pequaide, there are other videos presented in Nick's close shave thread that address some of your issues. They varied the release point, string length, attachment point, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwCZhoMFoFU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYmR-2lFtLk
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
Re: re: energy producing experiments
peq, I am too old and busy to play mind games with this particular stuff, as long as you wish and you promise not to try and confuse me with energy equations, I will share what I have regarding this particular line of experiment. My sole condition is we deal in visible results and physical realworld mechanical experiments, not theory. Your call.pequaide wrote:Jim is correct: the ball drops off the wheel at 3 o’clock; it accelerates the wheel for only one R. So the ball drops 1 R and the attached mass drops 2 R. this gives us a total drop of 3 R and a rise of 4 R. That is a gain of one R. Four R / 3 R = 133%; it drives for 3 R and is rewarded with a rise of 4 R. The ball is tethered, the tether is wound counterclockwise on the rim. The only drive the (flung) ball is providing is about 1/12, although it does move away from the wheel on it's orbit at somewhere between two and three. Also consider this: at release "tdc' or top balance point, the driver weight is at one and the flung at 11. Or near enough.In the highest potential energy position the ball is 3 R above its original position and the other equal mass is at 2 R below. Again: this is a gain of 1 R.
Plus: we know that the ball could have risen higher if it were released from the wheel. True enough.
And: is the wheel stopped when the attached mass is at 6 o’clock? The driver mass or weight is stopped at 5.
Is the wheel moving when the ball is at its highest position? The wheel is stopped during the fling process but starts to move towards 6 keel before apex.
I have a few thoughts about this experiment.
If the ball has achieved its maximum possible height then there will be no lateral motion; because the lateral motion could have been used to help the ball rise. Remember small increases in velocity cause larger increases in height. An increase in velocity from 3.7 m/sec to 4.0 m/sec (8.1%) will cause an increase in height from .6977 m to .8155 (16.9%). If all the energy is used for rise the ball would fall straight down from its maximum achieved height, and this condition is almost met.
After looking more closely I believe that the ball is beginning to come off the wheel at 2 o’clock not 3 o’clock. If the ball is already sliding at 2 o’clock its drive contribution is negligible between 2 and 3; and after 3 it has no drive contribution. So the ball has less than one R drive.
Also the attached mass is not at 6 o’clock, when the ball is at the high point, it is at about 5 o’clock. I believe this is mentioned by others but then not used in the calculations. The attached mass does not fall 2 R it falls less than 2 R.
Also: I see the wheel moving backwards. This could greatly reduce the height of the throw. If the energy is flowing one way from driver mass and wheel, it follows that there is no reason that at some point there can't be a reversal, eg the flung mass/weight pulls on the wheel/drive mass assy.
With the fact that the ball does not drive even 1 R and the attached mass does not drive even 2 R and you have backward movement of the wheel, I think the prediction that this is a 33% increase in energy is very reasonable.
Great experiment Nick.
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: re: energy producing experiments
It is harder to interpret results in a horizontal plane IMMO. Let's say I make the following setup : one bike wheel almost but not quite horizontal on the bank of a lake. This wheel I drive via bevel or else by a gravity pulled mass, vertical drop. Here I get frictional losses of unknown amount. From this wheel is unleashed a nice flat pebble which sails a long way before a first skip on the water, from where there are a great number of other skips, shorther and closer together. Obviously because pebbles are not identical I must use Indian Head 50 dollar gold coins as missiles. Go figure the energy gains and losses in that one.broli wrote:In my opinion that's the only right way to do these experiments. Some day someone will perform a real quantitative experiment and end the debate once and for all. I'm still as baffled as many months ago that this has yet to be done. But prepare yourself peq.pequaide wrote:I guess that is why my early experiments were done in a horizontal plane.
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.
