In WM you'd use a parallelogram with the small weights attached at opposite apexes - then the weight would be pinned to a sliding slot so that they stay 180 degrees apart & also move to the same radius - then you need a small impressed force to move the weights outwards [assuming Cf's was insufficient] - then you would need to know how much energy was inputted to get the wheel up to a certain rpm - unlock the parallelogram & apply a small shifting force/energy etc - what were the components Ke's after deployment v's the energy required to get it to starting rpm ?
In a real world build you'd still need some sort of control mech & latching & a way to measure energy input/output - strobes or video recording can determine rpm etc, or a digital oscilloscope perhaps ?
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
A real world setup/ Why don't you guys try this, very simple.
Get a block of wood and drill a hole in the center. This is the foundation. Get two more pieces of much lighter and equal length and volume of wood for the arms. Put a bearing in near the ends of each, and get a long bolt and put the bolt through the two arms at the bearings and have the arms seperated from each other by a nut so they can swing independently of each other. Put the bolt into the foundation and tighten but again so that the arms can swing. Place the whole setup horizontally. Get two weights of different masses and bolt each to it's own arm at the same lenghts away from the center where the bearings are. Get a latching mechanism that can latch the two together. A modified gate latch might do. Get two equal springs. Set it up so each spring can fling forth each arm. Get a timming watch and time each weight in how long it takes for it to make a 180 degree rotation. Now make the larger weight fling and at the right time make the smaller weight fling and as soon as it catches up to the larger weight and latches on, time how long it will take for the two together to make a 180 degree rotation. If momentum is conserved the velocity will be the average of the 2, if energy is conserved it won't be.
Simple. Test this.
Get a block of wood and drill a hole in the center. This is the foundation. Get two more pieces of much lighter and equal length and volume of wood for the arms. Put a bearing in near the ends of each, and get a long bolt and put the bolt through the two arms at the bearings and have the arms seperated from each other by a nut so they can swing independently of each other. Put the bolt into the foundation and tighten but again so that the arms can swing. Place the whole setup horizontally. Get two weights of different masses and bolt each to it's own arm at the same lenghts away from the center where the bearings are. Get a latching mechanism that can latch the two together. A modified gate latch might do. Get two equal springs. Set it up so each spring can fling forth each arm. Get a timming watch and time each weight in how long it takes for it to make a 180 degree rotation. Now make the larger weight fling and at the right time make the smaller weight fling and as soon as it catches up to the larger weight and latches on, time how long it will take for the two together to make a 180 degree rotation. If momentum is conserved the velocity will be the average of the 2, if energy is conserved it won't be.
Simple. Test this.
meChANical Man.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
Re: re: energy producing experiments
You don't need any force to move the weights outwards. The centrifugal force does that. The simulation I made shows exactly how much energy is started with, it's not rocket science...wait it is. Given the radius and initial angular velocity you can calculate the kinetic energy.Fletcher wrote:In WM you'd use a parallelogram with the small weights attached at opposite apexes - then the weight would be pinned to a sliding slot so that they stay 180 degrees apart & also move to the same radius - then you need a small impressed force to move the weights outwards [assuming Cf's was insufficient] - then you would need to know how much energy was inputted to get the wheel up to a certain rpm - unlock the parallelogram & apply a small shifting force/energy etc - what were the components Ke's after deployment v's the energy required to get it to starting rpm ?
In a real world build you'd still need some sort of control mech & latching & a way to measure energy input/output - strobes or video recording can determine rpm etc, or a digital oscilloscope perhaps ?
I can't really visualize what you're saying.Michael wrote:A real world setup/ Why don't you guys try this, very simple.
Get a block of wood and drill a hole in the center. This is the foundation. Get two more pieces of much lighter and equal length and volume of wood for the arms. Put a bearing in near the ends of each, and get a long bolt and put the bolt through the two arms at the bearings and have the arms seperated from each other by a nut so they can swing independently of each other. Put the bolt into the foundation and tighten but again so that the arms can swing. Place the whole setup horizontally. Get two weights of different masses and bolt each to it's own arm at the same lenghts away from the center where the bearings are. Get a latching mechanism that can latch the two together. A modified gate latch might do. Get two equal springs. Set it up so each spring can fling forth each arm. Get a timming watch and time each weight in how long it takes for it to make a 180 degree rotation. Now make the larger weight fling and at the right time make the smaller weight fling and as soon as it catches up to the larger weight and latches on, time how long it will take for the two together to make a 180 degree rotation. If momentum is conserved the velocity will be the average of the 2, if energy is conserved it won't be.
re: energy producing experiments
Okay, I'll send in a diagram or dig the contraption out of retirement and send in a pic.
