energy producing experiments

[david jenkins]

Sir,
I have been following your posts for quite a while and am interested in your progress. I believe that you said you had a working wheel?


Dave

[pequaide]

I have energy producing experiments, to make the experiments into working machines is the job of a machine shop or an engineering department.

The machine shop will have to build an Atwood’s machine, then transfer that slow motion made by the Atwood’s into the experiment. The experiment would have to accelerate and throw the small accelerated mass up to the top of the Atwood’s. Then you have a working wheel. But I am sure that any machine shop with an electronics engineer could handle the construction.

The missing link was to prove that The Law of Conservation of Energy was false, which I have done by repeating the 50 year old experiments. My data shows that the experiments produce energy.

I am working on a single wheel design. But it is not a balancing act, it throws the small mass (violently).

[smotgroup]

Hi pequaide.

I would love to see a diagram of your Atwood's Machine. especially in action.

with the Archimedes Generator I can use a very small NIB magnet 4mm x 4mm to move a very large mass, say a 1000kg NIB magnet even more while under the influence of Lenz Law and it is quiet and uses a low friction razor sharp 'edge' for the fulcrum point, add a little grease to the fulcrum edge and fulcrum seat and I can reduce the friction even more. it uses an edged fulcrum balance not a pointed one. pointed fulcrums allow to much wobble, we just want up and down, up and down. if we really wanted to we could move the entire Earth with just a speck of sand if our lever was long enough.

the Archimedes Generator at the larger coil would produce AC current.

when I go down to the valley I will pick up the parts and assemble it and test it, I will then send the Archimedes Generator to Scott, I will have him verify it and then after verification I will have Scott find a way to make money for everyone on this site by selling the rights to it. If Scott is willing that is. you may not get much, maybe a few hundred thousand dollars per person and controlled by Scott only. how does that sound?

I know the King Abdullah of Arabia would be a big seller.

if it fails then Scott will end up with a contraption that doesn't work, but it won't end up that way. i really mean it, are you really interested? if so then please say so or Scott may just flick it off as some fluke.

speak up please! I am willing to put my money where my mouth is in building this dam thing.

Jerry

[pequaide]

The red and blue cylindrical masses you see in the last picture were used to make an 11 kilogram Atwood’s pictured on page 2 of this thread. In the last picture the blue cylindrical mass is being used as a counter balance to hold the white disk above the plane.

I have a 3 kilogram Atwood’s (it uses the same wheel as used in the 11 kg Atwood’s) that can be accelerated with only10 grams. The quantity of momentum produced is huge compared to the momentum needed to return the 10 grams to its original height. The Atwood’s is necessary to produce the needed momentum, but concentrating that momentum back into a small mass should be the focus of your attention. The disk and pucks experiment pictured on page 5 is a good example. That experiment was performed on a (air table) frictionless plane. The spinning of the center white disk (283.5g) is stopped as the black pucks (32.4g each) swing out on the ends of their strings.

[Grimer]

We know from ballistic pendulums that linear motion and circular motion are completely interchangeable and experience no loss of motion in changing from circular to linear or linear to circular. So the rotating cylinder with spheres (above) has five units of momentum.

I have just come across your interesting thread which attracted my immediate attention because of the reference to Professor Eric Laithwaite's work. I had quite a bit of correspondence with Eric and he invited me down to see his and Dawson's experiments at the University of West Sussex.

I'm going through the thread and I came across the above quote. If you think about it, this can only be true in a practical engineering sense.

It cannot be true in an absolute scientific sense unless the the device is perfectly rigid. Since it can't be, work will be done on the device and this work has to come from somewhere, i.e. loss of momentum.

Indeed if you think about it long enough you will see that it contravenes the conservation of angular momentum law since linear velocity can be viewed as an angular velocity where, r → ∞

[Grimer]

...
The missing link was to prove that The Law of Conservation of Energy was false, which I have done by repeating the 50 year old experiments. My data shows that the experiments produce energy.
...

I think you mean the The Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy.

The Law of Conservation of Energy is a prescriptive law not a descriptive law. It can't be falsified. Like an accountant's books it always balances. Anything missing goes down as miscellaneous. Ultimately CoE has to be a tautology doesn't it.

[broli]

I think the missing link is having a novel system like, pequaide is trying to show, that transfers momentum over in a clever way. We are used to having momentum transferred through collision, this is where kinetic energy is conserved. But if one builds a system where momentum can be transferred around freely regardless of amount then the kinetic energy would be not conserved. But that's impossible to do with collisions where kinetic energy IS part of the very nature of the collision.

pequaide's only down side is how inefficiently he's spreading his message. He maybe doesn't realize it but he's making a big mess out of it. I offered to help on the presentation department but he ignored me. His pictures where he shows a clutter of "things" isn't the most efficient way of educating people.

