Gravity is free and unlimited; so if you start with gravity you have a free energy source.
You stop the wheel partly because of what Fun points out. If the motion of the wheel is zero the math is easier. But the main and most important reason for getting all the motion out of the wheel is that a 25% increase in the motion of the sphere (BB bag, bouncy ball) is a 56 % increase in energy.
A 40 kilogram rim moving 1 m/sec has lots of momentum but not much energy (20 joules). A one kilogram missile moving 40 m/sec has the same amount of momentum and a huge amount of energy (800 joules).
And for your third question; Jim: “Is it not the goal to have a perpetually rotating wheel?�
No: the goal is to make energy. Even the finished product may have a wheel that throws and stops every four seconds of so. Portions of the machine will be constantly moving but I am not sure if the throwing wheel will still be moving.
And this is where broli makes a good point, we are not building a 747, we are taking baby step to prove that energy can be made from gravity. But if Newton is correct (Law of Conservation of Momentum) these baby steps will be earth shaking.
I think you are right about the diameter; Nick, bigger may work better for slower throws. At the same missile velocity the angular speed is less.
I was playing with the 16 inch rim, and it seems that at least a ten fold increase in speed is easily done. And even this would be an increase in energy. ½ * 2.4 kg * 1 m/sec * 1 m/sec = 1.2; and ½ * .060 kg *10 m/sec * 10 m/sec = 3
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
Broli - I share your frustration. Thanks for supporting Pequaide, because few people seem to be able to follow the necessary logic.
Jim - here is my simple answer to your question: why are we trying to stop the wheel?
The big issue at stake here is whether we can convert M1*V1 into M2*V2. In other words: is Momentum really a conserved quantity that can be transformed between different sized masses? The concept of "conservation of momentum" is fairly well established - BUT - few people would accept that we can "give all the momentum of a heavy mass to a smaller mass". Or as Fletcher likes to put it: "is Momentum a currency for doing Work?".
Ordinary collision analysis between elastic bodies shows conservation of momentum BUT we have to look at the total system Momentum. E.g. - a heavy mass can shunt into a smaller mass and impart momentum to the smaller mass, BUT the heavy mass continues moving foreward after the small mass speeds away - meaning that only a fraction of the momentum can be transfered.
IF we can get a heavy rotating wheel to snatch a small weight via a tether, and bring the wheel to a complete stop - we are demonstrating to anyone with eyes in their head that it IS possible to transfer Momentum almost completely from one mass to another.
Is this making sense? Too complicated? Too simple?
Because the next logical thought process should rock your world:
IF we can freely transform M1*V1 into M2*V2 on demand - the implication is that we are creating "energy" on demand.
Energy is simply an accounting tool based on M and VV (velocity squared). IF we can transfer all (or most of) the Momentum (MV) of a heavy mass to a lighter mass - THEN - the lighter mass must experience a PROPORTIONAL increase in Velocity (proportional to the difference in mass).
This is what we are seeing with the spectacular/dangerous velocities being generated: the output Momentum is the same as the input Momentum (with losses) BUT the Energy calculation has increased. (Because when Velocity goes up, Energy goes up with the SQUARE of Velocity ....)
Experiments like this are rare to see in textbooks BECAUSE they shed an embarrassing light on the problem of reconciling conservation of Momentum with conservation of Energy ...
Jim - here is my simple answer to your question: why are we trying to stop the wheel?
The big issue at stake here is whether we can convert M1*V1 into M2*V2. In other words: is Momentum really a conserved quantity that can be transformed between different sized masses? The concept of "conservation of momentum" is fairly well established - BUT - few people would accept that we can "give all the momentum of a heavy mass to a smaller mass". Or as Fletcher likes to put it: "is Momentum a currency for doing Work?".
Ordinary collision analysis between elastic bodies shows conservation of momentum BUT we have to look at the total system Momentum. E.g. - a heavy mass can shunt into a smaller mass and impart momentum to the smaller mass, BUT the heavy mass continues moving foreward after the small mass speeds away - meaning that only a fraction of the momentum can be transfered.
IF we can get a heavy rotating wheel to snatch a small weight via a tether, and bring the wheel to a complete stop - we are demonstrating to anyone with eyes in their head that it IS possible to transfer Momentum almost completely from one mass to another.
