What does 'something that works' mean?

[agor95]

It would be good to close a subject for any more posts.

As the poll is done and the answer is known then close the subject.

IMHO

[jim_mich]

.
Wolfram and wikipedia both call centrifugal force a 'ficticious force', and then they assign a formula to it.
.
How can you assign a mathematical formula to something that doesn't exist?

Contrary to what the trolls think, CF is real. And it is harnessable. CF is simply a subset of momentum. Momentum is real. Momentum is harnessable. Momentum force is commonly stored in flywheels. It is not to be sniffed at.

[ME]

How can you assign a mathematical formula to something that doesn't exist?

It's a bit typical for this topic: Such force doesn't exist for the one not riding a carousel, but it seems to exist for the one who does.
I would say it's the force required by the structure to keep things in place:
https://youtu.be/zs7x1Hu29Wc?t=357

[Fletcher]

Like most things it depends on context.

"Fictitious" is an adjective used to describe forces which can be transformed away with choice of reference frame.

"Fictitious" usually means "unreal" in other contexts. "Inertial" would possibly be a better adjective in Physics.

It is said that a measure of a good physicist is how much he/she sniggers at the mention of "centrifugal force".

[ovyyus]

Great quote, Fletcher.

[zoelra]

I was taught in a college physics that inertia and CP/CF forces were as real as any other. In fact I remember a classroom presentation where one object was at rest and another object was passing the object at rest. Both objects were connected with a rope. Just as the rope became taut, which object "initiated" the force on the other. Was it the object at rest, pulling back on the object in motion because it didn't want to be moved, or was it the object in motion, pulling on the object at rest because it didn't want to be slowed. Since motion is relative, we were told it doesn't matter which way you want to look at it. I look at a swinging pendulum bob the same way. Either the bob tugs on the pivot point because it wants to keep moving, or the pivot point tugs on the bob because it doesn't want to start moving. If CF isn't a force, how do we explain the lifting ability of a Milkovic two stage oscillator. Inertia/CF may not be "the" Bessler solution, but I think it may be "a" solution. I won't claim that it is until I can show proof that it is, and likewise, I won't believe that it is not until someone can show proof that it is not. Just my two cents.

[Ed]

Hi Everyone. It's been a while. I hope everyone is well?

If a force can cause an object to change velocity then it is a real honest to goodness force, which can be used in a PM wheel.

Excuse me, but wouldn't this statement apply to gravity as well?

[Furcurequs]

Hey, Ed.

Good to see you.

Nice point. ...and, of course, in the view of general relativity, the force of gravity itself is a fictitious force.

.
Wolfram and wikipedia both call centrifugal force a 'ficticious force', and then they assign a formula to it.
.
How can you assign a mathematical formula to something that doesn't exist?

Contrary to what the trolls think, CF is real. And it is harnessable. CF is simply a subset of momentum. Momentum is real. Momentum is harnessable. Momentum force is commonly stored in flywheels. It is not to be sniffed at.

So, what happens when you put a load on the flywheel - as in when you apply a force, a torque, to the flywheel in a direction that is in opposition to the flywheel's angular momentum?

Well, the flywheel slows down, of course, as energy from that flywheel is transferred to the load.

Is there some sort of magic that makes this not true?

So, then, if you were standing still on roller skates and tied a rope to your waist and a loop in the other end of the rope and then used that other end of the rope to lasso a cart rolling by, how much kinetic energy could you end up with (assuming no muscle power involved)?

The upper limit would be, of course, the kinetic energy that the moving cart initially had - though it will likely be some lower amount.

That, then, is the same as what you could get by trying to put a centrifugal reactive force of a circling object to work. There would be a component of the force that is applied to that object which is slowing the circling object down. So, to use it is to lose it. ...or to put it more precisely, to try to put to use the reactive force due to the momentum of a circling object is for the circling object to lose kinetic energy. The upper limit of the energy you could obtain, then, would be the initial kinetic energy of the circling object.

This can be seen experimentally and through a proper mathematical analysis.

jim_mich,

If you believe otherwise, you have a pretty hefty burden to overcome in providing the evidence.

[jim_mich]

Hi Everyone. It's been a while. I hope everyone is well?

You're kidding, right?

If a force can cause an object to change velocity then it is a real honest to goodness force, which can be used in a PM wheel.

Excuse me, but wouldn't this statement apply to gravity as well?

Nobody argues or states that gravity is not a force. But some of the yahoos on this forum say that centrifugal force is not a force, and they think this way because they were taught that centrifugal force is fictitious. So they think that centrifugal force is not a force, that it is not real, that it is imaginary, like a fictional character in a novel. And so they carry this a step further and make the claim that because centrifugal force is fictitious, that it can't be put to any use, because to them it does not exist.

