A very close shave

[nicbordeaux]

From a 12 start with 2 x 50 grams on a bike wheel, I get a averaged rise at 6 of over 15% of the total mass. Don't believe that ? Nor do I. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=377_XEknNKg and please tell me where I'm wrong :-) Otherwise I shall have to build a wheel contraption which takes advantage of all these dirty little mechanical tricks and just keeps on running. That would be a real hassle.

Yeah, I know, another dumb bike wheel experiment. But it's all adding up very fast.

Good fun, anyway.

[AB Hammer]

Hay Nick

Go for it and see what you can do with it.

Alan

[Fletcher]

wubbly & pequaide, greendoor, broli would be interested nick.

wubbly explained in the atwoods thread that you may have created an analogue of the perfect inelastic collision where Ke is conserved - the other camp would probably say that you are using momentum as an energy source.

Build a hopper to catch the upflung weight - build an elevator bucket system to take it back to the top of the wheel - have the elevator geared to return the 6 o'cl 50 gm weight to 12 o'cl.

Try a slightly larger flung mass or smaller rim weight so the Pe in the captured upflung weight can be used to turn the elevator, lift the bottom weight & overcome some frictional losses, would be my suggestion.

[DrWhat]

Brilliant. If you can't find where you inputted the surplus energy to make it to go higher, then you may really have something.

I'd suggest you do as Fletcher suggests asap.

Can't wait.

Damian

[FunWithGravity2]

Hey nic,
you left something at the bottom of the wheel, i think its the other weight. But seriously, you will not go wrong if you continue down this path. Good Work. Is that a massless rod and a point mass ? :)



Dave

[Wubbly]

This looks like a variation of pequaid's cylinder and sphere's experiment.

Based on the numbers given, let's do an energy analysis and check for gain or loss.

define m1 = .05 kg mass attached to the rim
define m2 = .05 kg mass attached to the tether
define PE zero point where m1 is at the bottom of the rim.

PE = mgh
Initial energy calculations:
PE1 = m1 * g * h1 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81[ m/s^2] * 0.640[m] = 0.314 [J]
PE2 = m2 * g * h2 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81[ m/s^2] * 0.640[m] = 0.314 [J]
Initial energy = PE1 + PE2 = 0.628 [J]

Final energy calculations:
PE1 = m1 g h3 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81[ m/s^2] * 0[m] = 0.0 [J]
PE2 = m2 g h4 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81 [m/s^2] * 1.540 [m] = 0.755 [J]
Final energy = PE1 + PE2 = 0.755 [J]

If the numbers in the video are correct, and if I did the math correctly, it looks like a 20% increase in energy. I am impressed. Nick, you rock!

This is a standalone experiment that has nothing to do with an Atwoods machine. It was shown in the Atwoods Analysis thread that the theoretical increase in momentum in an Atwoods does not equate into any increase in energy. Anyone with an open mind could easily have seen that. I thought that if there was any magic happening, it would be happening in the cylinder and spheres experiment, and the Atwoods was irrelevant. I still believe the Atwoods is irrelevant, and this experiment is not an Atwoods.

If the numbers are correct, I am not going to deny an energy increase here. Wow Nick. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth much more.

[beapilot]

You show you have 50 grams of bouncy ball and 50 gram weight that rides with it. Then the bouncy ball flings into the air? Did it bounce first? Anyways, Your going down 100 grams (which is right) and the bottom rest 50 grams (the reset weight) while another weight is already in the air (900+640) 1540 whatever measurement which leaves 260 extra height.

So the weight is caught into a hub like a basketball hoop like shape and it will reset the bottom weight by a fixed pulley system bringing the weight up vertical through the wheel. So the bottom weight is back to its 640 mark while the top weight is at its 260 mark. That 260 mark can be used for whatever you want!

There will always be no weight on the left side of the wheel!

Your a genius!

Joshua

EDIT:

Additional Information added:

IMO
There are no mistakes. What you did has nothing to do with the wheel. It is all about the forces and the counter weight etc. The inertia transformed completely all into the weight which was stopped by the counter weight.

I did not do calculations yet but physical wise, and of course proven by you, it works.

I am willing to draw up some designs for you at no charge if you give me more details so I can draw them up for you so it works properly on its own.

[clay]

Is the string/wire the ball attached to a spring? Or just a normal string/wire? If it's a spring the excess energy comes from stretching the spring to setup.

[daxwc]

Good Job Nik,

I would try scaling it up a bit, because a small push or 8 grams more on the wheel weight than the ball and you would have the same results.

I like it, the video help you visualise what pequaid was trying to get at in his experiment, never could figure out why he wouldn't make a video.

[greendoor]

Very impressive Nick, but I fear you way not have cracked this yet ...

