energy producing experiments

[Wubbly]

This whole thread is about supposed energy creation based on the transfer of momentum, and we can't even agree on the momentum of a spinning rim mass.

[FunWithGravity2]

Bout sums it up i'd say.

[pequaide]

I had to laugh: I remembered a discussion that used Galileo’s pendulum to argue against Angular Momentum Conservation in the lab. The proponents of angular momentum knew that the angular momentum of the left and right sides of Galileo’s pendulum were not the same. So they came up with this frame of reference fantasy, I think it came out of a book or off of the net from some professor somewhere. As far as I know this is academia’s answer for Galileo’s pendulum challenging Angular Momentum Conservation.

Academic’s answer was this: You keep the frame of reference for the short side of Galileo’s pendulum the same as the long side. This means you don’t use the lower point of rotation for the short pendulum side, and then the pendulum length for the short side is the same as the long side, and then the angular momentum remains the same. And they were serious, they weren’t joking. I am still flabbergasted.

This frame of reference fantasy proves that academia knows that the math does not work but that they will go to any lengths to protect their pet formulas.

I wonder why academia thinks they need these formulas that don’t work. Obviously industry cannot use fantasy formulas for real machine.

Oh: when a spinning wheel catches and accelerates a block on dry ice where does the momentum come from if a wheel has zero momentum. And not anything else is conserved but momentum; not energy, not angular momentum; not moment of inertia.

All parts of the wheel will drive the block into motion, and share their total momentum (all positive) with the block.

[broli]

pequaide, what would it take for you to finally start measuring stuff after all these years. Most of your data is guesstimated. You're putting your energy in all the wrong places including your wheels.

[greendoor]

This whole thread is about supposed energy creation based on the transfer of momentum, and we can't even agree on the momentum of a spinning rim mass.

If you can't get your head around this then just stick to the purely linear examples that Pequaide has repeatedly given as well.

Think about a mass such as a heavy steel ball being swung around in a circle on a tether ... academics would consider this has angular momentum but zero linear momentum. Then break or release the tether ... what happens?

We all know that the ball will then continue in a linear path - and at that point whatever angular momentum it has is fully converted into linear momentum.

Rotating systems seem to be easier to design than linear systems - and whatever mind game problems we have with the maths shouldn't prevent us from using rotating systems for momentum conversions ...

We shouldn't lose sight of the previously established facts:

We can generate variable amounts of Momentum from a fixed energy input. For example: raise 1 kg up by 10 m and use this is a driver mass to accelerate a balanced atwoods system. As we increase the total mass of the system, we prolong the time of fall, thus extending Force x Time of the driver mass, and the the resulting final momentum of the total system increases.

This system alone always has the same total Energy available (minus losses) - but very clearly the final Momentum of the Total system can be manipulated to very high numbers.

It is accepted that Momentum is a conserved quantity - so if we have a system with very high Momentum numbers, we should be able to do something with this momentum - we can't just write it off as being irrelevant. (Which is we effectively do if we just just perform the Energy calculation and then assume that Momentum is worthless ...)

IF we can take all the Momentum of a heavy slow mass system, and transfer it to a light mass system - that light mass MUST accelerate to high
velocity in order to conserve Momentum. IF we achieve this, THEN the Energy numbers INCREASE, by simple virtue of the fact that the Energy calculation involves Squaring Velocity. THIS is the point where there is the potential for "Energy Creation" - which I suggest should be viewed as merely a mathematical trick. Without the previous accumulation of Momentum, there could not be any "Energy Creation" to get excited about.

The trick of dropping a small ball and large heavy ball together, so the small ball receives the total momentum and fires upwards at high velocity is a linear transfer of momentum which is basically what we need to make use of the large quantities of Momentum that can be generated in an Atwoods system.

Bessler indicated that all parts have to work together. When we look at individual parts in isolation, they don't work.

[pequaide]

I have several rolls of film from strobe light photography, several hours of videos, and I have done many hours of work with photo gates. I have measured things as best I can. But my video equipment does not talk with my computer very well, one or the other or both the camcorder or the computer are old (as electronic equipment goes).

