energy producing experiments

[ME]

If something is moving in an arc; and you cut the string it will move at the same rate, but in a line. It does not seem a stretch to use the same math for both motions. And if all points are moving clockwise (or all counterclockwise) then they are moving in the same direction.

This view of the universe seems to work; and isn't that what is important.

Yes, but the difference is that it gains a frequency.
And things keeps rotating while structural integrity keeps the centripetal force in place: this could be a string, gravity, or just structure itself.

Mass with velocity which is caught by rotation, gets a frequency (or angular velocity) which depends on its radius.
One could say when it does not rotate its radius is immensely large and its frequency is 0.
When parallel moving objects get caught tangent to a center, then the closer it gets the higher the frequency and the higher the angular velocity: w=v/r.
When it hits the center And it rotates then it actually came to a full-stop, with radius 0, and an angular velocity of relativistic proportions *).

But at any radius - on average - it just stopped.

(* Let's not go there, but one can image the conclusion for a whole universe

[Mark]

The word I had in my head was 'harmonic'. (mechanical)

Sphere mass vs. cylinder mass, based on tether length - which required trimming to create the proper radius.

[Not that I'm correcting you, I'm just kibitzing.]

[broli]

I commend your perseverance in this pequaide, many people have come and gone in this thread but you are still keeping it alive.

Truthfully I no longer believe in this concept, from my very brief experimentation I did not see the "MASSIVE" expected velocities that should be present when dealing with CoM of big masses transferring momentum to smaller masses. However these experiments were never done quantitatively so it's definitely not an absolute fact for me and that keeps on bugging me to be frank.

Your method of experimentation is not the cleanest either if I may be frank as it leaves lots of room for speculation. By eyeballing speeds and using a few blurry frames to determine quantities. Surely in all those years you could have conjured a better test bed to prove this concept, mostly to yourself at least. Here's hoping you or someone with some (not even advanced) resources could build such test bed.

[james.lindgard]

pequaide,
This is basically a double pendulum which conserves momentum in an opposing weight. There is a way in which a single bob (weight) can accelerate a pendulum (itself) and then reset itself to conserve momentum. What needs to be considered is how inertia is different than both linear and angular momentum. And I think if this is understood, then how inertia might be converted into angular momentum might be able to be considered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNGw46sG6EA

edited

[pequaide]

Broli

The pictures I have are clearer than what you see. What you see are pictures of a monitor; and it is one of those old box types. So the quality is not state of the art. And a picture of a picture is always a down grade; mainly the glare I suppose.

You have to realize what data is being sought. We are watching the black square on the cylinder move from one side to the other side. I place an immovable tape on one side of the square and see how many frames it takes for the right side to achieve the original position of the left side. You can move forward and backward as many times as you like to get an average and make sure you have it right. Lets say this is frame 1,2,3, and 4 and the square on the cylinder is crossed in these four frames. This is 4.5 units of momentum if we use unit for our mass and speed. Real number have been used but this time we will use one kg and one m/sec.

The mass of the spheres is 1 and the mass of the cylinder is 3.5.

The original arc velocity is 1 m/sec.

Now lets say we measure again at frame 35, 36, 37 and 38 and it takes these four frames to cross the square.

Then we measure again at frames 72, 73, 74, and 75 and it takes these four frames to cross the square.

The absolute same motion is held at these three position 1-4, 35-38, and 72-75. the Newtonian momentum at all these points is 4.5 units.

Between frame 4 and frame 35 the cylinder is completely stopped and restarted.

Between frame 38 and frame 72 the cylinder is completely stopped and restarted.

Now lets do the math; The total mass is 4.5 times the mass of the spheres. So when the spheres have all the motion the spheres must be moving 4.5 times as fast to conserve Newtonian momentum; mv. This is 4.5 units of momentum.

The total mass is 4.5 times the mass of the spheres. So when the spheres have all the motion the spheres must be moving 2.12 times as fast to conserve kinetic energy. This is 2.12 units of momentum.

No physic experiment have ever give anything but newtonian momentum from the small object to the large object. This means that if kinetic energy is conserved the momentum at 35-38 is only 2.12 and it would take over 8 frames to cross the square.

If energy were conserved; you would also have a second down grade of motion for the spheres in the second stop of the cylinder and second restart. That would be 47% the motion of the spheres down from 2.12 m/sec to 1 m/sec for the spheres at the point where they have all the motion for the second time. And this was the original motion of the whole system not just the spheres. And further; it would take almost 18 frame to cross from 72-75.

Okay so lets make it simple; with energy conservation we are looking for 8 frames to cross at 35-38 and 18 frames at 72-75.

The quality of the experiment far exceeds this 4 instead of 8 and this 4 instead of 18 criterion. I know with not doubt what soever that energy is not a conserved quantity.

At 240th of a second I don't think it is too shabby. But of course if you would like to buy me a 1000 per second.

What do your experiments look like? Maybe I could help.

[broli]

It was based on this concept:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZaEbdfJPaE

It was quite a while ago so the setup no longer exists, if I would do a new one I would do it properly. For example I would first experimentally determine the moment of inertia of the whole system by using this method:

http://skipper.physics.sunysb.edu/~phys ... hy133:lab7

Next it would just be a matter of engineering the setup to release the masses when needed.
Also did you know that (newer) smartphones have cameras that can do up to 240fps slow motion (mine can do 120fps). This would at least significantly increase the level of accuracy compared to 30fps. I'm mostly concerned with how you determine the initial arc velocity as the small masses are released as soon as you let go of the tube.

Did you ever upload your video btw? I would like to see the full restart.

