Centripetal/Centrifugal anomolies

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Sevich,
yes there is a chance to post it on the discussion board. But without any help from the group, I will decide when I will open clues. Anyone always like to tell me what I have to do next, i do It my way, be sure.
It is like Jonathan said you have to look outside the box. The box is Newton!!

Newton machines will run with newton laws.
Bessler machines(Besslerwheel) will run with Besslers laws.

You are a programmer, change your program, do not accept incomplete ruls or formulars, do your own experiments and buildt a wheel, as I did.
Even the CAD Programms are incomplete because they use only newtons laws. How can you handle a hit on an excenter with the CAD-Programms ?Again, change your programm.

[Michael]

Alan, then I still don't understand you. You wrote;

>
- A luge sliding down a vortex-shaped luge-track. As it slides from its starting position it picks up speed, right? Of course, now as it gathers speed the centripetal force acting on the luge forces it to move up the side of the track, the faster it travels the higher it moves (Acc =V*V/R).

Centripetal force is the counter of centrifugal force ie. it is what holds an object in stationary orbit relative to the center. In a lug acting on it's own there is no centripetal force. Not when it is dropping straight down. You might be confusing terms. I know it is stated that centrifugal force is "virtual" and the real force acting on an orbiting object is centripetal, but ironically it is centrifugal force that is usable, as in being able to compress a spring. Again, centripetal is only a holding activity, or, if there were to be something acting to pull the object to the center, there's still the issue of a secondary source of energy needed to do this, unless you were talking about an object orbiting around a planet and gravity was pulling it down.

Is it really a centrifugal machine you're talking about? That's the only thing that makes sense relative to what your talking about. There's been a lot of talk about these types of machines on this board by members, if you ask around.

Mike

[ovyyus]

Hi Georg,

In my experience resonance is a method of storing energy, not a method of creating energy - much like a flywheel. IMO, resonance alone is not capable of actually creating energy.

To the best of my knowledge there is no mechanical experiment that actually disproves any of 'Newtons laws'. I don't think the problem lies with Newton.

Richard Feynman once said, "extraordinay claims require extraordinary proof". I would tend to agree. Unfortunately, for me at least, a theoretical model does not represent 'extraordinary proof'. Certainly a theory can be very interesting - but it is never proof!

I think it would be fair to say that a theory can never be proven unless by DEMONSTRATION. IMO, it is simply a mistake to attempt to represent a theoretical model as proof of physical reality. Physical demonstration is a much better proof of physical reality.

Being certian is one thing - being right is another :)

[Michael]

Hi Alan again,

Your message got me thinking a little. I suppose you could use centripetal force if there was a magnet in the axel.

Mike

[AlanR]

Hi all
Michael, this might help.
Although different, the principle is the same.

If you spin an object via a length of cord above your head, the faster you spin it, the higher it goes - approaching the same height as your hand (at infinite velocity!). My question is this: You are applying a force to the object and consequently its velocity increases (easy). But its potential gravitational energy (height) also increases, as it is higher than it was when at rest.
Fc (centripetal/centrifugal / virtual or whatever) is causing the object to rise vertically (actually i dont care what, its obvious that it WILL rise). How is this rise in height explained? Has some of the force used to propel the object been redirected to increase its height?

Now assume the object is self-propelled (eg a small jet engine) (but still on the end of the cord) with its thrust perfectly horizontal - its trying to maintain level flight. The engines force is out the back of the jet, and it moves forward according to Newtons 3rd law. Ok, so the velocity can be explained easily by means of standard formulas A=F/M, V=0.5 AT squared). But while its accelerating it is also gains height as a consequence of it being at the end of the cord, tracing out a circular path and undergoing a continual change in direction. SO, it takes energy to raise the objects height - where does it come from? how can it come from the engine when its velocity WILL match that determined by those formulae above - the same as if it were travelling in a straight line!!!
The rise in height can determine the energy required to have caused it - but this must be subtracted from the engines thrust, but i dont think it is!!!

What is the equation - noting that height only increases while the object is accelerating (speed-wise, not delta direction implied).
Can someone tell me what i have missed? I either need some confirmation that theres something in this or the wisdom to understand why it isn't so.

