Impact is the Key

[docfeelsgood]

didn't say impact was the sole source !! but if ya factor it in with a bunch of other sources including gravity , cf , etc. etc. etc. combined .
whaddya wearin , blinders on yer bridle ???

[terry5732]

Speed is a component of energy

It is not exactly just speed/mass - it is non-linear

The automobile which hits a wall at 60mph smashes it

The same vehicle which idles up to the wall and then guns it does nothing but spin the wheels

[greendoor]

... Perhaps the following pages from an Internal Note (suppressed) I wrote on the nature of mass when I was working for government will help....

Wow - thanks Grimer. I've viewed your paper, and can't say I understand it. You seem to have had a colorful past - writing suppressed papers for the government :) The thought did enter my head that perhaps you were just name dropping to fool around with us, but I don't think any scammer could write a paper like that. Impressive.

I'm just a guy who used to pump gas and likes to play guitars & drums. On behalf of my fellow Anthropoids, could you please dumb this down a notch?

I don't really get why you need a 'super force' to get derivatives of acceleration. Here's my simplistic view of why I think current physics explains this well enough:

Perfectly linear acceleration is a text book dream - I don't imagine it happens in real life very often. Maybe in rocket science perhaps. I can see that very often acceleration of objects could be described in terms of an 'acceleration of acceleration' or even an 'acceleration of acceleration of acceleration' - etc.

As a musician, we think about the Attack of notes, and we can view these in our graphical digital waveform editors. The Attack transient poses technical problems for engineers, but they contain a lot of musical information that our ears/brain decodes pretty quickly. (In the early days of digital sampling, when memory was expensive, Roland made a synth (the D50) that used real digital samples of just the Attack transients of musical sounds, and synthesised the body & tails of the notes, and this was an iconic music making machine that powered a lot of '80's music...

I digress - but not far. This is all about impact & impulse - and musical sounds are mostly about hitting things and getting paper cones & air to move (accelerate). The point i'm making is that in the real world, impacts have waveforms that are incredibly diverse in shape.

Even dropping simple objects onto the floor will generate impacts with a multitude of different waveforms - as evident by the different sounds they make. A big rubber ball will sound different to a sharp knife or a flat hammer - even if they all weigh the same mass.

If we analyse the waveform, we would see an assortment of accelerations, or accelerations of accelerations, or accelerations of accelerations of accelerations, etc, etc. Jerk, Jounce, Crackle, Pop, etc.

I don't believe we need any Super-Force to explain these away. This is why I believe this:

Any impact is a transfer of momentum. A drummer powers into his kick pedal, and the beater smacks into the kick drum head (vinyl membrane). This impact is an impulse that takes time to transfer the energy.

In a textbook example, an impulse is usually considered as a fixed force for the duration of time. Maybe an average force. But in a real-world impact, this impact will have a unique waveform. The force changes with time - creating the various accelerations and derivatives thereof.

So in my opinion - the Super-Force you are seeking already exists; it's simply a waveform, which is ordinary force but changing in the 4th dimension.

Maybe i've lost the plot somewhere. I still believe that Impact is just a lossy transformation of momentum, perfectly explainable and can be analysed if we care enough. But for a Bessler wheel - I don't see any potential for an anomolous energy gain from Impact alone. As Pequaid points out - they can be quite lossy. However, I think Pequaid is alluding to a much deeper problem with kinetic energy theory, and I tend to agree with him (as much as I can understand).

And this is coming from a true believer in Bessler, who thinks he can build a gravity powered device. Bessler said his wheel obeyed the (then known) laws of physics. I believe him, because my personal theory works with the basic Newtonian maths.

Sailing into the wind is possible. Hopefully extracting useable lift from gravity will become just as common.

[greendoor]

Speed is a component of energy

It is not exactly just speed/mass - it is non-linear

The automobile which hits a wall at 60mph smashes it

The same vehicle which idles up to the wall and then guns it does nothing but spin the wheels

Yes - Energy is defined as E = 1/2MV^2 - so it allegedly increased in proportion to the square of velocity. But there is reason to challenge the belief that this formula is correct for all situations, and whether Energy is really Conserved.

