Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit

[eccentrically1]

eccentrically1, go back and read the Wiki article with a little more intelligence. It puts some restrictions on the conservation of KE...

It was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz during 1676–1689 who first attempted a mathematical formulation of the kind of energy which is connected with motion (kinetic energy). Leibniz noticed that in many mechanical systems (of several masses,

(KE)

was conserved so long as the masses did not interact. He called this quantity the vis viva or living force of the system. The principle represents an accurate statement of the approximate conservation of kinetic energy in situations where there is no friction. Many physicists at that time held that the conservation of momentum, which holds even in systems with friction, as defined by the momentum:

(P)

was the conserved vis viva. It was later shown that both quantities are conserved simultaneously, given the proper conditions such as an elastic collision.

But when the masses do interact then KE is no longer conserved, while momentum is usually conserved, depending upon the situations.

Jimich, go back and read the rest of the article with a little more intelligence. The restrictions are irrelevant to the principle.

It was largely engineers such as John Smeaton, Peter Ewart, Carl Holtzmann, Gustave-Adolphe Hirn and Marc Seguin who objected that conservation of momentum alone was not adequate for practical calculation and made use of Leibniz's principle. The principle was also championed by some chemists such as William Hyde Wollaston. Academics such as John Playfair were quick to point out that kinetic energy is clearly not conserved. This is obvious to a modern analysis based on the second law of thermodynamics, but in the 18th and 19th centuries the fate of the lost energy was still unknown. Gradually it came to be suspected that the heat inevitably generated by motion under friction was another form of vis viva. In 1783, Antoine Lavoisier and Pierre-Simon Laplace reviewed the two competing theories of vis viva and caloric theory.[3] Count Rumford's 1798 observations of heat generation during the boring of cannons added more weight to the view that mechanical motion could be converted into heat, and (as importantly) that the conversion was quantitative and could be predicted (allowing for a universal conversion constant between kinetic energy and heat). Vis viva then started to be known as energy, after the term was first used in that sense by Thomas Young in 1807.

As an example, if the momentum of a first moving weight transfers to a second equal moving weight such that the second weight gains all the momentum of the first, thus its speed is doubled, then the KE of the second weight is increased 4x, and the sum of the KE of the two weights is doubled. This spontaneous energy increase is compliments of Mother Nature.

I can't comment on your example; from what I can tell all you're saying is the weights obey the laws of nature we've been discussing, i.e., KE= 1/2mv2 and P=mv. But it isn't an energy increase. An energy increase would be if the KE of the second weight increased more than 4x, etc.

Jim, did you miss my reply to your post?

The conservation of energy law does include kinetic energy, in cases when masses do interact. When masses (or any components in a system) interact, the friction between them is the reason the law isn't only for thermodynamic systems.

Motion is impossible without friction.

All systems are "thermodynamic" because of their friction: their motion converts some energy to thermal energy, irreversibly.

I think that explains it better.

[jim_mich]

eccentrically1, did you miss this...

If you don't think the conservation of energy law applies to a motion wheel, that's your problem. Until you can show it doesn't apply, either by argument or other means, your opinion remains based on science fiction.

The conservation of energy law is a thermodynamic law. Many people assume it applies outside of thermodynamics. It does not. It deals with conversion of heat into motion, and motion into heat. This includes combustion, chemical reactions, etc. But there is no conservation of kinetic energy.

Much of the time, Kinetic energy comes into existence from nature, from outside of objects. For instance, assume two equal weights traveling toward each other.

And you ride the first weight. And the second weight hits the first weight. You will say the second weight supplied the KE of the collision.

Again, same example, except you ride the second weight. And the first weight hits the second weight. You will say the first weight supplied the KE of the collision.

You can repeat the example with you stationary, and both weights hit each other at a same speed. So now you will say both weights supplied the KE of the collision.

