Atwoods Analysis

[greendoor]

Wheelrite - an executable file with a MS Word icon and a .xls file extension makes me suspect this file is malware. I'm not game to open it - so could you please explain what it is?

[greendoor]

I did not prove this. The momentum was a theoretical calculation. Using logic, reason, and extrapolation, it was concluded that the theoretical momentum does not measure work or energy. An equation using velocity squared predicted a constant value. A tool that captures and stores energy measured a constant value. And greendoor sees that the experiment proves we can create variable quantities of momentum? Boggles the mind.

Wubbly - "pearls before swine" is a famous quotation, and the reason one should never do such a thing is "lest they turn again and rend you" ... seems pretty fitting to me. I never called you an ignorant swine, but if you fancy yourself as being such then far be it from me to argue with you.

Logic and reason and extrapolation can all be faulty and lead to erroneous conclusions.

May I remind you of what you wrote in your 2nd of two posts that started this thread:

The main observation from this spreadsheet is that for a given drop D, if the mass difference between both sides of the Atwoods stays the same, as the system mass increases, the momentum increases, but the kinetic energy does not change.

That's all I was referring to - and that is all that should be expected from the 'Atwoods' ; stage 1 of Pequaide's 3 part Energy Creation process. Case closed. Atwoods proven.

You argue the semantics that this spreadsheet is just theoretical and doesn't prove anything. I say that both Momentum and Energy are (by definition) theoretical mathematical constructions - therefore provable by spreadsheet calculations.

Momentum is defined as Mass x Velocity.
Energy is defined as 0.5 x Mass x Velocity Squared

They are both simply mathematical equations. If an object has Mass and Velocity, it has both Momentum and Energy. Neither can be denied. However, it should be obvious that it is mathematically impossible to say that Both are conserved quantities - because the equations are not the same, except when mass or velocity (or both) are Zero.

Because of this paradox in popular physics as currently taught, you are forced to chose to believe EITHER in Momentum or in Energy. This choice of belief system is just as powerful as choosing which football team, or politician or religion you will believe in. Obviously an emotional issue for many people and hard to change a lifetime of conditioning.

It is a mistake to simply deny Momentum and sweep it under the carpet, as you appear to be doing.

OF COURSE Energy never changes in your calculation, because this is embedded into the whole fundamental philosphy of what Energy IS. Energy breaks down to Force x Distance. Momentum breaks down to Force x Time. The two are totally different concepts, and your spreadsheet shows this quite well for those who can't be bothered running the numbers themselves.

What you need to do is add another column to your spreadsheet where you transform the Momentum (which you can see is a VARIABLE, given the same mass falling the same height). Divide the Momentum by the 1kg (which is your Driver mass - the only mass that actually falls and needs reseting). You can then clearly see that IF you transfered all the Momentum from the large balanced system to the small driver mass, the Velocity of the driver mass goes up PROPORTIONALLY. And then calculate the Energy of the driver mass - obviously this goes up EXPONENTIALLY due to Velocity being squared. It's OK - it's only numbers ...

But that is going far beyond the Atwoods stage that you set out to prove.

I feel that i'm bashing my head against a brick wall here, but I hate to see simple, valid, experimentally sound principles being dismissed out of what appears to be fear or ignorance.

The next stage, the full transfer of Momentum - is a seperate subject that could be discussed, if we don't already understand it.

It saddens me that people like Nicb have joined in bashing Pequaide's theory, when it is painfully obvious that he doesn't understand it at all. It does not help when people who don't understand the theory try to debunk it.

If you don't believe that PM is possible, why even bother with a Bessler wheel site?

[rlortie]

greendoor

An executable file with a MS Word icon and a .xls file extension is MS Excel and is alright to open. Excel is usually a part of MS 'Office' containing 'Word' 'Works', Outlook, and Power Point, they all are rooted into 'Word'.

I is not often that you find a drawing done in 'Excel' but it does happen and this is definitely not my first to run across.

If you do not have Excel, you can download a free reader and while your at it one for Power Point.

Ralph

[greendoor]

I'm very aware of MS Office files, at least the professional versions - I don't use the home versions like Works or whatever. In my experience an Excel file contains the standard green Excel icon, not the blue Word icon. Seems fishy to me.

Either of them can contain viruses, worms etc and shouldn't be trusted. If you want to share a spreadsheet, I recommend .csv files which are simple text files and can't contain malware. They can also be opened by any spreadsheet, any version.

[nicbordeaux]

from Greendoor :

It saddens me that people like Nicb have joined in bashing Pequaide's theory, when it is painfully obvious that he doesn't understand it at all. It does not help when people who don't understand the theory try to debunk it.

