Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit

[Kirk]

the frame of reference is key. Relative to what is the question. Studying an "equivalent" may give insight.

ke=1/2 mv2

charge on a capacitor = 1/2 cv2

[Grimer]

... nor change the height of the ground, ...

We can change the height of the ground.

The 360° pendulum is a good example of a changing height of ground. At 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock the pendulum bob is sitting on the ground. At 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock the bob is in freefall and there is no ground reaction.

The remarkable thing about the 360° pendulum is how close it takes you to solving the problem of harnessing gravity as a continuous rotary motion with a stationary centre of rotation.

[pequaide]

The angular momentum theory will give you 20 m/sec instead of 400 m/sec, just like KE. But 20 m/sec (a boy could throw that fast, and you could let the mass come back and hit the craft) is obviously false. And 20 m/sec makes Newton's F =ma false as well. There are many false ideas developed after Newton (and Bessler); to hide the ease of making free energy.

$20 and you could find out.

[Grimer]

... nor change the height of the ground, ...

We can change the height of the ground.

The 360° pendulum is a good example of a changing height of ground. At 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock the pendulum bob is sitting on the ground. At 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock the bob is in freefall and there is no ground reaction.

The remarkable thing about the 360° pendulum is how close it takes you to solving the problem of harnessing gravity as a continuous rotary motion with a stationary centre of rotation.

One of the most remarkable things I find about about the Kiiking swing (in effect a 360° pendulum) is the fact that irrespective of swing diameter the rider is only subjected to a maximum of 4G at the nadir.

I share John Collins belief that the solution to harnessing Newtonian Gravity will come through manipulation of this device.

[Grimer]

I found this letter from my son useful in understanding the way that the Newtonian Gravitation earth is relative and movable.

"Hi Dad,

It was when I was about 15. Stephen Lovatt was helping me with my Physics homework. We were having a discussion about
voltages (potential differences). I was talking about the voltage in relation to earth and he was trying to make the point that earth was relative.

I was associating the earth with the voltage of the earth. I said the earth was 0v and he tried to make the point that
the 0v was not 0v in absolute, it was only relative. I think the analogy he used was (of all things) a petunia pot. He talked about the voltage of something in relation to a petunia pot (i.e. different objects can have different potentials in relation to each other).

A pidgeon sitting on a high-voltage transmission line has a potential of 400KV but as long as it does not make a circuit with the ground it is perfectly safe as it does not have the capacitance to absorb the current required to kill it. I suppose capacitance comes into the whole argument as well. Presumably when the pidgeon flies from the cable to the ground it would discharge.

Ben"

[pequaide]

The Dawn Mission yo-yo is a reversible reaction: the small masses will give their motion back to the rocket. But how can 20 units of momentum cause 400 units.

Or: start with 1 kilogram moving one meter per second on the end of 100r tethers. The tether is at 90° (to tangent) to a 100 kilogram rocket shell (1r) at rest.  Your use of the Angular Momentum theory states that at the end of the interaction the 100 kilogram rocket shell will be moving one meter per second around the arc of the circle. That is the theory mvr 100kg *1m/sec * 1r = 1kg * 1 m/sec * 100r. Really? can: one unit of linear momentum yields 100 units of linear momentum; 100 kg * 1 m/sec!

The analyst got the reason for the backward spin wrong. The 3 rpm backward spin had nothing to do with releasing the cord. The excuse was kind of silly; “cutting a cord gives you force�?

The Dawn Mission space craft rotates backwards at 3RPM because the spin is stopped before the tether reaches 90°. The rocket shell is always accelerating in the opposite direction of the spin before 90°; if the rocket stops spinning before the tether is at 90° the rocket will spin backwards.  If they would have left the tether attached, after 90°, the rocket would have stopped again and then started forward. I have hours of video tapes showing this event; along with the speeds.

[ME]

one video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCtNqD-jlPE
a DIY project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtiWEqzDhxw

Nasa technical reports:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk ... ction|NACA

[Grimer]

Nice videos.

