Good work ME.
Yes; you want to do your work as squarely in front of the camera as possible. But it is moving down pretty fast at this point.
But we are looking if it is five and fifteen frames.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
Yes, as squarely as possible. That means with as less distortion as possible.
Despite your camera there's a better way to observe your experiment:
- in line and on the axis of rotation - so you can read your angles directly.
When roughly plug-in the new numbers as listed I get a new estimate which is greatly below a 3 times speed-up.
Despite your camera there's a better way to observe your experiment:
- in line and on the axis of rotation - so you can read your angles directly.
When roughly plug-in the new numbers as listed I get a new estimate which is greatly below a 3 times speed-up.
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
This thread is going on strong since 15 October 2008 (for almost 8 years), and is now 127 pages long, with daily tantalising academic, scientific and engineering displays and debates by regular contributors over the concept presented here.
But everything is stuck at the starting line!!!
Raj
But everything is stuck at the starting line!!!
Raj
Keep learning till the end.
re: energy producing experiments
Yes, and isn't that fascinating !
As an alternative we could also have had a very hysterical yes/no conversation because I disagree on so many levels I stopped bothering with the count, but instead we have an opportunity to discover things.
To give a quote:
Perhaps some physics formulas are totally wrong after all, or Pequaide's methods are faulty...
One or the other shows a counterexample of how things work, and reduced to a 'simple' measurement.
I would say this is Science at its best !!
As an alternative we could also have had a very hysterical yes/no conversation because I disagree on so many levels I stopped bothering with the count, but instead we have an opportunity to discover things.
To give a quote:
The main question is about confirmation-bias: how to discover our own possible mind-blocks, as we can't see them ourselves (because of the mind-block).pequaide wrote:It is amazing to me how mind blocked your professors have gotten you people.
There is not one experiment that has ever conserved angular momentum. Yet it is worshiped without proof.
Perhaps some physics formulas are totally wrong after all, or Pequaide's methods are faulty...
One or the other shows a counterexample of how things work, and reduced to a 'simple' measurement.
I would say this is Science at its best !!
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.---
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: energy producing experiments
Marchello, you are probably one of the most polite people on this forum.
re: energy producing experiments
Ya; I will admit I am not as polite.
It is not my fault it has gone on for 8 years. I would hope that if I were on the other side of the fence I would have built the same experiments and contributed to the discovery rather than fight it tooth and nail. Is there to much personal pride around here? Are you not helping because it is not your idea? In the last 8 years have any of you repeated these cheap simple experiments?
I think the main problem is that you guys just can't believe that there is any why to make the machines that this site is looking for. You are here: but you have your eye closed, your ears covered, and you are humming loudly.
I think the optical distortions are more significant for the spheres; because their 3D position is changing. The cylinder, for the most part, is only having a 1D position change: it is dropping. Of course its proximity to the camera is changing.
There are three positions of Interest: the initial spin rate for the cylinder; the zero spin rate of the cylinder; and the final spin rate of the cylinder. The positions of the initial and final spin rates are about 30 cm apart. In this experiment the camera will see the initial spin above its position; and the camera will see the final spin below its own position. If the camera is position half way between the top and the bottom; the visual distortions should be similar.
The camera records that it takes five frames for a 20 mm square to move from the left side to the right side; as noted by a stationary position on the monitor. These 5 frames are the same for the initial spin rate and the final spin rate: the camera is recording that the spin rates are the same.
In the course of doing this type of experiment 100s of times; and having the camera position in scores of places; I have never notice a difference between the spin rates of the top and the bottom. The fastest I remember was 3.5 over 3.5; I saw lots of 4s over 4s; and 5s over 5s; and many fractions (4.5/4.5) in between, but they are always the same. I do not see why the optical distortion would make a 15 frame crossing look like a five frame crossing. Wouldn't it just as likely make a 5 look like a 15? I am primarily making a comparison between the two rotational speeds; they are always the same.
What is the likelihood that momentum is being conserved in the middle? Considering that ballistic pendulums blow energy away like dust and momentum conservation has never been violated; it is extremely likely that the velocity is 9 times as fast.
This model (9 to 1) requires a 5 frame crossing or a 15 frame crossing. The 4.5 to one model requires a 4 frame crossing or an 18 frame crossing. The optics may distort it a little but it is about 1,000,000,000 to 1 that it is the lower number.
