energy producing experiments

[neptune]

@pequade. You said refering to me, that if I was interested in the truth I would do a proper experiment as I have been shown many times before. As I am new here i was unaware of these previous experiments. My experiment may have been simple and had its faults. I never claimed it was conclusive. That does not mean I am not interested in the truth. I will now study these previous experiment.I bow to your superior knowledge of mathematics, but please let us treat each other as gentlemen, and observe the rules of diplomacy. Far from not being interested in the truth, The truth is my sole reason for being here. I dont claim to know everything, but at least I tried, and feel I deserve some respect for that. So come on old chap, how about it?

[neptune]

OK ,OK, Ive got over being insulted, I am fairly thick-skinned.Let us look again at my experiment. First some figures.
1 Each magnet weighs 132 g
2 Little seesaw beam [balsa wood] weighs 9g
3 Main seesaw beam weighs184g.
4 Total moving mass of main seesaw2 plus weights and driver weight-924g
Total drop of driver weight end of main seesaw- about 25cms.
I presume that from this, a decent mathematician can predict the hight to which the flying magnet/weight will rise.We have to make an assumption about how much is lost in the 2 seesaws connecting. I am going to be very generous and allow 50% here. I do know a bit about building real world weight lifting machines. If you doubt this, go on Youtube and search "Neptunes Tail lift". The losses where the seesaws connect could be reduced by the use of a roller bearing.
I dont know everything and am willing to be shown.
So now explain to me why the weight only rises about 12 cm.
What ever you say about my experinent, it is the only one which attempts to show unquestioably and unambiguously if this theory does what it says on the tin. Sadly, it falls short of achieving this.There are only two valid conclusions to draw from this
! The experiment is flawed and can be shown to be flawed.OR
2 The theory is likewise flawed.
Regards Neptune, the man who believes in theDoctrine of Transubstantiation, and banging two seesaws together.

[Wubbly]

Vectors are for objects that are interacting; the vector concept is not for individual objects.

Wow. A statement like that coming from someone who claims to have created energy in the lab.
Now I remember why I stopped trying to follow this thread.
I have to give you credit for trying though. Good luck on those experiments.

[nicbordeaux]

Neptune, have you managed to transmute Transubstantion into energy or something ? Sounds fearfully clever, whatever it is.

[Fletcher]

Pulled across from another related thread but belongs equally here IMO - & thankyou Wubbly for taking the time to break it out.

'The Momentum Trap'

Now Lets suppose we want to lift an object up to give it potential energy.

Potential energy has the units of Joules. Joules has units of [kg m^2/s^2]

A spring stores mechanical potential energy [J], so we could use a spring to give us potential energy.

Kinetic energy has the units of Joules. There is no law of conservation of kinetic energy, but a pendulum shows us that kinetic energy can be converted to potential energy. So we can use kinetic energy to give us potential energy.

Work is force times distance. Force, with units of [kg m/s^2], times distance, with units of [m], yields [kg m^2/s^2] which has the units of joules. So work will give us potential energy.

What about momentum (mass x velocity)? momentum has units of [kg m/s]. These units are not joules, so momentum by itself can not give us potential energy. What do we have to do to the momentum units to get it to Joules? We need another [m/s] to get momentum units to equal Joule units. If you multiply momentum by another [m/s], you get the units of Joules, but you are in effect squaring the velocity.

What about Force x Time? Force has units of [kg m/s^2] and time has units of [s], so multiplying them would give you units of [kg m/s] which is the units of momentum.


So you have to ask yourself, are you using the right measuring tool?

If you use momentum as your measuring tool to get potential energy, you are mixing units, and you are using the wrong measuring tool.

If you can get momentum by itself to do work, then you are a wizard.

Good luck to everybody - if you can reset all conditions to starting & produce anything like 5000% energy gain then you get my vote for a Nobel prize.

Just even thinking that that sort of order of magnitude of increase in useable energy [capacity to do work] being possible by tweaking ratios should send off warning bells that perhaps all is not right with the theory ? - that's because you can then extrapolate the ratio's even further, to ridiculous levels & produce unlimited/infinite energy gain & does that sound right ?