The wall will have a pre-determined amount of force that it can resist, and any object exerting force that exceeds that threshold will smash it. It's possible that a car with enough traction & grunt under the bonnet could smash it ... high velocity is not necessarily necessary ...

But yes - nobody doubts that energy is related to velocity - but just exactly how related is up for debate.

In a situation where Momentum is conserved, how can Energy be conserved when the maths are totally different.

P = MV and E = 1/2MV^2??? All the time??? Is this really a valid law???

[Grimer]

fwiw ,i believe you have to strike a unique balance of the forces involved , going radical will fail .

1 , slightly over balanced .
2 , slightly out of balance .
3, moderate impact .
4 , moderate CF. so keeping the speed low to allow everything to function , yet still taking advantage of CF .

I think you are absolutely right, Doc.

For me impact has been the key to recognising the importance of d³x/dt³ but to get that impact one has to go via CF which is also d³x/dt³, although to be frank it is only through the debate engendered by this thread I have seen the full significance of CF.

I now realise what one has to do to generate CF so that one can fling the weight out from the centre and turn the trajectory through 90° via the hockey stick end.

Essentially one has to wind the weights up by using gravity on the left hand side say and then when at the centre rotating madly, release that rotation so that the weight it flung out turned through 90° to impact on the circumference of the wheel. This explains Abeling's curved channels. They are the slopes down which the weights roll gathering rotation on the left-hand side. The curve will give a constant slope for the appropriate rotational speed of the wheel.

This will also satisfy the Carnot requirement that one must have two power laws to enclose an area on a Carnot style diagram.

I will have to prepare some figures to illustrate exactly what I mean (unless someone beats me to it ).

[docfeelsgood]

Grimer ;

you are welcome if you want to go visit my Album at the top of the page under " docfeelsgood" . perhaps it will stir your imagination somewhat . there are also some crude drawings i made there trying to explain the weights transfer and resultant impact .
sorry they are so crude but i think they are good enough to convey the principle .
Good Luck .
"Doc."

[greendoor]

If it isn't immediately obvious - the reason why I don't think Momentum & Energy can be conserved at the same time is this (in no-brainer terms):

If we transfer momentum from a large mass to a smaller mass, Momentum is conserved (with losses). That means velocity has to increase. The relationship is P = MV - a simple linear relationship. But we are brainwashed into saying that Energy is also always conserved. But how can that be, if energy has an exponential relationship with velocity.

You have to play around with some numbers to let this sink in - but when you do, you can't help but see that the Emperor is stark naked.

But do the numbers prove energy gain?? I think not. Momentum IS conserved. There is no impressive overunity as a result of simply increasing velocity. Otherwise a gearbox would result in overunity, because it too increases velocity.

This is why I doubt the formula E = 1/2MV^2 (not to mention E = MC^2). It seems to be an absurdity hoisted on a gullible public.

If you read the history of this particular equation, it had a murky beginning, and some dubious champions.

It's completely relevant to Impact - because this was based on measuring the depth that falling objects penetrate into clay. Bearing in mind what i've mentioned about about all the various shapes of impact, this has to be a fairly arbitrary, random thing. Not to mention all the other factors - the density of the clay, the shape of the object, the coefficient of friction, the chemical bonds, etc, etc.

This whole experiment was so dodgy that for a couple of years nobody could agree, and finally somebody figured out you need to apply the "1/2" into the formula to get it close.

It's all to easy to just assign the various energy losses to heat & sound losses - very convenient. But as Pequaid has so rightly pointed out - you can't fudge this when a velocity increase has been achieved, because you can't just 'write off' an energy gain.

BUT - IMO, this energy gain is a fictional playing-with-numbers calculation-on-paper only. It should help to prove that this formula is a fiction, and with it - the bogus 'law' of conservation of energy. That should be huge news that should shock scientists and politicians.

[Fletcher]

Ummm .. first greendoor E does not equal 1/2mv^2 => Kinetic Energy [ke] does - this is one type of energy, objects also have pe [energy of position] & there are other types - useful energy is ke in a mechanical context.