Now tell me, which weight supplied the energy of the collision? The answer is, neither weight. Nature supplied the energy. During the collision the weights changed their motions or they changed their heat content, depending whether the collision was elastic or inelastic.

Another example, two equal moving weights. The first weight transfers all of its momentum to the second weight. The first weight ends up with zero speed. The speed of the second weight has doubled. The total KE of the two weights has doubled. Where did the extra KE come from? It was supplied by nature. The universe supplied the increased KE.

Oh, if your perspective is from the second weight, then it is the first weight that doubled its KE.

[ME]

Motion is impossible without friction.

Motion without friction stays in motion.

Perhaps a change in motion is impossible without friction (at least interaction is needed --> can there be interaction without friction?).
And a change in motion is kinetic energy and/or acceleration.

[pequaide]

Wiki: It was Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz during 1676–1689 who first attempted a mathematical formulation of the kind of energy which is connected with motion (kinetic energy). Leibniz noticed that in many mechanical systems (of several masses, mi each with velocity vi ),

was conserved so long as the masses did not interact. He called this quantity the vis viva or living force of the system. The principle represents an accurate statement of the approximate conservation of kinetic energy in situations where there is no friction. Many physicists at that time held that the conservation of momentum, which holds even in systems with friction, as defined by the momentum:

was the conserved vis viva. It was later shown that both quantities are conserved simultaneously, given the proper conditions such as an elastic collision.


There are two disclaimers in this paragraph. “The principle represents an accurate statement� if and only if you acknowledge the two disclaimers.

The first disclaimer is that KE is conserved only when (“ so long as the masses did not interact�) the masses do not interact. Well the masses are almost always interacting so kinetic energy is almost never conserved. So we have a so call conservation law that has a disclaimer that applies to 99.99% of the interactions. The Law is applicable less than 1% of the time.

The second disclaimer comes after the pointy heads said both are conserved (Ke and mv). And that disclaimer is basically the same “given the proper conditions such as an elastic collision.� for Ke to be conserved. But those proper conditions are about .1% of the time. A universal law good for .1% of the time. Some law. And that is why you will not find it in the physics books.

There is no Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy.

This paragraph also contains a false statement: “ momentum, which holds even in systems with friction�.

Momentum conservation does not hold when there is friction.

Me; beat me to it. Motion does not require friction.

[ME]

But friction could also be considered a momentum-transfer.
So I think conservation of momentum still holds, it's only problematic because it's not going where we want it to go..

[jim_mich]

There is no Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy.

This is what I've been saying for a few years now, There is no Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy. Once you fully understand WHAT constitutes KE, then you understand WHY there is no Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy.

You can look at it from a number of different perspectives. Conservation of Energy is valid when dealing with thermodynamic processes such as heat engines and similar. Also, when there is motion without interaction, then Conservation of Energy prevails. But when you get into interactive motions of objects/weights, then as with my examples above, conservation of momentum holds true, while Conservation of KINETIC Energy does not hold true.

And motion does not require friction. And friction drains motion whenever present.

[eccentrically1]

eccentrically1, did you miss this...

If you don't think the conservation of energy law applies to a motion wheel, that's your problem. Until you can show it doesn't apply, either by argument or other means, your opinion remains based on science fiction.

The conservation of energy law is a thermodynamic law. Many people assume it applies outside of thermodynamics. It does not. It deals with conversion of heat into motion, and motion into heat. This includes combustion, chemical reactions, etc. But there is no conservation of kinetic energy.

Much of the time, Kinetic energy comes into existence from nature, from outside of objects. For instance, assume two equal weights traveling toward each other.

And you ride the first weight. And the second weight hits the first weight. You will say the second weight supplied the KE of the collision.

Again, same example, except you ride the second weight. And the first weight hits the second weight. You will say the first weight supplied the KE of the collision.

You can repeat the example with you stationary, and both weights hit each other at a same speed. So now you will say both weights supplied the KE of the collision.

