energy producing experiments

[greendoor]

Trainwreck ... can't watch ... must watch ... should run away ... can't stay away ...

Remeber the "invisible" negative momentum component when momentum "moves" between objects of different mass !

Is that the mysterious 'heat losses' that pequaide has constantly reminded us about ... I thought pequaide made it quite clear how absurd these are ... especially in the case of cylinders & spheres, where heat would have to be generated ...

Then again maybe heat IS generated ... i'm trying to picture a 3 kg mass getting spun up and gaining all the energy ... I've read the NASA pdf, but they never say whether the thing explodes or not ... or how they stop it spinning ... is it just a use-once-then-discard device?

Who suggested this could only work in space or horizontally ... I don't see any suggestion of either limitation ... F = MA here on earth or in space, upside down, or sideways ... and relative to what anyway?

Fletcher - thank you for explaining the difference between Momentum and Energy so clearly.
Pequaide - thank you for your patience & wisdom.

I've long been interested in the fact that energy increases with the square of velocity. I was thinking of ways to sum two velocities together, to achieve a proportional squareing of the energy. This yoyo method seems to be another way of looking at the same problem - and the numbers certainly get me excited. We need a simple working model to demonstrate over unity lift, and then the rest is all downhill (so to speak).

Or maybe there is a fundamental flaw in the whole thing? It's frustrating, but please give Pequaide the full credit for bringing to our attention one of the most exciting concepts i've seen for years ...

And I can understand wanting to avoid springs and water due to losses. Bessler may have considered using springs and water, but there is no evidence he used either in his wheel. That's not to say interesting devices couldn't be made.

The Messias Wheel is fascinating me at the moment ,,, but that's for a completely different forum.

[pequaide]

The three kilograms was undoubtedly released into space, probably along with the tether. Everything was throwaway back then.

The three kilograms stops the cylindrical rocket from spinning simply by allowing the tethered mass to unwrap from the rockets circumference.

Wrap a string around a can; then unwrap the string. This unwrapping motion is all that is needed to stop the rocket from spinning, with of course a mass added to the end of the string.

Note that the end rotation of the satellite was in the reverse direction. This means that the three kilograms with the long tether could have stopped even more mass from spinning.

[pequaide]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzwC6Oa8-X0

Let me know if you find it. It is made with a camera so there are not many frames.

youtube.com science and technology D-spin spidermonky2

[greendoor]

That's fast ... the series of still frames might be more interesting ... but I think we get the idea.

This has just triggered another idea ... can we have a yoyo nested inside another yoyo ...

I'm intrigued with descriptions of Bessler's weights - the way he handled them and didn't show the ends ...

What if the cylinder weights had bearings in the ends, and a heavy inner flywheel tube that rotated ...

If this cylinder was rolled, the inner core would tend to stay still and the outer cylinder would gain momentum. Then, if the outer was suddenly stopped, the momentum would be transfered to the inner. I'm thinking this would invoke a velocity increase, like a skater pulling their arms in towards their body ...

A centrifugal clutch could engage when the velocity was sufficient, causing the cylinder to take off like a rocket ...

Maybe ...?

[pequaide]

A 10 gram mass that is 58.3 cm above the floor has .05719 joules of energy. (.583 meters * .010 kg * 9.81 newtons; or you could use 1/2mv², v = 3.382 m/sec)

I set up an Atwood’s with a pulley that has a balanced mass of over 4100 grams. The suspended masses are 263.7 g each. A 10 g mass accelerates the entire system to .17647 m/sec over a distance of .583 meters. This is equivalent to at least 3000 grams moving .17647 m/sec, for a linear Newtonian momentum of about .529 units of momentum.

If .010 kg had a linear momentum of .529 then it would be moving 52.9 m/sec and would rise 142.9 meters, the 10 g was only dropped .583 meters.

If the momentum of a large slow moving object could be transferred to a small portion of it own mass then energy could be made in the lab.