Gravity can't be put to use to rotate a PM wheel because it is a conservative force. The energy provided by gravity as a weight falls is exactly the same energy needed to raise the weight back upward so that it can fall again. This is the meaning of conservative. It is the reason why gravity-only type PM wheels are impossible. If you can find a method, a principle, a means whereby the motions of weights can gain energy from their motions, then that extra energy could be used to raise the weights and then gravity could rotate the PM wheel. but such extra energy would not be derived from gravity. Such extra energy could just as easily be used directly to rotate a wheel, and thus eliminate gravity.

Of course, this would mean that you could no longer stop a wheel in an OOB position and then release it to start rotating again. You would need to give such a wheel a hand-push start. (Or in modern times, use an electric starter or such.)

[ME]

Am I the only one not seeing the real issue with centrifugal force? (besides Jim)

All that fictitious stuff is done in relation to the outside (stationary) world and the inside (rotating) world.
Stationary: When I want to lift an object of a table then I first have to match the contact (normal)-force of the table, then (when it's opposite to G) I have to apply a little more force to lift it up.
Rotating: When I want to move an object from the rim (or other obstruction) towards the center then I first have to match the centrifugal force, then (when it's opposite to Cf, and becomes its own Centripetal force) I have to apply a little more force to bring it towards the center.
Because we name things differently, or things look differently from the outside basically doesn't matter for the extra effort we have to apply to get some mass from one place to another..

Right?

[jim_mich]

This can be seen experimentally and through a proper mathematical analysis.

jim_mich,

If you believe otherwise, you have a pretty hefty burden to overcome in providing the evidence.

Yes, you are right. I've never argued otherwise.

Suppose you have fuel-air mixture inside the cylinder of an internal combustion engine. And you ignite the fuel-air mixture. And it gives up energy to push the piston. Does the engine then simply die and not provide any more energy output? No. It has a cycle thru which it runs, so as to reset the status, so that the cycle can be repeated. Again and again.

Do you understand such an analogy?

Of course, an IC engine gains it motive force from the fuel. Whereas a motion wheel gains its motive force by manipulating inertia and momentum. (CF is simply a form of momentum.)

[agor95]

@ME

You are not alone - it is clear as day.

Inertia only knows one direction to the light.

[pequaide]

The proof has already been given. The cylinder gives its momentum to the spheres and then the spheres give the momentum back. Momentum is conserved while energy is rising and falling to 450%. These slow motion videos have been viewed by many and none question what they are seeing.

It takes the same amount of force times time to make an object move in a circle as it does in a line; and this is the quantity that is conserved (mv).

The lassoed cart will not conserve energy it will conserve momentum.

The lassoed fly wheel will not conserve energy it will conserve momentum.

And momentum is conserved when the fly wheel throws mass off from itself.

All proven by experiment.

[ovyyus]

Ed, great you could drop in. As you can see we're still trying to find 'something that works'. How dare you hope everyone is well :D

[Furcurequs]

This can be seen experimentally and through a proper mathematical analysis.

jim_mich,

If you believe otherwise, you have a pretty hefty burden to overcome in providing the evidence.

Yes, you are right. I've never argued otherwise.

Are you sure about that? What you just agreed to was the argument that the only energy available for use was the initial kinetic energy "stored" (if you will) in the motion of the circling massive object.

Suppose you have fuel-air mixture inside the cylinder of an internal combustion engine. And you ignite the fuel-air mixture. And it gives up energy to push the piston. Does the engine then simply die and not provide any more energy output? No. It has a cycle thru which it runs, so as to reset the status, so that the cycle can be repeated. Again and again.

Do you understand such an analogy?

Yes, and so you have to supply it with more fuel and thus more energy to keep it going while transferring energy to whatever load is on the engine and while losing some of the energy to internal friction and whatnot.

Of course, an IC engine gains it motive force from the fuel. Whereas a motion wheel gains its motive force by manipulating inertia and momentum. (CF is simply a form of momentum.)

Yes, the IC engine gets its energy from the fuel.

Based upon what you agreed to above, though, you should know then that manipulating inertia and momentum of moving masses can only transfer their stored kinetic energy elsewhere as their stored energy reserves are depleted due to load and losses, and so whatever device will eventually come to a stop.

So, where is your magical excess energy coming from to keep things going? What, then, is your fuel? ...if, of course, you actually do agree with my prior argument and you've never argued otherwise?

You seem to be confused, for your statements appear to be quite contradictory.