Now tell me, which weight supplied the energy of the collision? The answer is, neither weight. Nature supplied the energy. During the collision the weights changed their motions or they changed their heat content, depending whether the collision was elastic or inelastic.

Another example, two equal moving weights. The first weight transfers all of its momentum to the second weight. The first weight ends up with zero speed. The speed of the second weight has doubled. The total KE of the two weights has doubled. Where did the extra KE come from? It was supplied by nature. The universe supplied the increased KE.

Oh, if your perspective is from the second weight, then it is the first weight that doubled its KE.

I didn't miss it. The energy came from whatever gave the weights their motion initially. Most of energy is derived from the sun. Most kinetic energy from nature can be traced back to the sun. Weights don't spontaneously begin traveling toward each other. "Nature" didn't push them to "a same speed". It doesn't shine any light on the issue to use an incomplete thought experiment.

It's the same thing with Bessler's wheels. If I use that logic, I can say the same thing gave them their energy. They spontaneously began to move. But it doesn't help. It's not an answer to the question, what provided the energy for the (whatever)? Nothing has ever spontaneously begun to move without leaving an energy trail to follow to a source.

Even if we said the weights fell from space, because 'nature', they will still obey the formula 1/2mv2. There isn't an increase in one weight's KE unless there is a decrease in the other weight's KE.

[eccentrically1]

Motion is impossible without friction.

Motion without friction stays in motion.

Perhaps a change in motion is impossible without friction (at least interaction is needed --> can there be interaction without friction?).
And a change in motion is kinetic energy and/or acceleration.

That's what I meant, sorry. A change in motion is impossible without friction. Thanks ME.

[MrVibrating]

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.

Excellent work, and thanks for taking the time and interest!

It looks like your sim covers the main points, however the sketch i provided was too simplistic - accelerating those masses to 2m/s with such a short jack would require significant impulse.

So i'm gonna try to sim it with a much longer jack, accelerating the masses up to speed more gradually while plotting their various vis vivas....

The idea would be to first confirm good consistency between input energy and work done - so i'll omit gravity and use a spring to input 12J precisely. This should accelerate both masses up to 2m/s. Slight losses shouldn't matter.

I'll initially try this with the jack, and its support stand, anchored to Earth. This will provide a baseline scenario.

Then i'll repeat the same measurements, but with the whole rig floating freely, to see if it accelerates while still performing the same work as before.

Again, this is all fairly tenuous as the expected gain is only manifest during the acceleration phase - as soon as the masses decelerate and stop, the 'gain' disappears. Still, a nice long ride up to 2m/s should provide lots of data within the available window. And even if nothing can be done with it, it would still be fascinating to see a transient increase in net system energy. Usually such things are only seen due to mistakes.. a valid, if useless example, would still be a good omen.

I also realised my mistake in the previous example - there is an unbalanced momentum of P=4, but i only divided it by the mass of the stand & jack, whereas the weights are also attached to it. Which means i also need to factor in their motions to derive the net change in KE. But hey this is what sims are for eh... besides, all that really matters is that there is an unbalanced momentum - its KE equivalent is almost incidental at this stage.

And something else occurred to me this evening:

- An asymmetric distribution of momentum requires a minimum of three interacting masses.

Here's why:

- It makes no sense to consider an asymmetric distribution of momentum with regards to only two interacting masses, since their velocities can only be referenced relative to one another - hence given their respective masses and some absolute velocity between them, we can only objectively comment on the net system momentum - its precise distribution is ambiguous and dependent on which of the two frames (or any other) it's measured from.

So, distribution of momentum between two masses can only be stated in relation to a third mass. Presumably the wheel itself provides that frame..

[MrVibrating]

I didn't miss it. The energy came from whatever gave the weights their motion initially. Most of energy is derived from the sun. Most kinetic energy from nature can be traced back to the sun. Weights don't spontaneously begin traveling toward each other. "Nature" didn't push them to "a same speed". It doesn't shine any light on the issue to use an incomplete thought experiment.

