Science is only ever created by people with agendas. We may not know what that agenda really is. Maybe experiments are botched because of fear of peer pressure, fear of losing funding, lack of resources, whatever ... Statistics are worse than 'lies and damned lies'. You can make statistics say whatever you want them to say, depending on your agenda.
You say on one hand that you believe nothing, but on the other hand you are saying that you strongly believe COE to be correct. You are naive if you think this strong personal bias would not affect your findings.
Actually my 'theory of personal bias' is not my own, and supported by various people I have read - including Pequaide who has repeatedly posted hard core experimental findings here and has been vilified for it.
People see what they want to see. I'm no different. I want to see that Bessler was correct, and that there is a different understanding of the laws of physics that allows a gravity wheel to turn. And because of that, i'm considering ideas and experiments that are routinely rejected by people here. I can see in Nicks post that he can't see anything in what I can see either. No problem.
What amuses me is that I go into great detail to try to explain these foreign concepts, and I get attacked by many people. But these people cannot or will not logically refute my logic, step by step. They jump into personal attacks, philosphical debates, anything except the nuts and bolts of where my logic may be at fault.
Help needed
Moderator: scott
Greendoor, from http://www.vias.org/physics/bk2_05_03.html
"Momentum cancels with momentum in the opposite direction"
"A spinning top has zero total momentum, because for every moving point, there is another point on the opposite side that cancels its momentum. It does, however, have kinetic energy. "
You cannot increase momentum by adding weight to a balanced wheel. The up and down cancels themselves out.
"Momentum cancels with momentum in the opposite direction"
"A spinning top has zero total momentum, because for every moving point, there is another point on the opposite side that cancels its momentum. It does, however, have kinetic energy. "
You cannot increase momentum by adding weight to a balanced wheel. The up and down cancels themselves out.
re: Help needed
From http://www.vias.org/physics/bk2_05_03.html
kinetic energy...
is a scalar
is not changed by a force perpendicular to the motion, which changes only the direction of the velocity vector.
is always positive, and cannot cancel out.
can be traded for other forms of energy that do not involve motion. KE is not a conserved quantity by itself.
is quadrupled if the velocity is doubled.
From http://www.vias.org/physics/example_2_5_5.htmlmomentum...
is a vector
is changed by any force, since a change in either the magnitude or the direction of the velocity vector will result in a change in the momentum vector.
cancels with momentum in the opposite direction.
is always conserved in a closed system.
is doubled if the velocity is doubled.
Momentum and kinetic energy in firing a rifle
The rifle and bullet have zero momentum and zero kinetic energy to start with. When the trigger is pulled, the bullet gains some momentum in the forward direction, but this is canceled by the rifle's backward momentum, so the total momentum is still zero. The kinetic energies of the gun and bullet are both positive scalars, however, and do not cancel. The total kinetic energy is allowed to increase, because kinetic energy is being traded for other forms of energy. Initially there is chemical energy in the gunpowder. This chemical energy is converted into heat, sound, and kinetic energy. The gun's backward' kinetic energy does not refrigerate the shooter's shoulder!
re: Help needed
Wrong again. I never said, nor would I ever say, that I 'strongly believe' CoE to be anything. Based upon the large body of experimental evidence at our disposal, CoE is statistically significant, ie: supported by experiment. The difference between what I wrote and what you read is a result of your unreasonable belief that CoE is false. Belief always has an agenda.greendoor wrote:...you are saying that you strongly believe COE to be correct...
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: Help needed
Nick, that's just your 'strong personal bias' talking :D
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: Help needed
Greendoor, I wasn't kiddinbg with the experiment you need to prove or disprove your thinking. One 20 kg balanced flywhel. 40 yards of non-stretch line (if you make it wire, it's x grammes per meter). Attach small weight to one end of wire, other end of wire to flywheel. Have small weight lodged in a retention device the release tension of which you can adjust. Put small weight on balanced flywheel. Let it revolve thru whatever part of 180° you want until it is bought to a stop. Wire should be taut, no? Bearing full force of flywheel. Then just trip a release mech on the trapped tether weight. Either it reaches escape velocity, or the whole thing fails miserably.