Is this making sense? Too complicated? Too simple?
Because the next logical thought process should rock your world:
IF we can freely transform M1*V1 into M2*V2 on demand - the implication is that we are creating "energy" on demand.
Energy is simply an accounting tool based on M and VV (velocity squared). IF we can transfer all (or most of) the Momentum (MV) of a heavy mass to a lighter mass - THEN - the lighter mass must experience a PROPORTIONAL increase in Velocity (proportional to the difference in mass).
This is what we are seeing with the spectacular/dangerous velocities being generated: the output Momentum is the same as the input Momentum (with losses) BUT the Energy calculation has increased. (Because when Velocity goes up, Energy goes up with the SQUARE of Velocity ....)
Experiments like this are rare to see in textbooks BECAUSE they shed an embarrassing light on the problem of reconciling conservation of Momentum with conservation of Energy ...
Thanks greendoor. It's funny because the reverse that is destroying energy is widely accepted in the ballistic pendulum. Energy is destroyed as if it was nothing and lo and behold it's destroyed in such a way that momentum is conserved PERFECTLY. Of course they don't say it's destroyed but rather "lost" as heat, sound and pixie dust. The whole coincidence is left out.greendoor wrote:Broli - I share your frustration. Thanks for supporting Pequaide, because few people seem to be able to follow the necessary logic.
Jim - here is my simple answer to your question: why are we trying to stop the wheel?
The big issue at stake here is whether we can convert M1*V1 into M2*V2. In other words: is Momentum really a conserved quantity that can be transformed between different sized masses? The concept of "conservation of momentum" is fairly well established - BUT - few people would accept that we can "give all the momentum of a heavy mass to a smaller mass". Or as Fletcher likes to put it: "is Momentum a currency for doing Work?".
Ordinary collision analysis between elastic bodies shows conservation of momentum BUT we have to look at the total system Momentum. E.g. - a heavy mass can shunt into a smaller mass and impart momentum to the smaller mass, BUT the heavy mass continues moving foreward after the small mass speeds away - meaning that only a fraction of the momentum can be transfered.
IF we can get a heavy rotating wheel to snatch a small weight via a tether, and bring the wheel to a complete stop - we are demonstrating to anyone with eyes in their head that it IS possible to transfer Momentum almost completely from one mass to another.
Is this making sense? Too complicated? Too simple?
Because the next logical thought process should rock your world:
IF we can freely transform M1*V1 into M2*V2 on demand - the implication is that we are creating "energy" on demand.
Energy is simply an accounting tool based on M and VV (velocity squared). IF we can transfer all (or most of) the Momentum (MV) of a heavy mass to a lighter mass - THEN - the lighter mass must experience a PROPORTIONAL increase in Velocity (proportional to the difference in mass).
This is what we are seeing with the spectacular/dangerous velocities being generated: the output Momentum is the same as the input Momentum (with losses) BUT the Energy calculation has increased. (Because when Velocity goes up, Energy goes up with the SQUARE of Velocity ....)
Experiments like this are rare to see in textbooks BECAUSE they shed an embarrassing light on the problem of reconciling conservation of Momentum with conservation of Energy ...
If we can show energy creation with the numbers to back it up then many doors will open. Something people on this forum don't get. For instance the rigid model I proposed can be fully animated with motors and PIC's to generate continuous power. But what's the point if we don't even have the numbers to prove the rather simple concept.
I think peq has been going around FE/OU communities for 2-3 years now. And not a single person has decided to help him out with either confirming it or gathering accurate experimental data. I'm sick and tired of this behavior of neglect. Not only with this idea but with many others. Ideas of dead inventors and puzzle games seem to be much more interesting. I guess the painter only finds success after his death.
re: energy producing experiments
Nick's tethered bouncy ball/wheel experiment showed no anomalous gain in the flung mass. Assuming Pequaide's idea is valid, why was no gain observed?broli wrote:...And not a single person has decided to help him out with either confirming it or gathering accurate experimental data...
