energy producing experiments

[ovyyus]

I wrap the tether clockwise and gently spin the wheel counterclockwise...

Define "gently spin". Pequaide refuses to measure input and requesting such is obviously a waste of time. As usual, facts are impotent against strong belief.

Fletcher, you clearly love impossible challenges :D

[aStillMoreGloriousDawn]

http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/spinning_ball.pdf

[nicbordeaux]

I often release to early and violently thump the ceiling

It happens to the best of us, peq .

[nicbordeaux]

Wubbly, thanks a load for that post from previous page 71 (oh that topics and posts were automatically numbered so we could refer to a post without quoting...)

The posts ARE numbered. At the top left of each post, just to the left of where it says, Posted: date and time is a little box that looks like a little tiny page of paper with its corner turned over. It's either white or yellow depending whether it is a new post or not. If you put the cursor on it then it will say "Post". It is a link to that post. I'm not sure if all browsers work like my Firefox, but I can "copy link location" using right click of my mouse and then paste wherever needed.

Thank you Jim, right clicking on that icon does allow you to copy the url with ie browser. Then paste.

[jim_mich]

Dawn,

I've always been fascinated by Peter Lindemann's experiments with spinning verses non-spinning falling objects. Different reasons (excuses) have been put forth to explain his results. But mostly the scientific world has just ignored him.

In one experiment he dropped an electric motor enclosed in a sealed box so as to eliminate any air turbulence. He compared the drop times when spinning and not spinning. The spinning motor dropped faster. Correction! My mistake.The motor dropped slower, not faster. Basically, a spinning object is less affected by gravity or inertia. The last time I posted about this I got it right.

My simple explanation is based upon my concept that matter, momentum, and gravity are all composed of ether energy. Gravity accelerates objects because some ether energy is block by the Earth. Momentum restricts acceleration and deceleration much like dragging an object through water, except that once moving the water flows along with the object. All this happens because matter is simply a standing wave pattern in the all-directional flowing ether energy and it takes energy to change the velocity of the standing wave.

So when an object spins, it causes a vortex in the background ether energy causing the ether energy to thin out somewhat thus presenting less resistance to trailing molecules in the spinning object.

If you place a high speed spinning disc on one side of a partition and a non-spinning disc on the other side, then the non-spinning disc will start to spin. This is because the spinning disc causes a vortex to form in the either energy that passes through the partition and starts the stationary disc to spinning.

There are many more experiments that are just politely ignored by science, because they don't understand the results, and are not willing to accept that their pet main-stream theories might be wrong.

I believe that moving weights in a rotating environment can harness energy from background either energy by manipulating inertial momentum. I believe background either energy (or zero point energy or whatever other name one wants to use) is the ultimate source or prime mover of Bessler's wheel, and can also be the prime mover of other free-energy devices.

Of course, I may be wrong. And further discussion should probably have its own thread.

[Unbalanced]

Jim_Mich Wrote:

In one experiment he dropped an electric motor enclosed in a sealed box so as to eliminate any air turbulence. He compared the drop times when spinning and not spinning. The spinning motor dropped faster.

From: http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber19.pdf

Abstract: Several experiments in the field of antigravity research by different individuals and or groups showed that rotating masses (gyroscopes) apparently showed antigravity effects. The two results were: Weight loss. Gyroscope(s) falling slower or measured gn changed. These results and conclusions were false due to poor methodology and failure to understand exactly what the parameters of a gyroscope are. Furthermore, antigravity (as a force/field) cannot exist, as there is no morphological (table) position for them to exist at. Simply, an antigravity (Riemann Mirror Image of the gravity force/field) force/field would self-destruct.


I have read about a great many variations of this experiment on falling bodies (rotating vs non-rotating) the above, short paper, addresses some of these experiments and asks questions I thought were appropriate such as what direction was the rotation in relation to what latitude North or South etc.

[nicbordeaux]

Nice link, unbalanced. The author does think the world of himself though. Regardless of the cause, he does state that there is a slower fall in some conditions, which somebody may one day make use of.

[nicbordeaux]

oops, double post. Edited therefore : better not mention diamagnetics , or (source Wikipedia) "The Gemini 11 mission attempted to produce artificial gravity by rotating the capsule around the Agena Target Vehicle which it was attached to by a 36-meter tether. The resultant force was too small to be felt by either astronaut, but objects were observed moving towards the "floor" of the capsule."

[Mark]

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.

First of all, Nick, let me take this opportunity to say welcome back.

I kinda remember at one time (maybe in your old forum? - 'cause I can't find the 'quote') you had said that the tether attachment point was directly opposite the position where the ball 'sat' on the rim (through the valve stem hole?). If you pause the video at the point where the ball has passed the apex and has descended to the top of the curtain/blind in the window, you can see the tether line coiling up and it appears to confirm this? If that is the attachment point, these comments may make sense to someone.
(It's a little rough to interpolate some of this because it happens so quickly that the video frames are a little far apart, but I think it's within reason.)

The wheel stops rotating when the tether is near the lower 45 degree angle to the ground (7:30), very close to being at a tangent to the attachment point on the rim.

The wheel begins back-rotating when the tether is nearly horizontal to the ground (9:00).

The wheel stops back-rotating when the tether is near the upper 45 degree angle to the ground (10:30), just about where it gets to the 'apex', before the line goes slack. One could practically draw a line through the point where the ball was sitting on the rim behind the drive weight, the axle, the (presumed) attachment point and the ball at the apex.

