energy producing experiments

[greendoor]

You don't even know what country I live in. You are displaying your ignorance on so many levels. We would have to raise the stakes to at least US$1000000 - and for legal reasons conduct this experiment in another country where killing human beings is tolerated.

IF you think the experiment I propose is safe, like the pendulum stunt I described first, you are missing the whole point of this whole thread. To use your scull to stop the momentum of 2000 kg in motion would not be safe. I've inflicted damage to a car with the slow moving momentum of a trailer. Once moving, massive objects are hard to stop. I think you underestimate the power of Force x Time when it is applied to Accelerating a massive system.

You are now on my ignore list as a professional time waster with zero interest in considering real possibilities. I hope our discussion has raised awareness of the value of pequaide's work to more open minded individuals.

I will admit to a certain amount of chain yanking and holy cow tipping. It's what I do. But I hope my tasteless sense of humour hasn't drawn attention away from the real issues raised by Pequaide.

I'm off to the shed to commence building. I may be some time ...

[Michael]

Wow.

The point greendoor ( say what's your real name ), is that I am so sure what you propose will cause no harm, I am willing to risk my money and bodily injury. Are you as sure?

We can sign a contract. I can just place my hand underneath.

[Fletcher]

Michael - that's an unfair bet ;) - I like cornflakes - yum - the see-saw is moving so slowly [precisely because of inertia] that there won't be any more force on your hand/face than the cornflakes box dropping on its own [assuming the same contact area & height lost - but then you know that] - let greendoor go to his shed & retro the experimental evidence to back up his words.

[Michael]

Yep. Hope he does. Goodwishes greendoor.

[Omnibus]

@Fletcher,

Experiments speak volumes, the rest is theoretical theatrics

Theoretical theatrics? I predict theoretically that when you place two apples on the table and then decide to place another two you’ll end up with four apples. I haven’t done this experiment when I write this, if at all, but I don’t doubt the conclusion. Have you to do the experiment to trust me?

[ovyyus]

Omnibus, an unfortunate glitch in your perfectly rational thought experiment is that some people will imagine oranges in place of your apples. I'm sure you've noticed that the cranky world of belief based physics sometimes works by an altogether different set of variables and that even precisely descriptive language can still result in zero communication :D

[Omnibus]

@ovyyus,

No, it won't. I know that neo-positivist attempt to muddle the thinking but rational thought will not die as long as humanity exists no matter what attempts are made to squash it through bogus philosophizing. Terms can be defined rigorously and when one says apples one means apples not oranges. Reminds me of the funny liberal talk whereby zealous activists are trying to convince society that men are in fact women already. Well, nonsense exists and it won't ever go away. Rational thought too.

[Fletcher]

I predict theoretically that when you place two apples on the table and then decide to place another two you’ll end up with four apples. I haven’t done this experiment when I write this, if at all, but I don’t doubt the conclusion. Have you to do the experiment to trust me?

Not if I give one to the teacher :7)

The point is that in this nefarious neo physics world we call the quest for PM we can't even agree amongst ourselves that the term PM is both meaningless, redundant & nonsense all at the same time - that means that any theories developed, no matter how rational, thought provoking, carefully crafted in exquisite wordsmithing skills, by the author, will still be viewed as contentious & confusing by some & raise debate - "a picture, on the other hand, is worth a thousand words".

Your rudimentary anecdotal example is of course not really THAT contentious & I would be arguing semantics & splitting hairs for the sake of it to suggest that I couldn't visualize four on the table or that I could get confused - are they red apples ?

[broli]

If people are not willing to contribute or worse trying to bring down a project can't they be modded out of the thread Scott? This thread was doing quite well and going somewhere until a few thought it was doing TOO well and had to be brought down. There's no reason for any negativity in this thread. All the concepts are well established, only experimentation is left.

[Fletcher]

Yep broli - the greendoor see-saw example might be best served by constructing a double pivoted parallelogram arrangement - that way cross bars on the verticals can take a weight at any position & not affect the balance dynamics - oh yeah, quite easy to build in WM, also for comparison.

And a pulley is just another lever, right ?

[Omnibus]

@Fletcher,

Not if I give one to the teacher :7)

You don’t have anything to say but feel the need to type something on the keyboard, right?

The point is that in this nefarious neo physics world we call the quest for PM we can't even agree amongst ourselves that the term PM is both meaningless, redundant & nonsense all at the same time - that means that any theories developed, no matter how rational, thought provoking, carefully crafted in exquisite wordsmithing skills, by the author, will still be viewed as contentious & confusing by some & raise debate - "a picture, on the other hand, is worth a thousand words".

That “that the term PM is both meaningless, redundant & nonsense all at the same time� is expressing an opinion not based on facts and logic. That’s an expression of deeply ingrained indoctrination. I can understand how that happens but I don’t excuse you for not willing to face the rigorous arguments proving otherwise.

Also, it isn’t true that “any theories developed, no matter how rational, thought provoking, carefully crafted in exquisite wordsmithing skills, by the author� will necessarily still be viewed as contentious & confusing by the honest, well-educated researchers. That’s your pessimistic outlook which you’re trying to present as a standard. No, it isn’t.

Your rudimentary anecdotal example is of course not really THAT contentious & I would be arguing semantics & splitting hairs for the sake of it to suggest that I couldn't visualize four on the table or that I could get confused - are they red apples ?

The anecdote is rudimentary because it reflects what provoked it. Understanding that science provides a basis for predictions before carrying out experiments is so basic that it need not be discussed. Any discussion requiring to explain why this is so is rudimentary by its very nature.

Also, again, don’t present your own confusion as the standard when assessing scientific truth. You’re the one who’s confused. Those using scientific reasoning aren’t.

[Omnibus]

@broli,

All the concepts are well established, only experimentation is left.

Depends what concepts you have in mind. Those of @greendoor and @pequaide are not concepts but confusion which requires no experimentation.

[mickegg]

I think WM2D can NOT now be used to prove or disprove this behaviour as it may be possibly using the wrong equations.

It should be fairly simple for us all to constuct a simple "see-saw" on which
we can add the balanced masses and overbalanced weight in order to test
what is being disputed.........smaller masses though, please <grin>

Perhaps the impact being taken by a small ball or cylinder of modelling clay and the deformation of same, compared?

If we all agree on some standard dimensions we can each perform the experiment and compare the results. I would expect all to show a similar result in deformation pattern (if any), notwithstanding the differences
in the materials that we choose to deform.

As we should repeat the experiment several times...bodily parts may not be a good idea!

Regards

Mick

[Omnibus]

@mickegg,

I think WM2D can NOT now be used to prove or disprove this behaviour as it may be possibly using the wrong equations.

Can't agree more. WM2D can only be used to determine the center of mass with respect to the axis of rotation.

[Fletcher]

Actually mickegg WM can be very reliable if used correctly - but, on its own, is never conclusive proof of anything, only predictive - for simple experiments like this it can easily be used for comparison purposes, to the real deal - it is always necessary [in my experience] to tweak the sim until it mimics the real world model - between broli [on WM], pequaide & at least greendoor, some consensus should be able to be reached about modeling, behaviour & results attained.

Since a pulley is a lever then atwoods should show similar results & conclusions to a see-saw test bed, I should think ?!

EDIT: obviously, if after adjusting for lever mass distribution, pin frictions, air resistance etc, if the results are not in sync, then you & omnibus [& perhaps a few others] would be right to view WM as a bad apple & unreliable tool - but I'd rather wait until the fine tuning & results are in to see if there really is a difference afterall !