NASA has transferred the spinning motion of a 1400 kg rocket to 3 kg (see yo-yo de-spin). They assumed that the 3 kg behaved like a comet and would decelerate (because of the gravitational field of the rocket) as it left the vicinity of the rocket. But the 3 kg was not a comet and the rocket did not have a noticeable gravitational center to attract the 3 kg. They got the math entirely wrong. They could not release the tether at the proper time to get a clean stop of the rocket cylinder, so they tried different tethers and then finally gave up spinning the rockets (for trajectory control) altogether.

If NASA had predicted that the 3 kg mass conserved Newtonian momentum as it unwound from the satellite NASA could have seen that the energy of the system vastly increased. Or maybe they had, and with a dogmatic belief in the Law of Conservation of Energy they reverted back to pretending the satellite was the Sun.

The string length has absolutely no affect upon the quantity of motion of the mass on the end of the string. Galileo proved this 350 years ago. Angular momentum is not conserved unless there is a source of gravity that causes velocity changes in the orbiting object.

You could have used the .583 meter drop of the 10 grams to start the 1000g cylinder and spheres machine spinning. This would be an acceleration rate of 10g /1010g * 9.81 m/sec² = .09712 m/sec², for a velocity of .3365 m/sec at the end of the .583 m drop. The whole system is moving at this rate for a momentum of 1.010 kg * .3365 m/sec = .3399 units. When the spheres fling out they will have all this momentum, therefore their velocity must be 2.555 m/sec and they will rise .3328 meters, this is .133 kg * .3328 m * 9.81 newtons = .43428 joules of energy.

We started with only .05719 joules.

[pequaide]

One wheel, one tether, one mass, vertical (about 100 grams of BBs in a sock)

[pequaide]

A thought experiment: Let’s horizontally mount a very light double pulley just above a large flat surface. Let’s wrap two strings around the pulley so neither the strings nor the attached masses interfere with each other. Attach the one string coming from the pulley to a 1000 kg block floating on dry ice, attach the other string coming from the pulley to a 3 kg mass (on dry ice) that can be flung so that it wraps around the .25 m diameter pulley.

If arranged properly the motion of the 3 kilogram mass will be transferred to the 1000 kilogram mass as the 3 kg wraps around the pulley. Arrange the string attached to the 3 kilograms to have a length of 1.5 meters, and give the 3 kg mass a velocity of 18.31 m/sec before it starts interacting with the 1000 kg.

What will be the final velocity of the 1000 kg mass after the small mass has fully interacted with it? Assume that there is no significant friction in the system.

[broli]

Can you make a drawing? I have some difficulties when people ask me to imagine things :p.

[pequaide]

Something like this: when the gray disk begins wrapping its string around the white disk the red ribbon will tighten and begin accelerating the slid.

[pequaide]

In a pendulum the direction of the applied force is not in the same direction as the motion of the bob, but pendulums are not a violation of Newton’s Laws of Motion. The gray puck is not going to violate Newtonian physics either; the linear Newtonian momentum change in the puck will equal the linear Newtonian momentum change in the sled.

[smotgroup]

This is my Fulcrum & Lever Generator concept using Archimedes principle of using little input to move a large output.



the first step that must be a rule of thumb when designing a mechanical device to get more out than what was put in.

Archimedes said "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.

as an engineer, I should never sway from what Archimedes said.

so I will call it the Archimedes Generator.

Jerry

[smotgroup]

the type of large output coil I will use for the Archimedes Generator is located here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYgFuUl9_Vs

the type of smaller input coil is insignificant at this time and I'll post later.

Jerry

[path_finder]

another attempt using the same principle? (Rakesh Goel of SK-Dynamics)
http://www.borderlands.de/gravity.goel_06.jpg

[smotgroup]

it seems Rakesh Goel of SK-Dynamics is close to the Archimedes Generator but does not quite have it set up correctly, the fulcrum area needs to be shifted over more and then balanced and tuned.

good find though.

Thanks
Jerry

[pequaide]

Newton’s Three Laws of Motion predict that the conserved quantity of motion in the laboratory is Newtonian momentum. If this is true; energy can be made in the lab.

No laboratory experiment has ever been conducted that suggests that Newton’s Three Laws of Motion are false. All (non-atomic) lab experiments show Newtonian momentum to be a conserved quantity.

