pequaide, the flaw in your calculations regarding the litle mass (1kg) accelerating the heavy rim, is that you can not choose freely wich momentum value you want to use etc. The momentum value of the heavy rim, you can not "choose" to transfer back to the 1 kg weight, sorry ! First you need to calculate/convert the momentum to energy, then you can "transfer" it to a another weight of different size !! Then you also see that energy is conserved. The thing with a momentum value is that you need to know either mass or velocity of the object, or else the value is "useless" !!
If you like, and still believe, you must simply come up with a converter-mechanism, (not known to man) that will "conserve" total momentum from a big mass to a small mass, and not conserver energy at the same time! Please advice, and I can test this converting mechanism in WM..
( I have triend springs, levers and collitions so far.. any other idea ?)
Best
Oystein
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
pequaide:
Greendoor:
The mainspring (B) is coiled inside a cylindrical box, the barrel.
The force of the spring turns the barrel.
Now - lets assume that the tension of that coiled mainspring (B) is calculated to reach its maximum exactly when the whell (A) with the attached weight-mass (C) has made a half rotation (180).
This mean that the wheel stops at 180.
After the weight-mass (C) rolling / falling one half turn attached at the rim of wheel, it will have (pulled) turned the Coiled Mainspring-Barrel (B) according to the distance of half the wheel's perimeter, and thereby wound up the coiled Mainspring.
That perimeter distance is longer than the vertical height of the fall (diameter of the wheel).
At 06:00 the weight-mass is released from the wheel.
The coiled Mainspring is then free to unwound (its tension), and thereby rolling in the rope (D) rising the weight-mass vertically to the top.
At the top position, again the weight-mass is attached to the wheel.
The Mainspring Barrel runs freely on the same axle as the main Wheel.
I don't know where the momentum, inertia etc. are, but feel free to fill in the proper values.
regards
ruggero ;-)
If a suspended mass (on the end of a ribbon wrapped around the wheel) of 1 kg accelerates a 4 kg rim mass (nearly all the mass is in the rim) balanced wheel the acceleration will be 1/5 * 9.81 m/sec² or 1.962m/sec². At the end of a one meter drop the velocity will be 1.98 m/sec and its momentum will be 9.90 units of momentum. If all that momentum is given to the one kilogram of overbalance its velocity will be 9.90m/sec its energy will be (1/2mv²) 49.05 joules, and the mass will rise 5 meters. 9.81 joules is all the energy that is needed to reload the system, less a little friction.
Greendoor:
If you apply a Coiled Mainspring-Barrel...then what...Now imagine the heavy mass was connected to the outer cylinder with a short leather leash that could coil up a certain distance. I believe this would allow the cylinder to roll a certain distance (picking up momentum) and then suddely it would reach the end of the leash (like Bessers 'dog' or the 'cat snatching the fat rats tail').
The mainspring (B) is coiled inside a cylindrical box, the barrel.
The force of the spring turns the barrel.
Now - lets assume that the tension of that coiled mainspring (B) is calculated to reach its maximum exactly when the whell (A) with the attached weight-mass (C) has made a half rotation (180).
This mean that the wheel stops at 180.
After the weight-mass (C) rolling / falling one half turn attached at the rim of wheel, it will have (pulled) turned the Coiled Mainspring-Barrel (B) according to the distance of half the wheel's perimeter, and thereby wound up the coiled Mainspring.
That perimeter distance is longer than the vertical height of the fall (diameter of the wheel).
At 06:00 the weight-mass is released from the wheel.
The coiled Mainspring is then free to unwound (its tension), and thereby rolling in the rope (D) rising the weight-mass vertically to the top.
At the top position, again the weight-mass is attached to the wheel.
The Mainspring Barrel runs freely on the same axle as the main Wheel.
I don't know where the momentum, inertia etc. are, but feel free to fill in the proper values.
regards
ruggero ;-)
- Attachments
-
- yo-yo and coiled spring barrel
ruggero©2009
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
re: energy producing experiments
Oystein quote: calculate/convert the momentum to energy,
Why would you change something that is conserved into something that is not conserved? The only form of energy in a spinning floating system is motion energy which would be kinetic energy and there is no such law as the Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy. Your theory is based upon a false concept. The motion of the cylinder is transferred to the spheres, or from the disk to the puck. Linear momentum conservation is our only choice.
