Manipulating Momentum

[Fletcher]

Taken from the thread called "Energy Producing Experiments".

While I'm killing time for the next few minutes.

I might as well show how Kinematic equations can be used to find Energy [Capacity to do Work].

A weight of 50 newtons [50N's = 50/9.80665 = 5.01 kg, say 5 kg] is raised a height of 2 meters - it has gained additional Pe of 100 Joules i.e. [Pe = mgh = 5.01 x 9.81 x 2 = 100 Joules].

100 J was the Work Done to raise the mass to give it extra Energy of Position.

This is the Work it should be able to do returning to its original position.

N.B. Work Output = Work Input [assuming no losses] or Work Output < Work Input [with losses] - this is the Leverage Work Done equi-potentiality of F1 x D2 = F2 x D2.

Q. What is the Ke of a mass of m kg moving at v m/s ?

Ans. Let us assume that gravity accelerated it uniformly at a m/s^2 from zero velocity to v m/s^2 by being pushed by a constant Force of F Newtons.

The distance traveled during acceleration was s meters, then the Work Done i.e. the Ke, will be in Joules.

But v^2 = u^2 + 2as [u =0]
=> v^ = 2as
=> s = v^2/2a

N.B. => v^2 = 2as => v = sqrt [2as] = sqrt 40 = 6.32 m/s

BUT F = ma

SO ... Ke = Fs = ma x v^2/2a = 1/2mv^2 Joules - N.B. how does this relate to mv math ?

Thus Ke of 5 kg moving at 6.32 m/s after 2 meters

= 1/2 x 5 x 6.32^2

= 100 Joules.

Whilst waiting for an empirical demonstration & then retrofitting the math, try the slam dunk horse before the cart shot by substituting your own units & values & reconciling the Kinematic Equations using Momentum to find the Ke & Capacity to do Work, assuming Uniform Acceleration from a Constant Force !

[Kirk]

It's quite simple gentlemen & this is how you proceed to prove your theories ...

Use whatever mechanisms you want.

Measure the Input Energy [either Pe or Rotational &/or Linear Ke].

Measure the whole of system Pe before & after interaction has occurred.

If there is a gain Energy i.e. in whole of system Pe plus any Rotational/Linear Ke present, less your Input Energy [Pe or Ke], then you have proven that gravity is NOT conservative & momentumists RULE, ye-ha !


You will also have turned the Work Done Energy Equivalence axiom on its head !

This may be harder to empirically prove than you think because Joules [Nm] & Watts [J/s] are used to calculate capacity to do Work & Power - momentum is an all together unrelated unit of mv & is currently NOT the unit used for Work & Power etc in mechanics - so you'll have to come up with new units related to mv !

=> note from a die hard advocate of the current proven regime !

There is deficiency in the maths. I am far more trusting in momentum than ke. For one thing momentum obeys Newtons third law and ke doesnt.
The maths omit rate and we know 1 horsepower, 550 footpounds per second is vastly different if 1 pound lifted 550 feet in 1 second rather than 550 pounds lifted 1 foot in one second. Thats why the maths need to be treated with caution. dont confuse the validity of the maths with the physical item. The maths are like the blind men describing the elephant. The are true only to a point. The real world is far richer and we have still a less than perfect understanding.

[pequaide]

Correct: if we believed the books we would have stopped thinking in the eighth grade. Experiments are real world. I have told Fletcher hundreds of times that the experiments produce energy but he doesn’t bother to repeat them. He was told in the eighth grade they would not work so that is good enough for him.

[greendoor]

But in all fairness to Fletcher - IF you can produce energy, then you should be able to demonstrate this in an experiment that either lifts mass higher than it falls, or sustains rotation of a wheel. Closing the loop.

There are plenty of people who believe they have the solution - but without a working model, it's just an unproven theory.

We can repeat your experiments Pequaide, but the results are wide open to interpretation. Anything with manual muscle power input is essentially unscientific.

What we need is a simple experiment where we can input some easily measurable energy (such as raising a known mass a known height) and observing an easily measurable higher energy outcome that is repeatable.

I've seen plenty of good ideas - but they all fail in the accurate measurement of energy input vs energy output. So without visible elevation or sustained rotation - I don't believe anything.

