energy producing experiments

[pequaide]

The 99 kilograms of the Atwood’s does not need to be raised because it never lowered. Only the one kilogram lowered one meter, the center of mass of the other 99 kilograms remained in the same place. 49.5 kilograms went down on one side of the Atwood’s but another 49.5 kilograms when up on the other side. You only need to overcome bearing resistance to return to your original position or you could just throw with the Atwood’s rotating in the other direction.

I used a metronome to determine how long it took 98.2 grams (dangling) to accelerate the wheel .76 meters. This is the wheel that throws the 98.2 grams. The metronome is a rough estimate I am sure, but it showed that the rotational inertia of the wheel is around 3.64 kilograms. This is about a 37.1 to 1 throwing ratio.

If my math is correct this rate of acceleration will give us a velocity of about .7 m/sec after the 98.2 grams fall one meter.

So the question is: can a wheel with a rotational inertia of 3.64 kilograms that is moving .7 m/sec throw a 98.2 gram bag up one meter?

This is the same arraignment that after moderate rotation I thump the ceiling or slam the other side of the lab with the BB bag.

[Wubbly]

Ok pequaide, After thinking about it some more, I can agree with you that the momentum value can increase and can be considered to 'accumulate'. Since momentum has the same units as force x time, if you apply a force for an increment of time, then that force x time increment can be added to the previous momentum value to get a new momentum. Momentum is mass x the current velocity, or it is the summation of all the little force x time increments up to that point.

[Wubbly]

You don't need an Atwoods to generate huge amounts of momentum from a 1 kg mass drop. All you need is a 1 kg mass "m1", a variable mass "m2", a horizontal frictionless surface, a pully, a rope, and a 1 meter drop. A 1 kg mass at a height of 1 meter has a potential energy of PE = m.g.h = 9.81 J. If you attach that mass "m1" with a string through a pully to another mass "m2" that is sitting on a horizontal frictionless surface, as m1 falls, it will accelerate m2 along the horizontal frictionless surface.

We can calculate the acceleration and calculate the time when m1 will hit the ground (1 meter away). When m1 hits the ground, we can calculate it's velocity, the momentum of m1 and m2, the kinetic energy of m1 and m2, and the total kinetic energy. Plug the formulas into a spreadsheet, vary m2, and see what happens to the momentum.

The only force accelerating the system is the force of gravity acting on mass m1 (9.81 Newtons). As you make m2 larger, this constant force acts on the system for a longer period of time. Force x time has the same units of momentum, and we can see that as time increases, the momentum of m2 increases. (The momentum of m1 is decreasing, but we don't care because we are more than making up for it with the increase in momentum of m2). The total momentum of the system is clearly increasing.

An interesting thing to notice is that there is no extra energy in the system. If we sum the kinetic energy of m1 and the kinetic energy of m2 just before m1 hits the ground, you get the exact same potential energy that we started with. You apply the same force for a longer period of time, you get an increase in momentum, but no increase in energy.

Let's minimize the fact that there is no energy increase in the system, and focus on the huge amounts of momentum that seems to be "accumulating" in the heavy mass. We don't even have to worry about whether it is linear or angular momentum; it's clearly linear. Now all we have to do is figure out a way to take that huge amount of momentum and use it to return the 1 kg mass back up higher than where it started.

To loosely quote someone: How INCOMPETENT do we have to be to NOT be able to return 1 kg back up 1 meter, when we have 100 times the momentum it could gain in free fall.

Using momentum to measure your ability to do work is like trying to make orange juice with apples. If you increase your apples by 100 times, you might not be able to make any more orange juice.

[greendoor]

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

You are missing the point i'm making. But yes - if you like. I see no problem with a design that allows continuous conversions between linear and angular momentum - should you want to do this. Obviously there would have to be an oscillation - e.g. a flywheel that accelerates, then is decelerated - perhaps to a complete halt - and then the cycle begins again.

But that was not my point.

Pequaide has introduced several seperate concepts that have huge merit IF you want to convert the constantly available Force of gravity into free energy.

Unfortunately - one basic concept that he has introduced is the fact that there is NOT a huge difference between linear and angular momentum as the textbooks would suggest. For practical purposes, it is possible to use rotating mass, and still treat the momentum of that mass as being similar to linear momentum.

This seems to be a huge stumbling block for academics - despite the experimental evidence that backs this up.

All i'm saying is that this particular concept should not detract attention from the major concepts that show that energy creation is theoretically possible - and that there are major flaws in the classical understanding of energy.

[greendoor]

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

You are missing the point i'm making. But yes - if you like. I see no problem with a design that allows continuous conversions between linear and angular momentum - should you want to do this. Obviously there would have to be an oscillation - e.g. a flywheel that accelerates, then is decelerated - perhaps to a complete halt - and then the cycle begins again.

But that was not my point.

Pequaide has introduced several seperate concepts that have huge merit IF you want to convert the constantly available Force of gravity into free energy.

Unfortunately - one basic concept that he has introduced is the fact that there is NOT a huge difference between linear and angular momentum as the textbooks would suggest. For practical purposes, it is possible to use rotating mass, and still treat the momentum of that mass as being similar to linear momentum.

This seems to be a huge stumbling block for academics - despite the experimental evidence that backs this up.

All i'm saying is that this particular concept should not detract attention from the major concepts that show that energy creation is theoretically possible - and that there are major flaws in the classical understanding of energy.

[greendoor]

double post

[greendoor]

Excuse me for my use of the english word "accumulation". I try to use english words with a commonly understood meaning where possible. If I use a Physics term, such as Energy or Momentum I use capital letters - just my personal convention to remind myself that this is a Physics term and I am using this with the classical physics definition in mind. Otherwise, I just use regular english words and hope that the meaning is understood.

