energy producing experiments

[Fletcher]

hmm .. greendoor must be talking about everyone else ;7)

@Fletcher,

Bessler's wheels were a machine that also used energy garnered from the environment i.e. ambient conditions - so they consumed joules - they outputted work [joules] after losses.

Not a shred of evidence for that. How did this occur to you? Maybe just because of what we all have been indoctrinated, namely, that a machine must necessarily be working at the expense of some pre-existing reservoir. That isn’t the case here, however.

It occurred to me from a long & arduous process of logical deduction - Ockham's razor wasn't just for shaving you know :7) - every single known example of a work outputting machine uses a fuel/energy source that is depleted & then needs replenishment [from a reservoir] - go figure !

So, it does not contravene any basic principles of mechanics - energy in is greater than energy out - just that we have not identified the source of the differential he used & where he drew that energy from - my best guess is ambient air temperature but in a very clever & not at all obvious way - we might not see the relationship [that he found thru experimentation] because we are prejudiced by a different use of the technology in common use today that he might have used in its infancy & without expectation - JMO's.

On the contrary, it does contradict CoE because the energy is created out of nothing, as it were – the proper construction allows for displacement under the action of the force of gravity. Neither gravity nor the construction itself are energy reservoirs and yet there’s a displacement., that is, work is done. That’s crucially at odds with what’s thought to be at the foundation of the natural sciences.

On the contrary indeed ! - energy can not be created out of nothing & gravity acts vertically within the context of a differential field environment i.e. there is no horizontal or sideways component to g-force allowing said "displacement" - displacement sideways can only occur by the intervention of another force - this is not at odds with the foundation of natural sciences - however, treating gravity as having some sideways displacement capability or being anything other than conservative, without experimental proof of such claims, vis-a-vis unsupported, is against the foundation of natural sciences, & is at least quite delusional or at best wishful.

Out of respect for pequaide & greendoor I suggest that we leave this thread to them - whilst I admit I'm not a cheerleader of momentum as an energy source [& I can't seem to get the reasoning across] I don't wish to dissuade them from collaborating & coming up with a device to close the self sustaining loop & thus proving their point - they owe it to themselves & to their supporters to at least try & verify such a hypothesis so that it can then be replicated, before re-writing the text books ;7)

[Wubbly]

Pequaid,

Re: your Atwoods example with the 50kg and 51kg masses.

I'm still stuck on your Atwoods example from page 13 of this thread.

If I go to the MSU Atwoods website and type in your numbers of M1 = 51 kg for the blue ball and M2 = 50 kg for the red ball
and 0 kg for the pully I get an acceleration = .0971287 m/s/s which is what you got.

If I flip the masses for the blue and red balls (blue = 50 kg, red = 51 kg), I get an acceleration of -.0971287.
(Notice the negative sign.)

This tells me that it is measuring the acceleration of the red ball, where the y axis is positive in the UP direction,
and the y axis is negative in the DOWN direction.

I understand where you get the velocity of .44 m/sec with the equations you gave,
but it seems that the red ball has a velocity of +0.44 m/sec, (the positive sign indicates the direction is up),
and the blue ball has a velocity of -0.44 m/sec (the negative sign indicates the direction is down).

In your example, you then add both your masses (51 + 50) = 101 kg, multiply by the scalar speed (.44 m/sec)
and you got a momentum of 44.5 kg-m/s.


If I crack open an elementary physics book, it tells me that momentum is a vector parallel to the velocity vector.
A vector has magnitude AND direction. Momentum has magnitude AND direction.

A scalar (e.g. speed) only has magnitude. Velocity is not a scalar. Momentum is not a scalar.

Looking at the Atwoods machine, it seems that after the 1 meter DROP of the blue ball,
(and the 1 meter RISE of the red ball),
and using the VELOCITY vectors of each ball (instead of the scalar SPEED that you used),
the red ball would have a momentum of 50 kg * (+0.44 m/sec) = +22.00 kg-m/sec
and the blue ball would have a momentum of 51 kg * (-0.44 m/sec) = -22.44 kg-m/sec
Adding the two momentums together would yield a total system momentum of -0.44 kg-m/sec,
which is considerably less than your value of 44.5 kg-m/sec.


Coincidentally, a 1 kg mass travelling at -0.44 m/sec has a momentum of -0.44 kg-m/sec.
and the mass difference between the blue and the red balls just happens to be 1 kg.


You are getting all the extra momentum in your calculation because you are treating the velocity as a scalar instead of a vector.
You are also treating the momentum as a scalar instead of a vector.