I particularly liked the "I did it!" one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtiWEqzDhxw

I shows that all you need for scientific research is imagination.

[pequaide]

You are correct Grimer:you don't need much.

Did you notice that on the first run he wound the tennis balls the wrong direction. He wound them clockwise from the point of attachment and spun clockwise. On the second run he wound them counter-clockwise and spun clockwise. The wrong wrap direction is always good for a “what in the world� moment in the lab. But even this is interesting; it confirms a tangent travel for the spheres if unrestrained. And in the wrong wrap the speed of the balls remains the same as the speed of the rim.

The tennis balls have the advantage of not taking things out in the lab; but the air resistance would be high.

What do you think the relative masses are between the rim and the balls. And note the length of the tether.

I agree it is a very awesome experiment. Also neat; are the sounding rockets.

[MrVibrating]

The problem i'm now focused on is tranfering energy between frames, without altering their respective net momentums. So far i've been considering inertial transfers, but that runs up against the net momentum transfer problem - ie. one system's net momentum slows down while the other's accelerates. Yet the very form of the prospective gain is locked up in the KE's of the masses, hence 'tapping' it inevitably trades the system's net momentums. It's right there - the potential gains are incontrovertible and large... but i'm still approaching it from the wrong angle, it seems.

I keep coming back to the same image - i want to drop a box, and inside that falling box i want to trigger some preset workload, which will be boosted by being performed while falling (and thus covering a greater overall displacement), but which in its own frame is doing the same amount of work wether its's moving or stationary. Furthermore i want the box to land with exactly the same amount of KE and momementum regardless of whether the internal mechanism is triggered or not (otherwise we're using GPE, when ideally, lifting and dropping the box should be a zero-sum game).

I also keep thinking of springs, as alternative workloads to moving masses, and hence avoiding altering the falling system's net momentum. But not sure how they might be used yet.

The scisorjack N3 break seems useless if you can't tap off the boosted KE without eating the system's net momentum..

[MrVibrating]

the frame of reference is key. Relative to what is the question. Studying an "equivalent" may give insight.

ke=1/2 mv2

charge on a capacitor = 1/2 cv2

It's static frames for both, really.. whether mechanical or EM - their effective dimensions remaining force times displacement.

Electrons or charges on parallel vectors induce no EMF, as masses on parallel vectors experience no momentum. Current, as mechanical motion, is relative.

One aspect of EM systems that might prove useful is the inertial independence of the magnetic field's frame of reference, but i've yet to think of a crossover mechanical exploit.

The basic point - that a 1m/s acceleration performed within a system moving at 10m/s is equivalent to an acceleration from 10m/s to 11m/s from the stationary frame (and so has higher energy due to the higher-squaring product of velocity for a given mass) - doesn't seem equally applicable to EM fields... ie. if you watch me accelerate a charge via an EMF (voltage) aboard a passing train, then the effective displacement over which the field was applied from your perspective - and thus its energy - is equal, as the field is actually no more local to the magnetic source in my FoR than it is to yours.. The magnetic field's FoR being that of the vacuum.

But perhaps this just opens another door, rather than closing one.. too many divergent threads here to follow up all at once, but at least it's keeping me occupied..

[MrVibrating]

... nor change the height of the ground, ...

We can change the height of the ground.

LOL well obviously, and we can locally vary gravity too (by changing the density of the ground beneath us). But doing any of these things for free, mid-interaction would be difficulty i'm refering to.

The 360° pendulum is a good example of a changing height of ground. At 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock the pendulum bob is sitting on the ground. At 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock the bob is in freefall and there is no ground reaction.

The remarkable thing about the 360° pendulum is how close it takes you to solving the problem of harnessing gravity as a continuous rotary motion with a stationary centre of rotation.

Even if they gave cheap cigars for getting close, i've already got a fridge full of 'em. I want the classy stogies, rolled on the thighs of virgins. Or at least, well above the knee. But below the armpit (unlike the ones i'm smoking now).