[neptune]

@nicbordeaux. It was wicked of me to use the word Transubstantiation , bacause this is part of the ritual of a well known religeon. Whilst I dont share this belief, I aught perhaps to respect it. Have I transmuted itr into energy?What, me? Cant even do that by banging two seesaws together. YET. Respectfully, Neptune

[broli]

Pulled across from another related thread but belongs equally here IMO - & thankyou Wubbly for taking the time to break it out.

'The Momentum Trap'

Now Lets suppose we want to lift an object up to give it potential energy.

Potential energy has the units of Joules. Joules has units of [kg m^2/s^2]

A spring stores mechanical potential energy [J], so we could use a spring to give us potential energy.

Kinetic energy has the units of Joules. There is no law of conservation of kinetic energy, but a pendulum shows us that kinetic energy can be converted to potential energy. So we can use kinetic energy to give us potential energy.

Work is force times distance. Force, with units of [kg m/s^2], times distance, with units of [m], yields [kg m^2/s^2] which has the units of joules. So work will give us potential energy.

What about momentum (mass x velocity)? momentum has units of [kg m/s]. These units are not joules, so momentum by itself can not give us potential energy. What do we have to do to the momentum units to get it to Joules? We need another [m/s] to get momentum units to equal Joule units. If you multiply momentum by another [m/s], you get the units of Joules, but you are in effect squaring the velocity.

What about Force x Time? Force has units of [kg m/s^2] and time has units of [s], so multiplying them would give you units of [kg m/s] which is the units of momentum.


So you have to ask yourself, are you using the right measuring tool?

If you use momentum as your measuring tool to get potential energy, you are mixing units, and you are using the wrong measuring tool.

If you can get momentum by itself to do work, then you are a wizard.

Good luck to everybody - if you can reset all conditions to starting & produce anything like 5000% energy gain then you get my vote for a Nobel prize.

Just even thinking that that sort of order of magnitude of increase in useable energy [capacity to do work] being possible by tweaking ratios should send off warning bells that perhaps all is not right with the theory ? - that's because you can then extrapolate the ratio's even further, to ridiculous levels & produce unlimited/infinite energy gain & does that sound right ?

I didn't know I crossed the taboo mark with 5000% :p. So far only Peq has put forward the data. And that data clearly shows energy creation. I'm currently struggling to have my own experimental setup running, but trust me when I have my own data I will not by shy and polite like pequaide. Of course on the other hand if energy is conserved I will shoot my self live on the internet. They call this the law of equivalence exchange.

[pequaide]

If we use vectors inappropriately (as you do Wubbly) a spinning balanced wheel should have no linear momentum, therefore when we throw off a mass on the end of a string from a flywheel we should get no linear momentum.

Well go ahead wubbly build yourself a 100 kilogram fly wheel and wrap its circumference with a string. Tie a 5 kilogram mass on the end of the string and give the wheel a health spin. Go ahead stand in front of it, or do you have some common sense.

Math and common sense sometimes collide, vector are fine when use appropriately and silly when they are not.

So you say momentum can’t make potential energy, well that is kind of funny because momentum is the only thing that moving objects conserve. According to your rules the only thing that is conserved is the only thing that is not real. You say momentum is an accounting function of the other two (potential and kinetic). Maybe it is the other way around.

Broli used .5 kilograms to stop 25 kilograms for his 5000% in his thought experiment. I see he is getting chided for it by the great chider. Well; that is what NASA did, they stopped 1,400 kilogram with 3.

Don’t off yourself broil; if this does not work then Newton’s Three Laws of Motion are false. Nobel Prize either way.

Stay with it Neptune,sorry if I insulted you. But use something simple, colliding seesaws is to complex.

[Fletcher]

I didn't know I crossed the taboo mark with 5000% :p. So far only Peq has put forward the data. And that data clearly shows energy creation.

I'm currently struggling to have my own experimental setup running, but trust me when I have my own data I will not by shy and polite like pequaide.

Of course on the other hand if energy is conserved I will shoot my self live on the internet. They call this the law of equivalence exchange.

