What happens when your friend does not push back? Same thing for the wall; if the wall does not push back it falls over.
Lets make it a pin; how can an immovable pin push or pull? It can't move.
From Principia: “Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavor to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other.� 'Isaac Newton'
The stone could of course be a wall; and note that the action is the finger pressing the stone and the reaction is the stone pressing back. Also note that the stone need not move to press the finger.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
I do not care what Newton said, I join the ranks of Leibniz, Johan Bernoulli, his son and student Daniel Bernoulli and Leonhard Euler who either found faults or disagreed with Newtons final Principia.
IF I push on a wall, it is not pushing back, it is restraining due to its mass and connectivity to the structure. If a wall were capable of pushing back, what would happen to it if I abruptly quit pushing, does the wall move toward me before realizing I am no longer pushing
Ralph
IF I push on a wall, it is not pushing back, it is restraining due to its mass and connectivity to the structure. If a wall were capable of pushing back, what would happen to it if I abruptly quit pushing, does the wall move toward me before realizing I am no longer pushing
Ralph
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
Re: re: energy producing experiments
no, i don't think it moves toward you. its reaction time is electromagnetic speed.rlortie wrote:I do not care what Newton said, I join the ranks of Leibniz, Johan Bernoulli, his son and student Daniel Bernoulli and Leonhard Euler who either found faults or disagreed with Newtons final Principia.
IF I push on a wall, it is not pushing back, it is restraining due to its mass and connectivity to the structure. If a wall were capable of pushing back, what would happen to it if I abruptly quit pushing, does the wall move toward me before realizing I am no longer pushing
Ralph
yes?
re: energy producing experiments
Newton's mv is a conserved quantity and its conservation has become a respected proven law. Leibniz’s mv² never even made it to the law category because it can not be conserved. Apparently Leibniz did not know what he was talking about.
re: energy producing experiments
Newton's mv is is said to be a conserved quantity, its conservation has become a respected law because to date no one has found the solution to breaking it.
In the late 18th century two men did prove to themselves that some laws were written under the assumption that Newtons laws apply. They did not make it public in fear of being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
EDIT: Why should I waste my time in these unproductive armchair debates. Nothing proven, nothing gained. I believe this will be my last entry on this thread, I am heading for the shop!
In the late 18th century two men did prove to themselves that some laws were written under the assumption that Newtons laws apply. They did not make it public in fear of being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
EDIT: Why should I waste my time in these unproductive armchair debates. Nothing proven, nothing gained. I believe this will be my last entry on this thread, I am heading for the shop!
re: energy producing experiments
DITTO, RALPH!!!
You won again!
[ This is the famous thread about 'the friend and the wall'... 8[
You won again!
[ This is the famous thread about 'the friend and the wall'... 8[
re: energy producing experiments
You could build a cylinder and spheres just to prove Newton is wrong. Even with air resistance you should be able to tell the difference between nine and three, or four and two, etc.
-
LustInBlack
- Devotee
- Posts: 1964
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:30 am
re: energy producing experiments
Everything is a spring. You are moving molecules (hands) against other molecules (wall).IF I push on a wall, it is not pushing back, it is restraining due to its mass and connectivity to the structure. If a wall were capable of pushing back, what would happen to it if I abruptly quit pushing, does the wall move toward me before realizing I am no longer pushing
You compress them together, they push back with equal force until they can't accumulate anymore (relative to their mass and anchor, they will accumulate energy until the applied energy overcomes their mass/anchor). They in fact, accumulate the energy you are giving them. Denying this is like denying reality.
You are just lost in the choice of words. Everything oscillates, everything is made of springs that oscillates at random, force them to stop oscillating, they accumulate the energy given and they restore to their previous state when you remove the force applied.
Re: re: energy producing experiments
Absolutely.LustInBlack wrote: Everything is a spring. You are moving molecules (hands) against other molecules (wall).
You compress them together, they push back with equal force until they can't accumulate any more (relative to their mass and anchor, they will accumulate energy until the applied energy overcomes their mass/anchor). They in fact, accumulate the energy you are giving them. Denying this is like denying reality.
You are just lost in the choice of words. Everything oscillates, everything is made of springs that oscillates at random, force them to stop oscillating, they accumulate the energy given and they restore to their previous state when you remove the force applied.