Do you have experimental evidence to support your momentum calculations for the Atwoods example, or do you just have your scalar based calculations?

You analyze the Atwoods example and come up with a total momentum of +44.5 kg-m/sec.
I analyze the exact same example and come up with a total momentum of -0.44 kg-m/sec.


Can you please explain why you are ignoring the definition of momentum, and you are using SPEED instead of VELOCITY in your Atwoods calculations?

Greendoor, I believe your example is critically flawed for the same reason.

[Michael]

force is strain within a material.

That's a very strong statement greendoor. Force is force, strain is what happens to materials under the influence of force.

[greendoor]

Thanks Fletcher for making your position so clear. I respect that. I would rather that you attack my logic and calculations to prove that that it is not possible to accumulate surplus momentum relative to freefall. That would be most interesting. Or do you conceed that surplus momentum is indeed available by the Atwoods method? Anyone else disagree? Please - if i'm wrong I would like to see why. (My logic, rather than emotional rants). Practical experimentation seems to indicate that surplus momentum is indeed being accumulated.

Can we agree that part A - the Attwoods part - of Pequaides theory is viable?

It then remains to fullfill part B - the Momentum Transfer part. I admit this is the more difficult and contentious part.

The technical challenge is to somehow transfer a large amount of momentum from a slow moving massive system to a stationary small mass. We need to do this as efficiently as possible - but let's face it; if we only need 30 units and we have 600+ units available, we can afford some losses - don't you think?

Pequaide has proposed some systems for doing this. I will suggest another that seems to fit in with the Bessler clues. A catapult. Bessler clue: "The jack fires. The bow twangs".

(Acknowledgement to John Collins - author - for his translation of Bessler's Apologia Poetica)

Hold a ruler in your hands, with a small mass (e.g. a rubber) on one end. Slowly bend this back, applying tension to the ruler. This is a case of a slow moving momentum (from your hand) being stored in a spring (the ruler) and then suddenly released to fire the mass (the rubber) high into the air.

With the momentum available in a heavy, slow moving system, we should be able to soak up that momentum and store it in a spring, and then use that spring to fire the small mass back up again.

The important consideration is that Impact is necessary. For the simple reason that the Atwoods system must be disconnected from any opposing forces until maximum velocity is attained. Once maximum velocity is attained - then connection must be made (Impact) to the spring. At that point, the Attwoods system begins deceleration. The system must be carefully designed so that at the point where the Atwoods system reaches zero velocity, the spring is then disconnected. Otherwise, the Atwoods system would be reversed by equal & opposite reaction.

For practical purposes - there is room for a lot of loss, and room for some rebound. The Atwood system is going to be continually oscillating back & forth - some rebound isn't a big problem, although it may require some dampening it if gets out of hand. Maybe this is why Bessler used external pendlums, as a kind of limiter?

I haven't speculated too much about how exactly Bessler constructed his wheel. But if we imagine some Atwood machines 'playing between the pillars' on the axle shaft (hence the holes in the axle???) then we can imagine a small offset weight being applied on once side, slowly falling down. Then suddenly, at the specific point 'The dog creeps out of his kennel just as far as his chain will stretch.'. I relate this to my concept of connection & disconnection, or Impact.

This sudden impact, of the momentum of the Atwood machine being suddenly applied like reaching the end of a slack rope ... this Jerk would then direct the momentum into a spring. We all know that Bessler used a spring - it's a matter of historical record.

The spring would then fire - causing a sudden acceleration (either to a weight, or to the wheel directly).

I admit I don't know how Bessler did this - this is just speculation on my part.

My thought is whether the cyclindrical weights that witnesses described were the small overbalance weights, or whether they were part of the Atwoods system.

My guess is that Bessler used 8 weights and 4 crossbars - and that these comprised 4 Atwoods systems mounted on the Axle. If so - the axle must have been stationary. OR - these Atwoods systems were mounted on bearings that allowed them to operate from a stationary reference frame relative to earth. Either way works.

It has also occured to me that the wooden compartments inside the wheel may have been free to move, and therefore free to provide the small amount of overbalance needed. or to prove acceleration to the wheel by lurching forward when activated by a spring release ...

Pure speculation on my part - i'm sorry. I would also find it easy to believe that Bessler used lead shot as small weights, and that these overbalanced the Atwoods machines, and were then launched back upwards by releasing springs.

"Children play among the pillars
with loud heavy clubs (marbles?).
Acrobats and shadow-boxers
are as swift and nimble as the wind. "

Excuse me for indulging in speculation.

