energy producing experiments

[pequaide]

You have backward movement in your wheel and the mass still reaches the line. And in slow throws gravity consumes the motion of the wheel.

It takes 44.29 units if you leave it on the machine and only 4.429 if you take it off. But apparently you don’t chose to listen to any one.

Dave: the Atwood’s spreadsheet tells you how much momentum you can get and the freefall tells you how much momentum you need.

I guessed that the pumpkin (unknown mass) went up about 100 meters. Would the wheel (unknown mass) be spinning rapidly if an unbalanced force (from the pumpkin mass) accelerated it for 100 meters?

The main point is that the wheel stops and you can do the same experiment more carefully or even horizontally.

[FunWithGravity2]

And the answer is No,

if the pumkin fell for 100 meters it would not be able to store enough momentum to then throw itself back up, I have done just such experiments months ago when it was suggested by another member. Obviously not as large but to scale. The variables are numerous and obviously every combination was not tried but they all were very conclusive.

I would allow a small mass to drop from the height of the wheel using multiple pulley combinations allowing different times and torque combinations, once up to speed i would then snatch an identical mass and see how high it could go with the accumulated momentum of the wheel. I had the ability to change the wheels weight for greater momentum storage also and still nothing.

No combination allowed OU. The experiments can be done easily as i have and show no gain.

Dave

[FunWithGravity2]

Skipping stones on ponds, sliding blocks of ice,watching super balls bounce and seeing pumkins thrown through the air with medieval seige weapons is not overunity. Sorry

[pequaide]

FunWithGravity: once up to speed i would then snatch an identical mass

What is the meaning of the word “snatch�? Did you throw it or lift it.

[pequaide]

A better question: Except for the small mass that was used to accelerate the system, did the entire system stop moving in about ½ second.

[Wubbly]

greendoor wrote:

So I ask you ... what returns the mass back up to the top of the swing?? Energy or Momentum?

If you drop a mass and break down time into equal increments, for each increment of time the distance travelled is increasing exponentially. If you look at the increments of momentum and energy, the momentum is increasing linearly, while the energy is increasing exponentailly. An exponential amount of Work is being performed on the mass during each increment to exponentially increase its energy and to exponentially increase it's distance travelled. To think that Momentum is a measure of what is accelerating the mass is like expecting to go an exponential distance increment on each subsequent gallon of gasoline.

The opposite scenario happens on deceleration (throwing a mass straight up and having it decelerate to a stop). In the first increment of time the mass travels a large distance. The energy loss during this time increment is large, while the momentum loss is some constant. On the very last increment of time before the mass stops, the distance traveled is small, the energy loss is small, and the momentum loss is the same constant it was before. To believe that momentum is a measure of what it takes to return a mass upward, you would have to believe that a constant amount of momentum would be expended for different amounts of distance.

You could also drop a mass and break down height into equal increments. You would find that each unit of height has an equal energy increment but different momentum increments. When you first drop the mass, the first distance increment would gain a fixed amount of energy and would require a large amount of momentum. Some time later, an equal distance increment would gain the same fixed amount of energy, but would require much less momentum. If momentum measured how far you could go, you would be going the same distance on a smaller amount of momentum. To use the gasoline example above, you could go the same distance increment on a smaller amount of gas.

So you ask me what is returning the mass, momentum or energy. The answer remains the same as it always has been. Energy is returning the mass, not momentum. The spreadsheets make this crystal clear if you take the time to study them. If you must know the momentum value, it can be calculated based on a mass with an equivalent energy value, and you will find that the momentum required to return a mass is variable, depending on the mass from which you are extracting the momentum.

greendoor, you claim to be an engineer, which I doubt, because you seem to be confused by the simplest of physics principles.

[greendoor]

There is no need to stoop to personal insults - it does not add to your argument.

