Gravity
Moderator: scott
Gravity
i am wondering if this endeavor is ever proven successful might that success add anything to the understanding of gravity
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
-
iacob alex
- Addict
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:37 am
- Location: costa mesa /CA/US
- Contact:
re: Gravity
Hi Winkle! Gravity is an invisible(potential) flow(energy, power ).Prof Feinmann imagined potential field, as a "dry water" equivalent.This one acts as "frozen",when there is no mass(nothing to "carry"),or the mass has a support("ground",frame).The same "dry water" becomes a "wet flow",when there is a mass with no support(and has something to "carry").This continuous ,omnidirectional flow of "dry water",becomes "wet" at the surface of the Earth and then "hot" and "hotter" to the core of it.No proofs,but a simple and short "naturally" mental imagery,that can help us(I hope) to go farther,so to conceive,picture,fancy "that " repetitive("self") gravity power collector. All the Bests!/Alex
Simplicity is the first step to knowledge.
re: Gravity
a working wheel most likely will not add anything to the understanding of gravity
possibly could add something to the understanding of leverage
might also add a few clues as to how the human mind is able to form a compleat and total train wreck to certain avenues of thought
possibly could add something to the understanding of leverage
might also add a few clues as to how the human mind is able to form a compleat and total train wreck to certain avenues of thought
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
re: Gravity
Train wreck?
Suppose you're on a train. The train is traveling in a big continuous circle. You decide to leave your seat and walk to the dinning car. As you walk forward to the dinning car you are traveling at a combined speed that equals the train's speed plus the speed that you are walking. As you walk back from the dinning car you are traveling at a combined speed that equals the train's speed minus the speed that you are walking. In both cases you must walk at a slant leaning inward to counter the CF. So you get this real crazy idea. To make it easier to walk forward and back on this stupid train going nowhere in circles, you device a rope and pulley system that pairs two people together with one walking forward and one walking rearward. One should balance the other, right???
But gosh, the two don't balance!!! The increase of CF on the forward walking person is greater than the loss of CF on the rearward walking person. Where is the force difference coming from? The CF pulling you toward the outside of the curve is F = 0.000341WRN^2. The only difference between CF when walking forward rather than walking rearward is the RPM's, which get squared. Pick any number to represent the train's speed. Then pick another number to represent the walkers speed. Calculate the CF while moving forward, while sitting, and while moving rearward. The energy expended to walk in either direction is the same. But the CF that develops is greater when traveling forward than when traveling rearward. So if you have a pulley and cable (or similar) system trying to balance the two forces you will have an imbalance, which will pull in the direction of CF of the forward moving person.
If you allow this force to move both persons then the forward walking person will move outward pulling the rearward walking person inward. This will increase the CF on the first and decrease it on the second and cause even more imbalance. When both stop walking and begin their return walk then all works in reverse. If the train has traveled 180 degrees then everything acts again just the same.
The secret is in understanding the inertial energy of interconnected bodies moving at different speeds in circles at differing radii.
Formula Note:
F = centrifugal Force in Lbs.
W = Weight in Lbs.
R = Radius in Feet.
N = Number of RPM's
Suppose you're on a train. The train is traveling in a big continuous circle. You decide to leave your seat and walk to the dinning car. As you walk forward to the dinning car you are traveling at a combined speed that equals the train's speed plus the speed that you are walking. As you walk back from the dinning car you are traveling at a combined speed that equals the train's speed minus the speed that you are walking. In both cases you must walk at a slant leaning inward to counter the CF. So you get this real crazy idea. To make it easier to walk forward and back on this stupid train going nowhere in circles, you device a rope and pulley system that pairs two people together with one walking forward and one walking rearward. One should balance the other, right???
But gosh, the two don't balance!!! The increase of CF on the forward walking person is greater than the loss of CF on the rearward walking person. Where is the force difference coming from? The CF pulling you toward the outside of the curve is F = 0.000341WRN^2. The only difference between CF when walking forward rather than walking rearward is the RPM's, which get squared. Pick any number to represent the train's speed. Then pick another number to represent the walkers speed. Calculate the CF while moving forward, while sitting, and while moving rearward. The energy expended to walk in either direction is the same. But the CF that develops is greater when traveling forward than when traveling rearward. So if you have a pulley and cable (or similar) system trying to balance the two forces you will have an imbalance, which will pull in the direction of CF of the forward moving person.
If you allow this force to move both persons then the forward walking person will move outward pulling the rearward walking person inward. This will increase the CF on the first and decrease it on the second and cause even more imbalance. When both stop walking and begin their return walk then all works in reverse. If the train has traveled 180 degrees then everything acts again just the same.
The secret is in understanding the inertial energy of interconnected bodies moving at different speeds in circles at differing radii.