The first time I realised that was when early in my career I put a very sensitive transducer up against my office wall and noticed that whenever I spoke the wall vibrated. This is the same phenomena that spies use to measure the vibration of windows with a laser and so discover what is being said inside a room.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
re: energy producing experiments
Correct: that is how load cells work, they are transducers. But in order for a force gauge (load cell) to work you have to push or pull it. The center of mass of the load cell need not move, well it will move slightly because you have pushed some of the molecules toward the center of mass, or pulled some molecules away. But the load cell could be bolted down and it will read just fine. Indeed some of our load cells are bolted down and we move the force into them, or hang a force from them. The cell is reacting to an applied force. Its pushing back.
But for the stone and finger the type of movement I was referring to was for the stone to slide or move through space. I think this is sometimes referred to as translation.
But you are quite correct in pointing out that even solid masses have spongy molecules. This is something else we give attention to in the lab; cooled solids get brittle. Some very tough material at room temp can act like glass at – 40°. This probably has more to do with how the shock wave is transmitted through the material than bond strength. Or it is the elasticity of the material.
But for the stone and finger the type of movement I was referring to was for the stone to slide or move through space. I think this is sometimes referred to as translation.
But you are quite correct in pointing out that even solid masses have spongy molecules. This is something else we give attention to in the lab; cooled solids get brittle. Some very tough material at room temp can act like glass at – 40°. This probably has more to do with how the shock wave is transmitted through the material than bond strength. Or it is the elasticity of the material.
re: energy producing experiments
I videoed a cylinder that is a PVC pipe with a hole through a diameter. I placed a long weighted string through the hole. Both weighted sides of the string will wrap around the circumference 2.5 times. I held the weights against the pipe and spun and released the pipe. The weights quickly stop the spin of the pipe and cause a reasonably rapid back spin for the pipe. The video revealed things not seen by the eye. I could visually see the stop and the back spin, but the rapidity of the back spin was not appreciated until I saw the video. There is simple to much motion here for any of it to have been lost.
I have noticed a lot of fraud on the internet; if you are going to get this you are going to have to do small things, like this experiment, to understand. The quantity conserved is momentum.
I have noticed a lot of fraud on the internet; if you are going to get this you are going to have to do small things, like this experiment, to understand. The quantity conserved is momentum.
re: energy producing experiments
This is a compilation over the last month; otherwise I will forget where I posted it.
In the discussion of earth moon barycenter it states (2:55 SkyMarvels) that the center of rotation is at the center of mass of the two objects and the distance to the two masses is directly proportional to the relative masses.
The moon is about 1/81 the mass of the earth and the distance to barycenter is 81 times greater for the moon than the earth. This means the circumference of the circular lunar path is 81 time greater than the circumference of the path taken by the earth. They have equal mr not equal mr². They have equal (mv) linear Newtonian momentum. They do not have equal angular momentum.
The solar system tells you what is going to be conserved in any rotational interaction of masses. mv.
The radius of gyration is dependent upon an old debate. Remember the debate between the difficulties of rotation either being explained by mr or mrr?
The proponents of mrr claim that one kilogram at 10r is 100 times more difficult to rotate than one kilogram at 1r. mr predicts that it is only 10 times more difficult to rotate one kg at 10r. Changing the position of the drive force is the same as changing the positions of the driven mass; if done properly of course.
Well: there is an experiment on the net where a guy drives the circumference of a wheel with an electric motor and then runs a generator off of a much smaller radius and expected to create energy. It seems intuitive to him that this should work. No rules just intuition; a very common event.
But what are the rules. The rule: is that 10 units of force at one unit of radius equals 1 unit of force at ten units of radius. LoL; no not lots of luck; Laws of Levers.
He also did not know that Fd = E, Ten time the force works for one tenth the distance; is as one unit of the force at one unit of the distance. Or 10 F * 1 R = 1 F * 10 R because the arc distance is proportional to R.
This is another experiment where Fr or mr rules the day. And his intuition cost him a lot of money.
It takes exactly the same amount of energy to rotate the wheel with the force applied at any radius; which was the original point. My experiment was the 12 and 18 inch combo wheel.
 If the same wheel is moved in the same way by an Fr relationship then the same applied force can move different wheels at the same rate as long as the wheels mr relationship remains constant. In other words the Laws of Levers applies just as much to masses as it does to forces.
Multi-rotational trebuchets are my interest. I think they will not only begin gaining the world records and break the sound barrier, but I also think that they make energy.