Or you could just use measuring equipment. You know like a scope, an IR switch and all that other witchcraft. Even an arduino, some ready made IR sensor for it and perhaps an LCD Keypad Shield would satisfy all your needs for 35€-50€ tops. You can't beat that seeing how expensive lab equipment is these days.
re: energy producing experiments
Nick’s quote: If the energy is flowing one way from driver mass and wheel, it follows that there is no reason that at some point there can't be a reversal, eg the flung mass/weight pulls on the wheel/drive mass assy.
Exactly: that is correct; but you don’t want that to happen until the ball has achieve maximum height. Otherwise the loss of velocity will prevent the ball from achieving maximum height.
Great experiments Wubbly. In the best throw you reach the black line; but the thrown mass dropped off at 3 o’clock. That means it did not drive between 3 o’clock and 6 o’clock. Also you have some backward motion. I had a few comments about Nick’s wheel so I will post those and they refer to backward motion.
I don’t get good results with these falling off throws either. Maybe it is not just the preexisting motion of the system that is transferred to the projectile; I think gravity is playing with the system as the transfer occurs. This sound like an excuse and maybe it is, but I get better results when the transfer is done quickly, so gravity cannot play with the transfer. Or at least play with it quite so much. For instance, when the ball attempts a backward motion of the out of balance wheel, with the attached mass at 5 o’clock, does gravity subtract motion from the ball without adding motion to the wheel? What I would like to first prove is that the motion transfer from large objects to smaller objects is a momentum conservation transfer not an energy conservation transfer. This complex arrangement that is under the influence of gravity is probably not the best experiment to do that. It is perfectly legitimate to do these experiments in the horizontal and then gravity can’t play with it. After the projectile acquires our transferred motion then we throw it up.
Here is an easy alteration of your machine that will show you what I mean. Place both your rollerblade wheels on equal length tethers and attach them at 180° on your plywood wheel. Wrap them around the wheel; spin and release them by hand. If you do this with modest velocity you get a very nice stop of the wheel (after you play around with tether length). If you spin and release very slowly it looks ugly. The top projectile will rise only slightly and then drop back to the wheel, and the lower projectile will drop to the end of it tether with a bouncy wobbly motion. Gravity has done its work on what at higher speed was a beautiful transfer but at slower speeds you just get this ugly mess. Maybe this in a sense is what is happening to these falling off (projectile mass) wheels. No matter what the speed in the horizontal it always looks great.
Back to Nick’s With the 1.5 drive mass at 5 o’clock it has only dropped 1.86 R and the one mass ball has raised 3 R. By my calculation that gives the experiment an 8% increase in energy from the original position. This is with the ball sliding at 2 o’clock and the ball giving the wheel a backward motion before the ball reaches its high point. Wow; this is a lot of motion wasted or not generated. And we are already at the energy conservation limit.
Okay: the one mass ball and the attached 1.5 mass start at the top of the wheel. It does not matter how far we drop them or how large a drive drop is used, all that matters is where do the masses end up.
What would prevent us from using the ball mass as a drive mass until 6 o’clock? Currently the ball slides at 2, which I am sure gives you hardly any drive, and after 3 o’clock it has no drive. This is a big source of motion. With the long drive arrangement we would have the 1.5 mass at 6 o’clock. To prevent the 1.5 mass from slowing the motion of the wheel from 6 to 7 o’clock you could let it become a sledge at 6, on the end of a string. Its motion would still add to the ball but the 1.5 would not rise. There are probably better ways but the sledge idea is just an example.
The backward motion can be corrected by altering masses or tether length or by simply releasing the ball.
I guess what I am saying is: this experiment shows promise of major improvements and it has already passed the energy conservation limit.
Exactly: that is correct; but you don’t want that to happen until the ball has achieve maximum height. Otherwise the loss of velocity will prevent the ball from achieving maximum height.
Great experiments Wubbly. In the best throw you reach the black line; but the thrown mass dropped off at 3 o’clock. That means it did not drive between 3 o’clock and 6 o’clock. Also you have some backward motion. I had a few comments about Nick’s wheel so I will post those and they refer to backward motion.