Oystein quote: ( I have triend springs, levers and collitions so far.. any other idea ?)
Yes; build a cylinder and spheres machine.
Why would you change something that is conserved into something that is not conserved? The only form of energy in a spinning floating system is motion energy which would be kinetic energy and there is no such law as the Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy. Your theory is based upon a false concept. The motion of the cylinder is transferred to the spheres, or from the disk to the puck. Linear momentum conservation is our only choice.
Oystein quote: ( I have triend springs, levers and collitions so far.. any other idea ?)
Yes; build a cylinder and spheres machine.
-
georgexbailey
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:49 pm
re: energy producing experiments
peqauid - it seems to me the cylinder and spheres machine will only work (in a non-zero gravity environment) if the cylinder is spinning horizontally, as in your experiments. Do you see any way to make it work in a vertical arrangement?
GB
GB
re: energy producing experiments
So momentum is conserved you say.. and you have not heard of conservation of (any)energy ??
Momentum is just numbers, energy is real life usable values.
You say that if I create Momentum in an enormous weight, (rotation or not (that does not matter) of lets say 999999999999 kg/s by letting 1gram fall for a looong time/distance, I have created what ? Energy ? No, Momentum ? "Yes".. But then..... momentum is not conserved, but you said that momentum is conserved ??
My observaions, and tests say :
Momentum is conserved between moving objects NOT falling in a gravityfield. Conservation of momentum only applies for already excisting momentum at the moment of calculation.
Momentum can not be compared between different size masses falling or levered in a gravityfield in different scenarios. Because the masses act recording to conservation of (kinetic)energy, therefor the latter scenario can not be compared nor "conserved".
This can also be said to be true because gravity do not have momentum by itself, so momentum can not be conserved by interaction with gravity alone !!!
Best
Oystein
Momentum is just numbers, energy is real life usable values.
You say that if I create Momentum in an enormous weight, (rotation or not (that does not matter) of lets say 999999999999 kg/s by letting 1gram fall for a looong time/distance, I have created what ? Energy ? No, Momentum ? "Yes".. But then..... momentum is not conserved, but you said that momentum is conserved ??
My observaions, and tests say :
Momentum is conserved between moving objects NOT falling in a gravityfield. Conservation of momentum only applies for already excisting momentum at the moment of calculation.
Momentum can not be compared between different size masses falling or levered in a gravityfield in different scenarios. Because the masses act recording to conservation of (kinetic)energy, therefor the latter scenario can not be compared nor "conserved".
This can also be said to be true because gravity do not have momentum by itself, so momentum can not be conserved by interaction with gravity alone !!!
Best
Oystein
re: energy producing experiments
georgexbailey:
you are free to comment on my former post and drawings
And pequaide: That goes for you too.
Especially when you ask for ideas...!
regards
ruggero ;-)
Well well well....Do you see any way to make it work in a vertical arrangement?
you are free to comment on my former post and drawings
And pequaide: That goes for you too.
Especially when you ask for ideas...!
regards
ruggero ;-)
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
re: energy producing experiments
Oystein Quote: My observaions, and tests say :
Momentum is conserved between moving objects NOT falling in a gravityfield. Conservation of momentum only applies for already excisting momentum at the moment of calculation.
Correct and correct again, both sentences are correct. As long as you are applying a force F, from the overbalance dropping mass, the quantity of momentum in the wheel will be increasing according to F = ma. When the overbalanced (or extra mass) mass reaches 6 o’clock and disconnects the momentum in the flywheel is then an “already existing momentum�. Unless acted upon by outside forces (bearing friction, air resistance, etc.) the momentum of the flywheel will continue unchanged. This is when you can treat the momentum in the flywheel like any other preexisting momentum. The detached overbalanced mass also has preexisting momentum. If all the preexisting momentum of the flywheel is given to the preexisting momentum of the overbalanced mass then the kinetic energy in the system (in the overbalanced mass) increases greatly.
Oystein Quote: Because the masses act recording to conservation of (kinetic)energy,
No they absolutely do not; the mass acts according to Newton’s Second Law of Motion F = ma. Kinetic energy is a consequence of F = ma. And again there is no such law as the law of conservation of kinetic energy; you need to reevaluate the credence you are giving to the false concept.
