energy producing experiments

[Fletcher]

Do the simple see-saw experiment greendoor [seems you're getting to the essence] - in fact, do any simple experiment with real results & the whole world will pay close attention - just don't forget to publish them !

Only physical tests that can be replicated will prove a point !

[Omnibus]

@Fletcher,

Only physical tests that can be replicated will prove a point !

That's a very pessimistic outlook on science. Seems you don't accept that laws have been discovered in science which would allow to predict relations existing in reality and the truthfulness of anything which would occur to a researcher must necessarily be physically tested. Unending stone age of sorts.

[pequaide]

Michael: You have a couple major conceptual errors. First; there is no Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy, and you are doing a problem using the non-existent law. Look up the Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy in any text book index, you will not find it. The Atwood’s does not comply with non-existent laws so you are simply making something up. Therefore you will have to support your new law with real experiments.

Second: If you study the history of physics you will find that the Atwood’s is not just some lab experiment to wow the students. It is one of the primary experiments that prove F = ma, this obviously means that it does not have zero momentum or Ft = mv would be false.

Third: The ascending balanced mass is not being pulled on by the descending balanced mass any more than the descending balanced mass is being pulled on by the ascending balanced mass. When the motion is static (at rest) this is obvious. The overbalanced mass pulls upon both balanced masses equally; they have equal quantities of motion, equal quantities of momentum, and equal quantities of energy. Place you finger up against the pulley so that the ascending mass can strike it. Just as the ascending mass begins touching your finger cut the string. You will be struck with 50 kg moving .44 m/sec, it will take .987 cm to stop, and I think your finger will be smashed.

How do you explain my 3:00 post, with the 10 kilogram on a horizontal plane?

[Omnibus]

@pequaide,

Michael: You have a couple major conceptual errors. First; there is no Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy, and you are doing a problem using the non-existent law. Look up the Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy in any text book index, you will not find it. The Atwood’s does not comply with non-existent laws so you are simply making something up. Therefore you will have to support your new law with real experiments.

On the contrary, the conceptual errors are seen in your understanding. @Michael applies CoE which concerns the available energy. It is exactly the kinetic energy which is the available energy in the discussed case and physics, contrary to your understanding, does require its conservation. If what I just told you becomes clear to you it will help you to correct the rest of the errors you’re making.

[broli]

pequaide use your energy on producing more experiments and recording more data. I will happily be willing to compare the data to both angular momentum conservation and my equation. Let's do real science instead of talking to walls.

[Omnibus]

In order to do real science you have to know what it really is and not just pronounce confusion as real science.

[Michael]

pequaide,??? conceptual errors??? Omnibus is exactly right, this is dealing with the real available energy. Prove it wrong. You can't.

But

If you "could" manage to swing the whole thing sideways ( horizontal ) after it all gets moving to the required velocity then you could use the velocity of both masses. Problem is in order to use the two velocities your going to have to expend energy either at the beginning ,/or at the end in resetting everything, because your going to have to lift up ( eventually ) the heavier mass to do it. Do you see a way around this?

[Fletcher]

@Fletcher,

Only physical tests that can be replicated will prove a point !

That's a very pessimistic outlook on science. Seems you don't accept that laws have been discovered in science which would allow to predict relations existing in reality and the truthfulness of anything which would occur to a researcher must necessarily be physically tested. Unending stone age of sorts.

LOL omnibus - "you can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think".

Experience has taught me that no amount of ear-bashing will persuade anyone to change/amend their view - it, afterall, takes a life time to build up prejudices :7)

A position can be easily amended when presented with physical results [subject to good experimental procedure] that readily blow theories out of the water, no matter how eloquently those theories are presented, or carefully wrapped in grand math, or spoon fed to the unwashed !

Experiments speak volumes, the rest is theoretical theatrics !

[greendoor]

@pequaide and @greendoor,

Focus your attention on this @Michael’s sentence:

Your thinking there are two usable units of momentum because both weights are traveling at that velocity, but your forgeting only one of the weights is doing the work, the larger one, while the smaller one is being pulled up against gravity.

You think I haven't already thought about this?

Here's the thing. Weight & Inertia are two seperate things. We can easily take the apparant weight out of a mass by applying an equal opposing force. Which is exactly the case in the balanced Atwoods machine.

But removing the weight from a mass does not mean we have removed the inertia of a mass.