I don’t get good results with these falling off throws either. Maybe it is not just the preexisting motion of the system that is transferred to the projectile; I think gravity is playing with the system as the transfer occurs. This sound like an excuse and maybe it is, but I get better results when the transfer is done quickly, so gravity cannot play with the transfer. Or at least play with it quite so much. For instance, when the ball attempts a backward motion of the out of balance wheel, with the attached mass at 5 o’clock, does gravity subtract motion from the ball without adding motion to the wheel? What I would like to first prove is that the motion transfer from large objects to smaller objects is a momentum conservation transfer not an energy conservation transfer. This complex arrangement that is under the influence of gravity is probably not the best experiment to do that. It is perfectly legitimate to do these experiments in the horizontal and then gravity can’t play with it. After the projectile acquires our transferred motion then we throw it up.
Here is an easy alteration of your machine that will show you what I mean. Place both your rollerblade wheels on equal length tethers and attach them at 180° on your plywood wheel. Wrap them around the wheel; spin and release them by hand. If you do this with modest velocity you get a very nice stop of the wheel (after you play around with tether length). If you spin and release very slowly it looks ugly. The top projectile will rise only slightly and then drop back to the wheel, and the lower projectile will drop to the end of it tether with a bouncy wobbly motion. Gravity has done its work on what at higher speed was a beautiful transfer but at slower speeds you just get this ugly mess. Maybe this in a sense is what is happening to these falling off (projectile mass) wheels. No matter what the speed in the horizontal it always looks great.
Back to Nick’s With the 1.5 drive mass at 5 o’clock it has only dropped 1.86 R and the one mass ball has raised 3 R. By my calculation that gives the experiment an 8% increase in energy from the original position. This is with the ball sliding at 2 o’clock and the ball giving the wheel a backward motion before the ball reaches its high point. Wow; this is a lot of motion wasted or not generated. And we are already at the energy conservation limit.
Okay: the one mass ball and the attached 1.5 mass start at the top of the wheel. It does not matter how far we drop them or how large a drive drop is used, all that matters is where do the masses end up.
What would prevent us from using the ball mass as a drive mass until 6 o’clock? Currently the ball slides at 2, which I am sure gives you hardly any drive, and after 3 o’clock it has no drive. This is a big source of motion. With the long drive arrangement we would have the 1.5 mass at 6 o’clock. To prevent the 1.5 mass from slowing the motion of the wheel from 6 to 7 o’clock you could let it become a sledge at 6, on the end of a string. Its motion would still add to the ball but the 1.5 would not rise. There are probably better ways but the sledge idea is just an example.
The backward motion can be corrected by altering masses or tether length or by simply releasing the ball.
I guess what I am saying is: this experiment shows promise of major improvements and it has already passed the energy conservation limit.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: energy producing experiments
In another one of the best throws (low release point), the mass exits at around the 5 o'clock position and the tethered mass still only reaches up to the black line.
The beauty of this setup is that you have measurable starting energy, instead of spinning it up by hand, where your input energy is unknown. You start with two equal masses at a height of about 2 (4 units of energy total). You end with one mass at a height of about 0, and another mass at a height of about 4 (about 4 units of energy total). Start out with 4 units of energy, End with about 4 units of energy (ballpark). Results consistent with conservation of energy.
If the momentum transfer can occur in the horizontal plane, it must also be able to occur in the vertical plane.
Using the pequaide momentum transferrance hypothesis, you only need the heavy mass to be twice the flung mass to achieve an energy increase of 100%.
Using the pequaide momentum transferrance hypothesis, if the heavy mass is three times the flung mass, an energy increase of 200% is theoretically possible.
If the heavy mass is 30 times the flung mass, the pequaide momentum transferrance hypothesis predicts an energy increase of over 3000%.
