energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
It's a free open source tool.
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
Re: re: energy producing experiments
Thanks, broli!broli wrote:Here's a very cool physics tool you can track objects with and gather all sorts of data:
http://physlets.org/tracker/
I'm sure it will come to be useful.
That is a neat little program. I've installed it and it seems to work pretty well with some test clips I tried.
Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.
re: energy producing experiments
Wow; I will get my IT guy working on it. It is a three dimensional experiment and there is no interest in the falling velocity. Thanks for the information.
re: energy producing experiments
Very cool indeed, I just made a quick video with my smartphone which incidentally also has a slow motion feature camera at 120fps and did some analysis of the friction bearing.
The wheel has a marker on it for easy tracking, after a few trial and errors I got some very good results.
I created an RPM function and you can easily see in the graph how the RPM slows down as time progresses due to bearing friction. I double checked by doing a manual analysis (counting amount of frames for a single rotation) and it was pretty much spot on with the data point.
I think I will be using this if I were to build a new momentum transfer device.
The wheel has a marker on it for easy tracking, after a few trial and errors I got some very good results.
I created an RPM function and you can easily see in the graph how the RPM slows down as time progresses due to bearing friction. I double checked by doing a manual analysis (counting amount of frames for a single rotation) and it was pretty much spot on with the data point.
I think I will be using this if I were to build a new momentum transfer device.
- Attachments
-
re: energy producing experiments
I have been busy for a while now on a build for this type of device and I think I can say I'm about finished now. Here's a video of said device in action, recorded in slow motion at 120FPS as well:
https://youtu.be/JYAa18PlGEo
Since I was so curious as to what sort of data this device generated I went ahead and just analyzed the slow motion video and counted the amount of frames it takes for one revolution. This combined with the overall dimensions and mass of the device I could fill in a spreadsheet. Even though this is far from a proper way to do a scientific experiment. I think the data at least at this stage tells me that there is no such thing as an energy producing device. I still would like to go ahead and measure everything scientifically but the numbers are so convincing even at this stage....
So in conclusion ENERGY AND ANGULAR MOMENTUM ARE CONSERVED!
I'm sorry pequaide, it took years to prove but at least I can move on knowing this device is respecting CoE rules. The sims were correct this time.
https://youtu.be/JYAa18PlGEo
Since I was so curious as to what sort of data this device generated I went ahead and just analyzed the slow motion video and counted the amount of frames it takes for one revolution. This combined with the overall dimensions and mass of the device I could fill in a spreadsheet. Even though this is far from a proper way to do a scientific experiment. I think the data at least at this stage tells me that there is no such thing as an energy producing device. I still would like to go ahead and measure everything scientifically but the numbers are so convincing even at this stage....
So in conclusion ENERGY AND ANGULAR MOMENTUM ARE CONSERVED!
I'm sorry pequaide, it took years to prove but at least I can move on knowing this device is respecting CoE rules. The sims were correct this time.
- Attachments
-
re: energy producing experiments
Great work broli, thanks for sharing.
re: energy producing experiments
I would suspect that about half of your motion is in the wobbling stand and arm. I also know that at high velocities there is a tremendous loss of motion to air resistance. And you just mentioned bearing resistance.
You are just going to call me hard headed; but maybe it is you that is hard headed.
Why don't you exactly repeat my experiments and see if you get exactly the same results. My data clearly shows energy increases. I suggest the double stop cylinder.
You are just going to call me hard headed; but maybe it is you that is hard headed.
Why don't you exactly repeat my experiments and see if you get exactly the same results. My data clearly shows energy increases. I suggest the double stop cylinder.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: energy producing experiments
Good job Broli. I didn't realize there was still a question in anyone's mind.
re: energy producing experiments
Pequaide, bearing resistance has been reduced to almost nothing by removing the bearing grease and using WD-40 before a run. The setup freespins for quite a while. Yes there is air resistance but this is is also insignificant when looking at spin down rate.
As for the wobbling containing half the energy, if that was the case that mystery energy would lift up the setup to the ceiling, whereas the wobble is barely affecting the setup in mine.
I didn't expect you to accept my results but I accept my results, there's no way energy is lost due all these factors so cleanly as to conserve angular momentum and energy almost perfectly.
Since I have the setup now I'll calculate the initial moment of inertia properly using a fixed torque and measuring angular acceleration. But I think this will make the results even more in favor of CoE than they are currently.
As for the wobbling containing half the energy, if that was the case that mystery energy would lift up the setup to the ceiling, whereas the wobble is barely affecting the setup in mine.
I didn't expect you to accept my results but I accept my results, there's no way energy is lost due all these factors so cleanly as to conserve angular momentum and energy almost perfectly.
Since I have the setup now I'll calculate the initial moment of inertia properly using a fixed torque and measuring angular acceleration. But I think this will make the results even more in favor of CoE than they are currently.
re: energy producing experiments
Just what I thought; never mind a good experiment you have the numbers you want.
re: energy producing experiments
As I mentioned I'm going to gather more accurate data from the device, however I think I will never convince you even if both AM and Energy are conserved perfectly.
