Can you please tell me how you measure 1/240th of a second duration's when your camera probably only records at 30 fps (1/30th of a s)???
I would even argue that my experiment is more accurate as I record at 120fps. Also why not rent a 1000 fps camera for a day if you are so confident in the results, it's a rather small investment.
Meanwhile I did collect all data more accurately and I also paid attention to some remarks you had. What I found is that the initial and final angular VELOCITIES of the systems are pretty much the same! So that's a new constant that popped up.
I even took a much small average as you suggested and only measured the first 3 frames of when the "missile" released which is about 3/120th and this angular velocity stayed the same over the course of 60/120th of a second and started decreasing afterwards, so the whole friction story does not hold much weight to what my experiments show.
Using my data I can exactly predict how long your string has to be to stop your cylinder completely. The needed radius is the radius of the initial cylinder times the mass ratio squared. R_mis = r_cyl*sqrt(M/m)
You can verify it yourself. This equation only shows itself when angular momentum is conserved.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
Hi james.lindgard
Just seen your sketch from 2015-05-07.
I had a complex central fulcrum design.
Well that design has been dropped.
Now your sketch means the complexity can be at the end!
That will allow the fulcrum to run optimal.
The weight downward pressure can be stored.
Then release at the top of the swing.
That could be a spring stop which triggers the release.
That then kicks the weight on it's way again.
Regards
Just seen your sketch from 2015-05-07.
I had a complex central fulcrum design.
Well that design has been dropped.
Now your sketch means the complexity can be at the end!
That will allow the fulcrum to run optimal.
The weight downward pressure can be stored.
Then release at the top of the swing.
That could be a spring stop which triggers the release.
That then kicks the weight on it's way again.
Regards
re: energy producing experiments
I have a Sony HDR-AS200V it takes at 240 fps. And it has good software.
I have proven energy production in at least three different ways with many experiments. So as far as renting something faster, it would be interesting but energy production has already been proven. What is needed is people to repeat the experiments.
Velocity will not stay the same for a ½ second or any other period of time.
I have proven energy production in at least three different ways with many experiments. So as far as renting something faster, it would be interesting but energy production has already been proven. What is needed is people to repeat the experiments.
Velocity will not stay the same for a ½ second or any other period of time.
re: energy producing experiments
Well I apologies for my remark on the camera yes it does 240fps at 480p resolution it seems. So at least it makes sense why you keep mentioning 1/240.
But please share the video footage I would gladly be willing to analyze it as well, without any bias whatsoever. I can only show you my footage and findings but you did not share your footage.
You can upload it to dropbox for example, just create an account and upload the mp4 file (https://www.dropbox.com/home). If you don't know how to do this I can help you out.
Can you also please let me know what the radius of the missile is to make the cylinder fully stop? And at what radius is the mass concentrated of the whole system when the missiles have not been released.
But please share the video footage I would gladly be willing to analyze it as well, without any bias whatsoever. I can only show you my footage and findings but you did not share your footage.
You can upload it to dropbox for example, just create an account and upload the mp4 file (https://www.dropbox.com/home). If you don't know how to do this I can help you out.
Can you also please let me know what the radius of the missile is to make the cylinder fully stop? And at what radius is the mass concentrated of the whole system when the missiles have not been released.
re: energy producing experiments
In paragraph 2 and 3 on the post for June 8th I used 240th of a second for your camera. Sorry; my mistake you clearly said 120 FPS. This changes 38.6 m/sec into 19.3 m/sec; but the percentages of losses or gains do not change, so I do not know of any other corrections that would be necessary.
In the earlier models I use to imbed the sphere in the side wall of the cylinder. Lately I have short cut that and I merely hold the sphere up against the side wall of the cylinder. The sphere has a one inch diameter so that puts the center of mass of the, what I call, closed sphere at one half inch above the outside diameter of the cylinder.
On this model: the outside diameter of the cylinder is 3.5 inches; that would place the distance between the center of mass of the spheres at 4.5 inches. So as the closed system is being spun up; the center of rotational mass of the cylinder is at about 3.3 inches, and the center of rotational mass of the spheres is at 4.5 inches. The spheres are made of tungsten (152 grams each) and the cylinder is 1082 grams of PVC plastic.