It's the same thing with Bessler's wheels. If I use that logic, I can say the same thing gave them their energy. They spontaneously began to move. But it doesn't help. It's not an answer to the question, what provided the energy for the (whatever)? Nothing has ever spontaneously begun to move without leaving an energy trail to follow to a source.

Even if we said the weights fell from space, because 'nature', they will still obey the formula 1/2mv2. There isn't an increase in one weight's KE unless there is a decrease in the other weight's KE.

You're right, net KE is conserved, although in his example the energy came from an acceleration (the negative, deceleratory kind) applied to the stopped mass.

Both masses initially have equal, parallel velocities - there's no motion between them. From their perspective, braking one is applying positive acceleration to it, albeit from an external reference frame. From the external frame, work was exctracted from the moving system. But regardless of FoR and whether work was put in or taken out, the balance of net momentum between the two FoR's has shifted.

Net energy and momentum are unaffected.

The only way to truly "create" KE with respect to net energy, and likewise for momentum with respect to the fixed stars - is to perform these transfers of mometum between FoR's using effective N3 violations. Then we're no longer robbing Peter to pay Paul, and the net system energy and momentum has increased.

This is the key point that everybody needs to understand. It all comes down to Newton's 3rd law.

Something else perhaps worth bearing in mind with respect to this issue is the inevitable effects upon the Earth's momentum if its inertia is used to effectively sink unbalanced forces in a pseudo-N3 break (or even a real one), on a mass scale over sufficient time...

As i grow more convinced that Bessler's solution was what you guys are calling a "motion wheel", this ineluctable dichotomy looms ever more pressingly. The same question is undoubtedly weighing on JC's mind (he's actually addressed it on his blog quite recently). So if this is where we're headed, i hope everyone's prepared to face this issue... Personally, on the one hand i think the world is in dire need of a little financial adjustment... but calendar adjustments are a different prospect entirely.

[ME]

[Attached test]
Excellent work, and thanks for taking the time and interest!

Thanks.
I'm still trying to figure out which way you are going, so it's nice and fun to be able to cooperate in your public-brainstorm-session here...

Again, this is all fairly tenuous as the expected gain is only manifest during the acceleration phase - as soon as the masses decelerate and stop, the 'gain' disappears.
... And even if nothing can be done with it...

Watch, learn, and eventually work your way to a rotating variant where it accelerates until it's up-side-down....who knows?

An asymmetric distribution of momentum requires a minimum of three interacting masses.

[N=nr. of objects : I=nr. of paired interactions], I=(N^2-N)/2
[1:0], [2:1], [3:3], [4:6], [5:10], [6:15]...

(also works with beer, nr. of friends, and nr. of cheers)

[pequaide]

The error in your thinking is this. You think that the quantity of energy lost by one part of the interacting masses is equal to the quantity of energy gained by the other part. Leibniz himself said this is not true; he said that if the parts interact kinetic energy is not conserved.

Lets take a real world example of the spinning Dawn Mission rocket where about 1200 kilograms are stopped by 3 kilograms; this is 400 to one. Lets let the average velocity around the arc of the circle be 1 m/sec.

The total kinetic energy is ½ 1203 kg* 1 m/sec * 1m/sec = 601.5 joules. The total Newtonian momentum is 1203 units.

After the 3 kilograms absorbs .1 m/sec from the 1200 kilograms the velocity of the spinning1200 kilograms is .9 m/sec and the velocity of the 3 kilograms is 41m/sec.

The total momentum is 1200 *.9 m/sec + 3 * 41 m/sec =1203 units. The total kinetic energy is ½ * 1200 kg * .9 m/sec * .9 m/sec + ½ (3 kg * 41 m/sec * 41 m/sec) = 486 + 2521.5 =3007.5 joules.

The 1200 kilogram spinning rocket loses 114 joules: but the 3 kilograms gains 2520 joules.