This thread is about Pequaide, and about creating energy in the lab. If this bothers you, the honorable thing to do would be to bow out gracefully like Fletcher has just done.

[Michael]

Sure greendoor, I disagree about this.

Or do you conceed that surplus momentum is indeed available by the Atwoods method? Anyone else disagree?

Your not looking at the fact that the only reason the lighter mass is moving is because of the heavier mass. Cut the string and then see what happens to all of the momentum of the lighter mass.

Wubbly I clicked your green.

[greendoor]

force is strain within a material.

That's a very strong statement greendoor. Force is force, strain is what happens to materials under the influence of force.

We can thank F J Grimer for this idea. I think his credentials in this area are well recognised. Of course - it is a contraversial viewpoint that does require an acknowledgement of an Aether which can be strained, otherwise there is no way to explain forces that act through a vacuum.

But I think the practical reality of how forces work make this viewpoint very intuitive and enlightening.

Don't let it bother you from seeing the big picture here. Who cares about the semantics, or whether the text books will need re-writing after we've finished.

The amplification of momentum available in an Atwoods machine is undeniable. Concentrate on that.

[Michael]

We can thank F J Grimer for this idea. I think his credentials in this area are well recognised. Of course - it is a contraversial viewpoint that does require an acknowledgement of an Aether which can be strained, otherwise there is no way to explain forces that act through a vacuum.

You can thank Grimer for it greendoor ( no offense Grimer ), your the only one whos seemed to have bought it lock stock and barrel. This really becomes a dog chasing it own tail, if it does entail an aether that can be strained ( which I already brought up but using relativity ) then it begs the question what was the force that caused that particular strain? It's a waste of time to rewrite good physics.
Concentrate on learning good physics, is all I will say to your last statement.

[greendoor]

Your not looking at the fact that the only reason the lighter mass is moving is because of the heavier mass. Cut the string and then see what happens to all of the momentum of the lighter mass.

Michael - we apparantly are failing to communicate. What string?

Look - we've got two heavy balanced masses - let's say they are 1000 litre containers of water sitting at each end of a childrens see saw.

Set this system up so they are level.

These heavy weights are not going anywhere by themselves - they are balanced.

Now put a 1 litre container of water on one end and see what happens.

The total system of 2001 kg slowly accelerates, and when the heavier end hits that ground, it has a lot more momentum than the 1 kg would freefalling alone.

[greendoor]

Wubbly - I see you and Michael are worried. How much do they pay you? You can click each other's greenies - I'll be clicking your reds.

I recognise your distinction between Velocity & Speed. This is one aspect that will need to be rewritten, I agree. Because it is a false distinction. Motion cannot be denied just because it has reversed direction. There is a place where Vector mathematics is useful. There are places where this sort of logic is just a crock.

Is that the best you can do?

[Michael]

Wubbly - I see you and Michael are worried. How much do they pay you? You can click each other's greenies - I'll be clicking your reds.

I recognise your distinction between Velocity & Speed. This is one aspect that will need to be rewritten, I agree. Because it is a false distinction. Motion cannot be denied just because it has reversed direction. There is a place where Vector mathematics is useful. There are places where this sort of logic is just a crock.

Is that the best you can do ?

I clicked wubbly's geen because he's posting good physics greendoor, I really don't care if he clicks mine or not. And you asked for posts of who disagreed. Your above post, that's pretty sad. I thought you said you weren't interested in acting out emotionally.

[Michael]

The total system of 2001 kg slowly accelerates, and when the heavier end hits that ground, it has a lot more momentum than the 1 kg would freefalling alone.

Does it? Then greendoor take all of that momentum, and redirect it so everything resets. According to your view there should be left over for extra.

Michael - we apparantly are failing to communicate. What string?

The string on the pulley of the atwood machine. Did we change subjects?

[Michael]

vb

[Wubbly]

Yes, that is the best I can do.

M1 = 1000 kg
v1 = +0.313 m/s

M2 = 1001 kg
v2 = -0.313 m/s

P1 = M1 * V1 = 1000 kg * +0.313 m/s = 313 kg-m/s

P2 = M2 * V2 = 1001 kg * -0.313 m/s = -313.313 kg-m/s

System momentum = P1 + P2 = 313 kg-m/s + (-313.313 kg-m/s) = -0.313 kg-m/s

I get a system momentum of -0.313 kg-m/s (not 626 kg-m/s)


Note that a 1 kg mass travelling at -0.313 m/s has a momentum of -0.313 kg-m/s
and the mass difference between M1 and M2 is 1 kg

[pequaide]

Wubbly quote: Can you please explain why you are ignoring the definition of momentum, and you are using SPEED instead of VELOCITY in your Atwoods calculations?:

Well: because I have common sense. I have not ignored the definition of momentum I just don’t buy into the (inappropriate use of) vectors non-sense.