Hey Greendor, I've not bashed anybody, just said that this single overpoweringly foremost and lasting thread is preventing anything else being discussed, although whether there is anything else worth discussing is another matter ? It goes on and on, and it's more aggro.

Know what, if it was me, I'd say "OK, these guys don't get it, I'll work this with peq alone and maybe Fletcher or else, then I'll come back when I have some real stuff that even a patent imbecile like nicb can't fail to understand, and I shall pee on the Great Unwashed from a mightily great height".

In French, we'd say "tu pisses dans un violon" to describe what you are doing right now.

You are quite right, I don't understand it at all. I get the general idea, but as I don't have the" theory capacity" to criticize constructively or not, I don't contribute.

However, I will tell you what I do understand : I have a bicycle wheel on thin lube a perfectly adusted cones/bearings up on a rafter. I have two 5 kg weights, one each end of a thin nylon rope greased. Then I stick a small weight on one of those 5 kg bobs, raise it manually, and drop it. and I see what happens in terms of time to accelerate with smaller or bigger "small" weights added. There are two ways of testing the gain, one is to hauge it by hand, the other by sound as the heavier weight hits the ground. It's loose, ok. The only issue I have is that my "test" results don't match what you are seeing. Repeatedly. I can scale the main weights down to 1 kg. I still don't see, hear or feel what I think I should. I keep the small weight the same. Above certain big weights, it just doesn't work at all.

So, far from me the idea of bashing you ou pequaide, I have no capacity to say that you are wrong, but until you come up with something that I can see... So the point is that by repeatedly stating the same facts to the same people over and over again, you ain't going to get anywhere.

If by poking fun you meant that stuff about using a donkey to launch a sattelite, it's just silly humour. Sorry if it offends.

And you know I have the same issue : I claimed to have a device with a rotary wheel on top, not one guy understoof the issues or if they did they are keeping nice and quiet about it. Apparantly nobody tried to replicate it with a full build. No problemo, I'm playing with other people on it.

So after a while, it's just maybe better to find some people who can and do understand.

Kind regards (and I really do mean "kind" as in "friendly")

Nick

[nicbordeaux]

OK, let's try this ?

I have a baked bean can. it's empty 'coz we ate the beans, that's life. This tincan I rivet dead flat to a good quality bike hub, mounted verticaly on a steel plate. I drill two directly opposing identical height holes 180° degrees center to center in can.

I weigh the can with a precision digital scale with 0.02% precision ? I take the diameter and x 3.1416 to check circumferance is constant in one mm increments from top to bottom ? I plumbline then the rotating can to check it's dead true ?

The drive I take off a vertical bike wheel with single weight on circumferance, the release point in constant because there is a stop block up against which the wheel is rotated ? I measure the number of turns 100 times over a two week period to check for differntial in air pressure/wind etc making a difference, we have a mean average and a minimum/maximum ?

You clever guys tell me the exact length of line or rope between can and ball weights ? The balls are commercial, still, I check for perfect spherical ? There is on can a little protusion(s) which the rope can hang from. You tell me how much weight I need to add to can and where ? You tell me what to watch for, it's all videotaped. And I run a few pointless tests of my own like indentation measurement of the impact of balls ?

And none of this I copyright or lay any claim to.

[jim_mich]

Huh??

[nicbordeaux]

Quite simply Jim, I propose to replicate the "bolas" or spherical unwind in perfectly controlled conditions. Take it from step one. Because it started with a load of calculations, then there is this one video in which we see a pvc tube with some marbles tethered to it and on flying out stopping it (actually in the vid it looks like it was rotated offcenter which explains why it falls over).

This is a forum for everybody who has joined and hasn't been kicked off, the velocity enrgy unlimited creation stuff has been going on here and on a whole load of forums all over the web for years, and nobody is any the wiser, these guys are giving jam to the pigs they say, you and others say they are wrong, a few say it's sound theory... And I say OK, let's look at actual physical manifestations. All the way through. Step one, the cyclinder and tethered weights.

But maybe nobody is interested in that, it's a bit like the Roswell, or the loch Ness monster, you can debate it 'till the end of time and that's fine ?

[Fletcher]

Actually Nick that's exactly what is or should be called for - verification of each stage then try to bring them all together in one mechanism.

As you will have noticed this forum & others are awash with theory's & theorists - very little testing is presented to back up assumptions - you'd be an exception & path_finder & perhaps a few others.

Pequaide has done his own experiments for parts one & two & now it looks like he's trying to bring those two parts of the theory together into one mech - wubbly did a precise experiment for the atwoods device so that we had more to go on than animations & math calculations.