It is not my fault it has gone on for 8 years. I would hope that if I were on the other side of the fence I would have built the same experiments and contributed to the discovery rather than fight it tooth and nail. Is there to much personal pride around here? Are you not helping because it is not your idea? In the last 8 years have any of you repeated these cheap simple experiments?
I think the main problem is that you guys just can't believe that there is any why to make the machines that this site is looking for. You are here: but you have your eye closed, your ears covered, and you are humming loudly.
I think the optical distortions are more significant for the spheres; because their 3D position is changing. The cylinder, for the most part, is only having a 1D position change: it is dropping. Of course its proximity to the camera is changing.
There are three positions of Interest: the initial spin rate for the cylinder; the zero spin rate of the cylinder; and the final spin rate of the cylinder. The positions of the initial and final spin rates are about 30 cm apart. In this experiment the camera will see the initial spin above its position; and the camera will see the final spin below its own position. If the camera is position half way between the top and the bottom; the visual distortions should be similar.
The camera records that it takes five frames for a 20 mm square to move from the left side to the right side; as noted by a stationary position on the monitor. These 5 frames are the same for the initial spin rate and the final spin rate: the camera is recording that the spin rates are the same.
In the course of doing this type of experiment 100s of times; and having the camera position in scores of places; I have never notice a difference between the spin rates of the top and the bottom. The fastest I remember was 3.5 over 3.5; I saw lots of 4s over 4s; and 5s over 5s; and many fractions (4.5/4.5) in between, but they are always the same. I do not see why the optical distortion would make a 15 frame crossing look like a five frame crossing. Wouldn't it just as likely make a 5 look like a 15? I am primarily making a comparison between the two rotational speeds; they are always the same.
What is the likelihood that momentum is being conserved in the middle? Considering that ballistic pendulums blow energy away like dust and momentum conservation has never been violated; it is extremely likely that the velocity is 9 times as fast.
This model (9 to 1) requires a 5 frame crossing or a 15 frame crossing. The 4.5 to one model requires a 4 frame crossing or an 18 frame crossing. The optics may distort it a little but it is about 1,000,000,000 to 1 that it is the lower number.
Re: re: energy producing experiments
Sorry can't help it, I just don't like the other option (most of the time).Wubbly wrote:Marchello, you are probably one of the most polite people on this forum.
yes.Pequaide wrote:Is there to much personal pride around here?
I Agree.I think the optical distortions are more significant for the spheres; because their 3D position is changing. The cylinder, for the most part, is only having a 1D position change: it is dropping. Of course its proximity to the camera is changing.
The speed of the cylinder can correctly be determined.
Drawing a diagonal line from one corner to the opposite of the BW-squares could increase the accuracy (if it not gets blurred out).
But the spheres are the ones going at a certain speed, and needs to be measured for a possible 9 time increase.
It is already hard to determine its speed when touching the cylinder.
Because it has a significant size it will induce a parallax-error when using the cylinder as reference point when it passes in front of the cylinder: from this point it's radius is unsure.
When viewed from the side the radius at which the sphere orbits can be determined much better, but not its speed.
Huh??There are three positions of Interest: the initial spin rate for the cylinder; the zero spin rate of the cylinder; and the final spin rate of the cylinder.
Yes those positions are the indications of points of interest.
The cylinder is a reference, but you have to look at the spheres.
How else are you going to determine a 9 times speed-up for those spheres??
It think it only takes a single rotation to get those spheres from the cylinder's rim, out, and back to the cylinder again.
* The initial spin-rate of the cylinder : the spheres move at the same angles per second as the cylinder;
* The zero spin-rate of the cylinder : the spheres move at their maximum linear speed;
* The final spin-rate of the cylinder : the spheres move at the same angles per second as the cylinder;
There must be a better way to observe these effects?
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
Well; there undoubtedly is.
How about a camera that does not use a wide angle lens. And maybe takes a 1000 frames per-second instead of 240.
In the early experiments concerning F = ma Galileo used his heart beat as a timer. You use what you got.
Maybe we could talk a University into helping; you don't dare tell them it makes energy; tell them it is an investigation of momentum conservation (which it is that also).