If you read the pages I scanned for you from the AC Kermode text book a few days ago you can see that ke=1/2mv^2 was resolved from f=ma, as long as you know the start & finish velocity & assume a uniform acceleration, IIRC - the point being that 1/2mv^2 can be accurately mathematically derived to predict the experimental findings [they are statistically significant, IINM].

N.B. read the paragraph above Energy & Momentum [underlined in red].

[pequaide]

I agree that the Law of Conservation of Energy is a bogus law. But the kinetic energy formula is not a false formula it is just not conserved. We all have mind blocks, so I am not trying to be insulting, but maybe the mind block is to think that a true formula has to be a conserved formula.

Before the bullet hits the block of wood in the ballistic pendulum, the kinetic energy formula truly gives you the quantity of energy the bullet has, which is a huge amounts. After impact the energy has almost (truly) disappeared.

The reason the kinetic energy formula has to be correct is because it is nearly identical to the distance formula, and they both tell you the same thing. Kinetic energy will tell you how far an object will rise (potential energy). And the distance formula will tell you how far an object will rise (potential energy). They even look much alike d = ½ v²/a; Ke = 1/2mv², with F = ma in mind these two formulas may be just different ways of saying the same thing. Now the distance formula describes a real physical even; the quantity of rise of an object (such as in a pendulum), and has been confirmed in the lab millions of times.

I think we all would say that one kilogram at a height of 2 meters has more energy than a kilogram at 1 meter.

[jim_mich]

A body of 10 units of mass moving at 2 units of velocity has 20 units of momentum; so does a body with 5 units of mass moving at 4 units of velocity. The first has the greater mass, the second the greater velocity; but both have the same momentum, both are equally difficult to stop.

Following along in the same line of thought, if the first body of 10 units of mass is moving at 4 units of velocity (twice the original speed) then it has 40 units of momentum (twice the momentum).

Conservation of momentum says that momentum is always conserved. So if you have two weights moving at 2 units of velocity then their total momentum would be 40.

If one weight were to give up all of its momentum to the other weight then the first weight would have zero velocity and zero momentum while the second weight would have a velocity of 4 and a momentum of 40.

Thus the total momentum of the two weights is the same in the first instance as in the second instance.

A weight moving at twice the speed has four times the KE and will rise four times as high (if moving in an upward direction) before falling back down.

If we can cause the first weight to give up its momentum to the second weight without us applying any work to the weights then we have the secret to perpetual motion.

The weights must 'magically' transfer momentum from a slower moving weight to a faster moving weight.

Motion and heat are both considered kinetic energy. Heat will not naturally transfer from a colder object to a warmer object. Doing so would go against the second law of thermodynamics.

But objects can and often do transfer their kinetic motion from a slower moving weight to a faster moving weight. Kinetic energy can be transformed into force on a rotating wheel. We call the force centrifugal. This force can cause a weight to speed up, but only at the expense of another weight slowing down.

The law of conservation of momentum demands that if there is no outside force involved then when one weight speeds up another weight must slow down. The kinetic energy (the ability to do work) changes when the speeds of the weights change. The measure of the energy available to do work is called ectropy. When the momentum of two moving weights is transferred into one moving weight, then the total KE increases. The ectropy of the system increases. The ability to do work increases.

This concept does not require gravity. It is based totally on the known laws of physics involving motion, speed and inertial force. It can be used to lift weights out-of-balance and THEN gravity can do its thing if so desired.


Of course some of this is speculation until I get back to solving some mechanical problems with my wheel so as to prove one way or the other whether I'm just dreaming magical thoughts.

[erick]

I agree that the Law of Conservation of Energy is a bogus law.

Bogus because of why? Because it hasn't ever been violated? Oh wait....

[Fletcher]

The reason the kinetic energy formula has to be correct is because it is nearly identical to the distance formula, and they both tell you the same thing. Kinetic energy will tell you how far an object will rise (potential energy). And the distance formula will tell you how far an object will rise (potential energy). They even look much alike d = ½ v²/a; Ke = 1/2mv², with F = ma in mind these two formulas may be just different ways of saying the same thing. Now the distance formula describes a real physical even; the quantity of rise of an object (such as in a pendulum), and has been confirmed in the lab millions of times.