Formula Note:
F = centrifugal Force in Lbs.
W = Weight in Lbs.
R = Radius in Feet.
N = Number of RPM's
re: Gravity
The person walking forward relative to the trains direction will lean inwards towards the track circle center at a greater angle than the one walking backwards relative to the trains direction ?
This is because the moving reference frame is being taken into consideration ?
That is, the forward going person, say, leans at 3 degrees off the vertical (assuming the train is level & not banked) while the reverse direction has a lean of say 2 degrees ?
They lean at these arbitary angles to compensate for the Centrifugal Forces that develop on their bodies as a result of their own straight line inertia & the train constantly changing direction as it follows a circular track, beneath their feet.
The train is effectively shifting the walkway from under their feet so they lean to balance the instability of leaning over (which normally results in toppling over) against the CF caused by the train turning on a circular path, so that their CoG is stable. Lean too little & CF's tend to move you outwards, lean to much & the CoG becomes unstable & want's to make you fall over in the direction of the lean. Much like learning to ride a bike. You steer in the direction of the turn to remain upright.
Not really sure where I'm going with this. Just trying to explore the analogy a bit further.
A vertical orientated wheel that is stationary relative to the ground has the same CF's apparent at any point on the circumference providing that a point is traveling with the rim & at the rim speed. Advance it or retard it on the same radius & the CF's will increase & diminish accordingly. Advance it or retard it by also changing radius (e.g. a swinging pendulum) & conservation of angular momentum would seem to have to come into play. Do it by moving weights to different radii in compensating pairs like the hammer men parallelogram & the average radius is constant but the greater CF at the outer position must be overcome to flatten the parallelogram ?
Micro analysing this is more than my mind wants to do on a Sunday :)
This is because the moving reference frame is being taken into consideration ?
That is, the forward going person, say, leans at 3 degrees off the vertical (assuming the train is level & not banked) while the reverse direction has a lean of say 2 degrees ?
They lean at these arbitary angles to compensate for the Centrifugal Forces that develop on their bodies as a result of their own straight line inertia & the train constantly changing direction as it follows a circular track, beneath their feet.
The train is effectively shifting the walkway from under their feet so they lean to balance the instability of leaning over (which normally results in toppling over) against the CF caused by the train turning on a circular path, so that their CoG is stable. Lean too little & CF's tend to move you outwards, lean to much & the CoG becomes unstable & want's to make you fall over in the direction of the lean. Much like learning to ride a bike. You steer in the direction of the turn to remain upright.
Not really sure where I'm going with this. Just trying to explore the analogy a bit further.
A vertical orientated wheel that is stationary relative to the ground has the same CF's apparent at any point on the circumference providing that a point is traveling with the rim & at the rim speed. Advance it or retard it on the same radius & the CF's will increase & diminish accordingly. Advance it or retard it by also changing radius (e.g. a swinging pendulum) & conservation of angular momentum would seem to have to come into play. Do it by moving weights to different radii in compensating pairs like the hammer men parallelogram & the average radius is constant but the greater CF at the outer position must be overcome to flatten the parallelogram ?
Micro analysing this is more than my mind wants to do on a Sunday :)
re: Gravity
winkle
You hit Jim right in his research with this one.
I had a thought that I wondered about.
While walking forward on the train, is the lifting of the legs and feet actually skipping space and so the motion is actually more in a straight line?
In other words will the tendency to stay in a straight line come into play with the physics of the forward motion?
On the reverse walk, will it require power because it is actually you may be walking into a smaller circle while cf is trying to force you outward?
You hit Jim right in his research with this one.
I had a thought that I wondered about.
While walking forward on the train, is the lifting of the legs and feet actually skipping space and so the motion is actually more in a straight line?
In other words will the tendency to stay in a straight line come into play with the physics of the forward motion?
On the reverse walk, will it require power because it is actually you may be walking into a smaller circle while cf is trying to force you outward?
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
re: Gravity
It will take the same effort to walk forward or rearward, assuming you and the train maintain a constant radius. If you were to ride some sort of frictionless vehicle within the train then once you start moving forward or rearward then no more energy is needed until you reverse directions. The only difference you will notice is the amount of CF pulling you to one side.
The significant fact in all this is that the increase of CF when moving forward (relative to sitting still on the train) does not match the decrease of CF when moving rearward. The two are not balanced!
The significant fact in all this is that the increase of CF when moving forward (relative to sitting still on the train) does not match the decrease of CF when moving rearward. The two are not balanced!
re: Gravity
I see so basicilly you are slowing down when you walk backwards.
