energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
A question. What is the force that causes this momentum transfer? I looked at the pequaide experiment where a sled is attached to the rim of the wheel. Both are set in motion at equal speeds. Then at a certain point in time the wheel releases its small weight so it can increase its radius. This will cause the wheel to speed down. But this at the same time will force the heavy sled to slow down too. A change in momentum on the heavy sled equals force. But what exactly is this force? Has this been ignored in classical physics or something? Conservation of angular momentum or the concept of angular momentum itself seems to be something vague as the same linear momentum can give different angular momentum values.
re: energy producing experiments
I'm glad your thinking about this greendoor. And I am glad you said you don't see any gain, because I was betting that people who think momentum was correct and that there was some kind of gain, were thinking about using momentum for the interactions for the gain in energy, and then forgetting that they were basing everything on momentum and switching to energy. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid. Greendoor I have to ask of course, given your answer this now begs the question, what part of doc emperors johnson did you think you were looking at, as per your post?
As a side note for the set up I mentioned. I based the velocities of both objects, which were given their velocities by twin springs, on energy. If it was on momentum then if the 10 pound weight was traveling at 10 feet a sec. the 2 pound weight should be traveling at 50 feet a sec. since it is 1/5 th the mass of the larger weight, right? So when the smaller weight attaches to the larger weight, to attain the same velocity the larger weight will take 5 parts of the smaller weights "vital force" and the smaller weight will keep 1 part. So the final velocity would be 16.666.... for both. Following the energy equation the final velocity would be 12.9 feet a sec. So I put it out there, which is right? It is easy enough to test.
As a side note for the set up I mentioned. I based the velocities of both objects, which were given their velocities by twin springs, on energy. If it was on momentum then if the 10 pound weight was traveling at 10 feet a sec. the 2 pound weight should be traveling at 50 feet a sec. since it is 1/5 th the mass of the larger weight, right? So when the smaller weight attaches to the larger weight, to attain the same velocity the larger weight will take 5 parts of the smaller weights "vital force" and the smaller weight will keep 1 part. So the final velocity would be 16.666.... for both. Following the energy equation the final velocity would be 12.9 feet a sec. So I put it out there, which is right? It is easy enough to test.
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
As I said before it has already been tested, the data is already out there. The collision is the same as a ballistics pendulum, and there are piles of data showing that linear Newtonian momentum is conserved, not energy. So I guess it is really a matter of whether or not you want to accept the data.
Springs load and unload energy (force times distance), don’t use springs. I don’t use spring. You are merely showing us how to do it wrong; there are lots of ways to do it wrong.
Start your motion with an Atwood’s, and transfer your motion to a smaller mass with something like a cylinder and spheres machine.
Springs load and unload energy (force times distance), don’t use springs. I don’t use spring. You are merely showing us how to do it wrong; there are lots of ways to do it wrong.
Start your motion with an Atwood’s, and transfer your motion to a smaller mass with something like a cylinder and spheres machine.
pequaide I really have to thank you for inspiring me. I was writing a post that kept getting larger untill I thought I'd make a report out of it. But I feel it's too soon to post it. It's some kind of theory that shows exactly how and why momentum gets conserved. I'm still at the early stage of trying to make sense of it all, I'll post it when I think it's ready.
Michael - my reference to the Emperor's New Clothes wasn't aimed at any one person, but at the state of modern scientific thinking in general. I think it's a perfect analogy, because nobody dares question the conventional thinking about COE & the impossibility of gravity powered perpetual motion etc, even though these are relatively 'new clothes', and there seem to be some embarassing flaws exposed. But nobody (especially scientists on the payroll) dare express their concerns - even though some of them could be pointed out by a child.
The way I see it - Physics can be broken into Theoretical and Applied Engineering. Nobody doubts the practical applications of physics - we can build atom bombs and send rockets to other planets. But interestingly, sometimes the practical guys building this stuff find some embarassing discrepancies between what the Theoretical guys predicted, and what actually happens.
The Theoretical stuff is largely about mathematics. And while numbers don't generally lie, it is very possible for humans to mistakenly apply incorrect mathematical models to situations where they aren't completely relevant.
I would have to agree that - for the most part - the concept of Energy and the equations involved do work for many practical applications. But we have to remember that many of the practical applications were developed because of these equations - so of course they are going to be mutually supporting.
I have a situation where I can see a way to build a very simple machine that - using the most basic kinetmatic equations (as available to Bessler) that should deliver considerable multiplication of momentum. (Not torque - i'm not that naive). My crude experiments have sort of confirmed this, but I haven't been able to quantify this because of a very crude build. I'm working on improving the mechanism and being able to demonstrate mass rising higher than it fell.
I'm done arguing about it - Pequaide has already given out enough ideas for those who have a genuine interest.
The way I see it - Physics can be broken into Theoretical and Applied Engineering. Nobody doubts the practical applications of physics - we can build atom bombs and send rockets to other planets. But interestingly, sometimes the practical guys building this stuff find some embarassing discrepancies between what the Theoretical guys predicted, and what actually happens.