So when spinning, and before release, this would be 304 grams at 4.5 inches and 1082 grams at 3.3 inches. For an average spinning velocity of 304 g * 4.5 in + 1082 g * 3.3 in = X/3.5 in; and x would be 1411 grams. The actual total mass is 1386; so the spinning mass of the cylinder and spheres is roughly equal to its real mass at a 3.5 inch radius.
Most people are not interested in these intricate details; so I just roughly say 1386 grams at the outside radius, which for this model is 3.5 inches.
The tether length (for the 304 grams of spheres, stopping the 1082 gram cylinder) for the double stop is pi times radius (one half circumference). For this model that would be 5.5 inches.
I will research your posting suggestions. And I would be happy to send you videos on a flash drive.
In the earlier models I use to imbed the sphere in the side wall of the cylinder. Lately I have short cut that and I merely hold the sphere up against the side wall of the cylinder. The sphere has a one inch diameter so that puts the center of mass of the, what I call, closed sphere at one half inch above the outside diameter of the cylinder.
On this model: the outside diameter of the cylinder is 3.5 inches; that would place the distance between the center of mass of the spheres at 4.5 inches. So as the closed system is being spun up; the center of rotational mass of the cylinder is at about 3.3 inches, and the center of rotational mass of the spheres is at 4.5 inches. The spheres are made of tungsten (152 grams each) and the cylinder is 1082 grams of PVC plastic.
So when spinning, and before release, this would be 304 grams at 4.5 inches and 1082 grams at 3.3 inches. For an average spinning velocity of 304 g * 4.5 in + 1082 g * 3.3 in = X/3.5 in; and x would be 1411 grams. The actual total mass is 1386; so the spinning mass of the cylinder and spheres is roughly equal to its real mass at a 3.5 inch radius.
Most people are not interested in these intricate details; so I just roughly say 1386 grams at the outside radius, which for this model is 3.5 inches.
The tether length (for the 304 grams of spheres, stopping the 1082 gram cylinder) for the double stop is pi times radius (one half circumference). For this model that would be 5.5 inches.
I will research your posting suggestions. And I would be happy to send you videos on a flash drive.
re: energy producing experiments
I'm seeing some strange numbers for my calculation of the moment of inertia (m*r²). I'm going to setup a rig to calculate the moment of inertia before I can conclude anything.
re: energy producing experiments
Well we can forget about anything more from you. Same rabbit trail everybody else goes down.
Why don't you do real experiments with real numbers and forget the hoax math.
Things will rise (energy) because of their speed, it has nothing to do with radius.
Why don't you do real experiments with real numbers and forget the hoax math.
Things will rise (energy) because of their speed, it has nothing to do with radius.
re: energy producing experiments
Wow what a condescending prick you are, this is not how you treat people who are willing to do the hard work of figuring out the facts because you lack even basic IT skills.
One thing is absolutely certain to me, the angular velocity remains the same. I repeated the experiment many times and every time the final angular velocity is equal to the initial if the main rotor is stopped completely.
You just motivated me more to go on whatever the results may be. Science is not about biases it's about discovering new things, if I were to have gone into this to prove you wrong I wouldn't have gone through all this effort.
One thing is absolutely certain to me, the angular velocity remains the same. I repeated the experiment many times and every time the final angular velocity is equal to the initial if the main rotor is stopped completely.
You just motivated me more to go on whatever the results may be. Science is not about biases it's about discovering new things, if I were to have gone into this to prove you wrong I wouldn't have gone through all this effort.
re: energy producing experiments
I don't blame you for getting mad; it is different when you have skin in the game. Sorry: I made you angry.
I do not believe that angular velocity is conserved. Many tether lengths and mass ratios (total mass to sphere mass) are different. In the 4.5 to 1 mass ratio the cylinder is stopped before full extension; and the radius at full extension is only pi r or 3.14159 times the initial radius. The spheres are rotating from the side wall if the cylinder is stopped; they are no longer rotating from the center of rotation of the cylinder.