Re: re: energy producing experiments
Show me the data and we'll discuss further. You need 3 constants, mass of weight, mass of rim and initial velocity and one result, the end velocity. None have been given.ovyyus wrote:Nick's tethered bouncy ball/wheel experiment showed no anomalous gain in the flung mass. Assuming Pequaide's idea is valid, why was no gain observed?broli wrote:...And not a single person has decided to help him out with either confirming it or gathering accurate experimental data...
re: energy producing experiments
Are you suggesting we should kill off Peq, or at least fake his death?I guess the painter only finds success after his death.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
Now that is an interesting idea. The faking part, of course. he could come sleep under the hedge at my place and get as many bike wheels, fishing line and bouncy balls as he wants.Are you suggesting we should kill off Peq, or at least fake his death?
Was it Greendoor who complained about no data about my experiments ? Come on children, the wheel was moved by a know weight released at 12, we know the driver weight mass and the length of tether.
If you want to know is the wheel mass and mass of wheel stopped, yes, as shown. Is the flung mass accelerating fast ? Obviously. Does that mean energy is being created ?
If it is, just go ahead and build the test gear as shown, run yer own tests and get a nobel prize or something.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
This data is given. Perhaps you don't have access to Nick's forum?broli wrote:Show me the data and we'll discuss further...
I have seen his videos, he has my respect for experimenting.nicbordeaux wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBxUjBUdQ5o
Big market, more bucks in this than free energy.
However they are not the scientific type of experiments. It's based on eyeballing and guess work. They are also quite confusing as he keeps contradicting himself. The most useful experiment was this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUv0xjxusO8
There he points out a couple of things. From his "data" it seems that the flying mass has more energy than the fallen start mass. But still he forgot to mention a couple of things, 2 to be exact.
1) The fallen mass still had kinetic energy when it fell that distance. So this value should be subtracted from it's "lost energy" equation which is in our favor of energy creation.
2) The small ball that reached the top is also moving! So it not only climbed that distance it still has kinetic energy which is again in our favor.
But this is why I don't like to use gravity in these experiments. It's easier to just measure velocities than let gravity add additional effects.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
Broli, you're saying I was pissed when I did that "experiment" ? LOL.he keeps contradicting himself
The first experiment, previous to that use of great mass you've pointed to, was the more interesting. It was getting close to one driver unit to one flung. That's where the meat is going be. if there is any.
Actually, the next test to perform is a device which clamps the wheel driver weight at 5 (or wherever you have your arangement set to have the driver/rim stopped by the deploying flung tether mass), thus robbing the rim/drive mass of kinetic energy. In fact, this should have been one of the very first experiments performed, as much by the proponents as by the opponents. Might have avoided 48 pages of thread and bad feeling ?
If in this configuration, the tethered mass is flung as far/high, it will be pointless to experiment further, as this will definiteley and with no argument possible prove that the velocity is due to having accelerated the fling weight to a given speed and let it untether in a constrained manner around a wheel, thus via "ballistics" having obtained your result. To be even clearer, it will totally invalidate the energy creation scenario described. Because with no ke in it, the rim and mass can not possibly give up ke as velocity to the tethered mass.
If, on the other hand, there is a difference in favour of the so far tested unlocked wheel and driver mass scenario, the game is still on ?
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
re: energy producing experiments
Ovvyus: “no anomalous gain�
Really? Nick gently moves the rim and the ball flies up over a meter.
I think one thing in Nick’s bouncy ball flipping that would be anomalous (at least it would have been 5 months ago) to most of you is that a very massive object can give all of its motion to a much smaller mass.
Watch the spokes of the rim; you will notice that they come to a full stop.
Once the rim is stopped the second anomaly becomes a certainty; “You can not conserve Linear Newtonian Momentum and Energy at the same time.�
The rims motion was caused by a force F working upon a mass m for a period of time t, giving you a change in velocity v (a = v/t), which will cause a change in linear Newtonian momentum (mv). This is the mechanism of motion; this is the Law.
In all experiments mv has been shown to be the quantity conserved in the interaction of masses. But the one time that this Law (F = ma) goes nose to nose with another Law (1/2 mv²) most are willing to trash F = ma ( Newton ’s Three Laws of Motion). Newton had plenty to say about mv² (later dubbed 1/2mv²): he argued vehemently against it.
If you put a thin walled rim laying on its side and floating in dry ice and you accelerate it with a weighted string wrapped around its circumference you will get a near perfect F = ma relationship. What is in the motion of the rim is mv (linear Newtonian momentum), and you are going to have to pay an F = ma price to get the motion back out. Or; the linear momentum of the rim and embedded missile will be equal to the linear Newtonian momentum of the missile when moving alone.