You are right pequaide in my estimation - that's not surprising though because they both express the same thing in slightly different terms - distance is a function of velocity & velocity a function of distance.

A body of 10 units of mass moving at 2 units of velocity has 20 units of momentum; so does a body with 5 units of mass moving at 4 units of velocity. The first has the greater mass, the second the greater velocity; but both have the same momentum, both are equally difficult to stop.

Following along in the same line of thought, if the first body of 10 units of mass is moving at 4 units of velocity (twice the original speed) then it has 40 units of momentum (twice the momentum).

Conservation of momentum says that momentum is always conserved. So if you have two weights moving at 2 units of velocity then their total momentum would be 40.

If one weight were to give up all of its momentum to the other weight then the first weight would have zero velocity and zero momentum while the second weight would have a velocity of 4 and a momentum of 40.

Thus the total momentum of the two weights is the same in the first instance as in the second instance.

A weight moving at twice the speed has four times the KE and will rise four times as high (if moving in an upward direction) before falling back down.

If we can cause the first weight to give up its momentum to the second weight without us applying any work to the weights then we have the secret to perpetual motion.

The weights must 'magically' transfer momentum from a slower moving weight to a faster moving weight.

Motion and heat are both considered kinetic energy. Heat will not naturally transfer from a colder object to a warmer object. Doing so would go against the second law of thermodynamics.

But objects can and often do transfer their kinetic motion from a slower moving weight to a faster moving weight. Kinetic energy can be transformed into force on a rotating wheel. We call the force centrifugal. This force can cause a weight to speed up, but only at the expense of another weight slowing down.

The law of conservation of momentum demands that if there is no outside force involved then when one weight speeds up another weight must slow down. The kinetic energy (the ability to do work) changes when the speeds of the weights change. The measure of the energy available to do work is called ectropy. When the momentum of two moving weights is transferred into one moving weight, then the total KE increases. The ectropy of the system increases. The ability to do work increases.

This concept does not require gravity. It is based totally on the known laws of physics involving motion, speed and inertial force. It can be used to lift weights out-of-balance and THEN gravity can do its thing if so desired.


Of course some of this is speculation until I get back to solving some mechanical problems with my wheel so as to prove one way or the other whether I'm just dreaming magical thoughts.

What you write jim makes rational sense to me jim - I have not had a problem with it from the get go 2 years ago when you first started to flesh it out - the normal way to 'exchange' momentum is with kinetic impact &/or impulse, & these have losses associated with them - you propose to leverage Cf [inertia] or Cp [mass & acceleration] to facilitate this momentum transference via rotational dynamics rather than kinetics - I assume you want it to be as efficient as possible & that you feel that using Cf will give you 100% efficiency [or near too], as opposed to impact or impulse [the usual mechanical way].

If you could use Cf to speed up one weight & slow another super efficiently [with no other force required as an input] then your equations make practical sense to me, if there is no unforeseen action & reaction forces ?

I have never been able to visualize in my head a mechanical arrangement that could do that whilst you obviously have one in mind & are doing the experiments to hopefully prove it - because I can't picture a mechanism to achieve this I'm very limited in my comments about your theory's validity in a mechanical application sense - I hope you can rebuild the plastic parts with a stronger material & get some definitive results to prove your points outright !

[greendoor]

Ummm .. first greendoor E does not equal 1/2mv^2 => Kinetic Energy [ke] does ...If you read the pages I scanned for you from the AC Kermode text book a few days ago you can see that ke=1/2mv^2 was resolved from f=ma, as long as you know the start & finish velocity & assume a uniform acceleration ...

Fletcher - thanks for you patience and for this scanned document.

I think I can be forgiven for saying "E = 1/2MV^2" - in this particular document it literally reads "Energy is 1/2MV^2".

I take your point that there are various forms of energy, and I should differentiate between kinetic and potential energy.

I completely agree that 1/2MV^2 accurately describes height potential energy. I can see that the "1/2" is the Average function required due to V starting off at 0 and finishing at maxium V. In this context this formula is absolutely correct.

