I wonder if somebody actually calculted how much heat is being generated
in a ballistic pendulum.
The amount of heat, probably, should burn everything around the test site,
if the conservation of energy actually worked.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
In the vodcast example (which losses 1179 joules) the entire 2008 grams would allegedly be increased 1 degree; but 10 grams at the impact surface would be increased over 100 degrees. So finding this lost heat should present no problem; if it were there. Just another legend of the lost.
re: energy producing experiments
Just of the top of my head, 10 gram lead bullet with the speed of
1000 m/sec should have a kinetic energy of 5000 J (mv^2/2)
ends up in a pendulum , weight 10 kg raises up 10 cm,
total energy = mgh = 10 x 10 x .1 = 10 J
To melt lead we need 22 kJ/kg
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/laten ... -d_96.html
or 22 J per gram, for 10 grams - 220 J, compare to 5000 we have.
It looks like the bullet should not only melt, but evaporate!
1000 m/sec should have a kinetic energy of 5000 J (mv^2/2)
ends up in a pendulum , weight 10 kg raises up 10 cm,
total energy = mgh = 10 x 10 x .1 = 10 J
To melt lead we need 22 kJ/kg
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/laten ... -d_96.html
or 22 J per gram, for 10 grams - 220 J, compare to 5000 we have.
It looks like the bullet should not only melt, but evaporate!
re: energy producing experiments
A four-inch wooden kitchen match consumed completely generates approximately 1 BTU (=1055 J)
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: energy producing experiments
A four-inch wooden kitchen match consumed completely generates approximately 1 BTU (=1055 J)
So it should not only melt the lead, but burn a part of the wood enclosure as well.
So it should not only melt the lead, but burn a part of the wood enclosure as well.
re: energy producing experiments
I took data for lead from the above table
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/laten ... -d_96.html
it takes 4 matches for 5000 J
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/laten ... -d_96.html
it takes 4 matches for 5000 J
re: energy producing experiments
Lead melts at 621.3ºF, or about 550ºF above a room temperature of 71.3ºF.
It takes about 0.03 BTU to raise 1 lb of lead 1ºF.
Thus 550 × 0.03 = 16.5 BTU required to get one pound of lead hot enough to start melting.
Then is takes about 9.65 BTU to melt the lead.
The liquid lead can then be heated even hotter until it reaches its boiling point, at which time it requires additional BTU heat to make the lead boil.
If you intend to use all the heat of one match, then all of the heat needs to go into the lead, and NOT into the air as flame.
In other words, you can't hold a match under a piece of lead and expect the match to melt the lead. It just won't happen.
Ask any plumber. I've done plumbing. It takes a blow-torch directed at a pot of lead for a number of minutes before the lead starts to melt. Then more minutes to melt the lead.
You might be able to melt a whisker sized lead wire with a match, but definitely not a bullet.
It's obvious that you don't understand latent heat.
It takes about 0.03 BTU to raise 1 lb of lead 1ºF.
Thus 550 × 0.03 = 16.5 BTU required to get one pound of lead hot enough to start melting.
Then is takes about 9.65 BTU to melt the lead.
The liquid lead can then be heated even hotter until it reaches its boiling point, at which time it requires additional BTU heat to make the lead boil.
If you intend to use all the heat of one match, then all of the heat needs to go into the lead, and NOT into the air as flame.
In other words, you can't hold a match under a piece of lead and expect the match to melt the lead. It just won't happen.
Ask any plumber. I've done plumbing. It takes a blow-torch directed at a pot of lead for a number of minutes before the lead starts to melt. Then more minutes to melt the lead.
You might be able to melt a whisker sized lead wire with a match, but definitely not a bullet.
It's obvious that you don't understand latent heat.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
re: energy producing experiments
Firstly, I didn't bring matches into this discussion, they are irrelevant
for the case of ballistic pendulum
Secondly, once bullet embeds in the wood, it becomes very well
thermally isolated by the wood itself
Thirdly, I took the data from the official source, and I believe this type of
heat should be generated, if the conservation of energy was actually happening
Lastly, the point is that it doesn't happen, which is very important to understand for the further discussion of the subject.
Basically, if this type of the heating, 5000 J is not found, it means that
conservation of energy doesn't hold in this case, and kinetic energy
doesn't transform into potential energy of the pendulum!
for the case of ballistic pendulum
Secondly, once bullet embeds in the wood, it becomes very well
thermally isolated by the wood itself
Thirdly, I took the data from the official source, and I believe this type of
heat should be generated, if the conservation of energy was actually happening
Lastly, the point is that it doesn't happen, which is very important to understand for the further discussion of the subject.