In the plywood experiments, the heavy mass is about 30 times the flung mass. With this ratio of heavy mass to flung mass, surely a HUGE noticeable energy increase is possible.
I'm sure pequaide can easily tweek the experiment to coax out an extra 1000% or so energy gain as predicted by his theory.
I dismanteled the apparatus long ago, so you'll have to take it from here, pequaide. We have faith in you! Don't let us down now! We are sooooo close! The future of all humanity is now depending on you, pequaide.
The beauty of this setup is that you have measurable starting energy, instead of spinning it up by hand, where your input energy is unknown. You start with two equal masses at a height of about 2 (4 units of energy total). You end with one mass at a height of about 0, and another mass at a height of about 4 (about 4 units of energy total). Start out with 4 units of energy, End with about 4 units of energy (ballpark). Results consistent with conservation of energy.
If the momentum transfer can occur in the horizontal plane, it must also be able to occur in the vertical plane.
Using the pequaide momentum transferrance hypothesis, you only need the heavy mass to be twice the flung mass to achieve an energy increase of 100%.
Using the pequaide momentum transferrance hypothesis, if the heavy mass is three times the flung mass, an energy increase of 200% is theoretically possible.
If the heavy mass is 30 times the flung mass, the pequaide momentum transferrance hypothesis predicts an energy increase of over 3000%.
In the plywood experiments, the heavy mass is about 30 times the flung mass. With this ratio of heavy mass to flung mass, surely a HUGE noticeable energy increase is possible.
I'm sure pequaide can easily tweek the experiment to coax out an extra 1000% or so energy gain as predicted by his theory.
I dismanteled the apparatus long ago, so you'll have to take it from here, pequaide. We have faith in you! Don't let us down now! We are sooooo close! The future of all humanity is now depending on you, pequaide.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
OK, so peq doesn't take up my offer of sharing and Wubbly like me has dismantled (and maybe recycled or lost parts) of his apparatus. Furthermore, Wubbly is counting on peq to save humanity, which is a pretty heavy responsability.
No point in arguing about each other's experimental setups and "what if's" , let's go this alone and share what we feel like sharing, or rather ask questions (until such time as humanity is saved, whereupon we get the problem "how on earth do we exterminate humanity now ?" )
Question 1 : in my apparatus as shown in the link posted by wubbly (?) a few pages back, the tethered ball drops vertically from the wheel from 2 or 3 to well below 6, then the ball starts swinging up out and around in an arc. What is causing this swing ? It's the velocity of the wheel ? Or is it the velocity of the tethered mass which forces it to wrap arounf the rim ?
Q 2 : With all the mass balanced at 12, the acceleration is slower than if the release was from two. Everybody disagrees with this ? As a "proof" of my thinking let's look at a dumped mass released after "two hours" of movement. At 12 set/release, the force is exerted vertically towards the ground through the axis, giving the wheel not so much incentive to move. If the release is from 2 and dump at 4, there is a load more push on the wheel. And logically a load more turns of the wheel. For exactly the same amount of weight.
No point in arguing about each other's experimental setups and "what if's" , let's go this alone and share what we feel like sharing, or rather ask questions (until such time as humanity is saved, whereupon we get the problem "how on earth do we exterminate humanity now ?" )
Question 1 : in my apparatus as shown in the link posted by wubbly (?) a few pages back, the tethered ball drops vertically from the wheel from 2 or 3 to well below 6, then the ball starts swinging up out and around in an arc. What is causing this swing ? It's the velocity of the wheel ? Or is it the velocity of the tethered mass which forces it to wrap arounf the rim ?
Q 2 : With all the mass balanced at 12, the acceleration is slower than if the release was from two. Everybody disagrees with this ? As a "proof" of my thinking let's look at a dumped mass released after "two hours" of movement. At 12 set/release, the force is exerted vertically towards the ground through the axis, giving the wheel not so much incentive to move. If the release is from 2 and dump at 4, there is a load more push on the wheel. And logically a load more turns of the wheel. For exactly the same amount of weight.