Ruggerodk; I stay away from springs. Gravity works so I use it. I think springs are only 90% efficient, that would be another drag on what needs to be a reasonable accurate mechanism.
Momentum is conserved between moving objects NOT falling in a gravityfield. Conservation of momentum only applies for already excisting momentum at the moment of calculation.
Correct and correct again, both sentences are correct. As long as you are applying a force F, from the overbalance dropping mass, the quantity of momentum in the wheel will be increasing according to F = ma. When the overbalanced (or extra mass) mass reaches 6 o’clock and disconnects the momentum in the flywheel is then an “already existing momentum�. Unless acted upon by outside forces (bearing friction, air resistance, etc.) the momentum of the flywheel will continue unchanged. This is when you can treat the momentum in the flywheel like any other preexisting momentum. The detached overbalanced mass also has preexisting momentum. If all the preexisting momentum of the flywheel is given to the preexisting momentum of the overbalanced mass then the kinetic energy in the system (in the overbalanced mass) increases greatly.
Oystein Quote: Because the masses act recording to conservation of (kinetic)energy,
No they absolutely do not; the mass acts according to Newton’s Second Law of Motion F = ma. Kinetic energy is a consequence of F = ma. And again there is no such law as the law of conservation of kinetic energy; you need to reevaluate the credence you are giving to the false concept.
Ruggerodk; I stay away from springs. Gravity works so I use it. I think springs are only 90% efficient, that would be another drag on what needs to be a reasonable accurate mechanism.
re: energy producing experiments
F = ma => measured in N's
p = mv => measured in kgm/s
Work done = F x d => measured in joules [Nm's]
Kinetic Energy = 1/2mv^2 => measured in joules [Nm's]
N.B. Ke is mechanical energy of motion & is one type of the energy available in the total energy spectrum but converting other forms of energy to Ke is usually very wasteful.
Work : Energy Equivalence Principle:
N.B. since Work & Kinetic Energy are defined by the same units they are interchangeable.
=> f x d = 1/2mv^2
now, Momentum p = mv & Ke = 1/2 mv^2 ; velocity can be resolved out to show that p & Ke are proportional BUT p is not a measure of capacity to do work - momentum is a construct to show the proportion of inertia an object has depending on its mass & velocity whereas its Ke [& ability to do work] can be quite different.
e.g. p = 2 kg x 10 m/s = 20 units of momentum ; Ke = 100 joules
p = 4 kg x 5 m/s = 20 units of momentum; Ke = 50 joules
both examples have the same momentum but different energy of motion & therefore capacity to do work - what it does show is the proportionality of the inertia component of momentum contained in the amount of mass to Kinetic Energy determined by the velocity squared.
N.B. classical view.
That's why I have a problem with trying to use momentum [linear or angular] as a barometer of energy availablity to do work.
p = mv => measured in kgm/s
Work done = F x d => measured in joules [Nm's]
Kinetic Energy = 1/2mv^2 => measured in joules [Nm's]
N.B. Ke is mechanical energy of motion & is one type of the energy available in the total energy spectrum but converting other forms of energy to Ke is usually very wasteful.
Work : Energy Equivalence Principle:
N.B. since Work & Kinetic Energy are defined by the same units they are interchangeable.
=> f x d = 1/2mv^2
now, Momentum p = mv & Ke = 1/2 mv^2 ; velocity can be resolved out to show that p & Ke are proportional BUT p is not a measure of capacity to do work - momentum is a construct to show the proportion of inertia an object has depending on its mass & velocity whereas its Ke [& ability to do work] can be quite different.
e.g. p = 2 kg x 10 m/s = 20 units of momentum ; Ke = 100 joules
p = 4 kg x 5 m/s = 20 units of momentum; Ke = 50 joules
both examples have the same momentum but different energy of motion & therefore capacity to do work - what it does show is the proportionality of the inertia component of momentum contained in the amount of mass to Kinetic Energy determined by the velocity squared.
N.B. classical view.
That's why I have a problem with trying to use momentum [linear or angular] as a barometer of energy availablity to do work.
OK pequaide, fair enough....Its your choise man, if you deside to stay in your favorite box wondering why noone understand your screem for help and understanding...