I don't know what Pequaide thinks of the following, but I have studied this guy and I think is reasoning is sound ... http://www.nov47.com/ener.html

Energy maths basically comes down to Force x Distance
Momentum maths basically comes down to Force x Time

This guy is suggesting that things can go wrong when we use Distance in certain equations. I don't have the time right now to explain why - hence the link to this site.

Of course most trained physicists would reject what he is saying outright as a knee-jerk reaction. But try to follow his logic - he has something valid to say, and I think he puts his fingers on some deep problems with the accepted science. In light of what Bessler achieved, I think it is wise to question the accepted science.

Momentum (Velocity x Mass) is directly convertible into Impulse (Force x Time) and back again - with losses of course. Newtons Cradle is the classic example of this.

So if you have a large amount of Momentum - it's best to think of it in terms of a large amount of Force x Time. It does not just go away. It has to be accounted for. You can waste Force. You can waste time. But if you have a large amount of Force x Time, you can choose to accelerate small masses to high velocity if you want to.

Gotta go now, but I do not agree with some of the rash assumptions being made - however conservative they may be.

[rlortie]

greendoor,

So if you have a large amount of Momentum - it's best to think of it in terms of a large amount of Force x Time. It does not just go away. It has to be accounted for. You can waste Force. You can waste time. But if you have a large amount of Force x Time, you can choose to accelerate small masses to high velocity if you want to.

I see no reason to question the above statement. Any one familiar with an automobile lives with this fact everyday.

I speak of the simple transmission and the evolving advanced technology through the years to utilize the higher velocity available with applied force.

First we had the three speed manual transmission with an overdrive gear that was controlled by the engine rpm. Then we were introduced to the lockup converter in an automatic transmission. Now we have the availability of velocity increase via the lockup converter as well as overdrive.


My wife's Toyota Camry engine will drop almost a full 1.000 rpm when the lockup converter and overdrive kick in without the MPH {velocity) changing.

[nicbordeaux]

Skipping stones on ponds, sliding blocks of ice,watching super balls bounce and seeing pumkins thrown through the air with medieval seige weapons is not overunity. Sorry

Quite right, no need to be sorry, and most sane people here realize this. A pumpkin ain't overunity, nothing can be, because the energy has to come from somewhere. A phenomenen is only overunity if you don't understand how the result was achieved. Some people believe in OU. That is as foolish as thinking that a given "anomolous" result is an absolute impossibility when we have only a very limited comprehension of the universe.

Like the guy who thinks his hoover floor cleaner is OU because he pulls on the power cord to unspool it, and when he hits the "rewind" button with his foot, the spooling device will rewind all of the cable, with a 50 gramme weight attached to the plug :-)

[pequaide]

Wuggly comment: To believe that momentum is a measure of what it takes to return a mass upward, you would have to believe that a constant amount of momentum would be expended for different amounts of distance.

Seems like a perfectly logical statement to me. That is what the falling mass spreadsheet shows.

I have to make a correction. I stated that the minimum quantity of momentum to lift a one kilogram object one meter is 4.429 units. This is an incorrect statement; it can take far less. The 4.429 units is the quantity needed to lift a one kilogram object from rest: but there is no reason why the object has to start from rest.

A cycling system that uses a one meter drop does not care if the accelerating mass is lifted from ground level to one meter above the ground, or whether it is lifted from one meter to two meters above the ground.

A two meter pendulum that is dropping one meter has a down swing velocity of 4.429 meters per second. If you add 1.84 units of momentum to the one kilogram bob then it will have a velocity of 6.26 m/sec and it will raise 2 meters. This distance from one meter above the ground to two meters above the ground can be used to accelerate a block on a frictionless plane and then the bob will be at one meter above the ground again; which is where we started.

The block being accelerated by the one kilogram mass (above) could be 100 kilograms; after a drop of one meter for the one kilogram the 100 kilogram block will have a momentum of 44 units. Now let’s wrap a string from the block around a wheel and use the wheel to throw. The throwing tether has a one kilogram mass on the end and it already has a velocity of 4.429 m/sec. Now according to your rules the 100 kilogram with 44 units of momentum cannot give the one kilogram mass 1.84 units of its 44 units of linear Newtonian momentum.

