Manipulating Momentum

[greendoor]

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!

Trevor - this is just wrong. What you describe is simply a damped oscillation. Adding up all the positive amplitudes is just crazy and meaningless. You would have to add up all the negative amplitudes as well, and then you would find out that the Work done cannot exceed the original Energy input.

Work is defined as Force x Displacement. Displacement is the total distance moved from start to finish. NOT the total distance traveled over the path, but the end result: mass moved from A to B.

An oscillating system - such as a pendulum or a vibrating string - can look like an impressive display of energy, but it's really just a display of energy being conserved while slowly dissipating. If you attempt to take any energy out of that system, it quickly becomes apparant that there is no more energy than what you originally put into it.

[pequaide]

Oh yes he kept giving smaller and smaller masses for the thrown mass, and then I think he said he wasn’t sure how much he threw. Actually I liked his first throws best; where he was damaging his neighbor’s property.

Do you agree that Nick's wheel stopped (it actually went backwards)? Fletcher did not see that experiment either I guess.

[ovyyus]

Pequaide, I also liked Nick's first throws best. What a pity they showed no gain after proper measurement of the dropped and thrown mass.

In Nick's first video demonstration Fletcher saw what you saw, what I saw, what Wubbly saw, etc. But the anomaly was resolved after all weights were accurately measured. Perhaps you missed that part of the experiment? It certainly doesn't help that Nick deleted the relevant topics on his private forum in a fit of dispair. Tsk, tsk.

I find it strange that you seem happy to measure how far or how high or how fast your output mass is thrown, yet you seem shy when it comes to measuring input. Attacking Fletcher will not deflect attention from this fundamental failing.

[Kirk]

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.

If you can fire a rifle and ignore the enormous ke for the momentum lovetap from the butt of the rifle I dont think you are looking at this at all.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

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!

Trevor - this is just wrong. What you describe is simply a damped oscillation. Adding up all the positive amplitudes is just crazy and meaningless. You would have to add up all the negative amplitudes as well, and then you would find out that the Work done cannot exceed the original Energy input.

Work is defined as Force x Displacement. Displacement is the total distance moved from start to finish. NOT the total distance traveled over the path, but the end result: mass moved from A to B.

An oscillating system - such as a pendulum or a vibrating string - can look like an impressive display of energy, but it's really just a display of energy being conserved while slowly dissipating. If you attempt to take any energy out of that system, it quickly becomes apparant that there is no more energy than what you originally put into it.

the fact is that there is more work done against gravity than my lifting of the weight therefore gravity is doing more work than I did, as gravity is doing work to stop it from swinging at the same time there is friction losses so a percentage of the work done by gravity to stop the swing has been converted into nonconservative forces, so gravity cannot conserve all of its input, as soon as I let go of the pendulum gravity took over so any friction loss from then on was due to the work from gravity, not forgetting that as I lifted the pendulum gravity was working against me as much as I was working against gravity so that work was equal.

You know you missed me, regards Trevor

[ovyyus]

Trevor, please start another thread called 'complete nonsense'.

[ovyyus]

If you can fire a rifle and ignore the enormous ke for the momentum lovetap from the butt of the rifle I dont think you are looking at this at all.

To be fair, if the rifle was attached to a 10 ton block of concrete then the 'momentum lovetap' might not even be perceived. Still it proves nothing.

[FunWithGravity2]

Do you agree that Nick's wheel stopped (it actually went backwards)? Fletcher did not see that experiment either I guess.

If you spent more time trying to prove Fletcher wrong as opposed to "telling" him he's wrong, you might actually make some progress. Fletchers demand for proof is the the most valuable input most here will ever get. Without the voice of reason many here will probably spend the rest of their lives thinking super balls are OU and claiming they can't prove it because they are short of funds.

I think Fletcher is a highly valuable voice of reason here. Maybe some should stop manifesting their own dissapointment with themselves as resentment towards Fletcher, or anyone else who tries to help then figure out what is really required to achieve the goal of OU. Throwing pumpkins and shooting guns is a far cry from a closed system in a continual loop.


Thank you Fletcher, I have learned alot from you. Although sometimes it takes me awhile to get it :) Some just never will.


Dave

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Trevor, please start another thread called 'complete nonsense'.

Thanks bill I will, I think I will call it the way I see it, and not how Bill will see it : ), there is no sense in arguing is there, so if I lift a pendulum then gravity does no work against my lift, that nice to know I will start using one ton pendulum then using your physics they will not weigh much!