Note that the release velocity of the cylinder is 4 mm in 1/240th of a second. And the returned velocity after the first stop is 4 mm per 1/240th of a second. And the (returned) velocity of the cylinder after the second stop is 4 mm per 1/240th of a second.
Only Newtonian momentum can be transferred back to the cylinder from the missiles. So, if angular momentum were conserved, you would lose 53% of your motion in the first stop and 53% of that remaining motion in the second stop. You would be left with only 22% of the original motion. And the cylinder would be spinning at .9 mm per 1/240th of a second; but it is still moving 4mm per 1/240th of a second. This totally eliminates the possibility of angular momentum being a conserved quantity.
You complain that I don't post videos on the internet; that is a justifiable complaint, but I am not a face-book type of individual. I try to get other people to do it but they will not post for me.
I do not believe that angular velocity is conserved. Many tether lengths and mass ratios (total mass to sphere mass) are different. In the 4.5 to 1 mass ratio the cylinder is stopped before full extension; and the radius at full extension is only pi r or 3.14159 times the initial radius. The spheres are rotating from the side wall if the cylinder is stopped; they are no longer rotating from the center of rotation of the cylinder.
Note that the release velocity of the cylinder is 4 mm in 1/240th of a second. And the returned velocity after the first stop is 4 mm per 1/240th of a second. And the (returned) velocity of the cylinder after the second stop is 4 mm per 1/240th of a second.
Only Newtonian momentum can be transferred back to the cylinder from the missiles. So, if angular momentum were conserved, you would lose 53% of your motion in the first stop and 53% of that remaining motion in the second stop. You would be left with only 22% of the original motion. And the cylinder would be spinning at .9 mm per 1/240th of a second; but it is still moving 4mm per 1/240th of a second. This totally eliminates the possibility of angular momentum being a conserved quantity.
You complain that I don't post videos on the internet; that is a justifiable complaint, but I am not a face-book type of individual. I try to get other people to do it but they will not post for me.
re: energy producing experiments
The angular velocity of the cylinder is the same at the three points where it is moving 4 mm per1/240th of a second. But angular velocity can not be the same in between these points because Newtonian momentum is conserved from small mass to large. Which leaves us with no choice as to what is conserved from large to small.
re: energy producing experiments
Please share your video footage and your setup next to some tape measurement to eliminate any bias.
You're even implying that the tether length is pi times the radius what radius????
At this point you could be completely making up all your numbers and convince only yourself of your energy producing results, I shared my work when are you going to share more than a single screenshot of yours?
You're even implying that the tether length is pi times the radius what radius????
At this point you could be completely making up all your numbers and convince only yourself of your energy producing results, I shared my work when are you going to share more than a single screenshot of yours?
Hi everyone after a long time.
Anyone,who have not yet read this article is most likely to get atleast some excitement:
https://www.engadget.com/2015/06/13/wat ... obic-pump/
I think,there could be a scientific way,an analog of solar energy conversation,to convert energy available in Surroundings/nature into electricity without violating the 3 laws of thermodynamics.
I think within next 2 decades,we could see that most myths will be uncovered and conscious gaining of reality will prevail leading to new efficient energy conversion mechanisms used throughout the world commercially.
Anyone,who have not yet read this article is most likely to get atleast some excitement:
https://www.engadget.com/2015/06/13/wat ... obic-pump/
I think,there could be a scientific way,an analog of solar energy conversation,to convert energy available in Surroundings/nature into electricity without violating the 3 laws of thermodynamics.
I think within next 2 decades,we could see that most myths will be uncovered and conscious gaining of reality will prevail leading to new efficient energy conversion mechanisms used throughout the world commercially.
re: energy producing experiments
Hello Aman,
I, for one, am glad to see you back.
Raj
I, for one, am glad to see you back.
Raj
Keep learning till the end.
re: energy producing experiments
Magnificent: Some friends of mine made a slow motion video out of one of my videos showing a double stop. It slows the motion down enough so that the brain can keep up with the eye. It is now easy to comprehend what is happening.
Their slow motion video uses a different sequence of time: it uses one 60th of a second for each frame. It present each frame for 3/60. You click three times before it moves to the next frame. Now the first stop is at 3:14/60, and the second stop is at 5:02/60th and the full extension is at 4:08/60th.