So what is wrong with the wheel? What would you build if not wheels.

[broli]

Your problem from the very beginning was that you don't accept help. Knowledge in certain areas you lack can be filled by others, you ignored this little fact for a while. Notice the arduino setup I mentioned a few pages ago. I could help you program it to get analytical data out. All you need to do is place it.

We live in a digital age. You only limit yourself by using analogical stuff that needs a lot of manual work to convert.

[nicbordeaux]

The trick of dropping a small ball and large heavy ball together, so the small ball receives the total momentum and fires upwards at high velocity is a linear transfer of momentum which is basically what we need to make use of the large quantities of Momentum that can be generated in an Atwoods system.

Balls. Let's look at the balls then. We need a perfectly vertical drop with the two balls remaining in contact until ground zero. In the video, we have basket ball, and atop, one tennis ball. To keep the tennis ball on top, we might use a very small piece of adhesive (basket ball side) backed velcro. If we use a bigger piece of velcro, the adhesion becomes too high as the tennis ball squashes and contacts with the too large velcro, as it will (just for fun, a golfball deformation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTgSaEPdj-U ).

Please do and film the experiment from a drop height of 4 feet, and let's see what the actual physical results are. To check for anomolous results no need to add weight to gain force or whatever, just work out terminal velocity and work back to needed drop height (if it is of any use, in the case of a human body it is 12 to 14 seconds to achieve terminal velocity, that translates to around 1800 -1900 feet release height).

Health Hazard Warning : jumping out of hot air ballon basket at altitude 1800 feet whilst sitting on basket ball can cause serious damage to third parties and property. Wear appropriate ball protection.

[greendoor]

Balls need to be highly elastic. A layman might think that rubber, tennis balls, basket balls etc ARE highly elastic, but they aren't - in the true physics sense. Steel is highly elastic. This comes back to Newtons Cradle using dissimilar mass balls. But in Newton's cradle, the balls are free to react backwards. The difference with the balls dropping together to the ground is that they aren't free to penetrate the earth, therefore the momentum is directed back into the small ball, which takes off with all the momentum (or a fair chunk of it). (Think of the Earth as another HUGE ball underneath the heavy ball).

Looking at this experiment in isolation you won't find any energy gain. The energy put into lifting both the heavy and the light ball goes into the light ball, with losses. But sufficient to demonstrate a big gain in elevation.

I keep harping on about it, but (imo) we must always remember that with a carefully designed Atwoods system, we can have a huge amount of Momentum available (relative to the amount of momentum needed to return the light mass at the normal acceleration of gravity). The ratio factor can be many times the necessary amount - so we already have a lot to play with ... never let that thought escape what we are trying to do when we are discussing the next stage of momentum conversion ...

Pequaide - I don't have a problem with rotating systems at all. But the academics get stuck in this rut of angular momentum theory and can't get their heads past it. I was just saying that IF you are coming unstuck at that small hurdle, then stick to linear systems ... just a different design philosophy with a different set of problems ...

[Wubbly]

In the heavy ball/light ball experiment, not all of the momentum of the heavy ball is transferred to the small ball, so this is not an example of all of the momentum of a heavy mass being transferred to a small mass. There is a momentum transfer, but it is not a complete momentum transfer required for energy gain.

IF we can take all the Momentum of a heavy slow mass system, and transfer it to a light mass system - that light mass MUST accelerate to high
velocity in order to conserve Momentum. IF we achieve this, THEN the Energy numbers INCREASE, by simple virtue of the fact that the Energy calculation involves Squaring Velocity. THIS is the point where there is the potential for "Energy Creation" - which I suggest should be viewed as merely a mathematical trick. Without the previous accumulation of Momentum, there could not be any "Energy Creation" to get excited about.

So he finally agrees that it is nothing more than a mathematical trick.

Work accumulates. The accumulation of work is energy. Do a little work, you now have some energy. Do a little more work, it accumulates on top of the work you already did and you have a higher energy value. It's like an ongoing summation. As you do work it adds to the work previously done and the summation is equal to the current energy. This can be easily seen in the ramp calculations.

