Another gravity wheel?

[Jon J Hutton]

Interesting idea about the clay. At first glance it sounds elementary, but when you think about it, the idea is the same as jumping on a bathroom scale....the reaction is the the dial turns way past the amount you weigh and that is the gravity effect we all are trying to use in a wheel. The more you can maximize that, the more efficient the pmw will be. Saying that because wm2d can not do spirals or a vortex, but which of the two produces more momentum compared to a free fall of the same height, or are they all the same.

JJH

[Bessler007]

Mac,

There are any number of ways to take measurements. Simulations have a very high degree of accuracy. They are based on the mathematical models we think mimic reality.

Oystein

Time, or any other factor does not play a part in gaining anything,

Time is a factor of rate. The rate mass moves in a given direction is velocity.

Kinetic energy is



You could look at it like this. If you could only have one of two jobs and one paid $1000 an hour and the other paid $20 an hour which one would you choose? You can't really decide until you know how many hours a week you'll work. You need to know how much time you'll get to spend working. Maybe the $1000 an hour job will let you work 10 seconds a year and the $20 an hour job lets you work 30 hour weeks all year long. Time is an important factor in forces when you are figuring power.

Jon,

From what I can tell a free fall will have more momentum.


Since it has more velocity.

☯

[Michael]

Bessler007, if I may, you've taken Oystein out of context. This thread was about a supposed energy gain and it was surmised by someone that that gain came from the fact that the weight with the seemingly gain was on the system longer, hence there was more time. Oystein correctly states that time has nothing to do with an energy gain. Simply stated, there is no actual energy gain. The energy can easily be calculated by what gives the masses energy in the first place, and that is the vertical height, by mass, under gravitational acceleration. If there are differences in measured energy at the end then those differences come from one or more of two reasons.

The energy is conserved differently, and one or more of those differences has been unaccounted for.

There are energy losses uncounted for.

[Mac]

Hi Bessler,

There are any number of ways to take measurements.

In a lab, sure. Not so many for the home enthusiast. ;)

Simulations have a very high degree of accuracy. They are based on the mathematical models we think mimic reality.

Sorry, didn't realize you have one that does vortexes.

Mac

[rlortie]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... 951&page=7

http://www.todayinsci.com/cgi-bin/index ... /page1.htm

http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/three_levers.html


Ralph

[Bessler007]

Michael,

If there are differences in measured energy at the end then those differences come from one or more of two reasons.

The sum of rotational and translational kinetic energy of the mass on the ramp is about equal to the translational kinetic energy of the drop. There are no differences to speak of.

In the example I looked at the vertical drop produced 3.3 joules over half a second. The mass on the incline produced more in the last 1/2 second it traveled. The reason for that is the slope off of it's peak was flater. That isn't looking at all the half seconds prior to that last second. Simply put the area under the curve is greater.

☯

edit: the x axis is time

[Bessler007]

Mac,

I didn't look at centrifugal force. If I were to I would need to model a vortex. One last thought and I'm done with this. Work is the product of power and time. The more time the power is happening the more work there is.

☯

[Mac]

Assuming more pressure on a rolling object causes more friction, I'd guess there's a lot more friction in a vortex because of CF pressing the ball outwards all the way down.

But then I'm no physics expert either. ;)

Mac

[Wheeler]

Thanks Ralph
I read though the first page and last of the randi topic.
I see why you posted this.
Very good physics lessons and a good understanding of work done so far.

[Wheeler]

Ralph
I now see James in the formula (see attachment)
When James first talked to me, he may have thought I was not listening because when he asked me to do the experiment, I had already done it myself.

[ken_behrendt]

Fletcher wrote:

I know Bruce Welsh also thinks that the spiral ramp hints at some mysterious vortex affects creating the OU.

It seems to me that the implication of this device is that, somehow, when a ball rolls down through a spiral ramp it will experience a greater increase in KE than if it merely dropped straight down. This discrepancy is then used to rationalize how the device Welsh claims to have seen would have worked.

If such a process did, in fact, take place, then I am sure that all of the physicists who experimented with falling and rolling weights during the last several centuries since Newton would have discovered it and we would now be using it.


ken

[rlortie]

It seems to me that the implication of this device is that, somehow, when a ball rolls down through a spiral ramp it will experience a greater increase in KE than if it merely dropped straight down. This discrepancy is then used to rationalize how the device Welsh claims to have seen would have worked.

I am not sure exactly how to describe my opinion on this, but will give it a go!

I believe that a a spiral ramp does in fact increase kinetic energy. IMO the Finsrud machine is a prime simplified example of this reaction. As a ball spirals horizontally or downward it's outer diameter or COG increases to make up for the distance traveled, matching the the same time frame as the inner side. In other words the outer is traveling a longer distance than the inner, but doing so in the same time.

That clicking noise heard by the Finsrud sphere per rotation, is a purposely created dip in the inner track that causes the inner side of the sphere to drop ever so slightly. This releases the kinetic energy that was produced by the sphere climbing the outer track to compensate for distance. In doing so it builds kinetic energy that is released in an inertial form.

The energy is conserved differently, and one or more of those differences has been unaccounted for.

The minuscule drop causes the sphere to actually form a minute but yet true accelerated elliptical path. releasing the above conserved unaccounted energy. Not unlike the never ending motion of the planets elliptical path revolving around the sun.

Ralph

[Michael]

Ralph, there is only a total amount of potential energy capacity in any form of a set system - never more no matter how you slice it.

[rlortie]

Michael,

I agree, but the point is; Are we accounting for it in a spiral path?

Ralph

[Jon J Hutton]

hmmm.

So the consensus is that a object following a spiral vortex will gain velocity, momentum, as compared to a free falling object of the same height.

I remember another topic, saying that there was not pm in nature. Could be that (perhaps off topic here) black holes are a form of pm not because of the matter in them but because of the spiral vortex that feeds them.

Ralph,

Your going to love what I have come up with so far on my latest build.

JJH