In the early 1960s NASA performed a maneuver in space, where they transferred the spinning motion of 1420 kg to only 3 kilograms. Lets assume that the original spinning velocity of the satellite was 1 m/sec. Newton’s Laws of Motion require that the 3 kilograms must be moving (1420 kg * .707 (radius of gyration) / 3 kg) 334.6 times as fast at 334.6 m/sec. when it has been given all the motion. This is an increase in energy from 502 joules to 167,935 joules. NASA never measured the velocity of the 3 kilograms, they released it into space. NASA predicted that the 3 kilograms was only moving 18.3 m/sec, but the actual velocity was never confirmed.

NASA dismissed the concepts in Newton’s Three Laws of Motion in favor of the Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy. This was very strange; because there is No law of conservation of kinetic energy. By incorrectly applying Kepler’s physics they attempted to cover themselves a little bit by saying that the rocket body acted as a gravitational center like the Sun, and that the 3 kilograms slowed down (like a comet) as it flared out on the end of the tether. What ever happened to F = ma, or that the force in the tether must cause equal (Newtonian) momentum changes on both its ends.

What if Newton is correct (again; for the millionth time) and the original velocity divided by the final velocity is inversely proportional to the initial mass divided by the final mass? This is the Law of Conservation of Momentum; m1 * v1 = m2 * v2, or m1 / m2 = v2 / v1, 1420 kg / 3 kg = 334.6 m/sec / 1 m/sec. If Newtonian physics is correct we have and unlimited, free, clean energy source.

We commonly see over 99% of the kinetic energy lost in ballistics pendulums, why then did NASA considered it to be so unusual to see a huge energy gain? What they should have considered unusual is to have any Newtonian momentum change; let alone one with a loss of 96%. Why can they so easily set aside the most proven Laws in all of physics?

I have developed three types of energy producing experiments, two copy NASA’s maneuver and the third is quite different. I have use a disk and two pucks on a frictionless plane, and the cylinder and spheres experiment to duplicate the transfer of motion from a large mass to a small mass. The third experiment is an external wheel being used as a momentum source for a separate cylinder. But before we talk about these experiments in greater depth I would like to discuss how to make the momentum for these wheels; disks, and cylinders.

A one kilogram object dropped in free fall one meter has 4.429 units of momentum, lets see how much momentum it can obtain if dropped the same distance in an Atwood’s.

In the MSU Atwood’s you can put 2000 kilograms in the pulley mass and it will act as if it is a rim mass pulley of 1000 kilograms. So with a mass of zero suspended on one side and 1 kilogram suspended on the other side you would get an acceleration of 1/1001 * 9.81 = .00980 m/sec².

If the one kilogram is then dropped one meter the entire mass would have a velocity of .14 m/sec for a momentum of 140.14. The dropping of the one kilogram mass would take 14.286 seconds, so if we apply F = ma and use v/t for a, we would get Ft = mv. And 9.81 N *14.286 sec = 1001 kg *.14 m/sec = 140.14 units of momentum.

Now if all the Newtonian momentum of the 1001 kilograms is given to the one suspended kilogram, in a similar manner to NASA giving all the motion of the spinning rocket to a small tethered mass, then the one kilogram will have to be moving 140.14 meters per second . Let’s see how long it will take 9.81 newtons (the original force) to stop the one kilogram mass moving 140.14 m/sec. Using v = at we find that it takes 14.285 sec. In this period of time the one kilogram will have risen 1001 meters, and it was only dropped one meter.

If you think energy is conserved when all the motion of the 1001 kg is given to the one kilogram then it will only be moving 4.429 m/sec (9.81 joules), and it will take 9.81 newtons only .4515second to stop it, for this is the time it take one kilogram moving 4.429 m/sec to rise one meter. What makes anyone think that 9.81 newtons should be able to stop in .4515 seconds the same quantity of motion that took 9.81 newtons 14.285 sec to make? Plus there are no experiments that will do this.

Some keep saying that force times distance is what is conserved in these interactions, and that force times distance needs to be conserved in these interactions, when in fact it is not, it is force times time that is conserved. The same people that say that it is force times distance can develop no working machines. I say that it is force times time and I have working energy producing machines. The proper concept is necessary to acquire the proper results, it is Force times Time, as set forth by Isaac Newton.