Last edited by Michael on Thu May 28, 2009 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
meChANical Man.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
re: energy producing experiments
Michael made the two arm thought experiment. The way I take it is that it is a ridged pendulum striking another ridged pendulum. But you could use stringed pendulums of different mass but of the same length. Start the large bob in a small arc and the small bob in a large arc; you could time it so that the small bob strikes the large bob while both are at the bottom of their swing. This would be only a little different than a ballistic pendulum with the block at rest. In ballistic pendulums linear Newtonian momentum is conserved not energy.
Michael you asked me to sight credentialed scientists. NASA thought angular momentum is conserved in the yo-yo de-spin maneuver, they do not state that energy must be conserved (unless I missed it). WM2D’s credentialed scientists states that both Newtonian momentum and angular momentum are not conserved if energy is conserved. NASA employees are credentialed scientists and they don’t sight a necessity for energy to be conserved. In fact; by stating that angular momentum must be conserved they negate the possibility of energy being conserved. Oh: my I sight Newton? Newton thinks that linear momentum is conserved, and that negates the possibility of the other two being conserved.
It just looks like we are going to have to do some of these experiments that Broli, Fletcher, I, yourself, and others are proposing.
Michael you asked me to sight credentialed scientists. NASA thought angular momentum is conserved in the yo-yo de-spin maneuver, they do not state that energy must be conserved (unless I missed it). WM2D’s credentialed scientists states that both Newtonian momentum and angular momentum are not conserved if energy is conserved. NASA employees are credentialed scientists and they don’t sight a necessity for energy to be conserved. In fact; by stating that angular momentum must be conserved they negate the possibility of energy being conserved. Oh: my I sight Newton? Newton thinks that linear momentum is conserved, and that negates the possibility of the other two being conserved.
It just looks like we are going to have to do some of these experiments that Broli, Fletcher, I, yourself, and others are proposing.
Since I don't want to spread wrong concepts I have to correct myself.
After I fixed all the calculations wm2d seems to conserve angular momentum but not linear momentum. Actually the AM increases very slightly for some reason regardless of accuracy so I don't know what the deal of that is. The energy based on the m*v^2/2 also seems to increase slightly depending on the initial energy. For some reason it always adds a specific value to it. 2.61J or 261J or 2610J depending on how large the initial value is.
I think I managed to confuse wm2d a bit. Both files I posted are all corrected and should operate correctly now unless someone finds another problem.
After I fixed all the calculations wm2d seems to conserve angular momentum but not linear momentum. Actually the AM increases very slightly for some reason regardless of accuracy so I don't know what the deal of that is. The energy based on the m*v^2/2 also seems to increase slightly depending on the initial energy. For some reason it always adds a specific value to it. 2.61J or 261J or 2610J depending on how large the initial value is.
I think I managed to confuse wm2d a bit. Both files I posted are all corrected and should operate correctly now unless someone finds another problem.
re: energy producing experiments
In the 9 kg sled thought experiment 3.16 m/sec velocity for the one kilogram was needed for energy conservation. At 3.16 m/sec, one and only one tether length would satisfy angular momentum conservation. (if a sled has angular momentum) When the one kilogram has all the motion the sled can be locked away from reaccelerating. The tether length of the one kilogram can be changed by letting it wrap or further unwrap from the wheel. The angular momentum must then change because the 3.16 m/sec must be maintained to conserve energy. You simply can not conserve both, it is a physical impossibility.
I agree that energy conservation makes things wonky bonky.
Wm2d agrees on this. Rotate a single mass with some initial speed and radius, then allow the radius to increase. Here linear and angular momentum is perfectly conserved as the tangential speed component becomes a radial one seen from the wheel point of view.
Things go hay wire if you leave a mass behind like the simulation I posted. Because now it means almost all inertia is transferred from one body to the other and this wm2d doesn't agree on because it's probably used to collision physics and potential energy.
If you think about it the only form of momentum transfer we learned is from potential energy. An elastic collision is nothing more than a spring getting compressed and decompressed, this can be the material itself or even a fluid. So how do you expect for wm2D or people to accept a new concept of momentum transfer :D.
