energy producing experiments

[daxwc]

That is easy.

If it was so easy you would have done it by now.

“I can believe anything provided it is incredible.�

Oscar Wilde quotes (Irish Poet, Novelist, Dramatist and Critic, 1854-1900)

[pequaide]

I have a hard time believing that wooden wheels in pillow blocks is hard. Engineering challenges are half the fun.

There has always been a time when what is, wasn't.

Well: easy at least when compared to building a hydroelectric plant or a nuclear reactor.

[pequaide]

Data collection:

I wanted to determine the velocity required for a vertical throw.

I placed 20.7 kilograms of drive on the .75 inch shaft. I had to go to a thicker nylon rope because the 100 pound rope kept fraying and breaking. The equivalent force at the 19 inch surface is about 900 grams for the thicker rope. I intend to go back to fluorocarbon but I don't have any line strong enough for now.

I placed 250 grams on a .42 circumference length tether and started a clockwise rotation with the bag touching the wheel at 9:00. The 250 grams bag visually lifted from the wheel about 1:00. the throw probably starts at just after 12:00. the bag would sweep under the wheel just missing the floor; and it would travel to the end of the lab and hit the upper corner of the far wall 5 meters away. I put a pad in that corner and I would hit it about every time. So 20.7 kilograms at the shaft can throw .250 kg at the 19 inch surface. If the throw was up: I would guess that it would rise 3 or 4 meters.

The projected throw, as discussed, will use a 1.00 kilogram bag. So I will have to use 4 * 20.7 kg masses to throw the 1 kilogram. The drive mass will be 82.8 kg and the thrown mass is now one kilogram. With the drive and thrown mass both multiplied by four it should throw the same: except that the wheel's mass did not increase and the bearing resistance should not increase appreciably. So the throw should be faster. I would guess that we would now have a 4 meter rise.

But this is only with a drive acceleration of one forth turn and you are allowed a full rotation before starting the throw. This full drive rotation should double the velocity for quadruple the rise. And this one forth drive rotation is lifting the 250 grams from 9:00 to 12:00; this also slows the throw and will later be avoided.

Plus: you are allowed 105.2 more kilograms to be added to the drive at the shaft, over double what is already there. And remember this 105.2 kilograms of drive mass does not just increase velocity. It also increases the quantity of the mass that is to be stopped by the thrown mass.

[Art]

Hi pequaide ,

Have you considered using air as your 'thrown' weight ? .

Its density of course is far less than solids or liquids but gases still have substantial mass which conceivaby could be thrown effectively by means of scoop type mechanisms .

The overarching advantage of throwing air instead of weights is that for closing the loop or resetting, the necessary air mass is right there waiting to go .

An added advantage might be that your walls and ceilings might not need to be repaired as often : )

[pequaide]

I thought the next step was to beef up the system and move to a one kilogram missile; and then I thought 'why not double the drive mass of the existing system'. This would be like 165.6 kg of drive throwing one kilogram.

So I ties another 45 pound barbell mass onto the .75 inch drive. This is now a total drive mass of 41.4 kilograms and it is throwing .250 kilograms. I looped the tether over the pin at 2:00 and ran the tether back to 9:00 and the 250 gram bag touches the wheel there at 9:00. I released the wheel.

It threw the bag lower: releasing it a little quicker: probably because the lifting away of the bag starts sooner. The tether was release from the pin when the bag was under the wheel at about 8 inches above the floor. The bag rose about 6 inches before it slammed into the end of the lab 5 meters away. No visually detectable arc could be seen in the throw. It looked like a straight line throw; I would guess it was moving about 20 m/sec.

This throw is only a quarter rotation before the throw is made. In the fifteen meter challenge you are allowed a full rotation before the throw. This should double the speed and quadruple the distance. And you are allowed yet one more 45 lbs barbell mass to be added to the drive, for 188 kilograms.
This is added velocity and added mass that is added to the missile as it throws, because the wheel and drive mass stop as the missile is thrown.

The throws are quite violent for the indoor lab. The wheel should probably be move to the hangar, and readied for the field.

[pequaide]

19 inch woody: After turning from 9:00 to 12:00 the throw begins, and it produces a velocity of about 20 m/sec.

[pequaide]

Art: The 41.4 kilograms drops about 4.4 cm. What is the input energy?

The .250 kg bag is estimated to have a velocity of about 20 m/sec.. what is the output energy?

[FunWithGravity2]

Have you ever even placed in a chunking contest?

[Wubbly]

pequaide wrote:

I cut two 19 inch circles out of ¾ inch plywood and glued them together side by side. I mounted this disk on a .75 inch shaft and placed the shaft into two industrial pillow blocks. When thrown: a full circumference wrap of a tether with 100 grams on the end will stop and reverse the wheel before the tether comes off. That places the rotational inertia of the wheel around 2.5 kilograms. A 280 gram missile can stop it with less than a third wrap of the circumference. The 280 gram throw is an under wheel throw with very little arch, before it slams into the end of the lab.

I suspended 20.7 kg from the shaft and balanced it with a mass placed on the 19 inch circumference. The mass needed to balance the 20.7 kg was 862.8 grams.