Accumulate - to gather or pile up.

If you have a savings account at the bank, you can accumulate money.
If you have an electrical capacitor, you can accumulate charge.

If you have a momentum storage device - such as a flywheel - you can accumulate Momentum.

You start off with zero momentum, and over Time you apply Force - and the resulting Acceleration results in ever increasing Momentum ...

Is that the wrong word for it? What word would you use??

[greendoor]

double post

[greendoor]

Wubbly - you seem to be going out of your way to be disruptive and wilfully ignorant.

Momentum is simply the factor of Mass and Velocity - and therefore actual Velocity is not important if you have a lot of Mass. It is a Conserved quantity - because of this simple and unbiased proportioning.

Energy is based on Velocity Squared. Therefore it is heavily biased to prefer Velocity.

You are very correct when you state (in so many words) that a fixed quantity of Energy can be converted into VARIABLE amounts of Momentum - but the amount of Energy remains fixed. This is stating the obvious - again, and again ...

Instead of tilting at these imaginary windmills in your head, why not focus on the real elephant in the room.

With the fixed Energy input of an elevated mass - we CAN create variable amounts of Momentum.
The amount of Momentum that we can create CAN vastly exceed the amount of Momentum that we need to return that mass at the normal acceleration rate of gravity.
I think you agree on this point - and hence the statement about 'how incompetent do we have to be ' etc.
Fairly incompetent, it would seem.

IF it is given that we can create VARIABLE amounts of Momentum AND
IF we can freely convert MOMENTUM from heavy/slow to light/fast THEN
we can create VARIABLE amounts of Energy.

If you run the maths, there is the potential for a variable range of energy conversion - from extreme loses, to extreme surplus. Energy creation.

Why do you insist on not putting the components together and looking at the big picture?

A lot hinges on whether we can successfully convert MOMENTUM from heavy/slow to light/fast. Classical Conservation of Momentum theory would suggest we can.

How incompetent do we have to be to not realise that IF we can convert convert MOMENTUM from heavy/slow to light/fast THEN we have raised the Energy values.

This is the flip side to what you have constantly referred to: you have have a situation where Momentum is variable but Energy remains fixed. This is the reverse: Momentum remains fixed but Energy is variable.

You have to put two and two together. Why do I feel like a stuck record?

[rlortie]

greendoor,

I see nothing wrong with your term 'accumulate momentum'; To gather or pile up.

If a constant or repetitive force is applied to a mass and that force is greater than any friction, the mass will accelerate (accumulate momentum).

I believe it was Einstein who stated something regarding a rocket ship with enough fuel would keep accelerating in frictionless space to or near the speed of light. Please do not quote me on this, I am sure someone with interest can find the real one.

This accumulation can also be found in the counter weight found between each connecting rod journal in a combustion engine crankshaft. Force is only applied during the combustion stroke.

Now I have left myself wide open for the refute of comparing 'accumulation' with acceleration, the properties of Ke perhaps?

Ralph

[Wubbly]

My dear greendoor, it would seem that you are the broken record, repeating the same flawed theory over and over again without a simple experiment that proves your principle.

To say that you can give all of the momentum of a heavy object to a light object displays a complete ignorance of the law of conservation of momentum. It displays a complete ignorance of momentum.

I don't know what conservation law you are using, but it is certainly not the law of conservation of momentum.

[Wubbly]

... elephant in the room ...

greendoor, There is no elephant in the room. We have explained what is wrong with it, and you choose to be willfully ignorant of the reason it is incorrect.

greendoor, you missed the point of the example. It was trying to make you realize that the large values of momentum can be written off as completely irrelevant. All you are doing is dropping one kilogram one meter. It doesn't matter how much momentum you accumulate along the way. It was showing that the Atwoods is not the only example of 'momentum accumulation' and that there's nothing special in an Atwoods.

The amount of Momentum that we can create CAN vastly exceed the amount of Momentum that we need to return that mass at the normal acceleration rate of gravity.
I think you agree on this point

I don't know why you think I would agree with this. I completely disagree on this point. Momentum does not return the mass. It is energy that returns the mass. But when people point this out to you, you call them smart alecs, and stupid.

[nicbordeaux]

This is all way over my head, let's use some common sense : if momentum means velocity which equates to speed, any mass with greater speed will carry more energy. A 1 kg concrete block resting on one's head is tenable. That same mass subjected to G acceleration or any other acceleration force and increasing it's speed will seriously hurt if it hits you on the conk. So : show me the increase in terminal speed in a one kg object accerated by a second 1 kg object which doesn't loose more speed than that gained by the first, and I will start to believe.

[nicbordeaux]

In a previously published vid there were some pesky details which weren't worth bothering about. However, now that Fletcher stands to loose 10 euros to me, it's time to start looking at things again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9igFhQnP38

For reasons of retaining a modicum of sanity, I have stated that the the tether attchment point is to right of wheel axle. In all truth, this is a pretty dubious statement which will need a rerun of the experiment.

Ralph may want to note that this could be considered as the illustration of a reset mode.

Some may want to consider that the wheel itself weighs something like 1.2 kgs and the flung 40 grams, the driver being say 80 grams ? Wherfrom one might deduce that the 40 gram ball is lifting from standstill an assy weighing 1280 grams. Radially, of course. And methinks with a leverage advantage of approx 2 x .

But there ye go, what do I know about fiziks ;-)

Nick

ps : Don't worry Fletcher, the money will be well spent on a woman with WDAFAD syndrome.

[Art]

OK Nic , I'll Bite -

Whats WDAFAD Syndrome ? : )