i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
Moderator: scott
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
Funny thing about that atwoods simulation... If you leave the pulley mass as 2kg, the acceleration is equal. If you then remove friction, and take into account pulley size, the right is slower than the left.
So, as far as this sim is concerned, It appears the rotational force applied to the pulley isn't just f x r, but has an inertial component as well.
If you think about the drive mass by itself in freefall, its inertia doesn't slow it down at all... the force is a function of the mass, but the slower the drive mass accelerates the pulley, the more apparent is the inertia of the drive mass?
I know this isn't all that important, but it may be a factor affecting the real world build.
For instance, below the mass on the RHS is balanced by either mass on the LHS, but the inertia of the RHS is much more than the left. What makes sense, is that a balanced wheel will have inertia of X, and a drive of Z.... because the drive weight doesn't affect the inertia (resistance to rotation). So, which is the drive, and which is the balanced, or is it a mathematical combination of both?
One thing is for sure.... Physics must be a woman: It is beautiful and complicated, and just when you think you have it figured out, you find you are sleeping outside with the dog.
So, as far as this sim is concerned, It appears the rotational force applied to the pulley isn't just f x r, but has an inertial component as well.
If you think about the drive mass by itself in freefall, its inertia doesn't slow it down at all... the force is a function of the mass, but the slower the drive mass accelerates the pulley, the more apparent is the inertia of the drive mass?
I know this isn't all that important, but it may be a factor affecting the real world build.
For instance, below the mass on the RHS is balanced by either mass on the LHS, but the inertia of the RHS is much more than the left. What makes sense, is that a balanced wheel will have inertia of X, and a drive of Z.... because the drive weight doesn't affect the inertia (resistance to rotation). So, which is the drive, and which is the balanced, or is it a mathematical combination of both?
One thing is for sure.... Physics must be a woman: It is beautiful and complicated, and just when you think you have it figured out, you find you are sleeping outside with the dog.
- Attachments
-
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
The mass of a free falling object does slow it down. It slows it down to 9.81 m/sec/sec. If it were half as massive it would accelerate at 19.62 m/sec/sec.
The drive mass is being accelerated so it will be part of the equation. Nothing is accelerated for free: F = ma, if you have 'a' acceleration then you must apply a force 'F' to the inertia 'm'.
I can envision referring to a half mass object at 2r having a moment of inertia of 1 because you are forcing it to move twice as fast. Inertia is the resistance to motion and you are forcing it to move twice as fast. But I don't want to fight about it. Actually you are changing the acceleration not the inertia, but it is time to move on.
This is off subject, but worth watching. I wrapped the 18 inch wheel more than one time around with an overly heavy mass (BB bag). I spun the wheel and released the bag. As it unwound the BB bag stopped the wheel and reversed its direction. It looked like it almost came back up to speed but in the opposite direction, before the tether and bag were released.
The drive mass is being accelerated so it will be part of the equation. Nothing is accelerated for free: F = ma, if you have 'a' acceleration then you must apply a force 'F' to the inertia 'm'.
I can envision referring to a half mass object at 2r having a moment of inertia of 1 because you are forcing it to move twice as fast. Inertia is the resistance to motion and you are forcing it to move twice as fast. But I don't want to fight about it. Actually you are changing the acceleration not the inertia, but it is time to move on.
This is off subject, but worth watching. I wrapped the 18 inch wheel more than one time around with an overly heavy mass (BB bag). I spun the wheel and released the bag. As it unwound the BB bag stopped the wheel and reversed its direction. It looked like it almost came back up to speed but in the opposite direction, before the tether and bag were released.
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
I have done the same in reverse, but letting the mass accelerate the atwoods pulley, then at the bottom the pulley spools the mass back up, obviously not to its original height.
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
Firstly a quick vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIkrKdaKEXw
In this vid, the weight is equal, and at a radius ratio of 2:1. The wheel supporting the weights are of minimum mass.
I have seen a similar simulation elsewhere before, and suspect the other person fell into the same trap I did. Initially, I felt that accelerating a wheel at low inertia would give us a large KE, then letting the weights expand in a controlled fashion to the perimeter of the wheel would give a greater KE vs input power. I was wrong.
If I were to apply the same force to both these wheels through a spooled pulley and weight, like we have done with the other experiments, the weight would fall 4x as far on the low inertia wheel, hence the 4x KE. This is no surprise, as according to COE, PE lost = KE gained.
So, and I feel, that When people mention force x time as a tool to use to attain "free energy" they are not taking into account the distance factor, as work done is force x distance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIkrKdaKEXw
In this vid, the weight is equal, and at a radius ratio of 2:1. The wheel supporting the weights are of minimum mass.
I have seen a similar simulation elsewhere before, and suspect the other person fell into the same trap I did. Initially, I felt that accelerating a wheel at low inertia would give us a large KE, then letting the weights expand in a controlled fashion to the perimeter of the wheel would give a greater KE vs input power. I was wrong.