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
I think I have figures out why these slow throws are so wimpy. First let’s review what we do have.
Both the Wubbly throws and the throws by Nick are right at the energy production limit for the Law of Conservation of Energy. Wubbly’s limit was the black line and for Nick it was the top of the window seal. Any improvement that would increase the maximum velocity in these experiments and we will put the nails in the coffin for the Law of Conservation of Energy.
The answer to the difference in efficiency between quick vertical throws and slow vertical throws is: ‘when does gravity begin to work upon the system to slow the motion of the ball’. Gravity does not wait until the ball has achieved maximum velocity to begin removing velocity; it begins removing velocity as soon as the ball crosses the low point of the down swing and begins its journey up.
During the time period of the motion transfer gravity is slowing the motion of the ball, the longer the transfer time the greater the removal of motion before maximum velocity is achieved. The appropriate amount of maximum velocity is no longer available to the experiment because gravity has already removed some of the motion. The potential maximum velocity can not be achieved. The quicker the transfer occurs the closer you get to the ideal maximum velocity.
After ideal maximum velocity is achieved the ball must fly up because that is how we are going to get more energy than what we put in. So gravity of course works on the ball as it flies up. But do we need to lose motion to gravity during the motion transfer?
Let’s do some brainstorming.
The rise in both these experiments is on the left side. Suppose we shield the left side of these experiments from gravity until the ball (or rollerblade wheel) reaches maximum velocity. Now we are shielding the ball on the end of the tether not the wheel, the wheel and its added mass is still under the influence of gravity. As soon as the ball comes to the left side and begins to rise gravity is shielded so that it does not slow the ball during the motion transfer. The motion being transferred of course is coming from the wheel and added mass that is still under gravitational acceleration. This gravity removal from the left side, which begins at the first rise and ends at maximum velocity, would with no doubt increase the maximum velocity. Do we need some nails for the coffin?
Is the removal of gravity from the left side just fanciful thinking? No: it is eminently doable. Place the wheel to be used for motion transfer in a horizontal plane.
A wheel spinning in a horizontal plane can be accelerated by a mass draped over a pulley. Most every thing else remains the same: tether length, mass ratios, angle of release, except that now (the left side) the motion transfer side is no longer under gravitational acceleration.
Both the Wubbly throws and the throws by Nick are right at the energy production limit for the Law of Conservation of Energy. Wubbly’s limit was the black line and for Nick it was the top of the window seal. Any improvement that would increase the maximum velocity in these experiments and we will put the nails in the coffin for the Law of Conservation of Energy.
The answer to the difference in efficiency between quick vertical throws and slow vertical throws is: ‘when does gravity begin to work upon the system to slow the motion of the ball’. Gravity does not wait until the ball has achieved maximum velocity to begin removing velocity; it begins removing velocity as soon as the ball crosses the low point of the down swing and begins its journey up.
During the time period of the motion transfer gravity is slowing the motion of the ball, the longer the transfer time the greater the removal of motion before maximum velocity is achieved. The appropriate amount of maximum velocity is no longer available to the experiment because gravity has already removed some of the motion. The potential maximum velocity can not be achieved. The quicker the transfer occurs the closer you get to the ideal maximum velocity.
After ideal maximum velocity is achieved the ball must fly up because that is how we are going to get more energy than what we put in. So gravity of course works on the ball as it flies up. But do we need to lose motion to gravity during the motion transfer?
Let’s do some brainstorming.
The rise in both these experiments is on the left side. Suppose we shield the left side of these experiments from gravity until the ball (or rollerblade wheel) reaches maximum velocity. Now we are shielding the ball on the end of the tether not the wheel, the wheel and its added mass is still under the influence of gravity. As soon as the ball comes to the left side and begins to rise gravity is shielded so that it does not slow the ball during the motion transfer. The motion being transferred of course is coming from the wheel and added mass that is still under gravitational acceleration. This gravity removal from the left side, which begins at the first rise and ends at maximum velocity, would with no doubt increase the maximum velocity. Do we need some nails for the coffin?