Thanks guys!

[Jonathan]

Okay, this first post will just talk about the weirdness that is nonuniform cicular motion, I just previewed it and it should come out okay, but I don't trust myself to do this right, so we'll see. I plan to post next how what is shown is possibly applicable to the concept of a gravity powered device of some type. (BTW, the second attachment I made assuming that I wouldn't be allowed to edit this post by the time I finished making it.)

[Jonathan]

Here we go, I hope you all can find some use for this, because nothing especially promising has come to mind and I don't want to have done all this for nothing.

[Jonathan]

I was hoping for a little more interest, or all you all off making PMM that was obvious from these attachments that I didn't see? Or was it confusing and hard to follow? Should I write it up in Word?

[AlanR]

Thanks heaps Jonathan, that is exactly what i was talking about!

Excellent diagrams and math!!!

You said

As to of wether this is of any use I don't know

[1] This should mean that at the "end" of the spiral the ball would have a greater velocity than the control (ball down an inclined plane from same height) - which is overunity defined! The ball would have more kinetic energy than the control, in effect its KE exceeds its initial Potential energy, which would mean the ball could roll back up to its initial height with energy to spare! - ad infinitum, with the excess used for electrical energy production, etc... Did I just go too far? (I must have or this is "IT")

[2] An article "Uncles Perpetual Motion Toy" (or similar) on KeelyNet descibes a "toy" where marbles (8 or so) roll from a hopper down a spiral ramp, striking a paddle wheel at bottom which raises a "lift" carrying the marble part of the way back up. The 8 or so continually cycle thru, and claimed to run for "weeks / months" until cleaning was required to remove dust, etc.. A constant speed was maintained as equilibrium between operating losses (friction, etc) matched "excess" energy.

This concept has bothered me for several years (but not enough to coerce me into building a model) and so far I've only seen confirmation and no-one has shown any arguments against it. Surely someone has a logical objection - or as Jonathan said

all you all off making PMM that was obvious from these attachments that I didn't see?

Come on, speak up skeptics!

Again thanks to Jonathan - those attachments are just incredible!

[Jonathan]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I'm so happy that you're happy and that I understood and that someone has replied!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[2]I have heard of that toy and found it very interesting, but didn't think much of it at the time because of the many other patently absurd things that are on that site. I'll post a link in a minute.
[1]I think you are getting carried away now, we need to approach this objectivly and with utmost skepicism and conservitivism. You should note that the maths become far more complicated than I even said when the ball no longer follows a circle of fixed radius. If you have ever played the game Exile (MystIII), then what I'm about to describe is like those spiral plants you ride on in the 'living' world (I forget it's name, I'm not that geeky). Anyway, the image I last attached showed a close up of the 'centripetal ramp', so imagine that is all there is, there is no flat part between it and the cylinder. And imagine it is much bigger (longer) (maybe I should post another picture). When, in this case, the ball has so much more room to move radially outward and upward, it becomes more obvious the porblems in the math that occur when it does so, because all the math I presented only holds if the slope is constant, if gravity is constant, and radius is constant.
It occurs to me that the fact that some of the nonlinear centripetal acceleration is used to negate gravity, then it makes sense that if it rolled for long enough down a long enough spiral, it would completly negate gravity, and the ball would come to a stop and then start up again, wouldn't that be weird?
It also occurs to me that because of this partial, and ever increasing, negation, gravity will seem to be less strong, and so it will gain less energy that will be made up exactly by the slight gain in height. You know what, that's probably it too, the equations always cancel themselves out like that. And yet this is speculation until I do more maths and maybe some experiments.
Here we go:
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/mptoy.htm

[AlanR]

Yep, I know I got carried away there... but your post was a revelation.

Re KeelyNet - sure theres a lot of rubbish there, actually the original link to that article was from rense.com. The article did catch my attention though after also checking out Clems' engine which also claims energy gain related to Fc.

That is interesting what you said re decrease in gravity compensated for exactly by the increase in height.