Basically, if this type of the heating, 5000 J is not found, it means that
conservation of energy doesn't hold in this case, and kinetic energy
doesn't transform into potential energy of the pendulum!
I brought it up...
One match was for reference purposes. Dropping 50 kg from 2 meter up, is also about 1 BTU.
Enough to change the shape of some piece of lead, I don't think enough to cause a change in phase.
One could burn 1 match and hold it beneath a solid block: if it is smooth, not chipped and thus void of extra oxygen (= extra potential / phase-change) it would just heat that block and turn black. It seems to work for lead too... (I'm not a plumber)
Things happen before a "bullet embeds in the wood".
It tears that wood apart, which looses spring potential.
It makes the air vibrate, and you'll hear a sound.
Wood is never completely dry, otherwise it would pulverize to dust.
So water is about to be compressed, heated to vapor point, brought to gas, and evaporates.
It is the pendulum which has to deal with the transferred energy of the bullet, and it is the bullet which has to deal with any transferred energy of the pendulum.
When the energy is about to be transferred back to its original owner, it has already spread over a larger area to be completely conserved to their previous location: entropy happens, and is considered 'lost'.
One match was for reference purposes. Dropping 50 kg from 2 meter up, is also about 1 BTU.
Enough to change the shape of some piece of lead, I don't think enough to cause a change in phase.
One could burn 1 match and hold it beneath a solid block: if it is smooth, not chipped and thus void of extra oxygen (= extra potential / phase-change) it would just heat that block and turn black. It seems to work for lead too... (I'm not a plumber)
Things happen before a "bullet embeds in the wood".
It tears that wood apart, which looses spring potential.
It makes the air vibrate, and you'll hear a sound.
Wood is never completely dry, otherwise it would pulverize to dust.
So water is about to be compressed, heated to vapor point, brought to gas, and evaporates.
It is the pendulum which has to deal with the transferred energy of the bullet, and it is the bullet which has to deal with any transferred energy of the pendulum.
When the energy is about to be transferred back to its original owner, it has already spread over a larger area to be completely conserved to their previous location: entropy happens, and is considered 'lost'.
re: energy producing experiments
No, and if you are somehow able to extract the imbedded bullet then the hole left behind doesn't spontaneously heal and close itself either, to its former state. Neither does the bullet.
re: energy producing experiments
Just want to point out that while everybody is saying that conservation of
energy can't be used because of a "heat" losses, apparently there is no
heat losses when they use conservation of the momentum.
energy can't be used because of a "heat" losses, apparently there is no
heat losses when they use conservation of the momentum.
re: energy producing experiments
The video shows that the 'double stop' cylinder and spheres stops the cylinder twice but maintains (returns to) its original speed.
Does it produce unfindable heat; twice, with no loss of motion? Or: does it have points of high energy.
Does it produce unfindable heat; twice, with no loss of motion? Or: does it have points of high energy.
re: energy producing experiments
I stepped into an office, today, to avoid someone coming down the aisle with a box. On the desk was the June issue of Automotive Engineering magazine. It had a photo of two Ford racing cars at La Mans. I open the magazine to check out the Fords. But I opened the magazine to an advertisement for a camera (FLIR X6900SC).
The camera could take 1000 frames per second; but it did not use light in the visible range. It was a thermal camera that claimed it could tell you the temperature of a high speed bullet.
You could use a thin walled tube to catch your bullet: in a ballistic pendulum. The tube could have any (in line) mass you choose added to it. You then could photograph the tube to find the thermal change.
Â
The difficulty of measuring these thermal changes may have been an excuse 300 years ago. But now that excuse is entirely intolerable.
Also: not many ballistic pendulums are bullets and wood blocks; most now are all hard metal. But all yield the same results; linear Newtonian momentum is conserved.
But more importantly: the transfer of motion back and forth from large to small masses; while the total motion is retained, totally eliminates the possibility of energy conservation.
The camera could take 1000 frames per second; but it did not use light in the visible range. It was a thermal camera that claimed it could tell you the temperature of a high speed bullet.
You could use a thin walled tube to catch your bullet: in a ballistic pendulum. The tube could have any (in line) mass you choose added to it. You then could photograph the tube to find the thermal change.
Â
The difficulty of measuring these thermal changes may have been an excuse 300 years ago. But now that excuse is entirely intolerable.
Also: not many ballistic pendulums are bullets and wood blocks; most now are all hard metal. But all yield the same results; linear Newtonian momentum is conserved.
But more importantly: the transfer of motion back and forth from large to small masses; while the total motion is retained, totally eliminates the possibility of energy conservation.