Isaac Newton said that for an application of F (force) over a period of time t you get a certain quantity of mv (momentum). F = ma; but (a) is v/t so Ft = mv. Newton did not state that his theory do not work for forces applied to wheels or trebuchets. Newton formulated the Law of Gravitation from circular motion; so to think that his Laws do not apply to circular motion is ridiculous. Plus; linear motion and circular motion can be transferred back and forth without lose.
Angular momentum conservation explains the gravitational acceleration of planets and comets etc; it has nothing to do with objects in the lab. Angular momentum conservation does not explain motion conservation in the collision of objects; but it explains the balance (by definition) between gravitational potential energy and motion energy. If you take out the component of huge gravitational acceleration over vast distances angular momentum conservation is meaningless.
If a quantity of momentum (mv) is placed in a wheel that quantity of momentum cannot be abated. Each gram has a velocity around the circle; the sum of all those units of mv is the momentum of the wheel; and that momentum is transferred to the missile. This phenomenon would be more apparent if our trebuchets threw in a vacuum, but air resistance eats up the missile’s motion. I am guessing that smoking lamas is closest to proving this. I think they have already proven it but I am sure they will be getting better.
As far as balancing a MRT I would place a counter balance at 180°. You could let the balancing counter mass fall away or place it on a string wrapped in the opposite direction as the missile. The opposite wrap direction will not allow this counter mass to absorb momentum from the wheel. The counter mass momentum should remain part of the wheel’s momentum that will be given to the missile. The motion of this balancing counter mass will quickly disappear as the missile steals its momentum.
:It is pumpkin chuckin time; I have seen the videos and the throws. Smokin Lamas has thrown 1776 feet. They may have made changes in this year’s model but I assume it is still roughly the same bicycle driven multi-rotational wheel.
Okay this is a non-aerodynamic gourd with the density of water, and it travels about 600 meters. That would mean it would go up about 300 meters, especially if it were a smooth steel bullet.
The pumpkin has a mass of about 4 kilograms.
The wheel can throw a 40th of its own mass with one wrap around the circumference.
A chain (avalanche). 40 times 4 would allow the system to have a mass of 160 kilograms; the wheel could be only 24 kilograms and the pumpkin 4. 160 -28 / 160 * 9.81 = for an acceleration of 8.09 m/sec/sec. But only 33 pumpkin are remaining for drive.
A distance of 300 meters divided by 33 would be 9.09 meters. A pumpkin could be place every 9.09 meters along a descending drive. It will take about .66 meters for the unwinding pumpkin to stop the drive and motion. This .66 meters is still under drive, but the velocity at release will be determined by a (9.09 - .66 meters) 8.43 meters.
The velocity is the square root of (2 * 8.43 m/sec/sec * 8.09 m) = v = 11.7 meter per second. That about 2 RPS or 120 RPM, this is sufficient rational velocity to throw.
Â
Another 300 meter chain (avalanche) with a 4 kilogram mass at one meter apart is a counter weight mass of 1200 kilograms; which is 11,772 joules of energy (1200 kg * 9.81 N/kg * 1 m) . You could have the 1200 kg at the shaft with the outer part of the wheel at a 20 to one ratio. This will accelerate like 1200/1280 * 9.81 m/sec/sec, for a velocity of 4.28 m/sec.
Even if you conserve energy with the 4 kilograms on the edge of a wheel you still have 58 m/sec (only 58 /20 for 2.9 m/sec not 4.28) velocity for that 4 kilograms. ½ *4 kg * 58 m/sec *58 m/sec = 6728 + 5046 ( ½ * 1200 kg* 2.9 m/sec * 2.9 m/sec) = 11774 joules. I don't think you conserve energy (I think the velocity will be much higher) I am just pointing this out.
58 m/sec is already very fast and if you then throw, as in a trebuchet, even a moderate increase would yield tons of energy. I see the newest entry is at 2400 feet with a counter weight of about a ton. But 1200 kilograms is a ton. Trebuchets are centrifugal throwing devices and the acceleration is not moderate; it is violent.
Its a throw.
In the discussion of earth moon barycenter it states (2:55 SkyMarvels) that the center of rotation is at the center of mass of the two objects and the distance to the two masses is directly proportional to the relative masses.
The moon is about 1/81 the mass of the earth and the distance to barycenter is 81 times greater for the moon than the earth. This means the circumference of the circular lunar path is 81 time greater than the circumference of the path taken by the earth. They have equal mr not equal mr². They have equal (mv) linear Newtonian momentum. They do not have equal angular momentum.
