Atwoods Analysis

[Wubbly]

Yes pequaide, now I understand what you are saying. I agree that a 1 kg mass with a 15.97 m/s velocity can raise 13 m using those equations. I misinterpreted what you were saying to mean the momentum was doing the work to raise the object.

[pequaide]

Wubbly quote: Doesn't it bother you in the least that the units of your force x time relationship doesn't have the correct units of energy?

Pequaide: I think a better answer to this question is just pain; no. No it does not bother me. It appears that moving objects have a conserved quantity (momentum) and another quantity that can be manipulated (kinetic energy). Now the thought of manipulating the quantity of energy would send some into a comatose state. But this is the psyche that we need to confront, what is so upsetting about manipulating the quantity of energy. Wouldn’t Bessler have to do it if he made a wheel.

[Wubbly]

... what is so upsetting about manipulating the quantity of energy. Wouldn’t Bessler have to do it if he made a wheel.

I don't know what Bessler manipulated to make his wheel work. I like to believe he found a loophole that doesn't violate any known laws of physics.

This thread is about an Atwoods, but just for curiosity sake, what equations are you using to calculate your kinetic energy and momentum before the release and after the release of your cylinder and spheres experiments, which I assume you are referring to? (I have to admit that I stopped trying to follow the energy producing thread). How are you determining that between momentum and kinetic energy, one or the other is being transferred or used? I know there is no law of conservation of kinetic energy, but there is a law of conservation of energy, and a law of conservation of momentum.

[greendoor]

The 'energy' mindset is a hard habit to break. Bessler didn't have to break this habit, because this particular philosophy wasn't set in stone in his day (although the debate had already started).

For Fletcher to say what he said means that clearly he has no concept of what Pequaide has been describing for years now - so there seems little point in flogging that dead horse. His loss.

Wubby - at least you have looked at the numbers for an Atwood system and found that Momentum does indeed increase as we extend Time. Momentum = Force x Time.

Energy does not increase - certainly. But that is simply because Energy is an accounting system that disproportionally favours Velocity. Energy is not a physical parameter - it's just a way of looking at Mass & Velocity in a way that squares Velocity (and we know that nothing can actually travel at Velocity Squared ...). It's a useful formula for accounting for certain situations, but Energy is not a 'real' thing. It has been falsely represented as the Be All and End All, and in doing so we have imposed some limitations that Bessler wasn't constrained by.

Momentum is a real, undeniable thing - and we know that this is a 'conserved' quantity. Unlike Kinetic Energy.

An Atwoods demonstrates something that should get any true Bessler researcher very excited: a small mass falling a fixed height can produce different amounts of Momentum by piggy-backing onto an Atwood machine. The amount of Momentum can greatly exceed the Momentum that same small mass can attain during a free-fall of that same height ... that should be sufficient to raise any thinking persons curiosity.

But Energy thinking blinds us to the value of Momentum thinking (because it disproportionally favors Velocity). Greed is an evil root.

Wubbly - in order to see what Pequaide and myself can see, you have to be able to understand a few things and their significance:

1 - Momentum can be multiplied using some form of an Atwoods system
2 - Momentum can be transformed (basic Conservation of Momentum) from a heavy/slow mass system to a light/fast mass system. The 'Bolas' method can equally share Momentum, whereas the 'Yo-yo Despin' method can transfer All momentum, leaving the heavy mass system with no Momentum.
3 - You have to appreciate that once step 1 and step 2 have been achieved, the Energy numbers have increased. Nothing has been 'violated' - because there never was a law that says Kinetic Energy must be Conserved. Momentum has been Conserved (as expected).

Fletcher persists in playing with WM2D which has been programmed to conserve Energy - in line with the consensus thinking that declared PM to be impossible, even in the face of Bessler's running machines.

If you want to lift a mass higher than the height from which it fell, then stop thinking in terms of potential energy. Start thinking in terms of Force x Time.

