Terragravitic Induction

[Tarsier79]

The cycloid shape wasn't required to test my specific question.

[Fletcher]

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.

No probs T .. by way of explanation for those that don't use sims but do have a working knowledge of Newton's Laws the ball is 1 kg and so is the ramp mass, regardless of its shape. With frictions OFF on the ramp slot that it travels along it is maybe not surprising that the ball pushes on the ramp slope and the slope pushes on the ball (Normal Force Contact vectors). Since they both have the same mass they move laterally proportionally in opposite directions. So we see the ramp move left a certain distance and then accordingly I had to adjust the fixed ramp shape to show the same actual slope gradient - and the base to that triangle was half the length of the of the moving ramp which reflects that proportionality.

Add friction to the traveling slot and the proportionality changes again (ramp doesn't move so far or fast) as well as energy from the system given as GPE is "leaked" as dissipative losses etc etc.

...........

Generally I always build a sim with everything going in its favour i.e. no pin/pivot frictions, but leave in normal static and rolling frictions (i.e. normal contact frictions). This is the most optimistic prediction of behaviour possible but not as accurate to real-world as it can be. If it looks like it might have legs then I introduce pin/pivot frictions etc to more accurately predict the real-world situation.

I find this the best building approach and then the analysis to Newton's Laws is less cluttered by leakage etc.

[agor95]

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

If you zoom in on a cycloid slope you end up with a series of slopes with an object
starting each slope with position and velocity.

That can be integrated to arrive at a cycloid slope at the macroscopic level.

Have you found a lucid answer to my last question yet.

[Senax]

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

If you zoom in on a cycloid slope you end up with a series of slopes with an object
starting each slope with position and velocity.

That can be integrated to arrive at a cycloid slope at the macroscopic level.

It can indeed.

Have you found a lucid answer to my last question yet.

I don't need a "lucid answer".
I'm concerned with strategy, not tactics.

But if you need a "lucid answer", then go ahead and provide one.
I'm sure you're more than capable of doing so.

[eccentrically1]

How much energy is lock in the separation value?

It all there lock away.

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

Would the cycloid be defined by the circle?
The point of the cycloid isn't that one object finishes first. That's the counter-intuitive part and entices you to think the long / short path conundrum is a violation of some deeply hidden principle we haven't discovered. The analysis of the slope is just the formula derived from the circle. Sim it and you'll get the results predicted by the formula. How else does a physics engine work?

[WaltzCee]

Frank is preaching to the fishes in the deep blue sea,
No lucid answers for you and me.

Noether's first theorem be darned, there's energy in them there jerks!!

[agor95]

This energy is 3rd derivative Precession Energy since it is generated at right angles
to 2nd derivative gravitional energy.

It is the enigmatic energy that puts in an appearence (inter alia) in the Faster than the Wind demonstration.

I don't need a "lucid answer".
I'm concerned with strategy, not tactics.

But if you need a "lucid answer", then go ahead and provide one.
I'm sure you're more than capable of doing so.

Well I will go with 'Drivel flows down hill'.

[WaltzCee]

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)

Then you can turn off gravity?!!

[johannesbender]

Mirror the curve as drawn , if the weight ends up higher than it started or higher than the others started , then I would believe that "extra energy" is not just the mis-measurement of different heights during the travel.

[WaltzCee]

I think the fastest curve is the vertical one.
Not much area under it though.

[WaltzCee]

Mirror the curve as drawn , if the weight ends up higher than it started or higher than the others started , then I would believe that "extra energy" is not just the mis-measurement of different heights during the travel.

I made a SIM (called The Walter Paradox) that does just that.

If anyone starts a thread titled The Walter Paradox I'll drop it.

ETA
If anyone does start the thread, start a poll titled inline poll
with options

• Yes
  No
  Maybe
  Never
  Etc

Then if it ever gets to a point where they have a question, they can make a note of the count, then ask the question.

[Senax]

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)

Then you can turn off gravity?!!

You may be an idiot but you are amusing. :-)

[WaltzCee]

well, you are an arrogant illegitimate one and seldom funny.

With a SIM, gravity can be adjusted or turned off.
That would easily test your absurd thesis.

[WaltzCee]

holy mack·er·el, Batman!!

Saint Rocket Sturgeon didn't know one could turn gravity off in a SIM.

[Senax]

holy mack·er·el, Batman!!

Saint Rocket Sturgeon didn't know one could turn gravity off in a SIM.

Correct. Put not your trust in sims.