energy producing experiments

[Grimer]

Here is a simple but good experiment.

I went to a construction type department store yesterday and bought a six foot long piece of ½ inch square tubing.

I went across the street to a farm supply store and bought another 1 inch thick bolt 4 inches long with a nut and 20 washers; I already had one bolt with a nut. The bolt had a mass of 494 g, the nut 120.8 g and the washers have an average mass of about 90.5 g. I do not know the mass of the ½ inch square (hollow) tube.

I tied the tube in the center and suspended it; it balanced and it would hold a horizontal position. I tied a string to the tube and suspended one bolt with eight washers and the nut 3.5 inches from the right side of the tied center. I suspended another bolt with eight washers and a nut 3.5 inches out on the left side. I added 20 grams or so to the left side to get a perfect balance. The left side was either light or was a little closer to the center; but now they are balanced.

Leaving every thing else in place I removed the left side bolt and washers with the nut and replaced them with one washer at 35.8 inches from the center. I had to add 6 small magnets and a few BBs to make it balance again. If the bolt-washers and nut had a mass of 1334 grams then the washer magnets and bbs had a mass of 130 grams. A snap lock was used to secure the bolt so the tied position remained in place. Now we have a balanced system with 1334 grams at 3.5 inches and 130 grams at 35.8 inches.

I then added about 10 grams to the right side bolt and observed how long it took the end of the right side to descend about 6 inches. It took about 3 second.

I then replaced the 130 gram mass on the left end with the second set of bolt washers and nut combo at 3.5 inches from the center on the left. I observed how long it took the end of the right side to descend about 6 inches. It took about 3 second.

The ten gram extra mass could accelerate 130 grams at 35.8 inches just as easily as it could accelerate 1334 gram at 3.5 inches. With the same end deflection on the right the 130 g is moving 10 times as fast as the 1334 grams.

Apparently the ten grams of extra mass at 3.5 inches doesn’t know about the moment (of) inertia. The moment of inertia predicts that it would be ten times harder to rotate the 130 grams at ten times the distance. But the ten grams did not care; it rotated both arrangements at the same rate.

I must apologise for not having read your post carefully before I commented on Fletcher's.

I have now made amends.

Doesn't one have to take the inertia of the tube into account? What was the weight of the tube. Also, how long was the string suspending the tube? Unbalancing the tube will lead to the whole system swinging away from the perpendicular. Couldn't this influence the result.

In your later post you say "about 3 seconds". I'm sure you must have a stopwatch. Could you give us a more accurate timing, please, since if the tube is heavy compared with the weights then one might expect, say, 2.9 seconds in one case and 3.1 in the other.

[pequaide]

Don’t get angry with me for not giving you better numbers. This is what I call preliminary data. This early reporting will give others a chance to get an early start on repeating the experiment and to let them develop ideas on how to do the experiment better.

I was using this very rough raw data (three second, and a rotation of 6 inches) as a comparison. The extra mass can rotate the 131 grams at 35.8 inches or the 1334 grams at 3.5 inches through the same degrees over roughly the same period of time. From here we get more accurate and eventually I will employ the photo gate timers.

Yes: the mass of the tube is important because it slows the rate of rotation. This slower rate of rotation reduces the difference between the assumed rate of rotation, which is needed to comply with the formula for moment of inertia, and what really happens. With the current mass of the tube the assumed rate (to comply with moment of inertia) would required 7.5 seconds to rotate the 6 inches. But the time is much closer to 3; new data shows that it is even less. If the tube were without mass the difference would be greater.

I use a metronome for timing. When I here a click it let go and then count the clicks.

I used a certified scale today to determine the mass of a few objects. The bolt, washers and nut was 1,341.5 g. The added mass (10 grams) was really only 7.1 g. I would have guessed the mass of the tube to be 600 g but it was really 988 grams. This 988 grams mass is at 18 inches from the center of the tube for the majority of the total rotational inertia. But even this is still small enough if the 131 g at 35.8 inches really acts like it is ten time harder to rotate than the 1341.5 at 3.5 inches.

So if moment of inertia is true (when we have 131 grams at 35.8 inches) you would have a rotational inertia of; 13,415.0 g at 3.5 inches or 8.89 cm (131 g at 35.8 inches), 1341.5 g at 3.5 inches (the right side bolt), 988 grams at 18 inches (or 988 * 18 / 3.5 = 5081 g at 3.5 for the rotational inertia of the tube). This is 19,837 grams at 8.89 cm.

If moment of inertia is not true we have 7,764 grams at 8.89 cm. This is still a significant difference (2.5) 19,837 / 7,764.

This is easier to do than it is to do the calculations. I rotate the two bolts at 3.5 inches and measure the time of a certain rotation. I then remove one bolt and replace it with 131 g at over ten times the distance and then measure the time again. The two time periods of the two rotations are the same.