5000% or 500%, still pie in the sky - yep, I'm looking forward to it broli - no need to shoot yourself though - it's just that last sticky part of putting all 3 pequaide parts together [A;B; & C] & using all that energy gain to get a pesky wheel to reset - something gets lost when you go to use it to do some work - fancy that & what could possibly be happening ?

While I won't shoot myself either should you get the thing to reset [won't worry about any extra work at the moment] then I'll dust off that hat I borrowed ready for munching - oh yeah, quite happy to post here that I was completely wrong & an idiot for good measure - I would expect you'd probably do the same [honorable guy that you are] but then I suspect arguments will go on & delay final conclusions for quite some time as validity of experimental set-up is questioned yet again & the whole thing becomes a mega moving feast.

P.S. on the up-side, should you succeed then it looks like a solution to the Bessler mystery is at last found & the world gets free energy - not a bad outcome.

[Wubbly]

If we use vectors inappropriately (as you do Wubbly) a spinning balanced wheel should have no linear momentum

This is actually correct. Each mass has an identical mass on the opposite side of the axel with an equal and opposite velocity, cancelling out the momentum creating a total system linear momentum of zero.

I guess that's why they had to introduce the concept of rotational momentum and rotational kinetic energy which are more complicated to calculate since they involve the moment of inertia.
And if you're not using the moment of inertia to calculate your rotational momentum and rotational kinetic energy, then I'm guessing you are probably not using the correct equations for your numbers. But what do I know, I don't follow this thread.
We skipped over rotational motion in physics class, so I never wrapped my brain around rotational motion and my brain thinks in linear terms.
Maybe that's the difference between us. I think in linear terms and you do rotational experiments. Maybe that's why we can't understand each other.

Why am I responding to this thread? Go win your Nobel prize.

[greendoor]

Wubbly - I feel sad for you. You seem to be one of many in the crowd who fail to see that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes. (I assume you know that story - otherwise google it).

Pequaide is pointing out (for those brave enough to have the courage of their own conviction) that there are some fatal flaws in the consensus opinion about Energy. He isn't the only one either.

Vector maths is an oversimplification that isn't always appropriate. The more advanced concept of Quaternions (which actually pre-dated Vector analysis) probably should never have been replaced with the simpler Vector concept. Maybe we wouldn't be having such silly arguments if history hadn't taken that wrong turn. (The scalar part of a quaternion is always real).

Each to their own. History isn't going to be made by Wubbly this time, which leaves it to braver souls to lead the way.

Pequaide has actually provided completely linear solutions, so if you can't get your head around the complexities of rotary motion, then just use the linear methods.

(And if anyone at this stage in this thread doesn't understand that, then there is just no teaching some people).

[neptune]

Can one of you math guys hep me here. Referring back to the double seesaw experiment. For this idea to work , the small seesaw needs to be pivoted off center, so as to "gear up" the movement applied to the flying weight. If we know the weights and dimensions of all parts of the system as previously specified, does maths enable us to calculate the " gear ratio" needed on the small seesaw? By this I mean the ratio of length of its two arms.
In case there is any doubt, the seesaw device is not expected to power your house. The intention was to provide a proof of principle , that would be understood by Joe Public. Given this, we can all find the inspiration and money to add the generator, bells and whistles, etc. Flawed though it is, I would have expected a performance at least approaching unity.Any chance we can work together on this?

[broli]

Can one of you math guys hep me here. Referring back to the double seesaw experiment. For this idea to work , the small seesaw needs to be pivoted off center, so as to "gear up" the movement applied to the flying weight. If we know the weights and dimensions of all parts of the system as previously specified, does maths enable us to calculate the " gear ratio" needed on the small seesaw? By this I mean the ratio of length of its two arms.
In case there is any doubt, the seesaw device is not expected to power your house. The intention was to provide a proof of principle , that would be understood by Joe Public. Given this, we can all find the inspiration and money to add the generator, bells and whistles, etc. Flawed though it is, I would have expected a performance at least approaching unity.Any chance we can work together on this?

Where is this seesaw concept?

[neptune]

@pequade, apology accepted, No worries mate.

[neptune]

@broli. Sorry old Boy My description of the see saw cocept is in the "Perpetual domino planet saving sceme " Page 2 posted Fri Nov at6.16 pm.