Is the removal of gravity from the left side just fanciful thinking? No: it is eminently doable. Place the wheel to be used for motion transfer in a horizontal plane.
A wheel spinning in a horizontal plane can be accelerated by a mass draped over a pulley. Most every thing else remains the same: tether length, mass ratios, angle of release, except that now (the left side) the motion transfer side is no longer under gravitational acceleration.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
Ah, just like the stone skipping horizontal wheel :-)
Ways to achieve the vertical weight drop powering horizontal wheel, there are many. Some time back, a clever person posted on the forum a link to a pdf of "Five-hundred-and-seven-mechanical-movements" . Useful.
Maybe the test to run right now is : instead of letting the driver mass (on wheel) run free 12 to 6, let there be acceleration to the wheel, then apply a full brake to the wheel. Stop it dead at 3 or whatever. This will show if there is energy being tranfered during the full drive, or as i think just for a short while, after which the wheel is just a immovale form on which the flung mass ropes itself, or maybe just an anchor point.
The lighter setups are better for attaining high velocity with agiven driver weight : you have a 500 kg car with a 200 bhp engine well it's going to accelerate a whole load faster over a short distance tha a 1500 car with a 200 bhp engine. Aka power to weight ratio .
Ways to achieve the vertical weight drop powering horizontal wheel, there are many. Some time back, a clever person posted on the forum a link to a pdf of "Five-hundred-and-seven-mechanical-movements" . Useful.
Maybe the test to run right now is : instead of letting the driver mass (on wheel) run free 12 to 6, let there be acceleration to the wheel, then apply a full brake to the wheel. Stop it dead at 3 or whatever. This will show if there is energy being tranfered during the full drive, or as i think just for a short while, after which the wheel is just a immovale form on which the flung mass ropes itself, or maybe just an anchor point.
The lighter setups are better for attaining high velocity with agiven driver weight : you have a 500 kg car with a 200 bhp engine well it's going to accelerate a whole load faster over a short distance tha a 1500 car with a 200 bhp engine. Aka power to weight ratio .
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.
How about we end this bullshit and collaborate to build one conclusive setup. I have found a localish fablab were you can use laser cutters, routers and what not to build the things you want. It's publically open every Friday which is my day off.
So what if you guys pitch in with some monetary funding in order to get a nice experimental build and the needed test equipment. The setup shouldn't be too large, perhaps a total budget of 100€ should do. I could go as soon as next week Friday if needed. And try to do as much as possible in 8 hours. Before hand design is crucial to make things go smooth. Anyone up for it?
So what if you guys pitch in with some monetary funding in order to get a nice experimental build and the needed test equipment. The setup shouldn't be too large, perhaps a total budget of 100€ should do. I could go as soon as next week Friday if needed. And try to do as much as possible in 8 hours. Before hand design is crucial to make things go smooth. Anyone up for it?
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
Broli, as far as i'm concerned, there is no b.s. And I'm pitching what I have in small doses, a bit at a time. The experiments will cost zilch if you can scour the dump for old doors, bike wheels, etc.
It will attain greater height from the flung than the driver drop, difference in weight accounted for. It isn't O.U., just making better use of available energy.
You want an experiment build ? One wheel like in Wubbly's setup, eg, the "rim" is a series of bolts. You won't want a circle, but a triangle or other shape with straight edges. Your wheel needs to be as light as possible: one bicycle hub, two very thin plyboard flanges with the heck drilled out of them (circle cutter, crown saw, cylinder saw, hole saw, call the tool what you want), the diameter needs to be at least 650 mm. One length of fishing line run through a skewered bouncy ball and with a mother of a knot pulled back up into the ball. One driver weight 3 x the bouncy ball weight. One 4.5 meter roofing plank sanded. One wheel stand with enough clearance at bottom so bouncy ball doesn't hit the ground.