The solar system tells you what is going to be conserved in any rotational interaction of masses. mv.
The radius of gyration is dependent upon an old debate. Remember the debate between the difficulties of rotation either being explained by mr or mrr?
The proponents of mrr claim that one kilogram at 10r is 100 times more difficult to rotate than one kilogram at 1r. mr predicts that it is only 10 times more difficult to rotate one kg at 10r. Changing the position of the drive force is the same as changing the positions of the driven mass; if done properly of course.
Well: there is an experiment on the net where a guy drives the circumference of a wheel with an electric motor and then runs a generator off of a much smaller radius and expected to create energy. It seems intuitive to him that this should work. No rules just intuition; a very common event.
But what are the rules. The rule: is that 10 units of force at one unit of radius equals 1 unit of force at ten units of radius. LoL; no not lots of luck; Laws of Levers.
He also did not know that Fd = E, Ten time the force works for one tenth the distance; is as one unit of the force at one unit of the distance. Or 10 F * 1 R = 1 F * 10 R because the arc distance is proportional to R.
This is another experiment where Fr or mr rules the day. And his intuition cost him a lot of money.
It takes exactly the same amount of energy to rotate the wheel with the force applied at any radius; which was the original point. My experiment was the 12 and 18 inch combo wheel.
 If the same wheel is moved in the same way by an Fr relationship then the same applied force can move different wheels at the same rate as long as the wheels mr relationship remains constant. In other words the Laws of Levers applies just as much to masses as it does to forces.
Multi-rotational trebuchets are my interest. I think they will not only begin gaining the world records and break the sound barrier, but I also think that they make energy.
Isaac Newton said that for an application of F (force) over a period of time t you get a certain quantity of mv (momentum). F = ma; but (a) is v/t so Ft = mv. Newton did not state that his theory do not work for forces applied to wheels or trebuchets. Newton formulated the Law of Gravitation from circular motion; so to think that his Laws do not apply to circular motion is ridiculous. Plus; linear motion and circular motion can be transferred back and forth without lose.
Angular momentum conservation explains the gravitational acceleration of planets and comets etc; it has nothing to do with objects in the lab. Angular momentum conservation does not explain motion conservation in the collision of objects; but it explains the balance (by definition) between gravitational potential energy and motion energy. If you take out the component of huge gravitational acceleration over vast distances angular momentum conservation is meaningless.
If a quantity of momentum (mv) is placed in a wheel that quantity of momentum cannot be abated. Each gram has a velocity around the circle; the sum of all those units of mv is the momentum of the wheel; and that momentum is transferred to the missile. This phenomenon would be more apparent if our trebuchets threw in a vacuum, but air resistance eats up the missile’s motion. I am guessing that smoking lamas is closest to proving this. I think they have already proven it but I am sure they will be getting better.
As far as balancing a MRT I would place a counter balance at 180°. You could let the balancing counter mass fall away or place it on a string wrapped in the opposite direction as the missile. The opposite wrap direction will not allow this counter mass to absorb momentum from the wheel. The counter mass momentum should remain part of the wheel’s momentum that will be given to the missile. The motion of this balancing counter mass will quickly disappear as the missile steals its momentum.
:It is pumpkin chuckin time; I have seen the videos and the throws. Smokin Lamas has thrown 1776 feet. They may have made changes in this year’s model but I assume it is still roughly the same bicycle driven multi-rotational wheel.
Okay this is a non-aerodynamic gourd with the density of water, and it travels about 600 meters. That would mean it would go up about 300 meters, especially if it were a smooth steel bullet.
The pumpkin has a mass of about 4 kilograms.
The wheel can throw a 40th of its own mass with one wrap around the circumference.
A chain (avalanche). 40 times 4 would allow the system to have a mass of 160 kilograms; the wheel could be only 24 kilograms and the pumpkin 4. 160 -28 / 160 * 9.81 = for an acceleration of 8.09 m/sec/sec. But only 33 pumpkin are remaining for drive.
A distance of 300 meters divided by 33 would be 9.09 meters. A pumpkin could be place every 9.09 meters along a descending drive. It will take about .66 meters for the unwinding pumpkin to stop the drive and motion. This .66 meters is still under drive, but the velocity at release will be determined by a (9.09 - .66 meters) 8.43 meters.
The velocity is the square root of (2 * 8.43 m/sec/sec * 8.09 m) = v = 11.7 meter per second. That about 2 RPS or 120 RPM, this is sufficient rational velocity to throw.