[ovyyus]

WOW, I agree with greendoor! :D

[nicbordeaux]

OK, one last intervention (ah; resolutions that are never kept...) : you are wrong greendoor and Bill, both of you. The bike wheel experiment was replicated by two competent people, and failed. The input was measured.

Edit : what we need here is a new set of measurements, some people are talking apples, others oranges, a lot orapples. So I hereby propose the Wocklebury Furlong as a unit of measure.

The WF can be either metric or imperial, can be radial (RWF), linear (LWF), declined as centripetal or centrifugal as desired. It may be gravity potential in which case GPWF, or kinetic KWF. A further variant well known to exist but consider it as yet unproven would be the Variable Wocklebury Furlong.

This way we can all love each other and agree that 1+1= 3 . The missing unit is the Variable Wocklebury Furlong. Obviously, from this we can conclude that the VWF can be used to obtain OU of a magnitude of 1.5

Kirk : all you need to do is build or get somebody on the forum to build a 4 in wheel set on a 4 foot wheel, have somebody 4 foot up a ladder drop whatever weight you want onto whatever place you want, and see what happens. The wheel would need to be on an axle of course. As to hysteresis in bicycle wheels, yes, there is some, not a load if you know how to true a wheel whilst keeping spoke tension high. A massive disk will also absorb a lot of energy, it is just less visible.

[Kirk]

what bike wheel experiment?
Pretty light wheel as well as springy. If the wheel speeds up more than a smidgen with the impact that will be a source of loss. I would like to see the conditions and data before believing it was properly done.

I also see many have a glaring misunderstanding re energy added. Since momentum is not increased between the 2 balls the energy is unchanged - no energy added. If you dont see the dichotomy there you better cogitate what is happening. ke is increased yet energy is not. The paradigm has hit a bump in the road.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

I lift a pivoting pendulum to 3 o'clock, I let it go, it never gains that height again but if you measure the work done against gravity in it swings there is a greater combined height than the lift I did in the first place, this is due to momentum and gravity doing work! how much work would I need to do to follow the weights swing with a hand held weight? would it be more work than the pendulum lift to 3 o'clock? I believe it would take me a lot more energy than the first lift so the pendulum is doing more work than the first lift!

Edit, now place two weights on a wheel, one at 12 o,clock and one at 6 o'clock if the goal was to lift the weight at 6 to 3 o'clock how much energy would I now need to do this compared to the first test.

If I put a small weight at 1 o'clock the wheel will turn and the two weight where at 9 and 3 o'clock both weights gain heights to 12 o'clock many time, so a very small weight can make two weights many times heaver gain height so when you look at the height gained by the two heaver weights compared to the height lost by the small weight as it drops of the wheel at the bottom, mass gained height for less energy!

Edit, Try this, lift a heavy weight to 3 o'clock and one weight 9 o'clock then secure them, then lift a small weight to 1 o'clock in a cup so it will falls out at the bottom, cut the wheel free and see how many time the heavy weights reach 12 o'clock, is there a weight height gain in the system YES. some one said that it does not matter what path a weight takes you cannot gain height, well what about this path?

Regards Trevor

[nicbordeaux]

I give up.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Bessler’s Wheel may have been a Pinball Device.

Take a look at this video, it could be that Besslers wheel was a pinball device,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5pthgEp ... ature=fvwp

The device shown on you tube would be mounted to the bottom of a hanging pendulum as seen on MT 13. The wheel would drive the device via a ring gear. There would be two of these devices with opposite ratchet slips, this is so the wheel can work in both directions.

By keeping most of the balls weight on the descending side should allow a stronger spring shot as there is more rotary torque, what we need now is a good ball run that stops the balls from rolling back, this is done by using gravity operated doors being made as light as possible to allow the balls to flip them open and a small weight to close them trapping the balls, once past three or nine o’clock the door weight opens the door at the bottom of the wheel, the runs are all staggered equally going across from side to side, the runs would be open where they all meet at the centre, so the wheel would not have a straight through axle, more like a hub on each side of the wheel, there would be four to eight runs, flywheel weights are added to the wheel to keep up momentum, with 7 weights on the descending side and one being fired there should be good torque to reset the trigger spring, the trigger mechanism would have many triggers for rapid fire to match the wheels RPM, MT 13 is not needed unless you want to hide the wheel mechanism, the trigger mechanism can be frame mounted driven by cogs and chains off the main wheel. I will post some drawings if and when I get some time.