Have a look at my dumb "close shave" experiment. Proceed alike. But have your big plank vertical, face on to the flung ball. You want to aim for a ricochet off this plank at a wide as posible angle. The ball hits the plank and can continue to ascend free of any link to wheel. You have a protusion on inner or outer edge of your driver wheel (could be the actual driver weight). The driver weight is released at two and travel is arrested at 4 (5?) by that protusion hitting something which doesn't budge. The ball continues to untether and ascend on a tangent until it hits the plank. From where it will further ascend. You are looking for a glancing blow deviation with a bit of elasticity rather than a full bounce, which would dissipate too much energy.
You want to stick bouncy balls on the stops, use springs or else, that's taking it too far to fast.
There you are then. If you don't do it, I will eventually, it was what I was intending to do until getting hung up with the straight trebuchet throw halfway through the build. Don't expect it to work first time, you'll need to play with the thing a lot to get a feel for what's happening where, what the settings of everything need to be.
Does this setup meet your requirements Fletcher ?
Nick
ps : darn, I forgot, stick a hopper up there just like Fletcher suggested way back to catch the ball just after apex. Everything within a given setup will be repeatable, that won't be a problem.
It will attain greater height from the flung than the driver drop, difference in weight accounted for. It isn't O.U., just making better use of available energy.
You want an experiment build ? One wheel like in Wubbly's setup, eg, the "rim" is a series of bolts. You won't want a circle, but a triangle or other shape with straight edges. Your wheel needs to be as light as possible: one bicycle hub, two very thin plyboard flanges with the heck drilled out of them (circle cutter, crown saw, cylinder saw, hole saw, call the tool what you want), the diameter needs to be at least 650 mm. One length of fishing line run through a skewered bouncy ball and with a mother of a knot pulled back up into the ball. One driver weight 3 x the bouncy ball weight. One 4.5 meter roofing plank sanded. One wheel stand with enough clearance at bottom so bouncy ball doesn't hit the ground.
Have a look at my dumb "close shave" experiment. Proceed alike. But have your big plank vertical, face on to the flung ball. You want to aim for a ricochet off this plank at a wide as posible angle. The ball hits the plank and can continue to ascend free of any link to wheel. You have a protusion on inner or outer edge of your driver wheel (could be the actual driver weight). The driver weight is released at two and travel is arrested at 4 (5?) by that protusion hitting something which doesn't budge. The ball continues to untether and ascend on a tangent until it hits the plank. From where it will further ascend. You are looking for a glancing blow deviation with a bit of elasticity rather than a full bounce, which would dissipate too much energy.
You want to stick bouncy balls on the stops, use springs or else, that's taking it too far to fast.
There you are then. If you don't do it, I will eventually, it was what I was intending to do until getting hung up with the straight trebuchet throw halfway through the build. Don't expect it to work first time, you'll need to play with the thing a lot to get a feel for what's happening where, what the settings of everything need to be.
Does this setup meet your requirements Fletcher ?
Nick
ps : darn, I forgot, stick a hopper up there just like Fletcher suggested way back to catch the ball just after apex. Everything within a given setup will be repeatable, that won't be a problem.
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
I think Broli is correct - all this was suggested way back at beginning of thread, but moving on.
First, before expending any funds or sourcing reclaimed bits & pieces, decide who will be the main builder & who he will report results to, others may build also individually - then collectively exchange ideas & design drawings until the experimental concept is to the groups satisfaction - bare in mind that all experiments need to be adjustable & tweaked from time to time.
Above all be honest & helpful with each other & be prepared to compromise, putting ego's aside for the greater good of the experiment - your own individual build can be anything you want.
It's a simple concept - the magnitude's of Energy that pequaide is talking about should be easily seen in results, even if inefficient at first, then you can reach for the nails to the coffin.