[pequaide]

Many experiments prove that we can go from linear to circular motion, and circular to linear motion, without loss of motion. The quantity of motion around the circumference of the circle is equal to the corresponding linear motion that came before or existed after the circular motion.

I believe that other forms of energy can be isolated out of a closed system so that the only form of energy is motion energy. When this is done the Law of Conservation of Energy and the Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy become one and the same thing. The other alleged forms of energy are only handy excuses to keep the law from falling flat on its face. Where as the Law of Conservation of Momentum (linear Newtonian) needs no mysterious friends.

I thought of a good experiment for those that improperly use Kepler's angular momentum conservation law in the lab (for objects that are not under gravitational acceleration from the point of rotation). See if this is sound. A one kilogram mass moving one meter per second on the end of a 12 meter string should (according to the angular momentum conservation law) cause a satallite or disk to rotate faster than the same mass at the same velocity on the end of a 1 meter string.

I think something like this could be set up in the lab, and Newtonian physics would predicts that the motion change in the disk would be the same under both lengths of string, in that both have the same linear Newtonian momentum. Obviously the two lengths do not have the same angular momentum, unless you play the moving frame of reference game (where you move the true pivot point) which is as phony as energy conservation's mysterious friends.

[smotgroup]

there is 'nothing' better than a 100% efficient solid state thermoelectric cell for generating electricity.

nothing!

Jerry

[pequaide]

Here is a thought experiment you can plug into WM2D. You have a nine kilogram sled moving 1.12 m/sec on a frictionless slide. By using a string; the sled impacts the circumference of a dense Styrofoam wheel (with a bearing) that has a one kilogram puck embedded into its circumference. After impact the ten kilograms is moving 1.0 meter per second. The one kilogram is then allowed to swing out on the end of a string that was wrapped around the wheel. The one kilogram will obtain all the motion of the system, and when the nine kilogram sled is stopped the one kilogram is released from its string. It is released to move in the same direction as the original motion of the nine kilograms, what is the velocity of the one kilogram mass?

Let’s see if WM2D can get it right.

[broli]

A drawing is worth... well you get the point. Spare all the posts and just make a drawing of it. We can't look in your head to see this whole contraption. "By using a string the sled impacts..." what does that even mean. Learn some basic illustrating skills it will benefit you in the long run.

[broli]

I think I'm finally getting what you are saying in general. I mus think about this when I'm not this sleepy but it's all about the angular momentum.

You first transfer the linear momentum of a heavy mass to angular momentum on a wheel. On this same wheel there's a lighter weight. You then reconvert the angular momentum to linear momentum by increasing the radius of the lighter weight. This will make the wheel slower and slower, at infinite radius the wheel would have 0 angular speed. But that's not needed, a big enough radius would be enough. If the angular speed is near 0 you cut the wire and you end up with a light weight having all the momentum of the initial heavy weight.

I'll do some math and run some simulations tomorrow.

[broli]

I made a more conclusive wm2d experiment that couldn't go wrong. It shows that wm2d doesn't care about conservation of momentum. I spun two weights together, one is 9kg and the other is 1kg, at 1m radius with a speed of 1m/s. At some point I started to increase the radius of the 1kg mass while the 9kg mass stayed fixed. As the radius of the 1kg mass increased the rotation slowed down due to conservation of angular momentum.

Now we know conservation of momentum must hold meaning the total initial momentum must transfer completely to the small mass as the radius increases. So the only conclusion we can make is that the small weight must end up with a speed of 10m/s.

This is NOT what wm2d gives. In fact the result it gives violates conservation of momentum. The total linear momentum of the system WENT DOWN from 10 units to about 3.2 units. This is exactly how much it should go down for CoE to hold. This is amazing to see and proves to me wm2d does not ALLOW CoM.

[Michael]

That's because coe is based in reality. You can check these facts, a physicist will often say first year physic students often confuse momentum with energy.

[pequaide]

WM2D is a program, programmed by professors that never do experiments. Conservation of energy never overrides conservation of momentum.

This is where the professor’s concept fails. Do they think the linear motion of the one kilogram will slow down as the radius increases? Why do they think it would do that? Have you ever seen and experiment where that occurs?

Ok: take the simplest experiment you could do concerning this, let a puck unwind from a thick post in the center of the frictionless plane. The puck will not have a change in linear motion as the string unwraps from the post. It is a ridicules concept that can only be held by people who never do experiments.

What happens if the one kilogram moving only 3.16 m/sec runs into the 9 kilograms at rest? What happens to the 10 units of momentum we just had? Do we magically believe that Newtonian physics is now false? What happened to Newton’s Three Laws of Motion (they just got violated), where is the ten units of momentum?

Here is a huge clue for you gentleman. This is one of the false formulas of physics; your petrified professors think that angular momentum conservation overrides Newton’s Three Laws of Motion. A big big clue.