I also kinda remember reading somewhere (out there on the internet) something about centrifugal force and a reference to the tangent having some relevance. Not my specialty, maybe someone that knows more than me will chime in and add (or detract) from this?

Of course, it could be that the tether length is simply out of tune with the system and is just yanking the wheel back and forth. :-/
You're way more experienced with this than me, and I'm sure you already thought of it, but, maybe trying slightly different tether lengths could lead somewhere?

[nicbordeaux]

Thx mark, that all makes sense; problem is I have lost track of the wheel used, and can't remeber where (if written) the tether length and attchment point is specified. What actually happened here was purely coincidental, the aim was to bounce the ball off a plank to redirect it vertically, tried spinning it w/o the plank, nothing happened So reversed the tether wrap direction, and mucho surpriso, the boubcy ball started behaving in a pretty abnormal looking manner. From there, don't think I ever tried varying the tether length or attachment point. "Things that work are best left well alone if you don't understand 'em" .

Currently guessing that the bounces, and a variable tether length (release at a certain point of rotation/time of a given length of tether), combined with a few other tricks could make the setup perform significantly better in terms not so much of height attained, but of limited driver weight height loss.

[pequaide]

These are good observations Mark.

When the tether is tangent to the rim 100% of the force in the tether line is being used to decelerate the motion of the wheel. After the contact point of the tether reaches the attachment point only the cosine of the force is applied to the motion of the rim; the remainder of the force is balanced with another force supplied by the center pin. The ball applies very little force to the rim as the ball approached the perpendicular.

It does appear that the ball stops the rim when the tether is at about 7:30. As you said it is kind of rough because it is hard to pin down. That leaves the drive mass at about 5:30, and the attachment point at about 11:30. The tether is about tangent to the rim when the wheel is stopped.

The ball gives some of its motion back to the wheel in order to get the wheel to rotate in the wrong direct. The ball also pulls the drive mass back up to 5:15; that takes lots of motion too.

I think the overall rise of the ball was greatly reduces by these two thing. And I think that, because it is such a slow throw, gravity pulling on the ball also reduces the motion of the wheel.

Tether length and mass are two ways to fine tune the system.

[nicbordeaux]

Well, nothing for it when the time comes than to quickly rerun that experiment, but with a visible tether. Could be that .8 mm dia fluo fishing nylon shows up on vid. Or some wool if worst comes to worst. Anything that helps to visualize an event makes it easier to understand, therefore improve.
BTW peq, you are apparantly having conversation problems with your vid footage and computer ? This digital footage is what format ? Sure we can find somebody independant to help you out on that one if you want. Just cost you postage of the material with luck.

Or hang on, we can send you a slightly outdated telephone with video capacity, along with the driver CD for the computer. You can load to youtube in many formats now. avi is the most likely candidate. Guess most forum members have two or three of these "too old" mobiles kicking around.

[broli]

These are good observations Mark.

When the tether is tangent to the rim 100% of the force in the tether line is being used to decelerate the motion of the wheel. After the contact point of the tether reaches the attachment point only the cosine of the force is applied to the motion of the rim; the remainder of the force is balanced with another force supplied by the center pin. The ball applies very little force to the rim as the ball approached the perpendicular.

Peq you have also overlooked the acceleration on the small ball mean while. It actually is tether length dependent.

I don't know why it took me this long to see it as that put the centrifugal force can be decomposed into two forces. One that acts on the spinning wheel, red, and one that acts on the small weight, blue. These forces are far from symmetric. The length of the wire is dictated by the mass difference. However the longer the wire gets the more asymmetric the force gets. Mainly after the 45° point.

Of course there's a continuous feedback as this force depends on rotation speed which is decelerated by a component of this same force. I didn't do the math yet to find out what is conserved when rotation speed hits 0 but I already have a prediction which you might not like.

EDIT: Edited illustration with relevant equations. The bigger mass that is being stopped is assumed to be all at radius rb.

[pequaide]

I would evaluate the components of force differently but one thing that is obvious about the motion transfers to the projectile is that the motion can be given back to the wheel. If the tether is perpendicular (to a tangent line) and it remains attached, after the wheel is stopped, the motion is quickly returned to the wheel. If the tether continues to unwind after the wheel is stopped the motion quickly returns to the wheel. One major part of engineering a good throw is to prevent the return of motion to the wheel.

I have had some experiments where the tether failed to release after the wheel was stopped and nearly the entire motion was quickly returned to the wheel with only a small part remaining in the missile.

The projectile returning the motion to the wheel; is an example of a small object giving its motion to a large object. We have an overabundance of experiments that exhibit what is conserved when a small object gives its motion to a large object; it is always Linear Newtonian Momentum. Even when the motion moves in a circular path, such as a ballistics pendulum, the motion given by a small objection to a large object is always Linear Newtonian Momentum.

Now if we conduct the wheel trebuchet experiment but we allow the projectile to give its motion back to the wheel, after the wheel is stopped, then the second half of the experiment is controlled or defined by The Law of Conservation of Momentum. Isn’t it eminently apparent then that the first half of the experiment (when the wheel gives its motion to the projectile) has to be controlled by the same Law; not a different Law? Could the moving projectile give back or share 10 units of momentum with the wheel when it only has 3.16 (sqrt of 10)?

The moving projectile can restore the original configuration of system’s motion. If the Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy (no heat found here) controls the first half there would not be enough momentum (which controls the second half of the wheel trebuchet experiment) to restore the system to its original configuration.

[rlortie]

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Atwoo ... alInertia/