I have thought of adding a disk to the spinning cylinder and have the spheres flying above the disk; that would mean your back ground would be close and stationary (at the stop). I once used a mat with a pattern on it; but the distance to it was preventative to good lab practice. I have gotten reasonable direct measurements; but I think the five over five is a strong argument.
I am of the opinion that the spheres hold their high speed only briefly. I would guess that they are giving motion to or absorbing motion from the cylinder except for a very brief period when they are at full extension. Of course you could release.
I also tried to video the marked tether but even that was blurred.
I am convinced that momentum is conserved; but there are always better experiments.
How about a camera that does not use a wide angle lens. And maybe takes a 1000 frames per-second instead of 240.
In the early experiments concerning F = ma Galileo used his heart beat as a timer. You use what you got.
Maybe we could talk a University into helping; you don't dare tell them it makes energy; tell them it is an investigation of momentum conservation (which it is that also).
I have thought of adding a disk to the spinning cylinder and have the spheres flying above the disk; that would mean your back ground would be close and stationary (at the stop). I once used a mat with a pattern on it; but the distance to it was preventative to good lab practice. I have gotten reasonable direct measurements; but I think the five over five is a strong argument.
I am of the opinion that the spheres hold their high speed only briefly. I would guess that they are giving motion to or absorbing motion from the cylinder except for a very brief period when they are at full extension. Of course you could release.
I also tried to video the marked tether but even that was blurred.
I am convinced that momentum is conserved; but there are always better experiments.
re: energy producing experiments
I thought I would do a physical verification of the higher speed (9 meters per second) before I dealt with the blur.
I know how fast the original rotations are from videos. So I just set up the same cylinder and spheres to throw instead of rewinding. Three meters per second velocity can only throw 55 inches from a height of one meter. I threw at least 9 feet on the first try without fine tuning. This is absolute confirmation of the higher speed of 9 m/sec on the first throw(s).
Improper evaluation of the blur will give you low numbers for your velocity.
To properly evaluate the blur we will start with a camera that would give no blur. A flash camera that could take a picture in a 10,000th of a second would give little blur. So if you placed a mark on the monitor for the trailing side of the sphere; the void between the two photos (to the next trailing side) of the sphere in two consecutive frames would almost (plus the distance it moved in 1/10,000th sec) be the total motion of the sphere. So the void (the distance of no image between the sphere in two consecutive frames) is part of the motion.
Â
The blur indicates that you are taking the picture over a period of time. You have a blurred image of the tether that extends for about a half inch. This would also mean that the image of the sphere is extended about a half inch; which would make it 1.5 inches for the diameter of the blurred (fuzzy) sphere. The distance traveled while videotaping is part of the 240th of a second; and the distance of the blur (1/2 inch) must be part of the total distance. So for the total distance we have to add together the distance of the void and the distance of the blur.
The distance of the void appears to be half of the fuzzy sphere image; but the fuzzy sphere image is 1.5 inches (not 1 inch). Half of 1.5 inches is .75 inches.
The void (.75 inches) is added to the blur (1/2 inch) and we get 1.25 inches moved in 240th seconds. This is 7.6 m/sec. This far exceeds the (3 * .96 m/sec) 2.88 m/sec and is much closer to the (9 * .96) 8.864 m/sec number.Â
I am confident that a very small number of people will pay any attention to what I have just said about blur; so the pictures (not posted) would be used to promote improper concepts.
Improper evaluation of blur would yield the wrong results.
I know how fast the original rotations are from videos. So I just set up the same cylinder and spheres to throw instead of rewinding. Three meters per second velocity can only throw 55 inches from a height of one meter. I threw at least 9 feet on the first try without fine tuning. This is absolute confirmation of the higher speed of 9 m/sec on the first throw(s).
Improper evaluation of the blur will give you low numbers for your velocity.
To properly evaluate the blur we will start with a camera that would give no blur. A flash camera that could take a picture in a 10,000th of a second would give little blur. So if you placed a mark on the monitor for the trailing side of the sphere; the void between the two photos (to the next trailing side) of the sphere in two consecutive frames would almost (plus the distance it moved in 1/10,000th sec) be the total motion of the sphere. So the void (the distance of no image between the sphere in two consecutive frames) is part of the motion.
