weight. I think as could be expected.
- Attachments
-
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
re: Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit
Because Action + Reaction = 0
Most observation are done over a relative long time scale, so a lot of observed action/reaction-pairs are actually more a prediction over a certain time period, while the whole observation is the sum of cascading smaller events.
Most observation are done over a relative long time scale, so a lot of observed action/reaction-pairs are actually more a prediction over a certain time period, while the whole observation is the sum of cascading smaller events.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
re: Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit
Ralph:
Thanks Ralph, I don’t understand how Jim expects it not to be a wash. What is happening to one weight is acting in reverse to its twin. If you leverage it anywhere in their journey then you come up stroke short with the mechanical advantage’s disadvantage. I don’t imagine Jim is going to clear this up anytime soon; the bait will just get dragged in the gravel a bit.Many wheel ideas (possibly including Jim_Mich) have relied on Cf working on an outward weight to pull in a connected weight of less radius. Many trials and tribulation have been spent on this concept to only find that it does not work!
What goes around, comes around.
You daxwc, are the one that keeps dragging the so called bait. You keep asking questions. And I answer as much as I can without loosing intellectual property rights. But you're not happy. So don't you claim that it is me dragging bait. It is YOU that keeps baiting me with questions. I answer openly that which is public knowledge. I ignore and don't answer questions that would give away the secret.
So be honest daxwc, it is YOU and others doing the baiting. It is NOT me.
So be honest daxwc, it is YOU and others doing the baiting. It is NOT me.
re: Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit
But Jim you interrupt other’s threads to tell them about your motion wheel and how they are wrong and stupid they are, then condemn us when we ask any questions. What exactly is the point other than to seek attention?
Besides it is a very vague question I doubt anything would be given away by answering it.
Jim:
Jim:
Besides it is a very vague question I doubt anything would be given away by answering it.
Jim:
Really Jim? Don't you remember this quote.You daxwc, are the one that keeps dragging the so called bait. You keep asking questions.
Jim:
Just wait, all will be disclosed.
What goes around, comes around.
-
cloud camper
- Devotee
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:20 am
re: Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit
The big joke on everyone is that there was no bait in the first place.
This is an already disproven concept by JM's own experiments.
Simply changing from a liquid to mechanical form will not change the
results as the basic premise is flawed.
There are no asymmetric dynamic forces generated within a balanced
wheel. This is a testable claim which has been proven false.
And I thought we were told that if one had a high enough IQ, one did not
have to do physical testing.
What happened to that concept?
This is an already disproven concept by JM's own experiments.
Simply changing from a liquid to mechanical form will not change the
results as the basic premise is flawed.
There are no asymmetric dynamic forces generated within a balanced
wheel. This is a testable claim which has been proven false.
And I thought we were told that if one had a high enough IQ, one did not
have to do physical testing.
What happened to that concept?
Last edited by cloud camper on Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daxwc, why to you keep posting? It seems you are just seeking attention.
And why does it bother you so much when I write, "Just wait, all will be disclosed." ??
And what is this vague question that you refer to?
Besides, you don't believe that Bessler's wheel was a true perpetual motion wheel.
And why does it bother you so much when I simply ignore you? Don't you remember being so nasty to me?
I can't win no matter what I do.
Remember, you said for me to stop posting.
Daxwc, you need to apply some of that psycho-babble to yourself.
And why does it bother you so much when I write, "Just wait, all will be disclosed." ??
And what is this vague question that you refer to?
The answer is the same as Bessler wrote.daxwc wrote:So it begs to ask I guess, Jim can your wheel square its potential energy output?
I could comment more, but you complain that I'm baiting you.Bessler wrote:if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis. Further, I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold.
Besides, you don't believe that Bessler's wheel was a true perpetual motion wheel.
And why does it bother you so much when I simply ignore you? Don't you remember being so nasty to me?
I can't win no matter what I do.
Remember, you said for me to stop posting.
Daxwc, you need to apply some of that psycho-babble to yourself.
re: Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit
Remember, you said for me to stop posting.
No, I meant quit interrupting other people's threads, taking them off topic. You don't remember how mad you used to get at Murilo?
What goes around, comes around.