Terragravitic Induction

[Tarsier79]

Quite apart from anything else, common sense suggests that if the car taking the low road gets to Scotland before the car taking the high road the first car must have got extra energy from somewhere. :o)

Not sure I agree with that. What we are testing is if the car going down the hill can roll over ramps that move. The car arrives with the same energy (apparently it does not) and we harvest the energy from the moving ramps.

[Dr.Wlazlak]

What happens if the parabolic slop ball rolls down then goes up to the same level at the 45 deg. angle
As shown in the first demo sim.
Will the increase kinetic speed make the ball go higher because of the difference as shown in the sim end are different?

if so this is something, if not, it is equal to water that seeks its own level and 1 down = 1 up = - friction

Tom - take a plastic toy car track and roll a marble, try the un computer world, it's easy and fun

[Senax]

holy cor·pus·cle, Batman!!
...

Ranks number 54 in the Definitive Ranking Of Robin's 359 Exclamations From 'Batman'.

[Senax]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOYi4NzxlhE&t=8s

[johannesbender]

Quite apart from anything else, common sense suggests that if the car taking the low road gets to Scotland before the car taking the high road the first car must have got extra energy from somewhere. :o)

But not if its gravity , with gravity it depends on the height started and ended and not the path.

[agor95]

Gravity is conservative.
...

Given a frictionless thought experiment THEY ALL ARRIVE WITH THE SAME VELOCITY - just some get there quicker than others .. and THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME KINETIC ENERGY AND POTENTIAL ENERGY.

Well I accepted this point a while back. However I got to the reason by another view.

I kind of switch off with words like conservative. Without labouring the point I also switch off when some stated lagrangian mathematics is beautiful.

Anyway another view.

Namely the mass is stationary and the ramp vertical or sloped accelerates into the mass upwards.
It's just am inertia frame equivalence.

So on vertical ramps the mass is still stationary when the bottom of the ramp collides with it.

We see that as it's final K.E. value.

On any slope the mass is pushed up and to the side. That appears as weight.
The up acceleration delays the moment it arrives at the bottom.
There is a side ways acceleration that is the same amount as the up.

So when it arrived at the end point it's K.E. is the same.

As stated the difference is the time taken due to the pushing up along the ramps.

P.S. Alternative view

Regards

[Senax]

Quite apart from anything else, common sense suggests that if the car taking the low road gets to Scotland before the car taking the high road the first car must have got extra energy from somewhere. :o)

But not if its gravity , with gravity it depends on the height started and ended and not the path.

That is the whole point, isn't it.
It did not get its extra energy from gravity.
It got its extra energy from the slope reaction.
That is why when both cars end up on the horizontal road travelling at the same speed as each other, the car which went down the curved slope is miles ahead and stays miles ahead.

And the straight slope guy is looking all bewildered and saying,
"How the heck did that happen?" :o)

[agor95]

That is why when both cars end up on the horizontal road travelling at the same speed as each other, the car which went down the curved slope is miles ahead and stays miles ahead.

And the straight slope guy is looking all bewildered and saying,
"How the heck did that happen?" :o)

So both cars are travelling at the same speed and have a fixed separation.
The only thing that changes is the separation when using different ramp shapes

How much energy is lock in the separation value?

[Senax]

So both cars are travelling at the same speed and have a fixed separation.
The only thing that changes is the separation when using different ramp shapes

How much energy is locked in the separation value?

I told him I had been that morning at a meeting of the people called Quakers, where I had heard a woman preach.

Dr Johnson:
"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well;
but you are surprised to find it done at all."
Boswell: Life

Likewise with the energy of separation.

[Senax]

holy cor·pus·cle, Batman!!

It's the proverbial power stroke gradient principle FCDriver was BALLYHOOING back in the day.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... c6e944b0d
Reading that thread it seems quite possible he had succeeded. However, he didn't fully understand what was going on and so he didn't persist until he had a reproducible performance.

[Fletcher]

Quite apart from anything else, common sense suggests that if the car taking the low road gets to Scotland before the car taking the high road the first car must have got extra energy from somewhere. :o)

Not sure I agree with that. What we are testing is if the car going down the hill can roll over ramps that move.

The car arrives with the same energy (apparently it does not) and we harvest the energy from the moving ramps.