Regards Trevor

[Fletcher]

sigh .. dp

[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.

Greendoor's succinct post from the previous page is worth reviewing again & committing to memory for anybody attempting to show mechanical OU potential or argue the case for mechanical energy gain.

P.S. - pequiade - it helps to be armed with all the facts as you've been repeatably pointed too re Nick's experiments, & which you disregard at each reincarnation.


-fletcher : one who attaches feathers to arrows so they fly straight & true ;7)

[pequaide]

I mount wheels in a vertical plane and then I wrap string around them and suspend a known mass from the string. The known mass exerts a known force. The acceleration of the wheel then gives you the rotational inertia of the wheel by use of F = ma. You then know the exact momentum of the wheel if you know the rotations per minute. I then compare the throw with that estimated quantity of momentum.

The advantage is that there are only two math formulas that can be applied concerning the motion of the missile (conservation of mv or conservation of 1/2mv²). So the thrown missile can be moving at say 10 m/sec or only 3.16 m/sec. And the difference between the two formulas is even worse than that: because the distance the missile can travel up is the square of velocity. Can the missile go up 5 meters or can it only rise .5 meters? So determining which of the two conservation formulas is correct seems almost impossible to miss.

But if Fletcher or anyone is not willing to admit or see that Nick’s wheel stopped or that Wubbly’s wheel stopped, then you should go harass someone else because you are not paying attention, or telling the true; I am not sure which. These two wheels are much more massive than the missile that stopped them and if you can’t see it then do go start another thread so you don’t waste space here with your nonsense. I think Kirk is taking an honest shot at it, and will probably succeed with his wheel if you are not successful at discouraging him.

[Kirk]

If you can fire a rifle and ignore the enormous ke for the momentum lovetap from the butt of the rifle I dont think you are looking at this at all.

To be fair, if the rifle was attached to a 10 ton block of concrete then the 'momentum lovetap' might not even be perceived. Still it proves nothing.

sure it does. That momentum velocity transformation produced that enormous ke. The momentum in the butt of the rifle is balanced by he momentum out of the barrel. Since that v is a result of a much smaller mass the ke grows to a very large value. That ke once it becomes potential energy now becomes something you can use.
I dont understand why this is so difficult to see.

[Fletcher]

dp

[Fletcher]

p. - Nick's flung mass stopped his more massive wheel [including driver mass] as it did for your experiments - no one ever denied that wasn't the case.

What you fail to appreciate or see in experiments where a driver mass starts the wheel rotating [instead of hand spinning] giving it momentum, is that the flung mass stretches its tether because of Cp's [mass & inertia] - this causes an enormous tension or strain force in the molecules of the tether - this dissipates energy into increasing the internal Pe & Ke of the atoms in the tether which is slowly released over time as heat bringing it back to normality [thermodynamic laws] - this has been explained to you.

What you will never see is a rise in Pe of the system that would be proof of a gain in usable mechanical energy that could potentially reset the arrangement to self sustain itself - in fact it falls short due to frictions which also dissipate energy & is therefore a sub-OU demonstration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kirk certainly is taking a shot at it, literally - it remains to see whether he will be successful - that will depend on whether his logic & deductions are sound or not - I will not discourage him anymore than anyone else but I do have a different point of view to him - experiments will prove either way.

EDIT:

Sure it does. That momentum velocity transformation produced that enormous ke. The momentum in the butt of the rifle is balanced by he momentum out of the barrel. Since that v is a result of a much smaller mass the ke grows to a very large value. That ke once it becomes potential energy now becomes something you can use.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to see.

Kirk .. complete the loop to USE IT then - use the high Ke from the speeding bullet fired from a rifle suspended on a pendulum rod to hit a second ballistic pendulum of the same mass as the rifle - complete the thought process - will the ballistic pendulum swing up & gain Pe equivalent to the Ke of the bullet plus highest Pe of swinging rifle ? - if Pe is greater you have created an OU model.

You will argue that deformation of materials doesn't allow full energy & momentum transfer & that's why there is no apparent gain in pendulum Pe to match Ke of bullet [not counting losses] - this is exactly what we're talking about [deformation losses is internal energy losses the same as the tether strain example] - you have to find a way to maximize the transfer to your advantage & so far no one has been able to demonstrate a usable mechanical energy gain - neither Nick nor pequaide for example.