energy producing experiments

[broli]

Michael, can you and Omnibus please STOP posting in this thread. I'm still asking polity.

[Michael]

The ah well wasn't meant for you broli, and I'll stop posting on any thread of yours you ask me to.

[broli]

I appreciate your understanding.

[Michael]

Wubbly: construct an Atwood’s string with 51 kg on one side and 50 kg on the other side. Now place the string and masses on two different size pulleys (both have very little mass and are frictionless). Does the Atwood’s behave differently because the one pulley has a radius of .10 meters and the other has a radius of .25 meters?

You probably will not find this experiment in the literature, but you will find the experiment in my lab. Take my word for it, pulley diameter has nothing to do with an Atwood’s. I have several Atwood’s with different radii and they all behave alike, F = ma.

Your right pequaide they shouldn't behave any differently because there is no change in the masses.

[Michael]

So now we go to step B: we transfer all the momentum of the see-saw into the .510 kg sphere. For the sphere to comply with Newton’s Three Laws of Motion it will have to be moving 393.15 m/sec. Oh: and the energy is the square of the velocity, at 39,414.56 joules.

So pequaide a question to you by your reasoning; if an object of either ( corn flakes, steel sphere, etc it does not matter but all weighing the same ), were attached to a 2000 kg. see saw on one end of the see saw, and this chosen object moved a vertical distance of 2 meters, while being attached to the 2000 kg. see saw, so therefore turning the whole 2000 kg. see saw mass in it's motion, were the total inertia at the end of this 2 meter movement of all of this then transfered back to the ( corn flakes, steel sphere, etc it does not matter ) what are you stating will happen? Give the ( corn flakes, steel sphere, etc it does not matter ) more inertia than if they were dropped 2 meters in free fall all on their own?

[pequaide]

Let’s rearrange Greendoor’s 2000 kg see-saw.

As long as there is a 2 m drop of the .510 kg (extra mass) sphere, it does not matter if the sphere’s drop is from 12 o’clock, or from 2 o’clock or from 4 o’clock.

You could also split the see-saw into two see-saws (now an X shape) with 500 kg masses at 1, 5, 7, and 11 o’clock, and the rotational physics would be the same. Or you could have 6 see-saws with 166.6 kg at each of the hours of the clock, and the rotational inertia would still be the same. As long as the .510 kg sphere can drop 2 meters, the velocity of the multi board see-saw would be .1000 m/sec after the drop. You could also have 33.3 kg at each minute of the clock.

The two point mass, one board, see- saw has the same rotational inertia as a rim mass wheel.

Also; in the discussion of the see-saw do you see radius mentioned? That is because Newton’s Three Laws of Motion work just dandy with no reference to radius or angular momentum. That is because angular momentum conservation in the lab is a hoax.

Wubbly; you seem to accept the concept that linear motion can be expressed as angular motion. Would you be willing to work with the opposite concept? Why can’t rotational motion be expressed as linear motion. You are willing to express the ascending and descending masses in an Atwood’s in rotational terms, what would be wrong with expressing the motion of the pulley in linear terms. Linear terms would of course be the distance a mass travels around the circle in a unit period of time.

An Atwood’s can actually be made without a pulley. Use enough points of dry ice so that a ribbon can slide freely over them. Place the Atwood’s masses on the ends of this ribbon. Even the MSU Atwood’s site implies this structure by allowing you to turn off the friction. To assign a radius to this structure is bizarre because there is nothing rotating. An infinite number of distances can be placed between the two masses but you will always get F = ma results.

Wubbly states that in:

L = (M1 + M2) * V * R

If you set R = 1m, then the equation becomes what you guys have been saying,

Pequaide: But what the guys have been saying is that F = ma.

Do you mean to say that if you assign a different radius then F = ma is false? Think about it, this is not a sound mathematical position.

When you buy an Atwood’s from a science catalogs do they tell you that this Atwood’s does not comply with F = ma because the pulley is too big or too small? No: of course not. They don’t need to tell you that; because the pulley radius does not matter, it absolutely does not matter.

Omnibus Quote: @Wubbly is giving you a chance to show his momentum analysis was a little simple minded. Show how the angular momentum of the pulley can be translated back into linear momentum.

Pequaide answer: There is no angular momentum in lab experiments: how can you translate something that is fake, and phony, and a hoax, into something that is real.

If you want to do these problems correctly calculate the distance (in meters, or feet) a mass moves around the circle in a unit period of time (sec) and treat this motion in exactly the same manner as you would linear motion. Or "stay Newtonian"

[pequaide]

Michael; I believe you are using the wrong term. Inertia is the resistance to a change in the quantity of motion caused by mass.

Michael quote: “Give the ( corn flakes, steel sphere, etc it does not matter ) more inertia than if they were dropped 2 meters in free fall all on their own?�

No: I obviously can not give the sphere more mass, or inertia.