All these years you never considered the fact you might be wrong and that my friend is why you will never accept anything else. Belief can be an unbreakable shackle.
All these years you never considered the fact you might be wrong and that my friend is why you will never accept anything else. Belief can be an unbreakable shackle.
re: energy producing experiments
Actually your experiment is great proof that I am right. You have energy conservation with a table that is about to fall over.
The maximum speed is the first 1/240th of a second; why do you use the average of 42/240? Ballistics measures muzzle velocity not the first 1/6 of a second.
I calculate that the missile’s average speed is 38.6 m/sec; that speed will give you huge quantities of air resistance.
You can’t ignore the fact that the table almost falls over. Attributing half of the motion loss to this is probably not unreasonable. Since the table is not held fast the system is trying to rotate around its center of mass; which would be a few centimeters from the table center. And yes; half the momentum is on short heavy side, of the center of mass, and half the momentum is on the long side. And all the while the motion is rubbing itself out on the floor.
Why don’t you reverse the experiment and start with only the missile in motion. Let the missile rewind and all the motion should return to the arm. Why not; it should, at least Newton thought it should. And so do I.
The maximum speed is the first 1/240th of a second; why do you use the average of 42/240? Ballistics measures muzzle velocity not the first 1/6 of a second.
I calculate that the missile’s average speed is 38.6 m/sec; that speed will give you huge quantities of air resistance.
You can’t ignore the fact that the table almost falls over. Attributing half of the motion loss to this is probably not unreasonable. Since the table is not held fast the system is trying to rotate around its center of mass; which would be a few centimeters from the table center. And yes; half the momentum is on short heavy side, of the center of mass, and half the momentum is on the long side. And all the while the motion is rubbing itself out on the floor.
Why don’t you reverse the experiment and start with only the missile in motion. Let the missile rewind and all the motion should return to the arm. Why not; it should, at least Newton thought it should. And so do I.
re: energy producing experiments
Great build Broli!
re: energy producing experiments
The newest cylinder and spheres;
The one inch diameter spheres are 152 grams each. This is a missile (spheres) mass of 304 grams.
The PVC cylinder has to be correspondingly long. The cylinder has a mass of 1082 grams.
This is a spheres to total mass ratio of one to 4.56.
At the release speed; the 20 mm squares could move from one edge to the other in 5/240th (5 * 1/240th sec) of a second. This is about 1 m/sec.
In the photograph the cylinder is just beginning to leave a full rotational stop. It does not appear to move for several 1/240th of a second; and the cylinder will also change its direction of rotation.
About 20/240th of a second later the cylinder is again at full rotational speed. The black square on the cylinder can cross from one side to the other in 5/240th of a second.
Only Newtonian momentum can be transferred from small objects to large objects; and it is clear that the rotational momentum of the cylinder has been restored.
To restore the cylinder's momentum the spheres must have the momentum to restore it. When the spheres have all the motion they must be moving about 4.5 m/sec.
The original energy is ½ * 1.386 kg *1 m/sec * 1 m/sec = .693 joules.
The energy of the spheres when they have all the motion is ½ * .304 kg * 4.5 m/sec * 4.5 m/sec = 3.08 joules.
This 3.08 joules is 440% the original energy.
Because of the long pipe the cylinder strikes the floor before the spheres stop the cylinder for the second time. This prevents a second restart. I would now have to stand on something to get a second restart.
The one inch diameter spheres are 152 grams each. This is a missile (spheres) mass of 304 grams.
The PVC cylinder has to be correspondingly long. The cylinder has a mass of 1082 grams.
This is a spheres to total mass ratio of one to 4.56.
At the release speed; the 20 mm squares could move from one edge to the other in 5/240th (5 * 1/240th sec) of a second. This is about 1 m/sec.
In the photograph the cylinder is just beginning to leave a full rotational stop. It does not appear to move for several 1/240th of a second; and the cylinder will also change its direction of rotation.
About 20/240th of a second later the cylinder is again at full rotational speed. The black square on the cylinder can cross from one side to the other in 5/240th of a second.
Only Newtonian momentum can be transferred from small objects to large objects; and it is clear that the rotational momentum of the cylinder has been restored.
To restore the cylinder's momentum the spheres must have the momentum to restore it. When the spheres have all the motion they must be moving about 4.5 m/sec.
The original energy is ½ * 1.386 kg *1 m/sec * 1 m/sec = .693 joules.
The energy of the spheres when they have all the motion is ½ * .304 kg * 4.5 m/sec * 4.5 m/sec = 3.08 joules.
This 3.08 joules is 440% the original energy.
Because of the long pipe the cylinder strikes the floor before the spheres stop the cylinder for the second time. This prevents a second restart. I would now have to stand on something to get a second restart.