Wm2d agrees on this. Rotate a single mass with some initial speed and radius, then allow the radius to increase. Here linear and angular momentum is perfectly conserved as the tangential speed component becomes a radial one seen from the wheel point of view.
Things go hay wire if you leave a mass behind like the simulation I posted. Because now it means almost all inertia is transferred from one body to the other and this wm2d doesn't agree on because it's probably used to collision physics and potential energy.
If you think about it the only form of momentum transfer we learned is from potential energy. An elastic collision is nothing more than a spring getting compressed and decompressed, this can be the material itself or even a fluid. So how do you expect for wm2D or people to accept a new concept of momentum transfer :D.
re: energy producing experiments
It would seem to me that a real world experiment is needed that can be replicated in WM [the experiment in its simplist form] & the results compared & the sim tweaked if required to conform to real world [has some losses] - then you would need a way to establish an rpm of the device - letting a rim riding driving mass create torque & fall off would be a good way because we know how much work is done to lift it to its starting potential height etc - then once the small radius changing weights are released & deployed to a greater radius the wheel will have a newly established rpm - we can then use the momentum of the newly established rpm to impact a stop or drive a gear to lift/throw a corresponding mass to the rim riding weight that started it all - if it can lift it higher [from 6 o'cl starting position] than the rim riding activation weight was originally placed at [its Pe] then you have a winner & can indeed output greater energy than was inputted ???
Thread Title : re: energy producing experiments
P.S. the sim can simulate perfectly inelastic conditions or elastic impulse, to reflect real world materials that might be used in a real experiment - the real world experiment would always have losses & that is unavoidable though can be minimised - the sim can assume absolutely optimal conditions & then be de-tuned to bring them into alignment.
If there is something to pequaides theory then it should fall out the bottom of the experiments & simulations so it comes down to reliable & robust experimental design.
EDIT: It seems that jim_mich's idea about two masses changing radius thru the use of Cf's so that average speed of the two masses remains the same but TOTAL Ke is different dovetails with & perhaps supports this hypothesis ?
P.S. the driver weight need not fall of the wheel but stay attached & see how far up it is lifted on the ascending side [as I suggested earlier in the thread] for simplicity but perhaps that negates an important part of the energy producing potential ?
Thread Title : re: energy producing experiments
P.S. the sim can simulate perfectly inelastic conditions or elastic impulse, to reflect real world materials that might be used in a real experiment - the real world experiment would always have losses & that is unavoidable though can be minimised - the sim can assume absolutely optimal conditions & then be de-tuned to bring them into alignment.
If there is something to pequaides theory then it should fall out the bottom of the experiments & simulations so it comes down to reliable & robust experimental design.
EDIT: It seems that jim_mich's idea about two masses changing radius thru the use of Cf's so that average speed of the two masses remains the same but TOTAL Ke is different dovetails with & perhaps supports this hypothesis ?
P.S. the driver weight need not fall of the wheel but stay attached & see how far up it is lifted on the ascending side [as I suggested earlier in the thread] for simplicity but perhaps that negates an important part of the energy producing potential ?
re: energy producing experiments
The driver weight must be separated from the wheel. You must give all the momentum (linear Newtonian) of the wheel to a small mass and separate that mass from the wheel. Atwood’s tell us how much motion can be given to a wheel that was caused by the dropping of a certain mass a certain distance. I would mount the wheel horizontally and give it a certain quantity of motion. Then transfer the motion to small masses and see what velocity the masses achieve. We have proven formulas that will tell us how high an object will rise if it has a certain velocity, so knowing the initial rotational velocity of the wheel and masses and the final linear velocity of the small masses should be all we need.
I used a disk and pucks on a frictionless plane, and the cylinder and spheres. More elaborate arrangements will bring us to useful machines, but proving that energy can be made in the lab is the missing link.
I used a disk and pucks on a frictionless plane, and the cylinder and spheres. More elaborate arrangements will bring us to useful machines, but proving that energy can be made in the lab is the missing link.
I agree on your experiment. Fletcher's idea of measuring the final height is too cumbersome if you can measure the mass and velocity of an object. The question is how big must an ideal setup be to show without a shred of a doubt energy was created and linear momentum conserved.
To make the construction simpler you don't need to use a flywheel. One could use a long bar of wood to fit the rails on it. And add some heavy weights at certain radia like the wm2d simulation for the momentum transfer and simpler calculations. With that 1 meters radius could probably be enough depending on how good your testing equipment is.