Think about airships & zeppelins. The buoyant force of the lighter-than-air gas takes all the weight out of the craft - but we still need to power it with powerful engines to make the things move. It still has inertia - and still needs Force applied over Time to Accelerate the total Mass and acquire Momentum. P = FT = MV.

If what you are suggesting has any merit whatsoever (which it doesn't) then you have to argue it both ways. You would have to argue that if all the momentum disappears out of a balanced beam or flywheel when decelerating - you would also have to argue that there is no inertia when accelerating.

This is so clearly not the case. We can see that there is considerable inertia when accelerating the Atwoods - and considerable inertia when it decelerates.

What part of "balanced" are you guys not getting???

I'm struggling to get my head around the ignorance of this statement:

"but your forgeting only one of the weights is doing the work, the larger one, while the smaller one is being pulled up against gravity."

The massive weights in this proposes system are EQUAL. A third, much smaller, detachable mass is used to overbalance this system. This is what provided the Force over Time (from gravity).

AT THE POINT WHERE WE EXTRACT THE MOMENTUM - THIS THIRD WEIGHT IS REMOVED.

Can you not see this yet?

We have a BALANCED, MASSIVE system that has acquired considerable MOMENTUM.

Because the system is BALANCED - there is equal mass ascending as there is mass descending. The force of gravity is completely nulled in this situation.

All that is remaining is the inertial momentum of all the moving mass in this system. Please do not insult our intelligence by insisting that any part of this moving mass somehow does not have momentum ... please think about what you are saying.

I was humouring you by saying that even if we could ignore half of the mass - there is still 22 times the amount of momentum we know we need to return the small mass from where it has fallen .....

@ Broli - you're right, I shouldn't feed the fire. I'm coming to the conclusion these guys just aren't thinking for themselves. Emotional knee-jerk reactions to a foreign idea. It's nothing new - I shouldn't be surprised.

[greendoor]

At this point I would just like to add that this is Pequaide's thread, and I am only arguing in defence of Pequaide's theory which makes perfect sense to me.

I am not at this point giving away any new information that hasn't been revealed previously. I am not giving away my personal ideas and theories yet. I can see it would be pointless, because we can't even agree on what seems very simple and logical to me.

This is exactly why I have decided it is much more prudent not to share & reveal certain aspects. I'll admit that i'm using this experience in preperation for what might lie ahead. But certainly, experimental proof is obviously going to be necessary.

Pequaid has present experimental proof of everything being discussed here, and you anti guys are just WILLFULLY IGNORANT.

So this makes me doubly sure that this is not the best forum to present the hardcore serious ideas.

[greendoor]

I'll make you a bet okay. A thousand bucks. You build the thing and I'll place my face under the area you mentioned. Heck I'll place any body part under it ( and you know what I mean ). If it does more damage to me than the box of corn flakes dropping the same distance the thousand bucks is yours. If not it's mine.

Michael - I respectfully decline to accept this wager. For the simple reason: I would win, you would die, and the legal costs involved would far outweigh a measley $1000.

You really a too slow. I thought at least one person would point out that Pressure (Force/Area) should come into this scenario. If I applied all the force of the descending see-saw momentum onto a sharp pin point, you would die for sure.

If any had picked up on this, I would have conceeded to installing a wooden plate the exact size of the cornflake box surface area. That would make the pressure contact area the same.

But you would still die from a crushed skull - so no, thanks.

[Jim Williams]

Just passing through. Just to note on the physical tests question, Bessler wasn't known for his, "real science" so much as for establishing the physical evidence of his wheel.

[Michael]

Let me take care of my own death greendoor. We can sign a contract. Is it a bet then?

You really a too slow. I thought at least one person would point out that Pressure (Force/Area) should come into this scenario. If I applied all the force of the descending see-saw momentum onto a sharp pin point, you would die for sure.

If any had picked up on this, I would have conceeded to installing a wooden plate the exact size of the cornflake box surface area. That would make the pressure contact area the same

You never said anything about the device having a piercing sharp point. Why now?
Can I point out there is a fair number of intelligent people on this forum? I don't think an intelligent person will think any less of someone if they make an admission of being wrong.

[greendoor]

When was the last time you experimented with an Atwoods machine will, say, 20 kg on each end? I know what i'm seeing - I have no doubt that what i'm proposing would crush you.

I figure you are just a professional time waster. Probably employed to derail forums like this.

See ya. Have a nice life.

[Michael]

If that's what you really think then bet me. It's really that simple.