The Theoretical stuff is largely about mathematics. And while numbers don't generally lie, it is very possible for humans to mistakenly apply incorrect mathematical models to situations where they aren't completely relevant.
I would have to agree that - for the most part - the concept of Energy and the equations involved do work for many practical applications. But we have to remember that many of the practical applications were developed because of these equations - so of course they are going to be mutually supporting.
I have a situation where I can see a way to build a very simple machine that - using the most basic kinetmatic equations (as available to Bessler) that should deliver considerable multiplication of momentum. (Not torque - i'm not that naive). My crude experiments have sort of confirmed this, but I haven't been able to quantify this because of a very crude build. I'm working on improving the mechanism and being able to demonstrate mass rising higher than it fell.
I'm done arguing about it - Pequaide has already given out enough ideas for those who have a genuine interest.
re: energy producing experiments
Fair enough. I've done zero analysis on the Atwood machine. I know it's been around for a while and many different people have made claims on it, while others have debunked it ( or stated they did to be fair ), so I'll take a look and see what it is about.
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.
Yup - the Atwood Machine is a good place to start. Not so much for a practical machine, but for seeing the numbers involved.
A = (M2-M1)*G/(M1+M2) should get you started - try plugging in some extreme differences in mass.
Then run the basic equations for final velocity, time etc. Compare the final momentum against the momentum achieved for (M2-M1) in free fall. See what parameters maximise the momentum multiplication.
This is all extremely elementary stuff, and anyone interested in pequaide's theory should have done this by now.
I'm guessing that pequaide has assumed we have a basic understanding of what he has presented to us.
A = (M2-M1)*G/(M1+M2) should get you started - try plugging in some extreme differences in mass.
Then run the basic equations for final velocity, time etc. Compare the final momentum against the momentum achieved for (M2-M1) in free fall. See what parameters maximise the momentum multiplication.
This is all extremely elementary stuff, and anyone interested in pequaide's theory should have done this by now.
I'm guessing that pequaide has assumed we have a basic understanding of what he has presented to us.
re: energy producing experiments
As a mass IS increasing/decreasing its radius in a rotating system it will produce a counter/forward torque hence increasing/decreasing its momentum and of the ones that are part of the system. This is a small part of the report.
re: energy producing experiments
Michael: Free fall velocity is all that is needed to return an object to the height from whence it fell. Compare free fall momentum to the momentum produced by an Atwood’s.
www.msu.edu/~brechtjo/physics/atwood/atwood.html - 2k Add larger and larger masses to the red and blue spheres and vary the extra mass you place on the heavy side. Play with the friction (on and off), and tinker with the mass of the wheel. For fun: what is the radius of gyration of the wheel?
It is possible to convert the motion of an Atwood’s into a horizontal plane for a cylinder and spheres event. When you transfer all the momentum of the Atwood’s back in to the over balanced mass we have a source of energy that is clean, free, and unlimited.
www.msu.edu/~brechtjo/physics/atwood/atwood.html - 2k Add larger and larger masses to the red and blue spheres and vary the extra mass you place on the heavy side. Play with the friction (on and off), and tinker with the mass of the wheel. For fun: what is the radius of gyration of the wheel?
It is possible to convert the motion of an Atwood’s into a horizontal plane for a cylinder and spheres event. When you transfer all the momentum of the Atwood’s back in to the over balanced mass we have a source of energy that is clean, free, and unlimited.
re: energy producing experiments
I will work one setup for you for those that are rusty at the math. The distance an object drops d = 1/2at² or d = 1/2v²/a. Let the blue ball have a mass of 51 kg and let it drop one meter with the red ball having 50 kg. So v would be the square root of (2 * 1 m * a). MSU (Michigan State University) tells us that the acceleration of the Atwood’s would be .0971287 m/sec/sec. for a final velocity of .44 m/sec at the end of the one meter drop, of only one kilogram. But 101 kg is moving .44 m/sec for 44.5 units of momentum.
If the cylinder and spheres machine (or something like it) would transfer all the 44.5 units of momentum to the one dropped kilogram, then that kilogram could rise, d = 1/2v²/a; a is now 9.81 m/sec/sec, 101 meters. That same one kilogram was only dropped one meter.
If the cylinder and spheres machine (or something like it) would transfer all the 44.5 units of momentum to the one dropped kilogram, then that kilogram could rise, d = 1/2v²/a; a is now 9.81 m/sec/sec, 101 meters. That same one kilogram was only dropped one meter.
re: energy producing experiments
pequaide that math is straightforward. I'm currently working on the math that is causing the mass to accelerate radially in order to prove momentum conversion. I did find the path equation in function of time. I ended with 5 solutions in total. One is 0 so we can discard that and the 2 are the same besides their sign. So we end up with two equations. The problem though is that once you plot them you see that they have no real number values from 0 to sqrt(2)*m2*r2^2/L seconds. I was thinking of offsetting the whole graph so it starts at 0 seconds but that's kind of cheating.