We know that the block will be stopped by the tethered mass even though it is a 100 to 1 ratio; NASA has stopped even higher ratios and I have stopped 40 to 1. So the 44 units of momentum is gone from the block; and according to your rules the tethered mass can’t gain over 1.84 units of momentum. According to the Law of Conservation of Energy the system must lose 42.16 units of momentum; which is a first time ever event that anyone has shown a loss of momentum. This 42.16/44 is 95.8% of the momentum; which you say is lost. These 96% loses are something the Law of Conservation of Energy does; not the Law of Conservation of Momentum, or F=ma, or Newton’s Three Laws of Motion.

Always before; the Three Laws of Motion have been as solid as the Rocky Mountains and now you are saying that they are popcorn dunes to be blown away by the wind.

[pequaide]

Wubbly; sorry for the typo. I did not notice it until is saved.

[Fletcher]

dp

[Fletcher]

greendoor wrote:

So if you have a large amount of Momentum - it's best to think of it in terms of a large amount of Force x Time. It does not just go away. It has to be accounted for. You can waste Force. You can waste time. But if you have a large amount of Force x Time, you can choose to accelerate small masses to high velocity if you want to.

I see no reason to question the above statement. Any one familiar with an automobile lives with this fact everyday.

I speak of the simple transmission and the evolving advanced technology through the years to utilize the higher velocity available with applied force.

First we had the three speed manual transmission with an overdrive gear that was controlled by the engine rpm. Then we were introduced to the lockup converter in an automatic transmission. Now we have the availability of velocity increase via the lockup converter as well as overdrive.


My wife's Toyota Camry engine will drop almost a full 1.000 rpm when the lockup converter and overdrive kick in without the MPH {velocity) changing.

Ralph .. looks like you're getting the Momentum is Capacity to do Work disease too.

Lets look at some first principles, using your car example.

Two identical cars are parked side by side on a flat road way - but one weighs 3000 kg & the other 1000 kg.

We want to accelerate them with the same force for the same time.

F = m.a ... so if the same force is applied to both they will accelerate at different rates & travel different distances - the lighter car 3 times as far at 3 times the velocity of the heavier car.

This is because of the different masses so the same force applied to each must overcome different inertia of each resulting in acceleration being the variable i.e. Force & mass are constant therefore acceleration is variable.

N.B. Momentum = m.v

Both cars have the same Momentum at ANY time.

But .. their Capacity to do Work [Ke] is very different because it is 1/2m V^2 relationship i.e. speed makes a huge difference & at ANT time the faster lighter car has 3 times the Ke of the heavier.

Then ... we apply the exact same force in reverse to the cars for the same time - the cars come to a complete stop.

So .. Force gives objects Momentum - two objects of different masses can have the same Momentum but have completely different Capacity to do Work - their relative velocities, distances traveled & Ke's is directly proportional to the ratio of their masses & inertia [3 :1 ] - Force is required to decelerate objects & reduce Momentum.

Foot Notes :

Force gives Momentum & Momentum is m.v & is same for both vehicles - mass is also inertia - in the above I assumed no frictional or drag losses.

Let's relate that to your transmission example.

Once the force has stopped after say 1 minute, both cars have same Momentum & inertia, & if their were no losses the cars would roll on at the same velocity they achieved but different Ke's - if you stood in the way the faster lighter car would do you more damage.

But, there are losses so to keep the cars at the same velocities a little more force is required to overcome rolling losses [tyre friction & drag etc] - since both cars are identical then effectively the resistance is identical & they both require the same top-up force to maintain speed - your transmission allows the engine to provide this top-up force efficiently but it doesn't have to overcome inertia the original force has already given the cars - Newton's Laws.