[Grimer]

So the total weight of the tube is about 2 kilograms then if I understand you correctly.

How long was the string?

[pequaide]

No the total mass of the tube is 988 grams. This would mean that you have 494 grams on the left arm and 494 grams on the right arm. The center of mass of the left and right arm is at 18 inches from the center of the tube. So this is 988 grams at 18 inches. Now this is a leverage advantage of 18 inches to 3.5 inches over a suspended mass at 3.5 inches. So this is equivalent to 5081 grams of rotational inertia at 3.5 inches.

The tube is suspended about 38 inches from a steel triangular brace. It swings freely and is not supported below the brace. The string is 50 lb braided nylon fishing line.

I took the end washer with the six magnets and the six BBs into the lab and it had a mass of 133.6 grams. This is a little high of my estimated 131 grams. Oh; I think I just figured out why it is high. I had a small piece of graphite tubing on the other end for its eventual use with the photo gates. I expect the graphite tube has a mass of 2 grams. I may have forgotten it was there but the experiment didn’t.

Also today I thought: well why don’t you put 133.6 grams on both ends with no added mass in between. This; by the moment of inertia theory would make it even harder to rotate and it would make the difference for moving 6 inches about 12 second to 3 second. So I did just that.

I had to rearrange the experiment because I was striking the chest of drawer with the end of the tube at the lower part of the 6 inch drop. I had to arrange the tube to clear the chest of drawers so that the 133.6 g mass could be suspended from it. . And I am now dropping 8 inches, so I had to time the 1341.5 g at 3.5 inches and 133.6 g at 35.8 inches to set up another comparison.

After placing an extra 7.1 gram on the bolt the 1341.5 grams at 3.5 inches and 133.6 grams at 35.8 inches could rotate the end of the tube 8 inches in two clicks of the metronome that was set at 42 beats per minute (1.428 sec * 2 = 2.856 sec).

The 1341.5 grams was then replaced with a quantity of mass that balanced the 133.6 grams on the other end, I assume it is another 133.6 grams. I placed 7.1 grams at 3.5 inches from the center of the tube (this is the same position for the 7.1 g as in the 1341.5 g - 133.6 g arrangement). The two 133.6 grams on the end with the 7.1 extra grams could rotate the end on the tube 8 inches in two clicks of the metronome that is set at 42 (1.428 sec * 2 = 2.856 sec).

Since we have already proven that two 1341.5 gram masses at 3.5 inches each can be rotated at the same rate with the same added extra mass as one 1341.5 grams mass at 3.5 and one 133.6 grams at 35.8 inches; we now know that two 1341.5 gram masses at 3.5 inches will be rotated at the same rate by the same extra mass as two 133.6 gram masses at 35.8 inches.

Say bye bye to moment of inertia.

[Grimer]

I suggest you repeat the experiment with a shorter string - much shorter - one inch say instead of 38,

[pequaide]

That would reduce the unwanted swinging. But it will not change the results. These are three largely different arrangements and the time periods fall right on top of each other, I know from experience that this will not happen unless you have the theory correct.

The same amount of force can give the same rate of rotation to 1 kilogram at 1 meter as it would 10 kilograms at .1 meter. Newton wins. F = ma

[greendoor]

So perhaps instead of building disk-shaped flywheels, we should build large diameter drum-shaped flywheels, to concentrate mass at the high speed zone. To keep the 'spokes' ultra lightweight, we could perhaps use strong nylon cord. Or perhaps dispense with a central hub, and support the outer drum with roller bearings ...

Such a flywheel should behave very closely to Newtons linear maths.

As I see it, whether we use heavier, slower flywheels, or whether we use lighter, faster flywheels - ultimately they both 'store' whatever amount of Momentum we put into them. But obviously the energy calculates out to be much higher for the faster, lighter flywheel - given the same input of Momentum.

For me, the question that needs testing is: what happens when we take all the motion of the flywheel and suddenly use it to accelerate a mass upwards. How high will it rise? Does the light/fast flywheel cause the mass to rise higher than the heavy/slow flywheel - given the same input of Momentum (Force x Time)?

I'm glad I waited for this development before investing further in building the heavy experiments I had in mind. Looking forward to building some higher speed models ...

[broli]

Very strange indeed. Peq no offense but this time I'll wait for 3rd part confirmation of the experiment, which could also come me, before I jump the fence. It's a bit too simple and good to be true.

These are my questions;

What is the time of only the tube without any weights on it?
Can you reintroduce the photogates?

In the mean time could you also post some pictures of your setup.

[Grimer]

So perhaps instead of building disk-shaped flywheels, we should build large diameter drum-shaped flywheels, to concentrate mass at the high speed zone.

