Hi arthur, that's right but you weren't talking about the force needed to accelerate a mass through different resistance models ( directions ) , you were talking about how much force the mass itself was carrying or was capable of delivering if it were to be traveling at the same speed though different directions. As others have said it would be the same.the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-2mph upwards
IS GREATER THAN
the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-2mph horizontally
simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
Moderator: scott
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
can we agree on this?
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph horizontally
=
the force required to decelerate weight (w) from 2-mph horizontally to 0-mph
=
the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-mph to 2-mph horizontally.
likewise,
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph downward
=
the force required to decelerate weight (w) from 2-mph downwards to 0-mph
=
the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-mph to 2-mph upwards.
the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-mph to 2-mph upwards
is greater than
the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-mph to 2-mph horizontally.
this means
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph downward
is greater than
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph horizontally.
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph horizontally
=
the force required to decelerate weight (w) from 2-mph horizontally to 0-mph
=
the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-mph to 2-mph horizontally.
likewise,
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph downward
=
the force required to decelerate weight (w) from 2-mph downwards to 0-mph
=
the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-mph to 2-mph upwards.
the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-mph to 2-mph upwards
is greater than
the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-mph to 2-mph horizontally.
this means
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph downward
is greater than
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph horizontally.
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
Right, because the upwards moving weight is accelerating against the resistance of both inertia and gravity, whereas the sideways moving weight is accelerating against only inertia.the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-mph to 2-mph upwards
is greater than
the force required to accelerate weight (w) from 0-mph to 2-mph horizontally.
No, they are exactly the same.this means
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph downward
is greater than
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph horizontally.
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
forces are exactly the same?the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph downward
is greater than
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph horizontally.
for sure if there was no gravity these forces would be the same.
so of course, I am talking about a gravity environment.
OK lets start here,
can we agree on this?
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph horizontally
=
the force required to decelerate weight (w) from 2-mph horizontally to 0-mph
like wise,
the force of weight (w) moving at 2-mph downward
=
the force required to decelerate weight (w) from 2-mph downwards to 0-mph
-
Bessler007
- Aficionado
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:19 am
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
hello Arthur,
The point isn't if you exert a force at a certain point in a rotation you can produce more energy. The question is where do you intend to get this force. As you point out you can cause more force at 3:00, unless you've changed that idea. The question is where on earth or for that matter in the entire universe do you intend to acquire this force.
Everything from the wart on my a$$ to Alpha Centauri resides in the same moment of time. Difference in forces cause motion and motion can collide to produce forces but no matter where in the universe they are, they are happening in the same moment of time. Forces don't magically appear.
Where does this force causing the swift kick at the top of your wheel come from? humm?
*continuum
The point isn't if you exert a force at a certain point in a rotation you can produce more energy. The question is where do you intend to get this force. As you point out you can cause more force at 3:00, unless you've changed that idea. The question is where on earth or for that matter in the entire universe do you intend to acquire this force.
Everything from the wart on my a$$ to Alpha Centauri resides in the same moment of time. Difference in forces cause motion and motion can collide to produce forces but no matter where in the universe they are, they are happening in the same moment of time. Forces don't magically appear.
Where does this force causing the swift kick at the top of your wheel come from? humm?
*continuum
- Attachments
-
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
my point is this.........................
....................gravity is not 'conservative' !
gravity can 'add energy' to a system.
(sledge hammer from 9:00 to 3:00 with force at 12:00)
gravity can 'take energy away' from a system.
(pendulum from 3:00 to 9:00 with force at 6:00)
better said:
gravity can 'work with' a system.
(bessler's wheel?)
gravity can 'work against' a system.
(bessler's one directonal wheel spun backwards?)
....................gravity is not 'conservative' !
gravity can 'add energy' to a system.
(sledge hammer from 9:00 to 3:00 with force at 12:00)
gravity can 'take energy away' from a system.
(pendulum from 3:00 to 9:00 with force at 6:00)
better said:
gravity can 'work with' a system.
(bessler's wheel?)
gravity can 'work against' a system.
(bessler's one directonal wheel spun backwards?)
Last edited by arthur on Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Bessler007
- Aficionado
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:19 am
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
arthur,
Forces are thought of as being conservative or not. Conservative forces are thought of as being able to conserve motion less entropy. Forces that are not conservative are thought of as transforming their energy to another form that escapes. It's difficult to recapture the heat produced from the force of friction and conserve it.