The Atwood’s could be suspended in the middle of the room, If counterclockwise is positive (as in the MSU site) then half the students would see a positive acceleration and half would see a negative acceleration. If you gave the students a pop quiz and asked them if the acceleration was positive or negative, half would fail. Your definition of positive and negative is not a physical reality; it is something someone made up, which is frankly silly.

I would guess that if you read your text more carefully it would tell you that the positive and negative only indicate direction: left and right, or clockwise and counterclockwise. It has nothing to do with the magnitude of momentum.

Let the red and blue spheres (MSU site) obtain their velocity from the one extra kilogram mass (side) dropping one meter. As the spheres pass the one meter point let the ascending sphere pick up a 2 kilogram mass. Now we have the true meaning of negative acceleration. The spheres, with their extra masses, will decelerate until they stop. I would not waste the terms negative and positive on direction; I would save them for the real event.

[greendoor]

Michael & Wubbly - I was a little short of time so please accept my apologies for a hastily written response. You raise some good objections that need a good answer.

Point of semantics: Please note that I am using the terms "Atwoods" as a short name for the what I would call Pequaide's 'Principle A'. In the context of this whole thread (if you have read it all) Pequaide frequently refers to Atwoods, but with the understanding that we could be talking about a flywheel or some other balanced system of mass.

I am aware that the traditional Atwoods machine requires a pulley and string. Please note that I don't think this is the prefered embodiment for a machine, simply because a string can only be tensioned one way. When taking power out of the system, we need to decelerate the weights. That would take tension out of the string, and we would lose a lot of the available force. So I believe that a flywheel or a balanced beam works better, practically, than a system with strings & pulleys.

So please excuse me for using the terms "Atwoods" to refer to any "system of balanced weights" in the context of this thread. Is that OK?

Some of the difficulty in understanding this basic principle is that flywheels and balanced beams are not linear devices, and people start wanting to apply principles of Angular Momentum to understand their behaviour. For the sake of understanding this very basic principle, we are trying to avoid this, and relate it back to simple Newtonian kinematic equations. I realise they are not the same - and Pequaide has explained this in detail many times before, so there is no need to repeat this again.

For this reason we refer to Atwoods because the movement of each mass is vertically up & down. We don't have to concern ourselves with sideways motion, or rotary motion - even if a practical application will probably not use pulleys & string.

If it helps you sleep at night, consider we would be using an Atwoods with chains & sprockets, to eliminate rotary motion and yet retain tension in the chain whilst decelerating.

Now you raise the objection about Vector analysis. Obviously, in this balanced system, we have half the weight ascending while half the weight is descending. Hence the positive vector and the negative vector. But bear in mind that the cross beam is inverting the forces too.

It seems a bit childish to be arguing this point. Common sense tells us that if we have two identical heavy weights with a lot of momentum, the momentum of both of these weights is shared between them.

Flywheels can be used as a form of energy storage. They are a very efficient form of energy storage. CAT make large UPS systems that make use of a flywheel instead of batteries, because flywheels are superior to batteries for storing energy.

The purpose of these 'Atwoods' machines is to store momentum/energy. Nothing more, nothing less. We input energy by accelerating this massive system. We take energy out by decelerating it. The CoG doesn't change, so it doesn't need resetting. It's all about accumulating Momentum, and then taking it out again. The Momentum is gained by Acceleration, which is provided by the Force of gravity over Time which is provided by a relatively small falling weight. I don't understand what part of this simple concept you are failing to grasp.

To make it even simpler for you, we can remove gravity out of the Atwoods equation. Replace it with a horizontal railroad track. Frictionless for the purpose of this discussion. Instead of two balanced masses, replace them with one larger mass moving horizontally. Let the small falling weight accelerate this mass by pulling a string over a pully.

Better yet - make an experiment and see what happens. This is pretty simple stuff.

I'm not an academic. I'm interested in just enough maths & physics to make a practical machine. I'm very aware that the maths behind even simple machines can get extremely complicated and even academics can't agree on very much. I'm not interesting in disappearing up my own orifice for the sake of it. I want to keep it simple as possible to see the possibilities of building a working device, and then the academics can analyse it to their hearts content after the fact.

My basic experiments to date suggest that considerable momentum multiplication is possible using this method.