I thought efficient flywheels were normally built with their mass concentrated in the high speed zone and not built as disks.

[greendoor]

Thanks Frank - very interesting - what is that from? I was thinking more about the general design of Bessler wheels we see in this forum, which tend to be disk-like wheels ...

By 'efficient', I guess you mean an efficient use of mass and space ... i'm assuming that all balanced flywheels of all shapes pretty much are close to unity energy storage, so similar in efficiency?

[Grimer]

It's just the first suitable picture I found from googling flywheel.

And yes, I did mean efficient use of mass and space. As you say most balanced flywheels are efficient in the sense of power in to power out although bearing friction and wind resistance must vary. I imagine the bigger they are the better and operating in a vacuum must be good for long term storage of energy.

[rlortie]

Check out this flywheel, 30 feet in diameter weighing in at 100 tons for pumping water out of a gold mine.

First read about this over 20 years ago and at that time it was said to be 42 feet in diameter?

http://books.google.com/books?id=ER8rAA ... el&f=false

[Grimer]

Could you check the link please, Ralph.

I just get pictures of books.

[nicbordeaux]

That is about what I was thinking. Start the elliptical drive wheel with the same radius as the throwing wheel for about 1/3 rotation, which is no mechanical advantage at all. Then at the point of the throw drop the drive radius down to about a third that of the throwing wheel.

I am throwing a 144 gram BB bag with the round 12 inch drive wheel on an 18 inch throwing wheel. The 144 gram bag can stop the double wheel (12 inches and 18 inches) when using a dropping drive mass of about 1.4 kilograms. I am going to incrementally increase the dropped mass until the wheel no longer can be stopped by the 144 gram thrown bag. I think the bag can stop the wheel at any speed but it can not stop the wheel at any drive mass. Since the drive mass is what causes the speed in this experiment then there will be a point when the set thrown mass (144 grams) can no longer stop the increasing drive mass.

I see no reason at all that that should be the case. Your limitations may well be more of a timing/time required for deployment/breakinstrain/elasticity of tether nature.

[nicbordeaux]

I am also at a loss why no one is building & reporting their findings.

It seems to me that Nick embodied the best combination of Peq's ideas in his own 'bicycle wheel driver & flung mass' build - that at least was commented on & analysed fairly conclusively, but then he did have all the elements in one experimental setup - Wubbly did a fine replication.

Hi Fletcher,

Nice compliment, thx. Even if my experiments proceeded from a different logic, much is indeed similar to peq's setups. If you go back to my initial claim about a "working device" , the seesaw lever has a fixed mass one end, and a 180° revolving mass on the other. At maximum extension to the furthest point from fixed mass, the rotating mass balances the lever, to keep things concise. On spinning out, around and to the closest point to fixed mass where there is a "stop" , the 180° swing mass + fixed mass produces (d) more energy than would be expected/predicted/calculated, eg the fixed mass wallops down with much more force than a similar setup (seesaw) with fixed mass as described, and swing mass not swinging, but fixed at where it ends up in the setup described above. In the simplest form, you could call this a "power amplifier", although it is nothing of the sort, there is no hocus pocus or "creation of energy", it is just some mechanical phenomenen involving ( or harnessing ?) IMMO cf, cp or else. This is in total contradiction with "logic", because two fixed masses on one side of a seesaw should give more power than one fixed and one revolving from the tip of the other end to just past the fulcumduring most of the stroke (adjust swing arm or wheel radius so that swing mass is at end of travel, eg on the fixed weight side and inline before impact).

I hope that this is clear enough, and that somebody who has no particular interest in endless argument or a desire to claim glory can replicate this first step. Not with cardboard wheels with as a pivot a rusty nail, but with decent bearings and stiff materials.

In all the revolving (to avoid confusion about "revolving" meaning a 360° turn, make that "reciprocating", or even less contreversial and simpler, free to rotate in a horizontal plane) mass on seesaw, the trebuchets, trebuchet wheel or atwoods type devices, the phenomenen observed is again IMMO identical.

I'd also suggest that the first step described above in one downward power stroke of the seesaw from release at balance horizontal you will find either proof of a gain, or of a delirium. Meaning that this setup described will show whether this stuff, either tether mass or rotating gizmos, has any substance.

Nick

ps: an apology to all for my tantrumesque writings from quite some while back. Jim saying that he'd known about the V increase in ejection from a wheel and the "wheel acting as a sort of lever" for a number of years rather upset me in that this meant (to me, at that point in time) that he had been "sitting on the fence" whilst we progressed , and also that he might be very dangerously close to a solution, a solution that he might deduce/work out /whatever from my ramblings and shared "expermients.
All "pm" searchers are per se absolutely bonkers, I'm no exception.
Currently very busy, have been totally overworked since that tiff, so have done no further work, but hope things will calm down over the coming months.