Regards Trevor

[Kirk]

Kirk : all you need to do is build or get somebody on the forum to build a 4 in wheel set on a 4 foot wheel, have somebody 4 foot up a ladder drop whatever weight you want onto whatever place you want, and see what happens. The wheel would need to be on an axle of course. As to hysterisiss in bicycle wheels, yes, there is some, not a load if you know how to true a wheel whilst keeping spoke tension high. A massive disk will also absorb a lot of energy, it is just less visible.

the idea is the massive disk absorb 100%. Think of it as a capacitor if that helps

[Fletcher]

Thank you greendoor - that is correct logic to test empirical evidence of OU.

I give up too Nick - I have better things to do - I'll wait for the experimental proof that can't be refuted.

To all - Momentumists think that all or the major portion of momentum can be transferred between moving masses - since momentum is conserved then they reason that m1v1 = m2v2 & when they do the energy math it shows a paper gain in Ke & corresponding increase in capacity to do Work - they also reason that since Work [Work Done] & Energy are in Joules & so is Pe & Ke, then that Joule increase can be used to raise the Potential of a system when gravity is the sole Input i.e. create OU conditions.

Taking the two horizontal ball masses colliding scenario which is representative of all momentum transfer problems - the reality is that the only time you can achieve an almost complete momentum transfer is when the two masses in collision are identical, & so are their energies.

If the driver is far more massive it continues forward whilst accelerating the driven, so the driver cannot be stopped in its tracks i.e. it can only transfer part of its momentum - funnily enough the Ke of the massive driver equals the Ke of the lesser driven mass after collision, at very best.

But, by all means show the experiments that prove the case but control & measure all inputs & outputs as has been said ad infinitum - IOW's be scientific, rigorous & methodical to get someone's attention.

[ovyyus]

Fletcher, the momentum of Kirk's dropped 1 lb weight can be completely transferred to the disk. At some impact radius the mass of the weight might be matched to the mass of the disk. The same might be said for the output end where the 1/4 lb weight is 'impedance matched' with the disk at some radius for complete transfer. As Kirk said, the disk acts as a transformer which decouples the input/output transaction. Of course that's not the whole problem.

[pequaide]

Greendoor;. You can calculate the kinetic energy of a wheel moving 3.25 RPS (determined by a tachometer), and you can video tape (1/30 of a second between frames) the projectile that it throws. You don’t need a perpetual motion machine to make energy. A joule is a unit of energy and it can be calculated by knowing only mass and velocity. We are not selling these machines we are developing them.

Nick drew an energy break even line and then he hit it. He did the throw so slow even I was surprised it worked, and he still hit the energy break even point. He doesn’t even make use of the principle by which the machines works and he hit (to him the unreachable) break even point anyway. Air resistance and friction would not let you get close to this point let alone reach it: if it were the true limit. Do the same experiment in a horizontal plane and you won’t have gravity eating up with your momentum. It is a momentum transfer experiment not a proof of the existence of gravity.

I did the experiments in the horizontal for years before I went to vertical wheels. These are momentum transferring experiments not proof of the existence of gravity; Atwood’s show us how gravity works.

Kirk: I am going to predict that the elasticity of the ball and contact surface of the wheel are like springs; and springs load and unload energy. The force in a spring increases as they are compressed; it is not a constant force like gravity. Momentum is conserved by springs but so is energy. I won’t elaborate because I want to get to work on my next wheel.

So if you get your large wheel together and you don’t get the results you expect: don’t despair. Just wrap the wheel with a weighted string and fling it; you should get the results you are looking for. Use a tachometer to determine the rpm of the wheel and video tape the missile.

I have stopped a 2800 gram wheel with a missile that has a mass of 70 grams; some wheels are mounted and some were in free fall. So what was your statement about not being able to stop large masses: Fletcher?

Fletcher quote: “the reality is that the only time you can achieve an almost complete momentum transfer is when the two masses in collision are identical,�

If you have been around this long and you are still making such false statements then why don’t you go away like you have promised a dozen times.

[ovyyus]

Nick drew an energy break even line and then he hit it...

Nick only hit it because his weights and measurements were incorrect. After correction there was no gain. Therefore your statement is false.