Bessler007 wrote:I do agree gravity is a source of energy...
Surely if someone is going to consider gravity as an energy source then they will also consider a spring in the same manner, which sounds absurd to me. We all know that a loaded spring simply stores the energy of whatever loaded it in the first place. Yet we don't consider a spring as an energy source. Doesn't gravity work the same way? In the case of a river, it is created from water which is raised by the heat of the Sun - against gravity. Gravity (the spring) is loaded by energy from the Sun in the form of lifted water. In flowing back down to sea level the water releases the energy invested by the Sun in raising the water against gravity.
Gravity seems to act in this manner like a lossless and fully conservative spring. I'm not aware of any evidence or experiment which might suggest otherwise. Can anyone suggest an instance where this might not be the case?
Ralph wrote:If weights were heavier it would take more velocity(RPM) to pull them to the rim and in balance.
This statement is not true! I'll leave it to Ralph's genius intelligence to figure out why it's not true. I'm not going to get a another pissing match with Ralph. To see what I mean just look at the formula for CF.
CF = 0.000028403397 x Wt x R x RPM^2 where Wt = pounds and R = inches.
Or others can point out the error to Ralph if he doesn't understand.
Gravity is a very long spring pushing down to the centre of the earth. If you dug a hole all the way from one side of the earth to the other, then the question is would an object dropping down the hole fall past the centre of the earth (i'm being hypothetical so I expect comments like "the core is molten, the world spins" etc...) and slow down, then eventually fall back towards and past the centre, slow down, and oscillate like a hanging weight on a spring? It would be fun to be in a module and to go for the ride!
If I am busting rock with a hammer and use biological force on the down stroke, I am doing work. But if I let the hammer simply fall and it busts rock is not doing work or less work because there was no energy spent or is it less force spent??????
I guess I lose it trying to come up with a dividing line between the words "Energy" and "Force" I have searched dictionary's and encyclopedias as well as physics books.
Energy= The capacity of a physical system to do work. The capacity for work or vigorous activity. The exertion of power (Force)
Force = Energy, Strength or active power. a vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.
Now to make this even more complicated simply add the word "Forced" to this list: To compel to perform an action. To gain by force coercion. To move something against resistance.
can you give me a layman's explanation defining when is energy a force and when is force energy.
Gravity (the spring) is loaded by energy from the Sun in the form of lifted water. In flowing back down to sea level the water releases the energy invested by the Sun in raising the water against gravity.
Some streams are feed by artesian wells and are forced to the surface by subterranean pressures:
A well whose source of water is a confined (artesian) aquifer. The water level in artesian wells stands at some height above the water table because of the pressure (artesian pressure) of the aquifer. The level at which it stands is the potentiometric (or pressure) surface of the aquifer. If the potentiometric surface is above the land surface, the well is a flowing artesian well.
I do see the point. Something has to increase the potential energy of the water.
However if the water found itself in a still water pond it would just sit there. Being in a stream or lich it has a course to a lower state of potential energy. Gravity causes it to flow to that lower state. Without levers or strings gravity pulls on the mass of the water and transforms the potential it has into kinetic energy. How does it do that?
With a spring you have to attach it to the mass. Something very strange is happening in this universe.
Ralph wrote:Sounds like your building a "catch 22".
There is no catch 22 that I can see Ralph.
Ralph wrote:If I am busting rock with a hammer and use biological force on the down stroke, I am doing work.
Yes, the amount of work you do busting the rock is equivalent to the energy you invested to raise the hammer plus any additional energy you applied on the down swing.
Ralph wrote:But if I let the hammer simply fall and it busts rock is not doing work or less work because there was no energy spent or is it less force spent??????
If you simply let the hammer fall then the amount of work it will do busting the rock is obviously equivalent to the energy you invested in raising the hammer.
Last edited by ovyyus on Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
hmmm ... 50 rpm ? could it be the radius the weights are resting at being small & the masses being located close to the axle & the small circumference distance they would have to travel ? - like imagining MT15 with a second external rim around the overbalance weights, to give some sort of proportions ?
DrWhat .. as soon as you pass thru the earths crust you will start to decelerate [proportionally greater mass above your head than below your feet] until you are at the center of the earth where there is equal mass all around you - it would be a gentle stop & float - DrH.
I have to add this. There are some kin lunatics to us crank/free energy types that think the earth is hollow. The hollow earth society. I don't believe this but if gravity causes a mass to move to the lowest possible potential energy state at the core of the earth suppose the earth really were hollow (and not hot as hell). Centrifugal force would act as gravity allowing you to basically walk around on the ceiling of this basement. lol.
You made a clear and fair response to the first part of my above post which was only meant to open the door to the following. To this I see no response, and I cannot say as I blame you! This is what I was referring to as a "catch 22"
.