...............................


If we were to drop both cars in free fall for the same time [assuming no losses] they would have different Momentums, & Ke's [at a ratio of 3:1 with heavier car the highest] but same velocities - this is because unlike the horizontal force applied situation where inertia has to be overcome & so acceleration is the variable & Force & mass is known [F = m.a] in the vertical drop the mass & acceleration is constant therefore the Force is the variable.

So, when green door sees both cars rolling down a ramp he is correct by not wanting to stand of the heavier car [bus] because it'll do more damage [Capacity to do Work].

Slowing the acceleration of a falling mass by adding more inertia to the system to increase time [as per Atwoods] has no positive effect on the Ke Capacity to do Work - in fact you introduce the same conditions as the horizontally moved cars where inertia becomes a player & acceleration becomes the variable & is no longer constant therefore reducing velocity, Momentum & Ke Capacity to do Work, BUT time increases.

An Atwoods can not increase Capacity to do Work although it increases time interval.

[Wubbly]

greendoor, those numbers were not rash assumptions or even conservative. They were best case scenarios involving no energy loss and zero friction. They explain that the huge amounts of momentum are nothing special because it takes even more momentum to return the 1 kg mass.

Momentum maths basically comes down to Force x Time

Exactly greendoor, and here's an example of where the flaw is:

A 1 kg mass starts at rest and is accelerated at a rate of 100 m/s^2.

In the first second you will apply a force x time increment of 100 kg m/s and the mass will move 50 meters in that time increment.

In the next second you will have applied the same force x time increment of 100 kg m/s, and the mass will have moved 150 meters in that time increment.

In the next second you will have applied the same force x time increment of 100 kg m/s, and the mass will have moved 250 meters in that time increment.

In each time increment you are applying the same force x time increment, but moving an exponential distance from the previous time increment. It doesn't make logical sense that force x time is a measure of what is accelerating the mass.

We are not doing any 'funny math' here or making any assumptions outside of the known laws of physics. If you believe force x time is a measure of what's moving the mass, then you also must believe that a fixed force x time increment can accurately predict different distances at some later increment in time.


It's like being in the desert and having thirty gallons of gas in the tank. In the first hour you drive 50 miles and burn through your first ten gallons of gas. In the second hour you drive 150 more miles and burn through your next ten gallons of gas. In your third hour you drive 250 more miles and burn through your last ten gallons of gas. You just drove 450 miles on thirty gallons of gas. On each subsequent ten gallons you drove farther and quicker.

Force x time is not a measure of what is accelerating the mass because there's a hole in the argument big enough to drive a bus through.

[pequaide]

Wubbly quote: In each time increment you are applying the same force x time increment, but moving an exponential distance from the previous time increment. It doesn't make logical sense that force x time is a measure of what is accelerating the mass.

We are not doing any 'funny math' here or making any assumptions outside of the known laws of physics. If you believe force x time is a measure of what's moving the mass, then you also must believe that a fixed force x time increment can accurately predict different distances at some later increment in time.

“In each time increment you are applying the same force x time increment, but moving an exponential distance from the previous time increment.�

It made perfect sense to Galileo and Newton.

Actually force is what is accelerating the mass; F = ma. Force x time is a measure of how much acceleration has occurred. Acceleration (a) is the change in velocity over the change in time: v/t, this gives us Ft = mv. It made perfect sense to Newton.

“We are not doing any 'funny math' here or making any assumptions outside of the known laws of physics.�

Correct.

“If you believe force x time is a measure of what's moving the mass, then you also must believe that a fixed force x time increment can accurately predict different distances at some later increment in time.�

I would say “force x time is a measure how much the mass has moved�. But otherwise this is another correct statement. You are definitely thinking.

If you replace your car in the desert with a rocket in space then it is another perfect illustration, but it will do exactly what you say it won’t. After the car achieved the appropriate speed almost all of the fuel is used to overcome air resistance.