I then added 79.8 grams to the 862.8 grams on the circumference. I allowed the 862.8 + 79.8 to drop a certain distance and I timed several drops. It took about 3.3 seconds to cover the distance.

I replaced the 20.7 kilograms at the .75 inch shaft with a balancing mass on that side of the 19 inch circumference. This gives us two 862.8 gram masses. I added the same 79.8 grams to the same side and the drop covered the same distance in about the same time 3.3 second.

Conclusion: The extra force given by the 79.8 grams can accelerate 862.8 grams to .3636 m/sec just as easily as it can accelerate 20,700 grams to .015 m/sec.

Observation: 1/2mv² ½ * .8628 kg *.3636 m/sec *.3636 m/sec = .057 joules: ½ * 20.7 * .015 * .015 = .002375 joules .057 / .002375 = 24

The energy in the wheel itself is the same in both arrangements. The wheel's inertia has been reduced from the 48 kilograms in 48blue to about 2.5 kg , but the results are the same. And the energy of the added masses is a greater portion of the total energy. This is a proof that the inertia of the wheel is of no consequence. It is all F = ma, and the Law of Conservation of Energy is false.

I cut two 19 inch circles out of ¾ inch plywood and glued them together side by side...

Since you didn't tell us if 19" is the radius, diameter, or circumference, we'll just have to guess. Maybe he means diameter.

That places the rotational inertia of the wheel around 2.5 kilograms

Let me see... 3/4" plywood weighs about 2.34 lbs per square foot, but since it's double-ply that would be about 4.68 lbs per square foot. A 19" diameter circle is about 1.87 square feet. That would be about 9.22 pounds. At 2.2 pounds per kg, that would be about 4.81 kg. The moment of inertia of a solid disk is I=1/2 m r^2, so the moment of inertia of his plywood would be about 0.121 kg m^2, and he seems to think his "rotational inertia" is about 2.5 kg.

I mounted this disk on a .75 inch shaft ...

Again, he doesn't say if it's radius, diameter, or circumference so on this one let's guess that it's diameter.

I suspended 20.7 kg from the shaft and balanced it with a mass placed on the 19 inch circumference. The mass needed to balance the 20.7 kg was 862.8 grams.

20.7 kg at a radius of 3/8" does not balance 0.8628 kg at a radius of 9.5", so right there you can see there's a bunch of error in either your mass measurements, your distance measurements, or there's a bunch of friction in your bearings, or a combination of all three. I'm guessing a combination of all three.

...with a mass placed on the 19 inch circumference.

Now he says the circumference is 19". That would make the radius 3". Make up your mind pequaide.

... to drop a certain distance and I timed several drops.

Since you didn't tell us how far "a certain distance" is, we'll just have to guess. Let's guess it was 2.4 cm.

It took about 3.3 seconds to cover the distance.

Why only two digits. You got those photo gates that can time down to .0001 seconds and now you throw away all your precision. The Nobel Prize committee is going to need more than two good digits to verify your results.

Calculating the distance and acceleration using your time and velocity numbers, and plugging that into an atwoods spreadsheet for your configuration would lead one to conclude that there is a lot of friction in those bearings because your plywood wheel is acting a like is has a lot more mass than it actually has. One would also conclude that you should see very little time difference between your two experiments with no energy gain.

This is a proof that the inertia of the wheel is of no consequence.

What it proves is that you don't know how to explain an experiment or how to do an experiment.

... and the Law of Conservation of Energy is false.

When you present your findings for your Nobel Prize, you're going to have to do better than that.

You'll have to specify whether measurements are radius or diameter.

You'll have to be careful not to confuse diameter with circumference in your descriptions.

You'll have to use masses that actually balance at the distances specified.

You'll have to use as many good digits as your photo gates will give you.

You'll have to do something about the friction in those bearings.

You'll have to know the exact energy in your masses, and the exact rotational kinetic energy in your pully for each case. Most of the energy is in your pully, which accounts for between 78 to 87 percent of the system energy. The energy that you think you are creating is actually being lost from the plywood pully, resulting in no energy gain.

And you will also have to come up with an experiment that actually creates energy. Right now you do not have one.

It would be negligent to claim energy gain with the experiment and the numbers you have provided thus far.

One of the reasons you can't close the loop is because you don't have an experiment that creates any extra energy.

You get an "A" for effort, but you still failed.
.

[daxwc]

FWG did you mean pumpkin chunking or crackhead chunking?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81350585/?lt=rnd

[pequaide]

Wubbly you are not welcome on this thread, please do not post on this thread.

Daxwc: you too.

I am way to busy, for nonsense.

[Wubbly]

.
If you can't even take a little critique from little ol' me, you'll never survive the scrutiny of the Nobel Prize committee.

.

[pequaide]

I make energy in the lab on nearly a weekly basis, if you don't like that then go away. Again: Wubbly, please don't post on this thread.

[Wubbly]

.
I guess the reason they don't move this thread into the fraud section is because the comedic value of it is priceless.
.

[daxwc]

Pequaide why don’t you turn this into a private forum? If you are looking for opinions of only people that believe you then membership is going to be quite small anyway and should be easy to setup. Oh yes I forgot, you are too busy making energy by the week 8P

Question Peq; why is it Wubbly and Kaine do not get the same results?