If I were to apply the same force to both these wheels through a spooled pulley and weight, like we have done with the other experiments, the weight would fall 4x as far on the low inertia wheel, hence the 4x KE. This is no surprise, as according to COE, PE lost = KE gained.
So, and I feel, that When people mention force x time as a tool to use to attain "free energy" they are not taking into account the distance factor, as work done is force x distance.
- Attachments
-
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
Acceleration is a change in velocity over a period of time (a = v/t). Therefore F = ma is also F = m * v / t. If you multiply both sides by t you get Ft = mv. Ft is momentum not energy.
I have transferred all the motion of large masses to smaller masses; for example 10 kilograms to 500 grams. Some times I use high quality bearings sometimes I use no bearings. I have done it with heavy wheels and with the mass starting in linear motion. I have transferred the motion vertically and horizontally. All my experiments prove that the Law of Conservation of Momentum holds true in all situations.
Ten kilograms moving one meter per second has 10 units of momentum. 500 grams has ten units of momentum when it is moving 20 m/sec.
Ten kilograms moving one meter per second has 5 joules of energy. 500 grams moving 20 m/sec has 100 joules of energy.
The Atwood's is about how you make momentum, what you do with the momentum is step two.
I have transferred all the motion of large masses to smaller masses; for example 10 kilograms to 500 grams. Some times I use high quality bearings sometimes I use no bearings. I have done it with heavy wheels and with the mass starting in linear motion. I have transferred the motion vertically and horizontally. All my experiments prove that the Law of Conservation of Momentum holds true in all situations.
Ten kilograms moving one meter per second has 10 units of momentum. 500 grams has ten units of momentum when it is moving 20 m/sec.
Ten kilograms moving one meter per second has 5 joules of energy. 500 grams moving 20 m/sec has 100 joules of energy.
The Atwood's is about how you make momentum, what you do with the momentum is step two.
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
The atwoods proves Conservation of energy when accelerating a smaller mass at different radii.
As far as transferring momentum to a smaller mass goes, It seems there are always other factors that ensure energy is conserved. Just because you stop a large rotating mass with a smaller one, doesn't mean all momentum has been transferred. It just means that there is an equilibrium of forces at play.
If you like Peq, I will be happy to do any of your experiments with a measured input, and a measured output. Is there any particular one where you feel you have gained the most energy?
Add: IMO Wubblys flinger vid seemed very conclusive, and I feel there is no difference as far as energy goes in a vertical flinger vs horizontal cylinder and spheres, as the actions are very much the same.
As far as transferring momentum to a smaller mass goes, It seems there are always other factors that ensure energy is conserved. Just because you stop a large rotating mass with a smaller one, doesn't mean all momentum has been transferred. It just means that there is an equilibrium of forces at play.
If you like Peq, I will be happy to do any of your experiments with a measured input, and a measured output. Is there any particular one where you feel you have gained the most energy?
Add: IMO Wubblys flinger vid seemed very conclusive, and I feel there is no difference as far as energy goes in a vertical flinger vs horizontal cylinder and spheres, as the actions are very much the same.
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
W was told he flung too slow but you both hold on to those results because you like them.
There is a world of difference between horizontal and vertical, vertical fights the system especially when you go to slow. But again; I think you will get the results you like.
The Atwood's is used to prove F = ma which is the Law of Conservation of Momentum.
And apparently you don't even believe in the conservation of momentum. So we might as well part ways. Do what you like, and you will find what you like.
There is a world of difference between horizontal and vertical, vertical fights the system especially when you go to slow. But again; I think you will get the results you like.
The Atwood's is used to prove F = ma which is the Law of Conservation of Momentum.
And apparently you don't even believe in the conservation of momentum. So we might as well part ways. Do what you like, and you will find what you like.
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
LOL!!!
I believe in conservation of energy first, and conservation of momentum second. Conservation of energy means that you have to take into account all forms of energy.
Conservation of momentum means you have to take into consideration all aspects in the system, including their start and finish inertia and velocities.
The only difference between flinging horizontal and vertical is vertical provides a way to measure the velocities of flung masses. Trajectories are also a well trodden path, so you can calculate the initial velocity of any throw, given starting height, maximum height and impact distance.
Peq, have you made a flinger with a measurable and repeatable input, that has an increase in PE, or KE? If so, please provide details, and I will attempt to recreate. You can't dismiss everything just because it proves your base theory incorrect. It is entirely possible, but not probable, that there may be a loophole in the laws of thermodynamics that we may be able to take advantage of, and I am willing to explore any probable methods that you think you have. I like to keep an open mind, but I also like to acknowledge provable facts, even if that means I am sometimes proved wrong in my views.