Â
The blur indicates that you are taking the picture over a period of time. You have a blurred image of the tether that extends for about a half inch. This would also mean that the image of the sphere is extended about a half inch; which would make it 1.5 inches for the diameter of the blurred (fuzzy) sphere. The distance traveled while videotaping is part of the 240th of a second; and the distance of the blur (1/2 inch) must be part of the total distance. So for the total distance we have to add together the distance of the void and the distance of the blur.
The distance of the void appears to be half of the fuzzy sphere image; but the fuzzy sphere image is 1.5 inches (not 1 inch). Half of 1.5 inches is .75 inches.
The void (.75 inches) is added to the blur (1/2 inch) and we get 1.25 inches moved in 240th seconds. This is 7.6 m/sec. This far exceeds the (3 * .96 m/sec) 2.88 m/sec and is much closer to the (9 * .96) 8.864 m/sec number.Â
I am confident that a very small number of people will pay any attention to what I have just said about blur; so the pictures (not posted) would be used to promote improper concepts.
Improper evaluation of blur would yield the wrong results.
re: energy producing experiments
In a Newton cradle, all the weights are attached by the string,
which means that they are able to make circular motion,
or at least an arch. It mainly applies to the first weight and the last weight.
At the same time, Newton is using a formula of mv for the conservation of the
momentum, not mvr, at it should be for the angular momentum.
Not sure where the additional r came from and why?
which means that they are able to make circular motion,
or at least an arch. It mainly applies to the first weight and the last weight.
At the same time, Newton is using a formula of mv for the conservation of the
momentum, not mvr, at it should be for the angular momentum.
Not sure where the additional r came from and why?
re: energy producing experiments
The extra r comes from outer space; or angular momentum conservation that occurs in space; to be exact.
Angular momentum conservation occurs in space because gravitational force causes the satellites: comets, moons, planets, etc, to accelerate as the radius changes.
Angular momentum conservation does not occur in the lab. This video makes huge mistakes; 3 m/sec can’t became 6 m/sec without an applied force, as he said. And gravity does provide force in space where (and only where) angular momentum conservation actually works.
This video promotes angular momentum conservation but actually debunks it: by stating that it requires a 3 m/sec to 6 m/sec increase in linear momentum without the application of outside force.
http://www.bing.com/...825&FORM=VRDGAR
Angular momentum conservation occurs in space because gravitational force causes the satellites: comets, moons, planets, etc, to accelerate as the radius changes.
Angular momentum conservation does not occur in the lab. This video makes huge mistakes; 3 m/sec can’t became 6 m/sec without an applied force, as he said. And gravity does provide force in space where (and only where) angular momentum conservation actually works.
This video promotes angular momentum conservation but actually debunks it: by stating that it requires a 3 m/sec to 6 m/sec increase in linear momentum without the application of outside force.
http://www.bing.com/...825&FORM=VRDGAR
re: energy producing experiments
pequaide,
I'll just leave it "you're very persistent". I just put on a 250 block position and need to gear up a technical indicator to manage it. Also, I have some building myself to do. And also Marchello is way out of my league. Bigly! :) If he can't handle the analysis I'm not sure who can.
I still hit your green dot but I know it won't change things. I'll let it ride.
added: your link seems to be broken
I'll just leave it "you're very persistent". I just put on a 250 block position and need to gear up a technical indicator to manage it. Also, I have some building myself to do. And also Marchello is way out of my league. Bigly! :) If he can't handle the analysis I'm not sure who can.
I still hit your green dot but I know it won't change things. I'll let it ride.
added: your link seems to be broken
Last edited by WaltzCee on Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
........................¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
re: energy producing experiments
https://youtu.be/YaUmzekdxTQ
Of the three theories of motion only Linear (arc speed) Newtonian Momentum predicts that the spheres will have enough motion to restore all of the rotational speed back to the cylinder.
What you see in the video is the full restoration of motion to the cylinder: twice.
At the point where the spheres have all the motion the spheres have 450% of the original energy.
You could detach the spheres at high energy; let the spheres rise, and put them in an Atwood's chain drive. The energy out put would be massive.
Of the three theories of motion only Linear (arc speed) Newtonian Momentum predicts that the spheres will have enough motion to restore all of the rotational speed back to the cylinder.
What you see in the video is the full restoration of motion to the cylinder: twice.
At the point where the spheres have all the motion the spheres have 450% of the original energy.
You could detach the spheres at high energy; let the spheres rise, and put them in an Atwood's chain drive. The energy out put would be massive.