But plesae tell me (and others, who still wants to contribute to this quest with open minds):
Besides springs, what kind of 'solution' mechanisme do you stay away from and neclect on beforehand?
best of luck
ruggero ;-)
But plesae tell me (and others, who still wants to contribute to this quest with open minds):
Besides springs, what kind of 'solution' mechanisme do you stay away from and neclect on beforehand?
best of luck
ruggero ;-)
Bless you DrWhat...I really appreciate it ;-D
I opened a new topic concerning the coiled mainspring barrel....for those still believing in springs being one out of many possible path to Bessler's secret, or at least used as a part of it.
BTW: Talking about efficiency - There must be a fairly good reason why mainspring are still used as a motor in modern clocks, right?
regards
ruggero ‚-]
I opened a new topic concerning the coiled mainspring barrel....for those still believing in springs being one out of many possible path to Bessler's secret, or at least used as a part of it.
BTW: Talking about efficiency - There must be a fairly good reason why mainspring are still used as a motor in modern clocks, right?
regards
ruggero ‚-]
re: energy producing experiments
Everyone needs to look over Fletchers last post. The puzzle is all laid before you. Energy is the ability to do work such as lifting objects; to a certain height, more energy more lift.
And no; we should not look at momentum as a barometer of energy availability; we should look upon momentum as a barometer of momentum availability.
100 kg moving 1 meter per second has the available momentum to give one kilogram the ability to move 100 m/sec. NASA gave all the motion of about 1000 kg to 3 kilograms. I personally have done a ten to one ratio with the cylinder and spheres. The Law of Conservation of Momentum states that momentum (linear Newtonian) must be conserved.
10 kg moving 1 m/sec = 10 units of momentum; Ke = 5 joules of energy.
1 kg moving 10 m/sec = 10 units of momentum; Ke = 50 joules of energy.
100 kg moving 1 m/sec = 100 units of momentum; Ke = 50 joules of energy.
1 kg moving 100 m/sec = 100 units of momentum; Ke = 5000 joules of energy.
1003 kg moving 1 m/sec = 1003 units of momentum; Ke = 501.5 joules of energy.
3 kg moving 334.3 m/sec = 1003 units of momentum; Ke = 167,668 joules of energy.
ruggerodk question; what kind of 'solution' mechanisme do you stay away from and neclect on beforehand?
answer: water, because it takes energy to make it flow.
And no; we should not look at momentum as a barometer of energy availability; we should look upon momentum as a barometer of momentum availability.
100 kg moving 1 meter per second has the available momentum to give one kilogram the ability to move 100 m/sec. NASA gave all the motion of about 1000 kg to 3 kilograms. I personally have done a ten to one ratio with the cylinder and spheres. The Law of Conservation of Momentum states that momentum (linear Newtonian) must be conserved.
10 kg moving 1 m/sec = 10 units of momentum; Ke = 5 joules of energy.
1 kg moving 10 m/sec = 10 units of momentum; Ke = 50 joules of energy.
100 kg moving 1 m/sec = 100 units of momentum; Ke = 50 joules of energy.
1 kg moving 100 m/sec = 100 units of momentum; Ke = 5000 joules of energy.
1003 kg moving 1 m/sec = 1003 units of momentum; Ke = 501.5 joules of energy.
3 kg moving 334.3 m/sec = 1003 units of momentum; Ke = 167,668 joules of energy.
ruggerodk question; what kind of 'solution' mechanisme do you stay away from and neclect on beforehand?
answer: water, because it takes energy to make it flow.
re: energy producing experiments
Oh Boy!
Ralph
So, from another mans point of view, where does this energy come from? :-)answer: water, because it takes energy to make it flow.
Ralph
re: energy producing experiments
Remeber the "invisible" negative momentum component when momentum "moves" between objects of different mass !
Best
Oystein
Best
Oystein
re: energy producing experiments
Hmmm,...I believe that Bessler somewhere said that he could do the same thing with water...!answer: water, because it takes energy to make it flow.
And also with magnets..!
But he dropped the magnets because he couldn't find magnets strong enough.
BTW: Victor Schauberger had some very interesting thoughts on water energy...and a large amount Bessler's drawings seems to follow the same path.
I'm not saying that water and springs will solve the mystery but that an open mind and out-of-the-box view can be a very helpfull attitude in a quest like this...where nature could show us an unexpected hint.
And again: It's a free world, everyone hopefully choose his path by free will.
regards
ruggero ;-)
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -