energy producing experiments

[Fletcher]

Pequaide, greendoor, broli, Nick .. anyone of YOU can build this sim in the real world - a little bit of friction shouldn't matter to much - it is a 100 kg trolley [momentum accumulator - you might use less mass] with 1 kg each driver & driven masses - it uses linear momentum only, as wubbly suggested so no angular momentum.

N.B.1. in sim world ropes & pulleys are massless.

N.B.2. the horizontal pulled mass momentum accumulator moves about 2 meters before coming to a halt [accelerates first meter, decelerates second meter] - the driver falls 1 meter, the driven lifts 1 meter.

N.B.3. I have adjusted the heights to zero them out at start so you can see the net changes in height & distances.

If there is ANY validity to pequaide's theory in the real world build the driven mass should lift higher than the driver falls [doesn't in sim world] & the heights can be calculated to give Pe gains.

[nicbordeaux]

OK Nic , I'll Bite -

Whats WDAFAD Syndrome ? : )

WDAFAD is an acronym for "Will do anything for a drink"

[nicbordeaux]

Thx for the sim Fletcher. Happens I totally and unreservedly agree that no energy expressed in terms of pe (heigh gain of sum total pe) can be gained from that type of Atwoods variant. In fact, the thing will perform pathetically if built to spec. I started this "pm" search by using weights on ropes over pulley from high beam. All sorts of variants, and no joy. Peq has his theory I am not qualified to discuss, Greendoor has his theories.

The 10 euro bet bet still stands, irrespective of whether the trick is in radial and timing or else, I expect to succeed. As you once said: the boffins can work out the energy equations afterwards :-)

Second bet 5 euros that if you don't tweak it after the event your sim software does not reproduce the behavior shown in the snippet posted ?

[pequaide]

You forgot the trebuchet wheel in your sim. Your sim is not my experiment, and would prove nothing.

[Fletcher]

We all agree then that no advantage there then !

Here's the next step pequaide.

Notice the Attwoods [angular momentum] - still a 1 kg mass falls 1 meter & the 100 kg flywheel only lifts a 1 kg mass 1 meter [actually slightly less after some losses] - so no gain in Pe in sim world.

That can only mean that you think the trebuchet action is OU because these 'long time heavy mass' transfer of momentum setups sure are not !

The trebuchet action should be easy enough to disprove an Energy gain !

[greendoor]

Fletcher - I just don't get what you are trying to do, other than fail. This experiment does not resemble Pequaide's ideas, and neither does it resemble my ideas.

Yes - well all agree this is a fail.

[greendoor]

At least this has highlighted where we are in complete disagreeance ...

greendoor, you missed the point of the example. It was trying to make you realize that the large values of momentum can be written off as completely irrelevant.

Do you genuinely believe that we can just write off large amounts of Momentum?? Really? What part of the established Conservation of Momentum Theory supports your view on this?

All you are doing is dropping one kilogram one meter. It doesn't matter how much momentum you accumulate along the way.

Since you seem to believe that we can just write off large amounts of Momentum, then I guess you probably believe this ...

I personally believe that Momentum cannot be written off. I believe it can be either squandered or converted into proportional amounts of Momentum. Either way, it is fully accounted for, not written off.

I believe that if we have large amounts of Momentum, we CAN perform useful work with it. IF we want to. We can also choose to completely or partially waste it all.

I find it difficult to comprehend why anyone would think that large amounts of Momentum are not useful ... If a bus was free wheeling down a very slight incline at slow speed - I would like not to be the meat in the sandwich when it rams into a brick wall at slow speed ...

The FACT that dropping one kilogram one meter CAN generate VARIABLE amounts of Momentum is, IMO, highly significant. We can manipulate this to create very high Momentum numbers. I think it was you who proved this yourself in a spreadsheet posted in this thread. If not, it's easy to do.

I also 100% agree that the Energy calculations remain static regardless of the variable Momentum numbers. That is Physics 101. No problem whatsoever. But I have a problem the moment you ASSUME that Momentum is effectively of no value and only Energy has value.

Momentum does not return the mass. It is energy that returns the mass.

I disagree. Think of a Pendulum swinging. At the peak of the swing, the Mass has zero velocity and maximum height. Obviously Momentum = Zero at this point, but Potential Energy is maximum. But at the bottom of the swing, Potential Energy is Zero - but the Mass has attained maximum Velocity. In other words - maximum Momentum.

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

Both Energy and Momentum are just numbers - calculated from the basic and undeniable Mass and Velocity.

So whatever "oomph" the Mass has that returns it in Height can be assigned both Energy and Mass numbers. It is no more one than the other.

I strongly believe that we can accurately define the exact amount of Momentum that would be required to return a Mass to a certain Height.

Because in reality - all we are really saying is that a certain Mass requires a certain Velocity to raise it a certain Height.

Crunch the numbers how you will - but it is perfectly valid to say that a certain amount of Momentum can return a Mass a certain Height in a certain Gravitational field.

OK - so let's look at a pendulum, and calculate how much Momentum is required to return it. This is basic physics - i don't have the patience to calculate this out for you, because pequaide and myself have provided numerous examples before. Do it for yourself, and it becomes more meaningful.

So - now we have a benchmark. Now look at how much Momentum CAN be accumulated in an Atwoods arrangement. This is a variable - so calculate this using a very large ratio of balanced mass to driver mass. You will see that the Momentum numbers that can be generated can be multiple times the amount of the benchmark.

The only problem is converting Heavy/Slow Momentum into Light/Fast Momentum.

This is not a difficult problem - and Pequaide has given numerous examples the complete transfer of Heavy/Slow Momentum into Light/Fast Momentum.

This is why I get frustrated when people refuse to put the TWO seperate processes together, and just look at either in isolation.

[pequaide]

Nick stops a 1.2 kilogram wheel (which could have been a block on dry ice) with 40 grams. Sim that using Newton’s Three Laws of Motion.

There is tremendous advantage in an Atwood’s because you get huge quantities of Newtonian momentum. But it is a two step process.

[nicbordeaux]

Quote pequaide : "Nick stops a 1.2 kilogram wheel (which could have been a block on dry ice) with 40 grams. Sim that using Newton’s Three Laws of Motion."

Actualy it stops the wheel only for a short time, which energy calculations might show are "under unity" compared to the long drive that wheel got from the 80 gramme driver weight. Too complex for a poor farmer like me.

This youtube sim is interesting : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3-nQEyBHxg

Because IMMO it is this type of behavior pattern we are dealing with, with a flung ball untethering from a wheel, whence a ellitipical orbit where the increasing available length nylon tether is playing "gravity". Or something like that...

[Fletcher]

Fletcher - I just don't get what you are trying to do, other than fail. This experiment does not resemble Pequaide's ideas, and neither does it resemble my ideas.

Yes - well all agree this is a fail.

What I'm attempting to do greendoor is relieve you of your confusion.

I am doing this in a deliberate slow stepped process showing Newton mechanics, momentum, Kinetic Energy & Work Done capacity & have been doing so for 69 pages of this thread, so has Wubbly - I can show you so you can see it with your own eyes but I cannot increase your understanding it seems.

I believe that if we have large amounts of Momentum, we CAN perform useful work with it. IF we want to. We can also choose to completely or partially waste it all.

The FACT that dropping one kilogram one meter CAN generate VARIABLE amounts of Momentum is, IMO, highly significant. We can manipulate this to create very high Momentum numbers. I think it was you [Wubbly] who proved this yourself in a spreadsheet posted in this thread. If not, it's easy to do.

I also 100% agree that the Energy calculations remain static regardless of the variable Momentum numbers. That is Physics 101. No problem whatsoever. But I have a problem the moment you ASSUME that Momentum is effectively of no value and only Energy has value.

Momentum does not return the mass. It is energy that returns the mass.

snip ... Now look at how much Momentum CAN be accumulated in an Atwoods arrangement. This is a variable - so calculate this using a very large ratio of balanced mass to driver mass. You will see that the Momentum numbers that can be generated can be multiple times the amount of the benchmark.


The only problem is converting Heavy/Slow Momentum into Light/Fast Momentum.


This is not a difficult problem.


And Pequaide has given numerous examples the complete transfer of Heavy/Slow Momentum into Light/Fast Momentum.

Nick stops a 1.2 kilogram wheel (which could have been a block on dry ice) with 40 grams. Sim that using Newton’s Three Laws of Motion.

There is tremendous advantage in an Atwood’s because you get huge quantities of Newtonian momentum. But it is a two step process.

greendoor .. this is the point lost on you - IT IS NOT EASY TO DO ! - there is no known mechanical device that can achieve what you desperately want to happen - it is impossible to gain Energy in the Newtonian world when using Energy of Position as your starting Energy.

Find a device that can increase Capacity to do Work & you will have proved your point, otherwise understand why you can't prove your point, for all your posturing !

AND pequiade has not shown a complete transfer of Heavy/Slow Momentum into Light/Fast Momentum - he has shown that Pe is changed to Ke & back again to Pe, with no gain in Energy.

N.B. a trebuchet starts with Pe [loaded in by biological Energy] - the flywheel swings converting Pe to Ke - the Ke of the large mass falling under gravity is transferred efficiently to a light mass which achieves a high velocity, but has no more Ke than the large mass [flywheel] gave it.

When the top of arc of flight of the thrown mass is calculated back to Pe there is NO gain in Pe from start conditions !

When the small mass on a trebuchet is swinging the rope/tether tension takes some of the energy - the inertia of the small mass traveling on an arc [before release] tensions the rope - the inertia of the small mass works against the momentum [inertia] of the flywheel, stopping it in pequiade's & Nick's experiments - the rope has absorbed energy by strain ! - there is NO Energy Gain when Pe's are measured & calculated !


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


The next step pequaide - I trust we can all see that there is no increase in Capacity to do Work using an Atwoods.

Obviously, an Atwoods doesn't change the the moment of inertia in any way that is useful - so the theory that the scientists can't correctly calculate Moment of Inertia & that is what leads to Energy gain is wrong !

If you don't believe the sim then take your Atwoods & do the pick-up mass experiment - at the point when the Atwoods reverses direction measure & calculate the Pe lost by the driver & the Pe gained by the driven mass to end ALL doubt.

[Wubbly]

If greendoor insists that momentum returns 1 kg up 1 meter, then let's calculate how much momentum is required to raise 1 kg 1 meter. A 1 kg mass at a height of 1 meter has 9.81 Joules of potential energy. Using basic physics 101 equations, you can calculate how much momentum is in various masses, all with 9.81 Joules of energy.

The attached image proves that the amount of momentum required to raise 1 kg 1 meter is variable.

In each case, the amount of momentum required to raise 1 kg 1 meter is greater than the amount of momentum that a 1 kg mass can cause to accumulate in another mass (as shown in a previous example in this thread).

Freefall, where a 1 kg mass is not causing momentum accumulation in a second mass, is the best case scenario, where it accumulates just enough momentum to return itself.

[nicbordeaux]

A few pages back I asked about or suggested a glancing bounce off a inclined plank. Yesterday evening, great surprise, found that Wikipedia states that COR can be > 1 in some oblique bounce scenarii.

Some months back, Jim confirmed that an object departing from a rotating wheel accelerated.

A mass on the end of a teher will have a constrained orbit. The tether length can be mechanically adjusted at a given point of travel.

Just bouncing some ideas around, ya know ?

[pequaide]

The minimum quantity of momentum needed to raise one kilogram one meter is 4.429 units. This is freefall or the down swing velocity of a pendulum. A 100 to 1 Atwood’s will produce 10 times this much momentum, and if you leave the overbalanced mass (accelerating mass) attached to the Atwood’s then the accelerating mass becomes the decelerating mass and it will need the same amount of momentum to lift it. But you do not leave it attached; you quickly transfer all the momentum to the accelerating mass and throw it.

You throw it from the Atwood’s.

You fling it from the Atwood’s.

You release it from the Atwood’s.

The Atwood’s is the same as a wheel. You can fling things from it or throw things from it. You can stop the wheel or Atwood’s by transferring all the motion to the thrown object.

Smokin lamas transfers all the motion to the pumpkin and the wheel stops.

So if a 100 to 1 Atwood’s has 44.29 units of momentum and it only takes 4.429 units to cycle, then what is lacking other than a throw.

[FunWithGravity2]

I must be confused,

The pumkin did not accelerate the llama, the guy pedaling his a$$ off for 2 minutes did, do you mean to say that by dropping a pumpkin to accelerate the wheel i will get the same effect ?

Dave

[Wubbly]

pequaide,
The previous spreadsheet showed that if you are transferring the momentum out of a 100 kg mass, then the 100 kg mass requires 44.29 [kg m/s] units of momentum to raise 1 kg 1 meter. We obviously have a fundamental disagreement on this point.

Did you somehow miss the experiments here. The background mass is heavier than the flung mass and if you carefully observe the trajectory of the flung mass from the best scenarios, it nicely traces out a beautiful parabola as it reaches it's highest point. If the tether was cut, it would go no higher.