There is no simpler and more true experiment. The results of that will tell you if you are right or wrong.
There is no simpler and more true experiment. The results of that will tell you if you are right or wrong.
Clay - thanks for these thoughts. It's hard to explain and defend my position, because I both agree and disagree with most textbook physics. As an engineer, I depend on maths & physics being predictable. But i'm looking for the exceptions, such as the Bessler evidence, that suggest there is more to our current day understanding.
Currently, there is no agreement on how the basic particles of our universe came into being, or how they demonstrate the immense energy and perpetual motion that they show. Until we fully understand this, it's all speculation. I don't believe we can trust the theory of Conservation of Energy as the be all and end all, since we don't actually know all yet. If particles can be observed to pop out of nowhere (as they have been observed) then maybe CoE has exceptions. Until then, I assume that CoE is just a popular assumption. Like most of science, fundamentally.
Momentum and Kinetic Energy should be about the easiest things to compare and discuss, because they require only two things: mass and velocity. And yet confusion reigns. And IMO, much of this confusion comes from the over-simplication of what a mass is. It's impossible to ignore the particle level, because ultimately what we simply as a single mass moving at one velocity vector is actually an immense collection of particles, moving at a multitude of velocity vectors. And interacting with a multitude of different forces. And even more fundamentally - what is mass? Is it a particle, or a wave in the aether?
Some thoughts to add to your thoughts:
A lot of the false logic used about momentum comes from a misapplication of what the Negative means as regards to a physical property or as regards to a Vector direction. They are not the same, but frequently get mixed up.
Objects can have mass and velocity. Which means we can choose to describe their energy or their momentum; these are just different ways of crunching the same numbers. This wild assumption that we can make Momentum just "go away" by negating one with the other, and yet that we can't make energy just "go away" is a common belief that I don't think is justified. If we ignore these emotionally loaded words (Momentum and Energy) and just look at the Mass and the Velocity of the particles involved - that is the reality. Mathematical constructions are fine when used appropriately, but they can be applied incorrectly to make huge assumptions that may not be the hardcore Truths that we think they are.
The force of gravity acting on a mass (within our limited Earth-based man-sized range) doesn't vary much or cease acting on that mass. When the mass is falling, the g-Force causes Acceleration. When the mass hits the ground, the g-force is still there, but instead of accelerating the mass it strains the ground, creating the equal and opposite Normal force. The only reason a falling mass doesn't accelerate indefinately is Not because g-force ceases, but because we run out of Time. In classical physics we define this as running out of Height - but it is equally valid to say that we run out of Time. If we can prolong the Time of the falling mass, then we can prolong the amount of Force*Time (hence Impulse hence Momentum) that is available before that force is once again diverted into straining the ground.
The basic idea of using an Atwoods, or a flywheel or balanced beam etc, is a balanced mass system that is used for accumulating momentum. In other words, we Accelerate this system using the g-force acting on a much smaller mass. This slows down the fall of the smaller mass (I call it the Driver mass) and the prolonged force*time is diverted into accelerating the heavy system, rather than the ordinary fast free fall of the driver mass.
You have to calculate the Momentum available for yourself to really appreciate the significance of this. Even one of our resident skeptics did this recently, and created a spreadsheet that shows that as you increase the mass of the heavy balanced system, the amount of Momentum created goes up. It goes up not just because of the heavier mass, but because the Time of falls gets greater and greater. Obviously the Velocity gets slower and slower - and if you calculate Energy (proportional to Velocity Squared) this stays the same. But there is no doubt, when you run ordinary classical physics maths, that we can generate variable amounts of Momentum from the fall of a fixed mass falling a fixed distance. The variable is Time. There should be no doubt about this fact at this point - which is why I am calling you on this one.
The question that most skeptics here debate is whether Momentum has any value. As Fletcher put it: is Momentum a currency for doing Work?
I would say, any moving mass has BOTH momentum AND energy, and is therefore capable of doing SOME work. It's ignorant to assume that either one can be ignored just to favor the other.