Momentum does not accumulate. There is no known example of where momentum accumulates. If you accumulate momentum, what does it accumulate to? Does it accumulate to more momentum? Work does not accumulate to work, it accumulates to energy. What do you get when you accumulate momentum? There is no known physics principle of momentum accumulation. I believe momentum accumulation was invented by greendoor.

If you connect an atwoods to a cylinder and spheres, you would have to connect them by a rope, or a chain, or some kind of a tether. If you pull on a rope, would you transfer a force x distance relationship or would you transfer a force x time relationship? greendoor believes it's impossible to pull on something. But if it were possible to pull on the rope, and if it did transfer the force x time relationship, would it even be relevant, since momentum does not measure the capacity to do work.

[ovyyus]

If the basketball/tennis ball experiement was conducted with 10 tennis balls sitting on top of the basketball, ie 10 tennis balls is the same weight as one basketball, how high will each tennis ball be thrown (assume no losses)?

[nicbordeaux]

"Logic" would say each ball rises 1/10th of the height of the height to which the basketball would have risen, assuming no losses frictional, aerodynamic, no dissipation through compression/dilation differential.

To know the realworld result, we shall have to wait until I loose 10 Euros to Fletcher, who can then afford to buy 10 used tennis balls to try on his basketball.

Edit : sorry, should be top ball gets all the jump. In which case height achieved by that ball would in a theoretical world be 1.9 x of that achieved by basketball, plus sum dia of 9 tennis balls. Assuming tennis bals and basketballs bounce in an identical manner, which they do not :-)

[ruggerodk]

Think about a mass such as a heavy steel ball being swung around in a circle on a tether ... academics would consider this has angular momentum but zero linear momentum. Then break or release the tether ... what happens?

We all know that the ball will then continue in a linear path - and at that point whatever angular momentum it has is fully converted into linear momentum.

Extracting linear momentum to achieve higher angular momentum...continously?

regards
ruggero ;-)

[pequaide]

Wubbly quote: There is no known example of where momentum accumulates.

Words almost always mean different thing to different people. Some times the differences are indistinct, but here is what I would mean for the accumulation of momentum.

Lets say that momentum is something I want to work with in the lab and I would like to have a lot of it to work with. So lets make some, and lets calculate energy at the same time. I will always start with one kilogram at a height of one meter.

One kilogram dropped one meter in free fall will give you 4.429 units of momentum and 9.81 joules of energy.

One kilogram dropped one meter on one side of a 9 kilogram Atwood’s will give you 14.01 units of momentum and 9.81 joules of energy.

One kilogram dropped one meter on one side of a 99 kilogram Atwood’s will give you 44.29 units of momentum and 9.81 joules of energy.

If accumulate means ‘to increase in numbers or quantity’ then I think this is a legitimate use of the word. We accumulate momentum.

If we then take this accumulated momentum and place it back into the one kilogram mass we will get an accumulation of energy from the momentum produced by the Atwood’s.

If you place 4.429 units of momentum in a one kilogram object it will have 9.81 joules of energy.

If you place 14.007 units of momentum in a one kilogram object it will have 98.1 joules of energy.

If you place 44.29 units of momentum in a one kilogram object it will have 981 joules of energy.

I used the distance formula (d = ½ v²/a, or d = ½ at² rearranged to solve for v: the square root of (2 *d * a) = v) and the formula for kinetic energy (½ mv²).

[nicbordeaux]

Jolly good peq, so where is the break even point where the atwoods is the right "weight" for a 1 kg weight falling to accumulate enough momentum (which we can convert back into kinetic energy as momentum appears to be a form of pe) to land on the atwoods and raise the 99 kgs back up ?

In other words, take an atwoods, or a series of atwoods rather, have the weight with all the momentum tranfer via a Greendoor inelastic to the second, then to the third and so on.

Factor in 50 % tranfer loss of the momentum/pe gain to be safe, and there is no reason whatsoever that somebody on this forum can fail to build a pm machine which runs in a "circuit" and will produce so much energy that within 5 minutes we are off the Richter scale.