Yes: you are looking at some anomalies alright. You are either watching Newton go down in flames or you are watching The Law of Conservation of Energy being proven false.
For example: A rim having an embedded missile with a combined mass of 10 kilograms and moving 1 m/sec can throw a 1 kg missile at 3.16 m/sec to conserved kinetic energy or it can throw the missile at 10 m/sec to conserved linear Newtonian momentum. One or the other; you can’t have it both ways; the missile can have one and only one velocity.
Really? Nick gently moves the rim and the ball flies up over a meter.
I think one thing in Nick’s bouncy ball flipping that would be anomalous (at least it would have been 5 months ago) to most of you is that a very massive object can give all of its motion to a much smaller mass.
Watch the spokes of the rim; you will notice that they come to a full stop.
Once the rim is stopped the second anomaly becomes a certainty; “You can not conserve Linear Newtonian Momentum and Energy at the same time.�
The rims motion was caused by a force F working upon a mass m for a period of time t, giving you a change in velocity v (a = v/t), which will cause a change in linear Newtonian momentum (mv). This is the mechanism of motion; this is the Law.
In all experiments mv has been shown to be the quantity conserved in the interaction of masses. But the one time that this Law (F = ma) goes nose to nose with another Law (1/2 mv²) most are willing to trash F = ma ( Newton ’s Three Laws of Motion). Newton had plenty to say about mv² (later dubbed 1/2mv²): he argued vehemently against it.
If you put a thin walled rim laying on its side and floating in dry ice and you accelerate it with a weighted string wrapped around its circumference you will get a near perfect F = ma relationship. What is in the motion of the rim is mv (linear Newtonian momentum), and you are going to have to pay an F = ma price to get the motion back out. Or; the linear momentum of the rim and embedded missile will be equal to the linear Newtonian momentum of the missile when moving alone.
Yes: you are looking at some anomalies alright. You are either watching Newton go down in flames or you are watching The Law of Conservation of Energy being proven false.
For example: A rim having an embedded missile with a combined mass of 10 kilograms and moving 1 m/sec can throw a 1 kg missile at 3.16 m/sec to conserved kinetic energy or it can throw the missile at 10 m/sec to conserved linear Newtonian momentum. One or the other; you can’t have it both ways; the missile can have one and only one velocity.
re: energy producing experiments
Are we talking about the same experiment? The one I'm referring to is Nick's initial bouncy ball experiment which consisted of a bike wheel with an overbalance weight and a tethered ball attached to the wheel rim. Diagram attached.pequaide wrote:Ovvyus: “no anomalous gain�
Really? Nick gently moves the rim and the ball flies up over a meter.
The experiment begins with a stationary wheel and ends (ideally) with a stationary wheel. Flung height of ball appears given by energy input (wheel accelerated by the dropping overbalance mass and ball mass) less system losses. There was no anomalous gain observed after all weights and measures were defined.
Can Nick's experiment be modified to show anomalous energy gain?
- Attachments
-
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
Well Bill, if not anomolous energy gain, greater height of flung mass, by the "simple" expedient of modifying the profile of the wheel. Or even simpler, by sticking the driver mass out on a extension rod. Don't know about sticking the tether weight on a teaspoon extending from the wheel.
Alternately, you can invest in my noo amazing Orbital Emulation Energy Creation theory which is described at http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 3895#73895
Alternately, you can invest in my noo amazing Orbital Emulation Energy Creation theory which is described at http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 3895#73895
re: energy producing experiments
We were just throwing some BB bags and the 73.8 gram bag is now stuck in a tree about 7 meters up. It probably had gone 3 times that high.
The heaviest bag would not throw over 8 meters up.
The lightest bag (I think that is the 52 gram bag) easily cleared the trees, probably rising about 25 meters.
I was mostly testing the direction of the throws. But it looks like the smaller bag has the most energy.
The wheel has a rotational inertia of probably less than 2400 grams.
The heaviest bag would not throw over 8 meters up.
The lightest bag (I think that is the 52 gram bag) easily cleared the trees, probably rising about 25 meters.
I was mostly testing the direction of the throws. But it looks like the smaller bag has the most energy.
The wheel has a rotational inertia of probably less than 2400 grams.