I think the horizontal experiment is also attractive, as broli suggests, with Nick's hanging weight accelerator mechanism - you might consider this if the vertical experiment doesn't pan out well or go straight to it if it makes it easier to control aspects of the experiment.
First, before expending any funds or sourcing reclaimed bits & pieces, decide who will be the main builder & who he will report results to, others may build also individually - then collectively exchange ideas & design drawings until the experimental concept is to the groups satisfaction - bare in mind that all experiments need to be adjustable & tweaked from time to time.
Above all be honest & helpful with each other & be prepared to compromise, putting ego's aside for the greater good of the experiment - your own individual build can be anything you want.
It's a simple concept - the magnitude's of Energy that pequaide is talking about should be easily seen in results, even if inefficient at first, then you can reach for the nails to the coffin.
I think the horizontal experiment is also attractive, as broli suggests, with Nick's hanging weight accelerator mechanism - you might consider this if the vertical experiment doesn't pan out well or go straight to it if it makes it easier to control aspects of the experiment.
re: energy producing experiments
Freefall is another way to conduct the momentum conservation experiments. Freefall has the advantage of being very cheep and very efficient. It has the disadvantage of being hard to measure. However: if the experimenter had good video equipment the method would yield useful information.
Freefall is not a new idea of course but considering the current discussion of builds I thought I would remind you all of the method. Some would be experimenters may have little available money for builds but they may have good video equipment.
With the freefall method just about any round object can be used as a motion transferring wheel. Pipes, tubes, rim mass wheels and disks work best because you can evaluate the quantity of motion they have while they are spinning. Only two quantities need to be determined by the video tape: the initial rate of rotation before the spheres are released and the velocity of the released spheres when the wheel is stopped. With a ten to one mass ratio you are left to determine whether the spheres are moving 10 times as fast or 3.16 times as fast when the wheel is stopped.
Many do not appreciate this method because it does not carefully evaluate the source of the incoming motion. I personally am totally unconcerned where the motion comes from.
If the experiments conserve momentum then the Law of Conservation of Energy is false.
Freefall is not a new idea of course but considering the current discussion of builds I thought I would remind you all of the method. Some would be experimenters may have little available money for builds but they may have good video equipment.
With the freefall method just about any round object can be used as a motion transferring wheel. Pipes, tubes, rim mass wheels and disks work best because you can evaluate the quantity of motion they have while they are spinning. Only two quantities need to be determined by the video tape: the initial rate of rotation before the spheres are released and the velocity of the released spheres when the wheel is stopped. With a ten to one mass ratio you are left to determine whether the spheres are moving 10 times as fast or 3.16 times as fast when the wheel is stopped.
Many do not appreciate this method because it does not carefully evaluate the source of the incoming motion. I personally am totally unconcerned where the motion comes from.
If the experiments conserve momentum then the Law of Conservation of Energy is false.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: energy producing experiments
Peq, there is no doubt whatsoever in the mind of anybody who has performed a release from rotating wheel or cylinder experiment that the flung mass has much more velocity than the object from which it is launched just as long as the lauch speed has attained the critical minimum. Anybody else can go to my silly experiment and look at the slow motion part : the bouncy ball is proceeding at a far greater rate of knots than the wheel as judged by the driver mass fixed to it.
The argument is about what amount of energy is required to accelerate the driver assy to get massive speed into flung mass. And the proof required visible gain in height when the difference in weight is acconted for. That is the one there will be no arguing about. Or at least the argument will be constrained to working out radial stuff.
Whether this breaks physics laws or not doesn't matter an iota to me :-)
The argument is about what amount of energy is required to accelerate the driver assy to get massive speed into flung mass. And the proof required visible gain in height when the difference in weight is acconted for. That is the one there will be no arguing about. Or at least the argument will be constrained to working out radial stuff.
Whether this breaks physics laws or not doesn't matter an iota to me :-)
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.