Hi T .. disclosure .. when I built the quick and dirty moving ramp sim I did it in a hurry. I did not pay any attention to other than what I thought was the important part of the experiment to investigate i.e. that if a ramp is anchored (stationary) then at any vertical height lost from a standing release ANY ball will have the same KE (translational + rotational) thus proving Galileo's experiments and deductions.

Then by way of comparison was the side by side experiment of the ramp being able to be physically moved horizontally by the ball rolling down the slope. I attached the ramp to an ordinary slot joint which had zero frictions. So there were no friction energy losses incurred in moving the ramp sideways, and only ramp inertia to overcome. That's why imo the Total Energy budget was consistent with the fixed ramp scenario.

As you know that would not be realistic if investigating a different scenario. So I went back this morning and changed out the "frictionless" slot for the 'generic point-to-point' build element and selected slot with friction. Then I created 2 inputs for slot friction and the flat running board elasticity.

When frictions are added to the slot (like adding wheels and axles) then the ball running down the slope is pushed to the right by the ramp Normal force - at the same time the ball pushes the ramp to the left. However this time it has to overcome the ramps inertia PLUS friction energy losses. This changes the energy outputs you will see in the updated sim and animation. Also the slope of the comparable fixed ramp run is flattened considerably because of the input of ramp frictions.

P.S. I also graphed it so you can clearly see the trends developing.

Sim included.

P.S. IMO no OU potential as Total KE's or GPE's are not greater than what we started with ..



....................

[WaltzCee]

It is amazing not only the level of math wm2d can do yet more so how it can be expertly presented.

Reading that thread it seems quite possible he had succeeded. However, he didn't fully understand what was going on and so he didn't persist until he had a reproducible performance.

Well at least we know who to blame for this failure of a principle. Did the jerk force principle predate FCDriver's paint job?

[Senax]

https://www.santantonio.org/en/content/ ... mon-fishes

[Tarsier79]

Thanks Fletcher

I did assume it was friction-less due to the ease with which the ramp was pushed to the side. Also the energy rate with the first sim and the same angle sim seemed to show it fell at an intermediate rate compared to the same path or the same ramp angle.

It is logical with these results that the less the ramp moves the less energy is taken from the falling ball.

In sim world it is always best to try for the best case scenario as well as "real world".

Thanks again for your time putting together the sim Fletcher.

[Senax]

Quite apart from anything else, common sense suggests that if the car taking the low road gets to Scotland before the car taking the high road the first car must have got extra energy from somewhere. :o)

Not sure I agree with that. What we are testing is if the car going down the hill can roll over ramps that move.

The car arrives with the same energy (apparently it does not) and we harvest the energy from the moving ramps.

Hi T .. disclosure .. when I built the quick and dirty moving ramp sim I did it in a hurry. I did not pay any attention to other than what I thought was the important part of the experiment to investigate i.e. that if a ramp is anchored (stationary) then at any vertical height lost from a standing release ANY ball will have the same KE (translational + rotational) thus proving Galileo's experiments and deductions.

Then by way of comparison was the side by side experiment of the ramp being able to be physically moved horizontally by the ball rolling down the slope. I attached the ramp to an ordinary slot joint which had zero frictions. So there were no friction energy losses incurred in moving the ramp sideways, and only ramp inertia to overcome. That's why imo the Total Energy budget was consistent with the fixed ramp scenario.

As you know that would not be realistic if investigating a different scenario. So I went back this morning and changed out the "frictionless" slot for the 'generic point-to-point' build element and selected slot with friction. Then I created 2 inputs for slot friction and the flat running board elasticity.

When frictions are added to the slot (like adding wheels and axles) then the ball running down the slope is pushed to the right by the ramp Normal force - at the same time the ball pushes the ramp to the left. However this time it has to overcome the ramps inertia PLUS friction energy losses. This changes the energy outputs you will see in the updated sim and animation. Also the slope of the comparable fixed ramp run is flattened considerably because of the input of ramp frictions.

P.S. I also graphed it so you can clearly see the trends developing.

Sim included.

P.S. IMO no OU potential as Total KE's or GPE's are not greater than what we started with ..



....................

I don't see any analysis of a cycloid slope. Why not?