To understand my enthusiasm for Pequaide's principle, you have to then consider the next important step. The transformation of slow/heavy momentum into light/fast momentum. The law of Conservation of Momentum suggests this is feasible. So IF we can transfer the momentum of the flywheel back to the driver mass, we should be able to elevate it at high velocity. And since we can generate as much Momentum as we want by taking as much Time as we want, there should be a break-even point where the driver mass could be flung higher than it needs to fall.
Pequaide has done experiments that prove (to him and anyone who recreates them) that Energy can be created in the lab.
The big unanswered question is whether anyone can recreate a crude experiment with a U-tube wow-factor to dazzle those uninterested in crunching numbers or performing lab tests.
Currently, there is no agreement on how the basic particles of our universe came into being, or how they demonstrate the immense energy and perpetual motion that they show. Until we fully understand this, it's all speculation. I don't believe we can trust the theory of Conservation of Energy as the be all and end all, since we don't actually know all yet. If particles can be observed to pop out of nowhere (as they have been observed) then maybe CoE has exceptions. Until then, I assume that CoE is just a popular assumption. Like most of science, fundamentally.
Momentum and Kinetic Energy should be about the easiest things to compare and discuss, because they require only two things: mass and velocity. And yet confusion reigns. And IMO, much of this confusion comes from the over-simplication of what a mass is. It's impossible to ignore the particle level, because ultimately what we simply as a single mass moving at one velocity vector is actually an immense collection of particles, moving at a multitude of velocity vectors. And interacting with a multitude of different forces. And even more fundamentally - what is mass? Is it a particle, or a wave in the aether?
Some thoughts to add to your thoughts:
Over simplification. Say two identical jet airplanes travelling at exactly 1000 km/h collide in mid air - do they simply suddenly both have zero momentum? On paper, on average, it might appear to be approximately true. But that doesn't reflect reality. The reality is that the immense forces involved break the mass up into pieces, which then fly off in all directions (which can be manipulated by design) with all different velocities.clay wrote: "Momentum cancels with momentum in the opposite direction"
A lot of the false logic used about momentum comes from a misapplication of what the Negative means as regards to a physical property or as regards to a Vector direction. They are not the same, but frequently get mixed up.
Objects can have mass and velocity. Which means we can choose to describe their energy or their momentum; these are just different ways of crunching the same numbers. This wild assumption that we can make Momentum just "go away" by negating one with the other, and yet that we can't make energy just "go away" is a common belief that I don't think is justified. If we ignore these emotionally loaded words (Momentum and Energy) and just look at the Mass and the Velocity of the particles involved - that is the reality. Mathematical constructions are fine when used appropriately, but they can be applied incorrectly to make huge assumptions that may not be the hardcore Truths that we think they are.
Are you saying that a spinning top has zero angular momentum? I think you might be in the minority with that one ...? I will agree that a spinning top can have zero linear momentum. But if you ignore angular momentum and only calculate linear momentum, then you should do the same with your energy calculation and assume that it also has zero kinetic energy. OR - you should consider that every single particle in every mass is comprised of spinning atoms ... you see, these concepts are riddled with over-simplifications and assumptions. The use of these words is based around making the simple math models work. They are fine to a point, but there a limits where these simple models break down."A spinning top has zero total momentum, because for every moving point, there is another point on the opposite side that cancels its momentum. It does, however, have kinetic energy. "
You have misunderstood the Pequaid/Atwoods principle I was refering to. The missing factor is the greater input of gravity force over greater periods of Time, resulting in greater amounts of force*time which definately does produce greater amounts of momentum.You cannot increase momentum by adding weight to a balanced wheel. The up and down cancels themselves out.
The force of gravity acting on a mass (within our limited Earth-based man-sized range) doesn't vary much or cease acting on that mass. When the mass is falling, the g-Force causes Acceleration. When the mass hits the ground, the g-force is still there, but instead of accelerating the mass it strains the ground, creating the equal and opposite Normal force. The only reason a falling mass doesn't accelerate indefinately is Not because g-force ceases, but because we run out of Time. In classical physics we define this as running out of Height - but it is equally valid to say that we run out of Time. If we can prolong the Time of the falling mass, then we can prolong the amount of Force*Time (hence Impulse hence Momentum) that is available before that force is once again diverted into straining the ground.