This result got me really puzzled. I was expecting a nice behaving function that gave you the exact radius, speed and acceleration of the small mass given any time input.
EditI made a major mistake in that formula. I can't just use at^2/2 as it only holds for when a is constant. So after refreshing my calculus a bit I started from scratch and integrated it properly. This gave me the speed in function of the radius. So all I had to do is check if this function grew and then flatted out at a certain number, this number being the speed due to conservation of momentum. I'm almost done with the report.
This result got me really puzzled. I was expecting a nice behaving function that gave you the exact radius, speed and acceleration of the small mass given any time input.
EditI made a major mistake in that formula. I can't just use at^2/2 as it only holds for when a is constant. So after refreshing my calculus a bit I started from scratch and integrated it properly. This gave me the speed in function of the radius. So all I had to do is check if this function grew and then flatted out at a certain number, this number being the speed due to conservation of momentum. I'm almost done with the report.
- Attachments
-
-
re: energy producing experiments
Broli and others: here is a thought question for you.
There is no measurable gravitational pull between an object on the end of a string and the center post that it is wrapping around, so let’s take Halley’s comet when it is at apogee and turn off the gravitational pull of the Sun. Then we replace the gravitational pull with a string 3,500,000,000 miles long. At 2,705 miles per hour the object on the end of the string will take 927 years to make the first orbit of the Sun. After one year the object (previously a comet) will be 2,739,466 miles closer to the Sun because the string has wrapped around the Sun once. After 582,016 years the object will be at perigee, and it will still be moving 2,705 miles per hour. The perigee radius is only 60,000,000 miles. The velocity has not changed but the radius has. Plug this info into the angular momentum formula.
Obviously this motion is entirely different than the true motion of Halley’s Comet, so how can people apply the same formula (angular momentum conservation) to both events. Now the 3,500,000,000 mile string is imaginary but an object on the end of a one meter string is not, and it behaves as in the above paragraph, yet people try to apply the same formula to two entirely different events.
Broli: could you use your math abilities to prove that the same formula can not work with gravity on and with gravity off?
There is no measurable gravitational pull between an object on the end of a string and the center post that it is wrapping around, so let’s take Halley’s comet when it is at apogee and turn off the gravitational pull of the Sun. Then we replace the gravitational pull with a string 3,500,000,000 miles long. At 2,705 miles per hour the object on the end of the string will take 927 years to make the first orbit of the Sun. After one year the object (previously a comet) will be 2,739,466 miles closer to the Sun because the string has wrapped around the Sun once. After 582,016 years the object will be at perigee, and it will still be moving 2,705 miles per hour. The perigee radius is only 60,000,000 miles. The velocity has not changed but the radius has. Plug this info into the angular momentum formula.
Obviously this motion is entirely different than the true motion of Halley’s Comet, so how can people apply the same formula (angular momentum conservation) to both events. Now the 3,500,000,000 mile string is imaginary but an object on the end of a one meter string is not, and it behaves as in the above paragraph, yet people try to apply the same formula to two entirely different events.
Broli: could you use your math abilities to prove that the same formula can not work with gravity on and with gravity off?
Yes, pequaide I believe that assuming angular momentum is conserved is not correct. My whole report was based on conservation of angular momentum. So the final speed of the ejected mass was conserving kinetic energy instead of linear momentum. If you wish I can post the report but it's a bit useless. The interesting part is that even though kinetic energy was conserved like wm2D had and the final speeds were similar. The way the graphs behaved were not similar at all. Wm2d should have followed the result of my equation which it did not at all.
Now though, I'm trying to figure out a way to get a speed equation that does not have the restriction of CoAM embedded in it. The problem is that the math gets very complex. I'm trying to throw in the concept of a counter torque. This might not make sense, but if you think about it hard you will realize that a counter torque emerges when the radius gets increased. This torque has the same size as the centrifugal force and acts on the same radius namely the radius of the mass that is being increased.
This all means that I need the solution first before I can solve the problem. We're better off proving it with experiments :D.
Now though, I'm trying to figure out a way to get a speed equation that does not have the restriction of CoAM embedded in it. The problem is that the math gets very complex. I'm trying to throw in the concept of a counter torque. This might not make sense, but if you think about it hard you will realize that a counter torque emerges when the radius gets increased. This torque has the same size as the centrifugal force and acts on the same radius namely the radius of the mass that is being increased.
This all means that I need the solution first before I can solve the problem. We're better off proving it with experiments :D.
re: energy producing experiments
Oke here's the report;
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/cftheory2.PNG
I welcome anyone who has suggestions for a proof that doesn't use conservation of angular momentum as my results are useless.
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/cftheory2.PNG
I welcome anyone who has suggestions for a proof that doesn't use conservation of angular momentum as my results are useless.
- Attachments
-