[MrVibrating]

I found this letter from my son useful in understanding the way that the Newtonian Gravitation earth is relative and movable.

"Hi Dad,

It was when I was about 15. Stephen Lovatt was helping me with my Physics homework. We were having a discussion about
voltages (potential differences). I was talking about the voltage in relation to earth and he was trying to make the point that earth was relative.

I was associating the earth with the voltage of the earth. I said the earth was 0v and he tried to make the point that
the 0v was not 0v in absolute, it was only relative. I think the analogy he used was (of all things) a petunia pot. He talked about the voltage of something in relation to a petunia pot (i.e. different objects can have different potentials in relation to each other).

A pidgeon sitting on a high-voltage transmission line has a potential of 400KV but as long as it does not make a circuit with the ground it is perfectly safe as it does not have the capacitance to absorb the current required to kill it. I suppose capacitance comes into the whole argument as well. Presumably when the pidgeon flies from the cable to the ground it would discharge.

Ben"

Nice analogy.

The issue i'm now facing is how to bag relativistic energy differences between frames, yet without altering the net momentums of the respective frames themselves (and thus destroying the potential gradient)...

It seems that only an effective N3 break can facilitate this.. the non-local frame of the magnetic field may or may not be of assistance here, but either way if Bessler managed without it then presumably so can we..

[MrVibrating]

@pequaide

I'm sorry i'm still not really seeing the relevency of the yo-yo despin device to the thread topic - here, momentum conversion is incidental to energy considerations as i'm specifically looking at the reasons why KE squares, for potential exploits.

The fact that KE and P can diverge for a given value of P may nonetheless be useful - for example, in the previous scissorjack examples the masses on each end of the jack were equal, and hence so were the divisions of KE and P (at least, from within the jack's FoR).

But if one were substantially smaller - say, that of a small mass being accelerated by a jack against the MoI of a larger wheel, then the division of P remains equitable while the division of KE does not. Thus the rest frames of the KE and P are different to each other, relative to that of the static frame... IOW, might that KE be re-converted into a lower-energy but higher-momentum angular displacement compared to that of the wheel's counter-momentum from the initial acceleration? This could result in a net rise in system momentum for a constant PE to KE..

IOW, i'm wondering if shuffling the share of momentum between M and V in a sequence of KE conversions could vary the net KE or momentum... Dunno tho, sounds too easy, and i'd have to work through examples to arrive at a firm answer..

Simply converting angular to linear momentum however seems trivial, so i'm probably not following your train of thought properly.. again, though a net change in a system's momentum changes its energy, momentum is usually conserved; whereas the balance in net energy is not directly reciprocal to momentum, only representing a range of possible values. IOW an asymmetric distribution of KE doesn't normally cause an asymmetric balance of momentum, but an asymmetric momemtum exchange would cause an energy asymmetry. So momentum gains are a closed-off avenue unless N3 symmetry can be worked around, while energy asymmetries are off-limits unless we have a momentum asymmetry...

The only way out of the loop is an effective N3 exception..

[Grimer]

@pequaide

I'm sorry i'm still not really seeing the relevance of the yo-yo despin device to the thread topic - ...

The yo-yo is extremely relevant. In fact I cannot imagine a device which is more relevant to the transduction of NG to EG. ... :-)

If you lift the string as the yo-yo is falling then you have the rotating wheel stationary - basically a Bessler wheel.

How do we lift the string. Don't laugh. We use a hydrogen balloon "spring".

Why does a hydrogen balloon rise up?

Basically because its ENERGY DENSITY is greater than that of the surrounding
air.

Cloud Camper put his finger on the significance of those two little words when he applied them to the use of a spring. I'm confident he will overcome his experimental problems and be the first to demonstrate harvesting the gravitational wind.

By using a spring to collect energy from the lower half of a 360° pendulum swing and returning it to the upper half we can get continuous motion of the pendulum. Lifting the energy content of a spring does not incur any NG potential penalty.

This is an analogous process to using a capacitor to get energy out of the electric motor where NG maps to voltage and EG maps to current.