The basic idea of using an Atwoods, or a flywheel or balanced beam etc, is a balanced mass system that is used for accumulating momentum. In other words, we Accelerate this system using the g-force acting on a much smaller mass. This slows down the fall of the smaller mass (I call it the Driver mass) and the prolonged force*time is diverted into accelerating the heavy system, rather than the ordinary fast free fall of the driver mass.
You have to calculate the Momentum available for yourself to really appreciate the significance of this. Even one of our resident skeptics did this recently, and created a spreadsheet that shows that as you increase the mass of the heavy balanced system, the amount of Momentum created goes up. It goes up not just because of the heavier mass, but because the Time of falls gets greater and greater. Obviously the Velocity gets slower and slower - and if you calculate Energy (proportional to Velocity Squared) this stays the same. But there is no doubt, when you run ordinary classical physics maths, that we can generate variable amounts of Momentum from the fall of a fixed mass falling a fixed distance. The variable is Time. There should be no doubt about this fact at this point - which is why I am calling you on this one.
The question that most skeptics here debate is whether Momentum has any value. As Fletcher put it: is Momentum a currency for doing Work?
I would say, any moving mass has BOTH momentum AND energy, and is therefore capable of doing SOME work. It's ignorant to assume that either one can be ignored just to favor the other.
To understand my enthusiasm for Pequaide's principle, you have to then consider the next important step. The transformation of slow/heavy momentum into light/fast momentum. The law of Conservation of Momentum suggests this is feasible. So IF we can transfer the momentum of the flywheel back to the driver mass, we should be able to elevate it at high velocity. And since we can generate as much Momentum as we want by taking as much Time as we want, there should be a break-even point where the driver mass could be flung higher than it needs to fall.
Pequaide has done experiments that prove (to him and anyone who recreates them) that Energy can be created in the lab.
The big unanswered question is whether anyone can recreate a crude experiment with a U-tube wow-factor to dazzle those uninterested in crunching numbers or performing lab tests.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
Re: re: Help needed
Nick - yeah, something like this would be required. Why 40 yards though? There would be huge losses in that ... may as well use a spring, which we know won't work ...nicbordeaux wrote:Greendoor, I wasn't kiddinbg with the experiment you need to prove or disprove your thinking. One 20 kg balanced flywhel. 40 yards of non-stretch line (if you make it wire, it's x grammes per meter). Attach small weight to one end of wire, other end of wire to flywheel. Have small weight lodged in a retention device the release tension of which you can adjust. Put small weight on balanced flywheel. Let it revolve thru whatever part of 180° you want until it is bought to a stop. Wire should be taut, no? Bearing full force of flywheel. Then just trip a release mech on the trapped tether weight. Either it reaches escape velocity, or the whole thing fails miserably.
There is no simpler and more true experiment. The results of that will tell you if you are right or wrong.
I think you are right about needing a release mechanism (seems very Bessler-eque). The technical problem I have is transfering the Impulse from the flywheel to the small mass while the small mass is accelerating ... because as soon as it moves, the line goes taught and force is lost. This is where Pequaide's cylinder & spheres has the advantage, but i'm guessing Bessler found a simpler way.
When I get an idea that really inspires me, I will build it.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: Help needed
That's the craziest bunch of crap I've read yet. Greendoor your the one with the agenda, it's called conspiracy crazy.Science is only ever created by people with agendas. We may not know what that agenda really is.
How verbose will you then get once an idea really inspires you? Sorry If it seems like I am attacking you greendoor but all I ever see from you is a bunch of words and yells of conspiracy. Less talky, more worky.When I get an idea that really inspires me, I will build it.
meChANical Man.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: Help needed
I wouldn't give up on your own experiments just yet. with the little info he has given, it looks to me like god only gave him half the answer, I think it only turns 180 degrees. Although at this point I have not had a model that will perform this well.