What of curved shape spiral walls, restricting the height gain. I wonder if that would cause the velocity to increase "unnaturally", or at least how it would impact on "gravity compensation" you mentioned. Maybe fixing a height limit such would force a redirection of energy elsewhere? I would think that altering the shape of the wall would complicate the equations horrendously.

If gravity is decreased, maybe this is another area to explore - if the apparent weight of the ball is reduced, this effect could be exploited (eg overbalance effects).

I hear you re the cancellation of equations. Nature usually has the last laugh!

Regardless this is really interesting - it doesn't seem like there has been much research into this kind of stuff.

I'll certainly be doing some thinking with all this food for thought.

Thanks

[Jonathan]

WOOOO two pages!!!
Okay, when I figure out the equation that describes the motions for all possible varing slopes and radii, we will really have something. I wish I had done this sooner, I was intimidated by the math, I didn't know exactly where to start. But then I realized that the method of proof (similar triangles) I knew for constant velocity could also be used for constant acceleration, and then it wasn't so hard.
I think you have misunderstood something, at no point in any of the equations did I even agknowledge the wall, I merely assumed for them that the wall was perpendicular, and left that open ended. That is why even the simple 45 degree one I show would completely ruin the whole thing. If I knew how at the moment to encorporate the wall into some more equations, then what type of wall it was wouldn't matter. The hard part is that the answer to these hypothetical equations would determine the radius function (with the wall included) which is necessary in the first place to find the answer. It's very complicated catch-22, I hope I can find a useful dodge.
BTW, I am almost certain there has been no research into it (unless one of the conspiracy theories are true of course), because of it's great complexity and no known use. Now they probably soved all the math a hundred years ago in pure mathematics, but because it was pure and without context, there's no way to know until I do it with real, applied maths. Oh boy.....

[AlanR]

yes, I really haven't paid close attention to the attachments yet - just the first look grabbed my attention, so the wall issue wasn't noticed.

IF (a big if) it turned out that there was a "phenomenon" happening, is it a certainty that mathematical equations could describe it? ie, can a physical model always be reduced to a mathematical model and reconciled against the observed phenomena? I think yes, yet if any new phenomena were discovered there may not be a "known language" to describe it. Probably not in this case, but (for instance) the effects of say, Radium, pre knowledge of the atom would have been impossible to explain.

Anyways, i look forward to what you come up with - I'll spend time digesting your diagrams and maybe make a model & conduct some experiments.

Over & out for today (its 10:15pm in Sydney)

Alan.

[Jonathan]

It's 4:30AM here. (It's a weekend :).) Hey, that makes it like +18 from me to you, so is it sunday/late saturday there?
Well, I doubt this is as interesting as it first seems, but if it is, then it probably won't shake things so much as to introduce entirely new concepts like the atom was thousands of years ago.
As to math and physics, I'm quite sure that there is math that can describe anything. One thing that has always bugged me, and which no one can explain to my satisfaction, is that if what I just said is true, and many believe so, then why are there not any physical systems that can't decide what to do next, that have a fundamental contradiction built into them that invokes Godel's incompleteness theorem? Similarly, how can a theory of everything (a single axiomic system) exist that describes everything given the truth of Godel's incompleteness theorem (which says that there are 'grammatically' correct queries posable in any axiomic system that are undefinable/answerable in that system)? It seems to me that G'sIT makes a ToE impossible and dooms us to an eternity of two competing incompatable theories of everything. It also make one wonder about A]the sanity of God :) and B]the sensicalness of the universe.
Well, would you look at that, I'm off topic......okay, so I'm going to bed and hope to get some more done in this area soon.

[Michael]

Alan, Jonathan, respectively I was going to leave you to your own devices, but I can't stand it.
1. A spinning object does NOT raise itself, unless your talking about a propeller.
2. What do these three items have in common- besides being spiral ramps.

a. A ramp that is 1 inch in diameter, by a vertical height of ten feet with 20 circular arcs (SPIRALS).
b. A ramp that is 10 feet in diameter by a vertical height of ten feet with 20 circular arcs.
c. A ramp that is 40 feet in diameter by a vertical height of ten feet with 1 circular arc?

Answer: The balls exiting at the bottom will all have the same velocity. Centripetal force has nothing to do with it.

Mike