You have two 50 g weights on your wheel, creating a balanced wheel that should keel with these two weights at 3 and 9 o'clock. You are using your ball as a driver mass, and this should be able to accelerate your wheel - obviously slower than free-fall, and the momentum acquired is greater than that acquired during free fall due to the extended Time of the Force.

Unless i'm mistaken, you appear to be sitting the ball on one of the weights which is positioned at 12 o'clock. I'm guessing static friction is holding the wheel there, but you have significant potential energy stored by doing that. So once the wheel starts turning, the dynamic friction is lower than static, and that energy gets added to the experiment.

Or maybe i'm not observant enough. To be Kosher, your wheel needs to start from a perfect balanced position - with the wheel at zero velocity and no stored/potential energy.

But I think you are on the right track - this is pure Pequaide stuff, and i'm convinced the answer lies in making use of this principle. You seem to be using both parts - the Atwood part, followed by the Momentum transformation part where the increase in Energy is observed. Few people get that far ...

[greendoor]

This looks like a variation of pequaid's cylinder and sphere's experiment.

Based on the numbers given, let's do an energy analysis and check for gain or loss.

define m1 = .05 kg mass attached to the rim
define m2 = .05 kg mass attached to the tether
define PE zero point where m1 is at the bottom of the rim.

PE = mgh
Initial energy calculations:
PE1 = m1 * g * h1 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81[ m/s^2] * 0.640[m] = 0.314 [J]
PE2 = m2 * g * h2 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81[ m/s^2] * 0.640[m] = 0.314 [J]
Initial energy = PE1 + PE2 = 0.628 [J]

Final energy calculations:
PE1 = m1 g h3 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81[ m/s^2] * 0[m] = 0.0 [J]
PE2 = m2 g h4 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81 [m/s^2] * 1.540 [m] = 0.755 [J]
Final energy = PE1 + PE2 = 0.755 [J]

If the numbers in the video are correct, and if I did the math correctly, it looks like a 20% increase in energy. I am impressed. Nick, you rock!

This is a standalone experiment that has nothing to do with an Atwoods machine. It was shown in the Atwoods Analysis thread that the theoretical increase in momentum in an Atwoods does not equate into any increase in energy. Anyone with an open mind could easily have seen that. I thought that if there was any magic happening, it would be happening in the cylinder and spheres experiment, and the Atwoods was irrelevant. I still believe the Atwoods is irrelevant, and this experiment is not an Atwoods.

If the numbers are correct, I am not going to deny an energy increase here. Wow Nick. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth much more.

Wubbly - yet again you express your total ignorance of Pequaide's work. I don't know what to say in the face of such colossal ignore-ance.

Pequaide and myself would totally agree with you that there is no Energy gain in the Atwoods experiment. There is a massive Momentum gain, which you proved yourself in your spreadsheet. But of course the Energy always calculates out to the same. That is because they are totally different things - Force x Time vs Force x Distance. The Distance does not change - but Time very obviously does change.

Step that you insist on ignoring is where the Heavy/Slow Momentum is converted into Light/Fast Momentum. Momentum is a conserved quantity, so it's pretty much directly proportional, with small losses. But Energy is biased to favour the Square of Velocity - so of course, as the velocity goes up, the Energy goes up with the square of said velocity.

If you have a mass with velocity, you can choose the crunch the numbers using either Momentum or Energy - they are just numbers. It doesn't change the reality of what is happening. But the numbers can make you assume things that shouldn't be assumed. In an experiment like this, it is patently obvious that it is impossible for both Momentum AND Energy to be conserved. Momentum can't be ignored and dismissed the way that you desire it to be ...

[DrWhat]

nick I thought that white blob on the rim was a marker not a mass. I was assuming the wheel was balanced except for the rubber ball. Hmmm. This changes things although the idea could still be promising.

I have just managed to finally read the mass descriptions at the end of the video and see that the white "marker" mass is 50gms as well as the ball is 50gms, both starting at the top of the wheel (pardon my lack of attentiveness).

I can see though that there is a small gain here I think.

[ovyyus]

I like your experiment Nick.

[beapilot]

Very impressive Nick, but I fear you way not have cracked this yet ...

You have two 50 g weights on your wheel, creating a balanced wheel that should keel with these two weights at 3 and 9 o'clock. You are using your ball as a driver mass, and this should be able to accelerate your wheel - obviously slower than free-fall, and the momentum acquired is greater than that acquired during free fall due to the extended Time of the Force.

Unless i'm mistaken, you appear to be sitting the ball on one of the weights which is positioned at 12 o'clock. I'm guessing static friction is holding the wheel there, but you have significant potential energy stored by doing that. So once the wheel starts turning, the dynamic friction is lower than static, and that energy gets added to the experiment.