Â
Another 300 meter chain (avalanche) with a 4 kilogram mass at one meter apart is a counter weight mass of 1200 kilograms; which is 11,772 joules of energy (1200 kg * 9.81 N/kg * 1 m) . You could have the 1200 kg at the shaft with the outer part of the wheel at a 20 to one ratio. This will accelerate like 1200/1280 * 9.81 m/sec/sec, for a velocity of 4.28 m/sec.
Even if you conserve energy with the 4 kilograms on the edge of a wheel you still have 58 m/sec (only 58 /20 for 2.9 m/sec not 4.28) velocity for that 4 kilograms. ½ *4 kg * 58 m/sec *58 m/sec = 6728 + 5046 ( ½ * 1200 kg* 2.9 m/sec * 2.9 m/sec) = 11774 joules. I don't think you conserve energy (I think the velocity will be much higher) I am just pointing this out.
58 m/sec is already very fast and if you then throw, as in a trebuchet, even a moderate increase would yield tons of energy. I see the newest entry is at 2400 feet with a counter weight of about a ton. But 1200 kilograms is a ton. Trebuchets are centrifugal throwing devices and the acceleration is not moderate; it is violent.
Its a throw.
re: energy producing experiments
You keep saying that it's all about the throw.
I say that the catch is much more important. Unless you're in an argument with your neighbor and you're both chucking pumpkins back and forth across the fence all day, what good is it just to throw?
The biggest problem I have with your theory, is that the one thing I have yet to see is your explanation of how you intend to harness your tons-of-energy. How is all of the experimentation that you've done so far going to be developed into something that will turn the shaft of my generator to produce electricity for me?
I can only assume that it's something you're keeping to yourself until "the time is right", patent-wise or otherwise. If that's the case, then okay.
But just so you know; if you have a way to do it, I'd like to see it.
I say that the catch is much more important. Unless you're in an argument with your neighbor and you're both chucking pumpkins back and forth across the fence all day, what good is it just to throw?
The biggest problem I have with your theory, is that the one thing I have yet to see is your explanation of how you intend to harness your tons-of-energy. How is all of the experimentation that you've done so far going to be developed into something that will turn the shaft of my generator to produce electricity for me?
I can only assume that it's something you're keeping to yourself until "the time is right", patent-wise or otherwise. If that's the case, then okay.
But just so you know; if you have a way to do it, I'd like to see it.
Last edited by Mark on Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
re: energy producing experiments
The avalanche. If you throw 4 kg up 300 meters you can get a 1200 kilograms avalanche. Think of a tower 300 meter high with a 300 meter chain with 4 kilograms at every meter. If it drops the chain one meter how much motion do you have to throw a 4 kilogram mass back up to the top? Look for paragraphs on this subject in the previous post. 1200/1280 * 9.81 m/sec/sec ect. It will be 1200 kg moving 4.2 m/sec.
Leave it to MSU, trebuchet.
https://www.msu.edu/~hartle35/KHweb/web ... uchet.html
They just showed me something very interesting.
They don't quite know how a trebuchet works, but they have made some very interesting observation.
My reference to wheel treb was a solid steel wheel wrapped with a string. Their use of the words wheeled trebuchet is a trebuchet on wheels.
I believe they are claiming that the wheeled treb move away from the missile and then backs up and stops at the original location. This is possibility correct. Their mistake is that they don't mention that the linear motion of the trebuchet has to be transferred to the missile.
Another mistake they make is that they think that the tether only increases the length of the throwing arm. But it does way more than that. The sling or tether transfer all of the motion of the arm; counterweight; and moving wheeled trebuchet to the missile.
If you are looking for the mystery motion these are big clues.
Leave it to MSU, trebuchet.
https://www.msu.edu/~hartle35/KHweb/web ... uchet.html
They just showed me something very interesting.
They don't quite know how a trebuchet works, but they have made some very interesting observation.
My reference to wheel treb was a solid steel wheel wrapped with a string. Their use of the words wheeled trebuchet is a trebuchet on wheels.
I believe they are claiming that the wheeled treb move away from the missile and then backs up and stops at the original location. This is possibility correct. Their mistake is that they don't mention that the linear motion of the trebuchet has to be transferred to the missile.
Another mistake they make is that they think that the tether only increases the length of the throwing arm. But it does way more than that. The sling or tether transfer all of the motion of the arm; counterweight; and moving wheeled trebuchet to the missile.
If you are looking for the mystery motion these are big clues.