The loses and gains are not equal; according to Newton and Leibniz.

Now where did Bessler get his energy?

[eccentrically1]

You're right, net KE is conserved, although in his example the energy came from an acceleration (the negative, deceleratory kind) applied to the stopped mass.

Thanks, MrV, at least you understand KE is a conserved property.



The restriction -as long as the masses don't interact- that everyone is worried about doesn't change the principle. If you read the explanation carefully, it says when the masses did interact, there was an unaccountable loss of energy, which was discovered later to be in the form of thermal energy. Just because we can perform an experiment with masses that we don't allow to interact doesn't mean KE isn't conserved in that experiment. I don't know how else to better explain this misunderstanding.

And yes, pequaide, Leibniz miscalculated the original formula, and it was later corrected with the fraction 1/2. The corrected formula applies 100% of the time. No one uses Leibniz' original formulation.

In the Dawn Mission example,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo_de-spin

the 3 kg weights are released out on 12 meter length cables. The radius for RKE is the squared function. The 3 kg weights transfer angular momentum from the 1420kg spacecraft out to their new radius at 12 meters ; the familiar ice skater example.

[MrVibrating]

For easy reference, just about any thermodynamic system's energy will be shown as conserved by accurate calorimetry - so whatever form the energy takes, radiation can be contained and converted to heat etc. and all energy accounted for in a closed system.

An ideal calorimeter will only show an anomaly if the system is open - ie. perfect insulation is not possible, meaning the system is non-classical. Most forms of OU attempted would fit this description - gravity wheels, magnet motors etc. - a working one would be in open circuit with the vacuum exchanges manifesting the fields to which the relevant forces belong. The most obvious form of such an asymmetry would be a time-dependency, such as if the force of gravity or the EM constant varied over time, in which case so would the net energy inside the calorimeter.

Another more current example woud be the LENR work currently underway - although here we'd also expect to see corresponding mass deficits. Obviously this is not OU in the same sense as an asymmetric force interaction, which on the face of it at least, would seem to challenge mass / energy equivalency (although my interpretation is that relativistic momentum of ambient vacuum flux is reduced instead - which obviously isn't directly measureable, yet).

The bottom line is that truly creating or destroying energy would pose a causality violation. It's 2+2 makes 5. Disproof is intrinsically impossible - all the evidence we have is that energy is conserved, and any appearance to the contrary is simply indicating an open system in one incorrectly regarded as closed.

No source and sink = no energy.

[MrVibrating]

[Attached test]
Excellent work, and thanks for taking the time and interest!

Thanks.
I'm still trying to figure out which way you are going, so it's nice and fun to be able to cooperate in your public-brainstorm-session here...

Again, this is all fairly tenuous as the expected gain is only manifest during the acceleration phase - as soon as the masses decelerate and stop, the 'gain' disappears.
... And even if nothing can be done with it...

Watch, learn, and eventually work your way to a rotating variant where it accelerates until it's up-side-down....who knows?

An asymmetric distribution of momentum requires a minimum of three interacting masses.

[N=nr. of objects : I=nr. of paired interactions], I=(N^2-N)/2
[1:0], [2:1], [3:3], [4:6], [5:10], [6:15]...

(also works with beer, nr. of friends, and nr. of cheers)

The method to the madness of these various tangents all centers around the input discounts we could save with an effective work-around for Newton's 3rd law.

So i start with the miracle, and work backwards, trying to reverse-engineer its effects without it, looking for something actually do-able.

Gonna try that sim i described this evening..

And the three-fold thing is probably entirely superficial - i note that JC says his exploit is an effective N3 break dependent upon a minimum of three mechanisms, but which is more effective with five. Following this logic then, 3 would provide a single unit of OU energy (or "power pulse" if you will), whereas 5 would furnish two per cycle. But this is most likely wholly spurious and coincidental... JC thinks he actually has an N3 break, while i'm just daydreaming how cool it would be..