The full extension is right smack in the middle of the two stops; which proves that the same comes out as what goes in, and energy is clearly made. Because Newtonian momentum goes in and Newtonian momentum comes out.
Their slow motion video uses a different sequence of time: it uses one 60th of a second for each frame. It present each frame for 3/60. You click three times before it moves to the next frame. Now the first stop is at 3:14/60, and the second stop is at 5:02/60th and the full extension is at 4:08/60th.
The full extension is right smack in the middle of the two stops; which proves that the same comes out as what goes in, and energy is clearly made. Because Newtonian momentum goes in and Newtonian momentum comes out.
re: energy producing experiments
It has been taught for several centuries that the majority of the motion of a ballistic pendulum cannot be recovered. They teach that once the motion is contained in the, block and bullet, combination; that then much of the motion disappears as heat. I don’t know that anyone even tried to recover the motion; because the assumed loss seemed so reasonable.
The Newtonian momentum of a ballistic pendulum is not lost; but tremendous amounts of energy are lost. So the ‘powers that be’ simply assume that this energy of motion cannot be recovered. They simply assume that Newtonian motion takes a back seat to energy. This is a false assumption; and there is now a video being distributed that proves that Newtonian momentum remains constant and energy comes and goes.
The response is generally good for those that see the slow motion video, but we had one who would fit in here. He presented two classic fallacies. The first was “Oh it must be conserving angular momentum.�
Well no: angular momentum conservation is not used to determine the velocity of a bullet; it is linear Newtonian momentum that is used. Look it up www.physicsvodcasts.com. If experiments that are easy to understand conserve linear Newtonian momentum; than the similar experiments conserve the same thing.
You determine the potential energy of the block (with imbedded bullet) from its rise. You then change that potential energy into kinetic energy to determine the block’s initial velocity. That will give a velocity for the initial linear Newtonian Momentum of the block with bullet. That linear Newtonian momentum of the Block and imbedded bullet is then used to determine the initial linear Newtonian Momentum of the bullet. Nowhere does there appear the use of angular momentum.
In fact the energy formula is not needed to determine the velocity of the bullet. Time and F = ma; or the distance formula can be used instead. But the knowledge of Linear Newtonian Momentum Conservation is an absolute must.
Newtonian Momentum conservation and energy conservation are oppositional formulas and they cannot be used simultaneously; because for any moment in time an object can have one and only one velocity.Â
The second fallacy he presented was “If that could be done someone would have already done it�
Okay: he sounds like a candidate for the ‘flat earth society’.
The Newtonian momentum of a ballistic pendulum is not lost; but tremendous amounts of energy are lost. So the ‘powers that be’ simply assume that this energy of motion cannot be recovered. They simply assume that Newtonian motion takes a back seat to energy. This is a false assumption; and there is now a video being distributed that proves that Newtonian momentum remains constant and energy comes and goes.
The response is generally good for those that see the slow motion video, but we had one who would fit in here. He presented two classic fallacies. The first was “Oh it must be conserving angular momentum.�
Well no: angular momentum conservation is not used to determine the velocity of a bullet; it is linear Newtonian momentum that is used. Look it up www.physicsvodcasts.com. If experiments that are easy to understand conserve linear Newtonian momentum; than the similar experiments conserve the same thing.
You determine the potential energy of the block (with imbedded bullet) from its rise. You then change that potential energy into kinetic energy to determine the block’s initial velocity. That will give a velocity for the initial linear Newtonian Momentum of the block with bullet. That linear Newtonian momentum of the Block and imbedded bullet is then used to determine the initial linear Newtonian Momentum of the bullet. Nowhere does there appear the use of angular momentum.
In fact the energy formula is not needed to determine the velocity of the bullet. Time and F = ma; or the distance formula can be used instead. But the knowledge of Linear Newtonian Momentum Conservation is an absolute must.
Newtonian Momentum conservation and energy conservation are oppositional formulas and they cannot be used simultaneously; because for any moment in time an object can have one and only one velocity.Â
The second fallacy he presented was “If that could be done someone would have already done it�
Okay: he sounds like a candidate for the ‘flat earth society’.