How much Force x Time can you get from a falling mass? The answer: variable
How much Force x Time do you need to raise a mass? The answer: another variable

Can you attain more Force x Time from a falling mass than is needed to raise that mass back up again? Absolutely. That is what your Momentum numbers from the Atwoods calculations are showing you.

So where are the experimental proofs? I believe the primary obstacle is in the minds of those who just can't see what has been placed in front of them. If we are still denying the significance of these numbers, we can never design a model that uses this principle. None so blind as those who refuse to see.

[Wubbly]

Greendoor. You certainly have a way with words. You summed up the alternate viewpoint quite clearly, (unless you think Fletcher has the 'alternate' viewpoint).

I know there is no law of conservation of kinetic energy, but there is a law of conservation of energy. Also, potential energy can be exchanged for kinetic energy, and kinetic energy can be exchanged for potential energy. A pendulum shows this.

If you look at a pendulum from a momentum perspective, at its highest point it has zero momentum, at its lowest point it has maximum momentum, and as it swings back up it looses momentum back down to zero. A pendulum is not an example of conservation of momentum because the value ranges from zero, to some maximum value, back to zero. (I am not talking about a Newtons cradle where both momentum and kinetic energy come into play).

If you look at a pendulum from an energy perspective, at its highest point it has maximum potential energy and zero kinetic energy, as it swings down it exchanges potential energy for kinetic energy. At its lowest point it has maximum kinetic energy and zero potential energy, and as it swings back up it reverses the swap, exchanging kinetic energy for potential energy. At its highest point it then again has zero kinetic energy and maximum potential energy.

If you had a perfect spring with no losses, at the lowest point of the pendumum you could capture the motion and store it. Would you be capturing the momentum or the kinetic energy? You would be capturing the kinetic energy and storing it as mechanical potential energy. You could then release the energy back into the pendulum and it would return to its original height. A spring is a force, distance relationship which conveniently results in Joules. Of course we don't live in a world where perfect springs exist and we have to deal with frictional losses, but this is no reason to disregard an energy approach.

Mass is a measurable quantity. Velocity is a measurable quantity. Is mass x velocity measurable or calculable only? Hmmmmm.
Mass is a measurable quantity. Velocity squared is probably not a measurable quantity. Is 1/2 mass x velocity squared measurable or calculable only? Hmmmmm.

I don't have WM2D so I can't test this with simulation software. My guess is that it would conserve energy. I am working on an experiment to stop an Atwoods machine using a spring. I'll use mass in increments of 2.5 lbs (1.13 kg) since that's the smallest weight I could find at Wal-Mart. I can probably do the first 5 or 6 iterations of the spreadsheet. After a preset drop, a spring will engage and bring the system to a stop. By measuring the spring stretch for each iteration I should be able to see either an increasing value, a constant value, or inconclusive results.

[Fletcher]

Greendoor .. I 'play' with WM2D as a predictive tool - it uses accepted physics & maths as its basis - this falls into line with my own thoughts that Bessler did indeed have a FE engine, but unlike you & pequaide, I believe he didn't reorganize or write any new laws - simply that he used an environmental force to supplement gravity - for this purpose WM is a valuable tool to me but I don't often use it anymore so I get a little rusty.

For those interested - when did momentum become the measure of capacity to do work ? - work & energy are in Joules - two objects can have the same momentum but different energy [capacity to do work] - this is testable by using the momentum to do work, like compressing a spring, which stores capacity to do work [energy] - work is required to reset a device - when you've transferred the momentum from one system to another [bola's or yo-yo despin] then reset the device with the liberated Kinetic Energy, do some external work with it also, & claim your Nobel !

[Wubbly]

Atwoods Drop Stop experiment

[Wubbly]

Atwoods Drop Stop experiment

[Wubbly]

Atwoods Drop Stop experiment

[Wubbly]

Atwoods Drop Stop experiment

[Wubbly]

Atwoods Drop Stop experiment

[Wubbly]

Atwoods Drop Stop experiment

[Wubbly]

Atwoods Drop Stop experiment

[Wubbly]

Atwoods Drop Stop experiment

[Wubbly]

Atwoods Drop Stop experiment