I do agree with your point that gravity isn't a conservative force. I actually do see the idea there can be forces that aren't either conservative or not in the conventional sense. I'm working on a model that is a proof of that idea.
It wouldn't bother me too much if you were to model your idea of a proof that gravity can be more than a conservative force. I wouldn't mind if you beat me to the punch. :)
Forces are thought of as being conservative or not. Conservative forces are thought of as being able to conserve motion less entropy. Forces that are not conservative are thought of as transforming their energy to another form that escapes. It's difficult to recapture the heat produced from the force of friction and conserve it.
I do agree with your point that gravity isn't a conservative force. I actually do see the idea there can be forces that aren't either conservative or not in the conventional sense. I'm working on a model that is a proof of that idea.
It wouldn't bother me too much if you were to model your idea of a proof that gravity can be more than a conservative force. I wouldn't mind if you beat me to the punch. :)
- Attachments
-
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
nice drawing!
dude that is the winning design I think you got it.
lol
............
Ok well anyways,
All I'm trying to say is that gravity is a source of energy.
SO, don't give up on you're gravity powered 'over-balance' models!
This may not be in your physics textbook
but, I stand by this statement:
I can swing a sledge hammer and apply a larger force to your head than the force I put into the lift/swing.
(given I lifted the hammer from the same height as your head).
I can prove this to anyone who doesn't believe me!
dude that is the winning design I think you got it.
lol
............
Ok well anyways,
All I'm trying to say is that gravity is a source of energy.
SO, don't give up on you're gravity powered 'over-balance' models!
This may not be in your physics textbook
but, I stand by this statement:
I can swing a sledge hammer and apply a larger force to your head than the force I put into the lift/swing.
(given I lifted the hammer from the same height as your head).
I can prove this to anyone who doesn't believe me!
Bessler007 et al,
I built a wheel this year that was more balanced yet gave a kick, in theory to spin the wheel. The kick simply wasn't enough to nudge the wheel into a subsequent rotation.
You need to look at things differently: you need the wheel to be as balanced as possible and have a kick that nudges the wheel around. The kick once made needs to be such that after the kick the mechanism has already reset itself to the original configuration the wheel was in before the kick. Do that and you have a perpetuating rotation.
In other words the kick occurs within an always balanced wheel (or close to balance).
I built a wheel this year that was more balanced yet gave a kick, in theory to spin the wheel. The kick simply wasn't enough to nudge the wheel into a subsequent rotation.
You need to look at things differently: you need the wheel to be as balanced as possible and have a kick that nudges the wheel around. The kick once made needs to be such that after the kick the mechanism has already reset itself to the original configuration the wheel was in before the kick. Do that and you have a perpetuating rotation.
In other words the kick occurs within an always balanced wheel (or close to balance).
-
Georg Künstler
- Devotee
- Posts: 1718
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
Hi DrWhat,
I can agree to your statements, first.
But there is an additional way when the system is preloaded. Then we have the kick always out of balance. This can achieved with the function the driver drives, the runner runs. The driver pushes the runner in a position where the complete wheel is out of balance, forever. One weight is arranging the other.
I am sure you know how to manage it. If not I can repeat it from a previous mail.
the future has begun
Georg
I can agree to your statements, first.
But there is an additional way when the system is preloaded. Then we have the kick always out of balance. This can achieved with the function the driver drives, the runner runs. The driver pushes the runner in a position where the complete wheel is out of balance, forever. One weight is arranging the other.
I am sure you know how to manage it. If not I can repeat it from a previous mail.
the future has begun
Georg
Last edited by Georg Künstler on Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Georg Künstler
- Devotee
- Posts: 1718
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
Hi DrWatt,
please read the previous mail again, I have edited it during your submit.
the future has begun
Georg
please read the previous mail again, I have edited it during your submit.
the future has begun
Georg
-
Georg Künstler
- Devotee
- Posts: 1718
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
Hi DrWhat,
the picture i havn't with me on my memory stick. I will send it to you this evening, when I am at home.
the future has begun
Georg
the picture i havn't with me on my memory stick. I will send it to you this evening, when I am at home.
the future has begun
Georg
re: simple logic tells me gravity is not conservative!
Proof should not require that people simply believe you :DArthur wrote:I can prove this to anyone who doesn't believe me!
IMO, you need to set your 'simple logic' aside for a while and try building, experimenting, observing and measuring. Why don't you try to design and build a wheel based on your sledge hammer energy source idea? You will definitely benifit from the effort.