If that's successful the next challenge is coming up with a practical design that automatically closes the loop for continuous energy generation.
pequaide, read your private messages from time to time.
To make the construction simpler you don't need to use a flywheel. One could use a long bar of wood to fit the rails on it. And add some heavy weights at certain radia like the wm2d simulation for the momentum transfer and simpler calculations. With that 1 meters radius could probably be enough depending on how good your testing equipment is.
If that's successful the next challenge is coming up with a practical design that automatically closes the loop for continuous energy generation.
pequaide, read your private messages from time to time.
re: energy producing experiments
I know that a velocity of around 5 m/sec starts seeing drag from air resistance, so slow is important in small objects. Of course if the objects had a mass of a ton then you probably would not notice drag until around 35 m/sec. This 35 m/sec is only a wild guess I did not work it out mathematically.
My biggest hand held model is about one kilogram with two spheres of 66g (one inch) each. The center rim, wheel, cylinder, or disk need not be made of steel because density would not change the air resistance much, and the resistance is small (except for the spokes of a wheel). A puck has low density but if possible make the small masses out of steel to reduce air resistance. 40mm diameter steel spheres have a mass of 263 grams and are not too expensive. If you made a cylinder and spheres machine out of 40mm spheres it would have a total mass of around 2.5 kg. I think the air resistance of this machine, at low speeds, would be negligible. It might injure your wrist to spin it, be sure it will fit in you hand, (I made one that was very uncomfortable to spin) or you might throw it mechanically. But don’t be deceived, the velocity will be five times greater than what you spin it, and a 263 gram sphere moving six or eight m/sec is not a toy. You must be careful to avoid personal injury or property damage. Proceed at your own risk. Mine break often.
My biggest hand held model is about one kilogram with two spheres of 66g (one inch) each. The center rim, wheel, cylinder, or disk need not be made of steel because density would not change the air resistance much, and the resistance is small (except for the spokes of a wheel). A puck has low density but if possible make the small masses out of steel to reduce air resistance. 40mm diameter steel spheres have a mass of 263 grams and are not too expensive. If you made a cylinder and spheres machine out of 40mm spheres it would have a total mass of around 2.5 kg. I think the air resistance of this machine, at low speeds, would be negligible. It might injure your wrist to spin it, be sure it will fit in you hand, (I made one that was very uncomfortable to spin) or you might throw it mechanically. But don’t be deceived, the velocity will be five times greater than what you spin it, and a 263 gram sphere moving six or eight m/sec is not a toy. You must be careful to avoid personal injury or property damage. Proceed at your own risk. Mine break often.
re: energy producing experiments
Air drag is an interesting phenomenon - text books & NASA wind test tunnel results will try to fit the curve to line of best fit - most of the mathematical modeling out there uses drag as a function of V^2 - in actuality drag is a function of V [i.e. linear] up until about 10-15 m/s IIRC & V^2 above those speeds - it is important to remember that actual physical wind tunnel results are interpolated into a mathematical formula approximation of what's happening in the real world & that its not exact.
That's why WM has air resistance options > None > V & > V^2 & you decide which one to use in what circumstance.
For wheel experiments at lowish rpm's [most all our builds] I would suggest that drag as a linear function of V would be representative, IMO - air friction is a real system loss but can be minimised by using high density, low volume [low frontal area form drag] materials - disks have a reasonably low drag co-efficient, but that's probably self-evident !
That's why WM has air resistance options > None > V & > V^2 & you decide which one to use in what circumstance.
For wheel experiments at lowish rpm's [most all our builds] I would suggest that drag as a linear function of V would be representative, IMO - air friction is a real system loss but can be minimised by using high density, low volume [low frontal area form drag] materials - disks have a reasonably low drag co-efficient, but that's probably self-evident !
re: energy producing experiments
I think I can explain this better without having to post drawings or pictures.
2 springs. Both exactly the same. One is going to give "A " weight which weighs 10 pounds linear motion, it's going to have a velocity of 10 feet a sec. The other spring is going to give "B"" weight which weighs 2 pounds linear motion as well. Since both weights are given the exact same energy from the springs "B "weight will be traveling at 22.36... feet a sec.
Now, imagine this exact same setup but on a horizontal wheel, each weight on it's own arm, so there are two arms like on a clock. The heavier weight is going to receive its motion first because it will be traveling slower. Then the smaller and faster weight will be given its motion. When the smaller and faster weight catches up to the larger and slower weight, it will latch and hold on to the the larger and faster weight. The smaller and faster weight will give up some of its "" vital force" to the larger and slower weight so the two will attain the same velocity - being locked together as they are.