Edit: The first thing I did, when Kirk first proposed his mechanism, was to investigate the principle and determine if it was probable, because according to his maths, there is a considerable gain in energy. And if you think you have a gain in energy, then I will explore that as well if you like.
I believe in conservation of energy first, and conservation of momentum second. Conservation of energy means that you have to take into account all forms of energy.
Conservation of momentum means you have to take into consideration all aspects in the system, including their start and finish inertia and velocities.
The only difference between flinging horizontal and vertical is vertical provides a way to measure the velocities of flung masses. Trajectories are also a well trodden path, so you can calculate the initial velocity of any throw, given starting height, maximum height and impact distance.
Peq, have you made a flinger with a measurable and repeatable input, that has an increase in PE, or KE? If so, please provide details, and I will attempt to recreate. You can't dismiss everything just because it proves your base theory incorrect. It is entirely possible, but not probable, that there may be a loophole in the laws of thermodynamics that we may be able to take advantage of, and I am willing to explore any probable methods that you think you have. I like to keep an open mind, but I also like to acknowledge provable facts, even if that means I am sometimes proved wrong in my views.
Edit: The first thing I did, when Kirk first proposed his mechanism, was to investigate the principle and determine if it was probable, because according to his maths, there is a considerable gain in energy. And if you think you have a gain in energy, then I will explore that as well if you like.
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
You guys invent forms of energy when your formula does not work. heat
I mechanically threw at 3.25 rps and video taped large energy increases. And used strobe light and photo gates etc.
So you say horizontal and vertical are the same. Well if you already know everything then you don't need me to answer questions. You think you are open minded but you are closed. You will see what you have already predetermined no mater what experiment you do. Take your pick.
I mechanically threw at 3.25 rps and video taped large energy increases. And used strobe light and photo gates etc.
So you say horizontal and vertical are the same. Well if you already know everything then you don't need me to answer questions. You think you are open minded but you are closed. You will see what you have already predetermined no mater what experiment you do. Take your pick.
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
Excellent, can you be more specific? IE size and weight/weight distribution of flywheel, mass of thrown object, height/distance of thrown object, etc?I mechanically threw at 3.25 rps and video taped large energy increases
Add: Peq, I want you to be right, because that would mean a conclusive solution for the energy gain in Besslers wheel. All I need now is some sort of proof.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
Re: re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
Well, it could be worse. Like the wife is outside w/ the dawg ?Tarsier79 wrote:
One thing is for sure.... Physics must be a woman: It is beautiful and complicated, and just when you think you have it figured out, you find you are sleeping outside with the dog.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
Re: re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
Well, it could be worse. Like the wife is outside w/ the dawg ?Tarsier79 wrote:
One thing is for sure.... Physics must be a woman: It is beautiful and complicated, and just when you think you have it figured out, you find you are sleeping outside with the dog.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
pequaide wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwCZhoMFoFU
pequaide, sometimes I wonder if you have learned anything in the last 2 years, or maybe you just enjoy goofing on forum members.
.
Yes, we know. And you transferred the energy. We have also done this experiment and discovered no extra energy.pequaide wrote:I have transferred all the motion of large masses to smaller masses...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwCZhoMFoFU
lol. I see you are still treating all of your momentum as linear momentum, even though it is rotating around a central point. You are inventing your own private definition of linear momentum to ignore the direction. You are then giving all of that 'momentum' to a smaller mass and ignoring the radius change, and ignoring the direction (again with your own, private, reinvented definition of momentum). This is just one of the reasons why you are getting a mathematical energy gain. You are doing math with something that is not momentum. And since you don't believe angular momentum applies in the lab, there's no point in even going there with you.pequaide wrote:Ten kilograms moving one meter per second has 10 units of momentum. 500 grams has ten units of momentum when it is moving 20 m/sec. Ten kilograms moving one meter per second has 5 joules of energy. 500 grams moving 20 m/sec has 100 joules of energy
Unfortunately the momentum doesn't lead to any extra energy as shown in the experiments in the Atwoods Analysis Thread.pequaide wrote:The Atwood's is about how you make momentum, what you do with the momentum is step two
pequaide, sometimes I wonder if you have learned anything in the last 2 years, or maybe you just enjoy goofing on forum members.
.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: i = mrr vs i=mr experiment
Tarsier79,
I'm not sure why the thread deviated into an Atwoods discussion. Your first experiment in this thread (which is not an Atwoods) was more interesting than the Atwoods. The first experiment clearly showed that the mr relationship does not represent the mass-like quantity in a rotating system. It was crude, but good enough to make its point.
I'm not sure why the thread deviated into an Atwoods discussion. Your first experiment in this thread (which is not an Atwoods) was more interesting than the Atwoods. The first experiment clearly showed that the mr relationship does not represent the mass-like quantity in a rotating system. It was crude, but good enough to make its point.