Any insight you can shed from your experiments adds to the verification & validity of those assumptions.

[wheelrite]

yeah sorry guys, it was the only drawing package I had and was familiar with. It' a simple sketch, but its not malicious in any way, but I applaud caution and should have chosen better format.
regards
Jon

[pequaide]

Nic quote: “However, I will tell you what I do understand : I have a bicycle wheel on thin lube a perfectly adusted cones/bearings up on a rafter. I have two 5 kg weights, one each end of a thin nylon rope greased. Then I stick a small weight on one of those 5 kg bobs, raise it manually, and drop it. and I see what happens in terms of time to accelerate with smaller or bigger "small" weights added. There are two ways of testing the gain, one is to hauge it by hand, the other by sound as the heavier weight hits the ground. It's loose, ok. The only issue I have is that my "test" results don't match what you are seeing. Repeatedly. I can scale the main weights down to 1 kg. I still don't see, hear or feel what I think I should. I keep the small weight the same. Above certain big weights, it just doesn't work at all.�

I have a photo gate timer and Atwood’s show a near perfect F = ma relationship. Remember; if you double the mass you have half the acceleration (you don’t have half the velocity over the same distance).

[greendoor]

Nicb - I built a large balancing beam with a couple of pillowblock bearings in the middle. I used a couple of 20L plastic pails with water for ballast, to create continuously variable weights that could easily be balanced. I didn't have any photo timer or anything, but it was very obvious that the amount of "oomph" (I will avoid physics jargon words) increases mightily as the total system mass increases. This matches the maths that show Momentum increasing - while the actual driver mass stays the same and falls the same height. It's undeniably true, and if your experiment doesn't show this, you are doing something wrong.

As you increase the mass, you can actually see the Acceleration in slow motion. You need to give it Time to Accelerate to maximum Velocity, hence maximum Momentum.

[greendoor]

Another way of thinking about what the 'Atwoods' does is to consider what is the true limitation to the amount of 'oomph' we can extract out of a falling mass. We are conditioned to believe that Height is the limitation, and we have configured our Energy maths so that Potential Energy is measured in Height alone.

I would say that we don't actually run out of Height - we run out of Time before the mass hits the ground. But if we allow the mass to fall very slowly, we have more Time to extract 'oomph' out of the gravity field. Height ceases to be the limiting factor.

Simply using friction braking to slow the fall is completely wasteful and obviously not a way to generate surplus kinetic motion. But using the Force of gravity over the extended Time to be used practically totally in Accelerating Mass, the end result is big Momentum numbers. Directly proportional to the Time.

Using a precision balance and an extremely good bearing, we could in fact accelerate a couple of locomotives into motion with the fall of a single brick. It would take a long time, and they would not reach a very high velocity - but try to stop them once they have got going ...

By prolonging the Time of fall, and storing all the Force x Time, it is effectively the same as taking all the Force x Time of the same mass free-falling an equivalent number of times. Except we don't need to reset them the equivalent number of times. I believe that is what Pequaide was alluding to previously.

Anyhoo - topic has been thrashed to death, the unbelievers can continue to unbelieve.

[Wubbly]

I should probably correct an error in the spreadsheet. Technically the momentum in the spreadsheet is Angular Momentum at the axel, and should have units of [kg m^2/s] (not units of [kg m/s]). I added two more columns to represent the total system linear momentum to see how that changes with an increase in mass. There is another mass x velocity column, and a force x time (force being mass x acceleration) column, based on the individual masses and then summed. It is interesting to note that as the system mass increases, the total system linear momemtum decreases.
Just playing with numbers.

[pequaide]

The direction of F (in F = ma) is changed by the Atwood’s pulley. The F is down on the heavy side but it is up on the light side. You don’t subtract the linear momentum of one side from the other you add them. The right side (because of the pulley) is moving in the same direction (of the applied force) as the left. The resultant two moving masses will work together to lift an object placed on the moving light side. The foundations of physics are set upon the Atwood’s proof of F = ma, if you throw out over half of the momentum then F = ma is not a true statement.

Newtonian physics (F = ma) is linear momentum not angular. Angular momentum is Kepler’s and it was used for comets and other satellites that were under huge gravitational acceleration (which doesn’t occur in the lab, or in the Atwood’s).

Further; objects moving in a straight line (as are the masses in an Atwood’s) have no radius of rotation. This means they can’t even have angular momentum. Straight line means no arc, no arc no radius.

Your column labeled angular momentum has a formula at the top. That formula is the linear momentum formula (mv). The angular momentum formula is much more complex and it involves a radius.