Now, if momentum is conserved, the final velocity of both weights being locked together will be the average of the two independent velocities. So the final velocity will be 16.8 feet a sec. But if energy is conserved, the final velocity of the two together will be 12.9... feet a sec.
Here's what I want to ask of pequaide and greendoor. For sake of argument let's say it turned out momentum was conserved. Then what? How do you plan to get more for less out of that?
2 springs. Both exactly the same. One is going to give "A " weight which weighs 10 pounds linear motion, it's going to have a velocity of 10 feet a sec. The other spring is going to give "B"" weight which weighs 2 pounds linear motion as well. Since both weights are given the exact same energy from the springs "B "weight will be traveling at 22.36... feet a sec.
Now, imagine this exact same setup but on a horizontal wheel, each weight on it's own arm, so there are two arms like on a clock. The heavier weight is going to receive its motion first because it will be traveling slower. Then the smaller and faster weight will be given its motion. When the smaller and faster weight catches up to the larger and slower weight, it will latch and hold on to the the larger and faster weight. The smaller and faster weight will give up some of its "" vital force" to the larger and slower weight so the two will attain the same velocity - being locked together as they are.
Now, if momentum is conserved, the final velocity of both weights being locked together will be the average of the two independent velocities. So the final velocity will be 16.8 feet a sec. But if energy is conserved, the final velocity of the two together will be 12.9... feet a sec.
Here's what I want to ask of pequaide and greendoor. For sake of argument let's say it turned out momentum was conserved. Then what? How do you plan to get more for less out of that?
meChANical Man.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
Michael - my short answer is "I wouldn't". My plan is significantly different to what Pequaide is describing. But it does depend on Conservation of Momentum holding true - which I feel to be a fairly safe bet.
I don't wish to go into details before I finish my experiments.
But let's just suppose that I have a system in which a fixed quantity of mass falls X distance, and is raised back up X distance. Let's suppose that as the mass falls, the system acquires an embarassing surplus of momentum - relative to the momentum that would be gained by that same mass free-falling x distance. That is the step where the 'more for less' occurs.
If you have been following what i've been saying for some time - in my opinion - there is no energy to be gained from transfering momentum. It's always a lossy transformation. But if we have a large enough surplus to being with, the losses don't matter so much.
Energy - as defined by E=0.5MV^2 - as a mathematical concept is skewed to favour velocity, since V is squared but mass isn't. Momentum favours neither - a heavy/slow mass can have equal momentum as a light/fast mass. But if we perform the 0.5MV^2 Energy calculation, the light/fast mass has more 'Energy' than the heavy/slow mass.
So the real question is: do we need Energy to return a mass up distance X - or do we need Momentum. They are not the same thing (unless V = 0).
I'm suggesting that Momentum is what we need to elevate a mass - and that if we have surplus momentum, we can elevate that mass higher than it fell (or raise more mass up distance X).
There is more, but I don't wish to discuss it. But I trust this adequately answers you question. Short answer - No, I don't see any energy gain in what you are suggesting.
I don't wish to go into details before I finish my experiments.
But let's just suppose that I have a system in which a fixed quantity of mass falls X distance, and is raised back up X distance. Let's suppose that as the mass falls, the system acquires an embarassing surplus of momentum - relative to the momentum that would be gained by that same mass free-falling x distance. That is the step where the 'more for less' occurs.
If you have been following what i've been saying for some time - in my opinion - there is no energy to be gained from transfering momentum. It's always a lossy transformation. But if we have a large enough surplus to being with, the losses don't matter so much.
Energy - as defined by E=0.5MV^2 - as a mathematical concept is skewed to favour velocity, since V is squared but mass isn't. Momentum favours neither - a heavy/slow mass can have equal momentum as a light/fast mass. But if we perform the 0.5MV^2 Energy calculation, the light/fast mass has more 'Energy' than the heavy/slow mass.
So the real question is: do we need Energy to return a mass up distance X - or do we need Momentum. They are not the same thing (unless V = 0).
I'm suggesting that Momentum is what we need to elevate a mass - and that if we have surplus momentum, we can elevate that mass higher than it fell (or raise more mass up distance X).
There is more, but I don't wish to discuss it. But I trust this adequately answers you question. Short answer - No, I don't see any energy gain in what you are suggesting.