I have however given the sphere a great deal of momentum (greater than freefall) by putting the sphere in an Atwood’s, or a see-saw, or a rim mass wheel.

I have taken the motion of a rim mass wheel and placed all the momentum back into the sphere. With all the momentum now in a smaller mass the energy increase is huge.

[georgexbailey]

I'm tired of math so trying to do something more fun!

http://www.kingsford.org/khsWeb/rfs/elemsci/tmomen.html

I placed a tennis ball that weighs 2 oz on a basketball that weighs 17 oz and dropped the stack 6". The tennis ball goes up about 30" higher than it started. Can a 2 oz tennis ball dropping back down to it's starting point (30") raise a 17oz basketball 6"? If so, then it would reset.

I know that probably has nothing to do with this discussion but it is a method to transfer momentum from a large object to a small object and it is pretty cool to watch the tennis ball fly way higher than it was dropped!

[Michael]

I was staying away from the term energy pequaide but that's all I needed to hear. Your saying a mass that falls a given height and turns a flywheel in it's fall, will be given more energy back to it were the flywheel to tranfer it's momentum back to the mass.

I have however given the sphere a great deal of momentum (greater than freefall) by putting the sphere in an Atwood’s, or a see-saw, or a rim mass wheel.

I have taken the motion of a rim mass wheel and placed all the momentum back into the sphere. With all the momentum now in a smaller mass the energy increase is huge.

[greendoor]

I'm tired of math so trying to do something more fun!

http://www.kingsford.org/khsWeb/rfs/elemsci/tmomen.html

I placed a tennis ball that weighs 2 oz on a basketball that weighs 17 oz and dropped the stack 6". The tennis ball goes up about 30" higher than it started. Can a 2 oz tennis ball dropping back down to it's starting point (30") raise a 17oz basketball 6"? If so, then it would reset.

I know that probably has nothing to do with this discussion but it is a method to transfer momentum from a large object to a small object and it is pretty cool to watch the tennis ball fly way higher than it was dropped!

Thanks georgexbaily. This is basically Newtons Cradle that I keep harping on about. It is experiments like this that prove Conservation of Momentum. And this is exactly why we should be excited about large gains in Momentum - because Momentum can be transfered/transformed by impacts of various types.

Note that this experiment by itself is just a lossy transformation. We are putting all the energy into lifting all the balls - the heavy ones and the light ones. When we release them, and let them freefall, they all gain momentum. When the heavy one hits the floor, it gives most of it's momentum to the lighter balls, hence their sudden increase in velocity and height.

To repeat this effect - we have to lift them all again. If we could capture and reuse the energy of the high flying balls, we would be well under Unity due to losses.

Notice that the "Pequaide A" Atwood effect is very different, because we never have to lift the massive weights ...

[greendoor]

... Your saying a mass that falls a given height and turns a flywheel in it's fall, will be given more energy back to it were the flywheel to tranfer it's momentum back to the mass.

Michael - i'm not sure if that is a question or a statement. I detect a hint of cynicism - apologies if that is not the case.

I suspect you are thinking that the energy of a "fall" is fixed, and therefore two lossy transformations can never end up with more energy than was first put into raising that mass. That is the classic, established, conventional physics viewpoint - and you are certainly not alone in that view. But what is the fun in that ...

But what if we had a Golden Ticket, Mr Wonka?

For what it's worth - i'll try to explain in yet another way WHY we think we are entitled to all we can eat from this particular chocolate factory ...

(excuse the bad puns - your Avatar made me do it)

Your assumption is that the energy obtained by a falling mass is fixed. Sadly, the matter gets confused with another question - whether Energy (0.5MV^2) is a fair representation of a "quantity of motion" or whether Momentum (MV) is a more appropriate representation of that physical value.

That's why i've suggested we break peqaide's theory into two parts. "Part A" being the accumulation of more momentum by diverting the g-force into accelerating heavy masses for a greater interval of time than normally achievable in free fall. "Part B" being the transformation of that momentum in the heavy masses into moving the small mass at much higher velocity.

The principle being proposed is uniquely different from the dynamics of a small mass dropped in freefall.

We can argue ourselves in circles about differences between linear vs rotational, Newtonian vs Langrangian or whatever. I'm too dumb for that fancy rocket scientology stuff.

I would suggest we try to understand "Pequaide A" using the simplest linear Newtonian machine possible. The Atwood machine should be fairly simple - but the pulley seems to be throwing some people off (only because they want to make this as complicated as possible). So I would suggest a simple balance arm, with bearings to ensure the weights always hang down. Apart from a little horizontal movement which will affect the time involved slightly - the motion is basically linear.

The main thing to remember is that the massive balanced system is used purely as a momentum storage mechanism. The Center of Gravity never drops. The effects of gravity on this part of the machine are effectively nulled.

We are using Force = Mass times Acceleration. The small falling weight is giving it's force to the larger mass system, which by virtue of it's inertia will accelerate far slower than the small weight would in free fall. This means there is much more Time available for the Force to act over.