Or maybe i'm not observant enough. To be Kosher, your wheel needs to start from a perfect balanced position - with the wheel at zero velocity and no stored/potential energy.

But I think you are on the right track - this is pure Pequaide stuff, and i'm convinced the answer lies in making use of this principle. You seem to be using both parts - the Atwood part, followed by the Momentum transformation part where the increase in Energy is observed. Few people get that far ...

This looks like a variation of pequaid's cylinder and sphere's experiment.

Based on the numbers given, let's do an energy analysis and check for gain or loss.

define m1 = .05 kg mass attached to the rim
define m2 = .05 kg mass attached to the tether
define PE zero point where m1 is at the bottom of the rim.

PE = mgh
Initial energy calculations:
PE1 = m1 * g * h1 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81[ m/s^2] * 0.640[m] = 0.314 [J]
PE2 = m2 * g * h2 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81[ m/s^2] * 0.640[m] = 0.314 [J]
Initial energy = PE1 + PE2 = 0.628 [J]

Final energy calculations:
PE1 = m1 g h3 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81[ m/s^2] * 0[m] = 0.0 [J]
PE2 = m2 g h4 = 0.05 [kg] * 9.81 [m/s^2] * 1.540 [m] = 0.755 [J]
Final energy = PE1 + PE2 = 0.755 [J]

If the numbers in the video are correct, and if I did the math correctly, it looks like a 20% increase in energy. I am impressed. Nick, you rock!

This is a standalone experiment that has nothing to do with an Atwoods machine. It was shown in the Atwoods Analysis thread that the theoretical increase in momentum in an Atwoods does not equate into any increase in energy. Anyone with an open mind could easily have seen that. I thought that if there was any magic happening, it would be happening in the cylinder and spheres experiment, and the Atwoods was irrelevant. I still believe the Atwoods is irrelevant, and this experiment is not an Atwoods.

If the numbers are correct, I am not going to deny an energy increase here. Wow Nick. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth much more.

Wubbly - yet again you express your total ignorance of Pequaide's work. I don't know what to say in the face of such colossal ignore-ance.

Pequaide and myself would totally agree with you that there is no Energy gain in the Atwoods experiment. There is a massive Momentum gain, which you proved yourself in your spreadsheet. But of course the Energy always calculates out to the same. That is because they are totally different things - Force x Time vs Force x Distance. The Distance does not change - but Time very obviously does change.

Step that you insist on ignoring is where the Heavy/Slow Momentum is converted into Light/Fast Momentum. Momentum is a conserved quantity, so it's pretty much directly proportional, with small losses. But Energy is biased to favour the Square of Velocity - so of course, as the velocity goes up, the Energy goes up with the square of said velocity.

If you have a mass with velocity, you can choose the crunch the numbers using either Momentum or Energy - they are just numbers. It doesn't change the reality of what is happening. But the numbers can make you assume things that shouldn't be assumed. In an experiment like this, it is patently obvious that it is impossible for both Momentum AND Energy to be conserved. Momentum can't be ignored and dismissed the way that you desire it to be ...

greendoor,

If nick thought of this on his own, do not get all nosy about who thought about it first. Get the fact he may of did the discovery on his own and actually showed it to the PM community. If nick did thought about this own his own, I have complete respect towards him for it was from him and no one else that he knew as if the idea may never existed; understand?

Like, telling others this is someone else idea and LOOK he proved that persons idea works! (when that person who proved it never knew it existed) Then all of sudden, you greendoor, end up wanting that past time stopped working on but stored idea on paper, start to want claims who thought about it first. Get the fact that nick actually went further than that other person as if nick came up with the discovery himself. Respect that.

Who is Pequaide anyways? I guess he do not use these forms...

Joshua

[daxwc]

Greendoor quote:

You have two 50 g weights on your wheel, creating a balanced wheel that should keel with these two weights at 3 and 9 o'clock.

Why 3 and 9? I can’t even tell where the string is tied off at, but it must be on the other side of the wheel. If you watch the weight, when the video plays, that instead of being a pendulum and going to the 11 o’clock position, it transfers all its energy to the ball at the 5 o’clock position. So Nick where is the string tied off, exactly opposite the weight on the wheel?

You are using your ball as a driver mass, and this should be able to accelerate your wheel - obviously slower than free-fall, and the momentum acquired is greater than that acquired during free fall due to the extended Time of the Force.

The ball drives nothing; they both fall at the same rate.

Edit: Sorry Greendoor, I take that back... after looking at the video again the ball is rolling down and hitting the weight and not flush against it at the start.


Joshua; there is a search button at the top, go ahead try it once, don't be scared.