I guess I lose it trying to come up with a dividing line between the words "Energy" and "Force" I have searched dictionary's and encyclopedias as well as physics books.
Energy= The capacity of a physical system to do work. The capacity for work or vigorous activity. The exertion of power (Force)
Force = Energy, Strength or active power. a vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.
Now to make this even more complicated simply add the word "Forced" to this list: To compel to perform an action. To gain by force coercion. To move something against resistance.
can you give me a layman's explanation defining when is energy a force and when is force energy.
Any other members wish to input their thoughts on this? It seems that debates between what is energy and what is force is a never ending cycle around here. And frankly I do not see much difference except for the term "potential energy" such as gas in an auto or still water behind a dam.
Does a swinging mass contain energy which is transfered to force when it strikes another object? My books say kinetic energy not kinetic force is possessed by a body because of its motion. Now if gravity created the motion was it done by force or energy???
If I am going to involve myself in such discussions I would like to know what we are talking about. In other words: feed back please, I wish to be educated!
Ralph
Last edited by rlortie on Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
hmmm ... kind of reminds me of Jules Verne's 'journey to the center of the earth' & Arthur C Clarke's "rama' series.
I would think that average density & volume measurements should be able to confirm whether the earth was hollow or not. There is another group that believe they have a strong case for the earth actually increasing in volume [& surface area] thru the eons as a result of plate tectonics & internal pressure from volcanic activity IIRC - that might result in a hollow earth - they should get together.
The problem with CF gravity is that it only works well at large diameters - the basement radius has to match the rotational speed to give the 'right' number of 'g' forces. A small spinning space station would cause a large differential of 'g' forces between your feet & your head which might feel mighty weird - no problem if the hollow sphere is as big as the moon.
EDIT: Ralph - here is a bit of light reading on the subject of force v's energy
DrWhat .. as soon as you pass thru the earths crust you will start to decelerate [proportionally greater mass above your head than below your feet] until you are at the center of the earth where there is equal mass all around you - it would be a gentle stop & float - DrH.
Or would you be pulled apart in all directions, or due to the earths rotation be slammed against the wall due to CF. :-)
:) I don't honestly know Ralph - I would suspect that since you aren't pulled apart or squashed onto the ground at the earth's surface at 1 'g' [you have resilience to 'g' forces in all directions in your body] then falling to the center of the earth where the 'g' forces are getting less might mean life might get a little more comfortable for you.
There would be a high chance that you might get slammed against against the wall of the tunnel if you consider the trajectory of shells fired from guns over great distances & the coriolis effect, but I'm only guessing.
Ralph wrote:If weights were heavier it would take more velocity(RPM) to pull them to the rim and in balance.
This statement is not true! I'll leave it to Ralph's genius intelligence to figure out why it's not true. I'm not going to get a another pissing match with Ralph. To see what I mean just look at the formula for CF.
CF = 0.000028403397 x Wt x R x RPM^2 where Wt = pounds and R = inches.
Or others can point out the error to Ralph if he doesn't understand.
OK! Can someone other than Jim please explain to me in physical terms how a fly-ball governor works and what will happen if you change out the weights for heavier ones? Change the length of connecting arms, ETC. The formula presented above looks good for a constant, but where as the R, RPM, or Wt may vary then what?
I would rather be baffled with Bull than Dazzled by brilliance.
Ralph wrote:I guess I lose it trying to come up with a dividing line between the words "Energy" and "Force" I have searched dictionary's and encyclopedias as well as physics books.
Energy= The capacity of a physical system to do work. The capacity for work or vigorous activity. The exertion of power (Force)
Force = Energy, Strength or active power. a vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.
Now to make this even more complicated simply add the word "Forced" to this list: To compel to perform an action. To gain by force coercion. To move something against resistance.
can you give me a layman's explanation defining when is energy a force and when is force energy.
Ralph, below are the standard definitions of Force, Energy and Work:
Newton stated that change of motion is caused by forces. In other words force is “something� which can change the state of motion. By state of motion we understand parameters defining the motion, that is, direction, velocity, acceleration.
Work can be generally defined as transfer of energy.
Energy can be defined as the capacity for doing work.
I just noticed this. Ralph's avatar is a video of him walking on the ceiling! It could work.
Ralph,
A dictionary definition is practical when discussing ideas on a non-technical level. The same terms in the technical jargan of physics convey different meanings.
Force = Energy
This statement is figuratively true yet in physics force and energy have different mathematical expressions. They are different quantities with different terms.
Force has the potential to move a mass. If the force does move the mass, that mass in motion can be described in terms of kinetic energy (1/2m * v^2). While the mass is resting having a force attract it (or pushing on it) there only exists the potential for energy. That potential could only be defined in terms of how far it would move and how fast (as I see it) if the force were permitted to move it.