Momentum = Force times Time. And also Mass & Velocity. These are interchangeable.

By allowing the Force to act over a longer Time, the amount of Momentum accumulated is equivalent to the same small mass falling from a much higher height.

"Pequaide B" is where we take the accumulated Momentum and transfer it back to the small "driver" mass. Due to Conservation of Momentum, this dramatically increases velocity. And because the definition of Energy is based on the square of velocity, that's where we see the Energy numbers increase.

I speak for myself and not Pequaide when I say that Energy numbers are just numbers. In my opinion, the significant accumulation of "quantity of motion" actually occurs in "Pequaide Part A". But on paper, the theoretical Energy gain becomes apparant in "Pequaide Part B".

My simplistic way of looking at this effect:

The Force of Gravity acting on all mass at all times never goes away. If g-force is not actually Accelerating that mass, it is Stressing it. A Mass being Stressed is taking as much Force as a Mass being Accelerated. We have no problem accepting that g-force is constantly Stressing Mass all the Time. Why should it surprise us if that Force can be used to Accelerate a Mass instead? The only requirement is that the opposing Normal force be removed. In freefall, the limitation is Height. But in reality, Height is not the real limitation. Time is the real limitation. So why do we find it hard to believe that we can engineer a machine where the Time a Force can act is greatly extended?

Momentum = Force times Time. As long as we have time, the Force can accumulate Momentum. Admittedly at a much lower velocity than freefall.

Why should Height be considered the only possible form of Potential Kinetic Energy? Height is external to a mass object. It can be changed externally to the object. This means that Height is not necessarily a true physical representation of PE. It's a convenient book-keeping concept - but not a real physical analog. And therefore not physically binding as an immutable 'law'.

[pequaide]

Michael quote: “Your saying a mass that falls a given height and turns a flywheel in it's fall, will be given more energy back to it were the flywheel to transfer it's momentum back to the mass.�

Let me rephrase your question slightly and then I will affirm your question.

Your saying a mass that falls a given height and turns a flywheel in it's fall, that when that flywheel transfers it's momentum back to the mass it will give more energy to the mass than it would have had in freefalling the same distance.

And to this I answer; Yes.

And it is as Greendoor states: By allowing the Force to act over a longer Time, the amount of Momentum accumulated is similar to the same small mass falling from a much higher height.

Pequaide: Or the same small mass rising to a much higher height, once it has that given quantity of velocity.

[bluesgtr44]

I'm tired of math so trying to do something more fun!

http://www.kingsford.org/khsWeb/rfs/elemsci/tmomen.html

I placed a tennis ball that weighs 2 oz on a basketball that weighs 17 oz and dropped the stack 6". The tennis ball goes up about 30" higher than it started. Can a 2 oz tennis ball dropping back down to it's starting point (30") raise a 17oz basketball 6"? If so, then it would reset.

I know that probably has nothing to do with this discussion but it is a method to transfer momentum from a large object to a small object and it is pretty cool to watch the tennis ball fly way higher than it was dropped!

I did this with my grandson watching. He has many different types of balls and to no surprise.....the results can vary depending on the elasticity of the materials used for those balls! At 6 yrs. old, he wasn't really all that excited about these results considering we were supposed to be playing "bucket ball".

If there is a situation involving gravity where it can be demonstrated that conservation of energy is being challenged.....this experiment to me, would be one of those.


Steve

[broli]

I'm tired of math so trying to do something more fun!

http://www.kingsford.org/khsWeb/rfs/elemsci/tmomen.html

I placed a tennis ball that weighs 2 oz on a basketball that weighs 17 oz and dropped the stack 6". The tennis ball goes up about 30" higher than it started. Can a 2 oz tennis ball dropping back down to it's starting point (30") raise a 17oz basketball 6"? If so, then it would reset.

I know that probably has nothing to do with this discussion but it is a method to transfer momentum from a large object to a small object and it is pretty cool to watch the tennis ball fly way higher than it was dropped!

I did this with my grandson watching. He has many different types of balls and to no surprise.....the results can vary depending on the elasticity of the materials used for those balls! At 6 yrs. old, he wasn't really all that excited about these results considering we were supposed to be playing "bucket ball".

If there is a situation involving gravity where it can be demonstrated that conservation of energy is being challenged.....this experiment to me, would be one of those.


Steve

I do not fully agree with that. These are collision experiments which are known to conserve energy due to the fact they are based on spring theory. What pequaide has been promoting aren't collision interactions but a very special kind of interaction. You could call them inertial interaction.

[Michael]

Why greendoor, I'm suprised you've chosen to talk with this m.i.b. at all, remember though, it's Mr. Wonka that hands out the golden tickets.

Anyway I'm out of here and off this thread, like a jet engine. Have fun guys, I hope you test build what your proposing, the next couple of weeks should show what's really going on here.