[pequaide]

For determining initial release I use the fastest rate of square motion just as the spheres and cylinder are being released. I keep in mind that a video is being made so I try to keep the arc velocity uniform at release, and then I try for an average of the last four frames. I try not to get one last frame that is higher than the others but if I see one I will use that frame for the initial velocity. I don't actually watch the fingers at the release; the square motion will tell you when a release has occurred. I figure that the fastest speed is the most honest numbers.

So we place tape on the monitor and we use a tripod for an eye sight to keep the eye in the same position. So lets say the last four frames, before release, appear to move the right side of the black square to the previous position of the left side of the black square, and the last frame appears to move one fourth of a square. And then if the next frame moves one fifth of a square then we know a release has occurred. We will then mark down the particular run as a four frame velocity. Some are marked as threes or three and a halves.

The same procedure is used after the restart of the cylinder. The restarted cylinder has never been observed to move faster but it always seems to achieves the same velocity as the initial velocity. Accuracy is assured by repetition, you do it over and over and over.

I have not been successful at placing video on the internet. I would however be happy to send you a thumb drive with several good runs on it.

In the latest run of a newer model: the tungsten spheres are just above the ground as the stopped (from spinning) cylinder strikes the floor. This means that the visual distance moved over the background is almost equal to the distance traveled by the spheres. They appear to be moving at 4.4 times the original speed of both the cylinder and spheres. The total mass to spheres mass ratio is 4.5 to one.

This is the second full speed motion of the spheres. If energy were to be conserved you would have the 2.12 times the original motion for the first full speed motion of the spheres and only 1.0 times the original motion for the second full speed motion of the spheres; as previously discussed.

This 1 times the original motion is about 6.6 mm per frame (this was a three frame throw): but the spheres are moving a little over 30 mm per frame.

The data also shows what the spheres are not doing; they are not conserving energy; because they are not moving 6.6 mm/frame. They are conserving Newtonian momentum because they are moving about 31 mm/frame.  

[james.lindgard]

Here's something ya'all can try. When the pendulum starts to swing, a spring is compressed. When the pendulum swings to one side, the spring resets the weight. On the return swing, the weight is closer to the fulcrum.
A tab is needed to hold the weight closer to the fulcrum.
This is possible and can show one way to manipulate energy.
Requires working together.

[james.lindgard]

Here's something ya'all can try. When the pendulum starts to swing, a spring is compressed. When the pendulum swings to one side, the spring resets the weight. On the return swing, the weight is closer to the fulcrum.
A tab is needed to hold the weight closer to the fulcrum.
This is possible and can show one way to manipulate energy.
Requires working together.

Sorry about the double post

edited to add; think of a swing. When a person leans back, they accelerate forward. Then as they slow, they are sitting upright again and then swing back to start and then repeat the process.

[james.lindgard]

I've modified it slightly. The assembly can swing from a central fulcrum. And that fulcrum can also support a small cross bar that has 2 weights suspended from it.
One weight will have inertia acting on it and one won't. This means that the spring will not have to support the weight itself. And this is about as simple as it gets.
And as I mentioned, when swinging on a swing, force is generated by the upper body shifting it's CoG. This replicated that effect.

[pequaide]

Lindgard please discontinue posting on this thread; thanks.

[james.lindgard]

Sorry. I guess with the years you guys have been at it and seemingly no progress, I thought I might offer a suggestion that would show how momentum could be conserved from inertia. Again, I am sorry I made a specific suggestion.

[pequaide]

There are three Concepts who’s formulas have been used to evaluate the back and forth motion of the double stopping cylinder and spheres: they are; Angular Momentum conservation; Kinetic Energy conservation; and Newton’s Three Laws of Motion. They will be dealt with in order.

Gravity produces a higher linear (m/sec) velocity at perigee. That velocity is then multiplied by the smaller radius at perigee. This product: is equal to the product of the slower linear velocity at apogee and the larger radius at apogee. For the Earth around the Sun the numbers are 151.6 million km * 29.5 km/sec = 146.6 million km *30.5 km/sec: this is angular momentum conservation; and it requires a gravitational center. The gravitational center, such as the Sun, changes the linear velocity at the different radii. Angular momentum is not applicable if there is no gravitational center.

The Dawn Mission, or any other rocket, has no gravitational center at the position of the axis of rotation.

The center of mass of the ice skater does not pull the arms and legs in with a gravitational acceleration.

The barbells are not pulled in by the gravitation force of the center of mass of the spinning person on a chair.

The cylinder does not gravitationally slow the spheres as they progress away from the cylinder.

None of the four events above can be evaluated with angular momentum conservation.

Large quantities of Newtonian momentum are lost if kinetic energy is conserved when the spheres have all the motion. This loss of motion cannot be brought back because only Newtonian momentum can be transferred from small objects to large; this is known from ballistic pendulum experiments.

So the question in the cylinder and spheres experiment would be: is the overall motion lost or maintained. And the answer is that it is maintained in all phases of the experiment; motion is maintained in the phase when the spheres have all the motion and in the phase when the motion is shared. The type of motion conserved is Newtonian.

The most conservative numbers I get (when the spheres have all the motion) are about 80% of a Newtonian match. But the same numbers are 300% high of a kinetic energy (and angular momentum) match. So you are either 20% low or 200% too high. If you plug this into laws of probability it would probably be a million to one for Newton; because you should not be able to achieve high numbers.

The cylinder and spheres makes energy and conserves Newtonian motion. The 20% low is probably mostly air resistance, and different designs are not all 20% low. But they are all way above energy conservation.

[broli]

Here's a very cool physics tool you can track objects with and gather all sorts of data:

http://physlets.org/tracker/

I'm sure it will come to be useful.

[pequaide]

Did you see a price?