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
re: Gravity
Yes, when you walk backwards you are slowing down. If you walked backwards fast enough you wold be standing still with no CF. It takes the same energy to slow down as it takes to speed up. Conservation of energy! But that same energy does not produce a same change in CF. The change in CF is not linear because it depends on the square of the RPM's.
re: Gravity
one thing is sure you need better breaking capability walking to the rear of the train than you need walking to the front
if you have two people in the middle of the train with the same abilitys
one runs to the front and the other runs to the rear of the train
why does the one slowing down win the race
if you have two people in the middle of the train with the same abilitys
one runs to the front and the other runs to the rear of the train
why does the one slowing down win the race
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
re: Gravity
If the train and you both start going forward at startup wouldn't it take more energy from the person to move forward and less to move walk the opposite way.
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
-
John Collins
- Addict
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
- Location: Warwickshire. England
- Contact:
re: Gravity
If the person ran as fast to the back of the train as the train was moving forward, he would be stationary relative to the ground and therefore not subject to any CF. The person moving forwards cannot reduce his speed, he can only equal the train's speed or add to it, that's why there is a difference.
JC
JC
re: Gravity
Hmmmmm
Relating this to Bessler's Wheel....... wouldn't that mean that the people walking or running, by their motion, would also have to be supplying the energy to move the train.... <grin>
Seasonal Wishes to all.
Regards
Mick
Relating this to Bessler's Wheel....... wouldn't that mean that the people walking or running, by their motion, would also have to be supplying the energy to move the train.... <grin>
Seasonal Wishes to all.
Regards
Mick
re: Gravity
Why would the one slowing down win the race? I don't think so.Winkle wrote:why does the one slowing down win the race
Yes it would. But by the end it would take the same total energy either way; else you would not have conservation of energy.Wheeler wrote:If the train and you both start going forward at startup wouldn't it take more energy from the person to move forward and less to move walk the opposite way.
Very true.John wrote:... he would be stationary relative to the ground and therefore not subject to any CF.
I don't understand what you're saying?John wrote:The person moving forwards cannot reduce his speed; he can only equal the train's speed or add to it, that's why there is a difference.
How many understand what I'm getting at? How many understand my main point? The CF is not directly proportional to the rotational speed, but rather indirectly proportional. If the combined rotational speed of the train (or wheel) and the person (or weight) increases then the CF does not increase as (x+y) / x put rather as (x+y)^2 / x^2. If you graph the first equation it would be a straight line, whereas is your graph the second it is a curved line. The weights gain energy from their own swinging!
As an example, if you walk forward at 10% of the trains speed your CF will increase by 21% whereas if you walk rearward by 10% of the trains speed your CF will decrease by 19 percent. My point is it takes the same energy to move forward as to move rearward on a constantly moving train or wheel (think Einstein relativity) yet the change in CF is not equal. I strongly believe this is the scientific principle that makes a Bessler wheel possible. The rest is just mechanics to make it work.
re: Gravity
The bit I probably don't grasp in the way you intended is that CF is a result of Centripetal Force. That is, in a wheel environment, a physical barrier stopping the weight moving tangential to the radius or rim.
If something cannot move it can not do any work.
If a weight can shift forward & backward at a constant radius then this requires a small amount of energy as you say but unless it changes radius then no extra potential is created imo.
If the weight is somehow allowed to follow the tangent path to a greater radius, as it moves it loses part of the CF while in transition & regains its full complement when it again stops. If at a greater radius than b4 & the wheel is still at the same rpm then the CF is now greater because its velocity is greater at the new radius. To get the weight to move inwards against CF to a nearer radius requires that you overcome the new CF threshold.
At the top of the wheel i.e. say 11 o'cl to 1 o'cl gravity acting downwards as a vector can counter the CF to some degree requiring less energy to move the weight to a closer orbit.
I guess that my past experience with CF's has lead me to think of them a conservative & although they can be offset by gravity to some degree & even be coupled, I am unable to grasp where the asymmetry might come from to leave residual inertial momentum in the wheel.
If something cannot move it can not do any work.
If a weight can shift forward & backward at a constant radius then this requires a small amount of energy as you say but unless it changes radius then no extra potential is created imo.
If the weight is somehow allowed to follow the tangent path to a greater radius, as it moves it loses part of the CF while in transition & regains its full complement when it again stops. If at a greater radius than b4 & the wheel is still at the same rpm then the CF is now greater because its velocity is greater at the new radius. To get the weight to move inwards against CF to a nearer radius requires that you overcome the new CF threshold.
At the top of the wheel i.e. say 11 o'cl to 1 o'cl gravity acting downwards as a vector can counter the CF to some degree requiring less energy to move the weight to a closer orbit.
I guess that my past experience with CF's has lead me to think of them a conservative & although they can be offset by gravity to some degree & even be coupled, I am unable to grasp where the asymmetry might come from to leave residual inertial momentum in the wheel.