However, you are insisting that this formula be absolutely correct for kinetic energy - and this is where I find it at odds with the conservation of momentum, which is demonstrably true. AFAIK, this is what Pequaide is saying, and what this website is all about ... http://nov55.com/ener.html

Take a Newtons Cradle where the momentum of a large ball is transfered to a smaller ball. The small ball gains velocity, and momentum is conserved. But obviously Energy has increased (according to this forumula that you are insisting is always correct for kinetic energy ...)

So how can momentum be conserved, and still attempt to say that energy must be also conserved. That's what I find to be a paradox. Or an outright falsehood.

The reason I keep harping on about this is because I think if we fail to understand this, we will be foiled in our attempts to discover free energy. AFAIK, Bessler would not have used this equation in 1712.

I agree that this equation works for simple height potential energy - such as calculating how high a pendulum will swing. That's because momentum is pushing against the linear acceleration of gravity upon the ascending mass, starting off at maximum velocity (6:00)and ending at zero velocity (top of swing). Perfectly acceptable equation for that.

But I also have difficulty accepting that Height Potential energy is A/ a real quantity (as opposed to a mathematical abstraction), and B/ a conserved quantity.

In other words - if we implicity use this equation to describe potential energy, we are choosing to believe that it is never possible to achieve any more work out of an elevated mass than what it takes to raise it. This idea seems completely entrenched in our thinking - and I believe this is an error. Bessler basically said you have to find a way to raise mass 4X the height it falls. That, to me, implies you have to find a way of obtaining more work from a falling mass than the work obtained from normal free fall.

I'll try to stop arguing this point, because it's obviously an unpopular opinion. Maybe i'm completely wrong - but nobody has convinced me beyond a doubt.

[greendoor]

Before somebody points out my apparant contradiction ... when I say "I completely agree that 1/2MV^2 accurately describes height potential energy." ... I have to qualify that and say that I agree with this under most simple machine applications. I obviously hold to an unpopular opinion that it is possible to extract more work out of height than is currently considered possible - and I have some specific machine designs in mind. In that context, then I can't agree that "1/2MV^2 accurately describes height potential energy."

It's really hard to be trying to learn orthodox physics and use the "correct" terminology, while simultaneously trying to disagree with it and find exceptions. That makes it hard to choose the right words to use.

I can't disagree with observed, repeatable, measureable experiments. I can't disagree with defined terms that describe these. Where I disagree is with some of the assumptions - such that energy is always conserved.

If I truely believed that, I wouldn't be wasting my time here.

[Fletcher]

Take a Newtons Cradle where the momentum of a large ball is transfered to a smaller ball. The small ball gains velocity, and momentum is conserved. But obviously Energy [Kinetic] has increased (according to this forumula that you are insisting is always correct for kinetic energy ...)

So how can momentum be conserved, and still attempt to say that energy must be also conserved. That's what I find to be a paradox. Or an outright falsehood.

The reason I keep harping on about this is because I think if we fail to understand this, we will be foiled in our attempts to discover free energy. AFAIK, Bessler would not have used this equation in 1712.

Bessler was surprised at 'sGravesande's treatise about Kinetic impact forces being a squared velocity relationship i.e. non-linear - IIRC, in Stewart's forum he says he has a copy owned by Bessler where the squared velocity is underlined, with notations - Wagner pin pointed some information in a press statement released by Bessler about his force to turn his wheels being a squared force proportional to the diameter - so why would Bessler be surprised at 'sGravesande's findings if impact were his prime mover ????? - please don't quote me & read Stewarts forum for yourself, it's been a while !

In other words - if we implicity use this equation to describe potential energy, we are choosing to believe that it is never possible to achieve any more work out of an elevated mass than what it takes to raise it. This idea seems completely entrenched in our thinking - and I believe this is an error. Bessler basically said you have to find a way to raise mass 4X the height it falls. That, to me, implies you have to find a way of obtaining more work from a falling mass than the work obtained from normal free fall.

Not so, the other conclusion is that you have to find another force to supplement gravity - an equally valid hypothesis is that this other force must be ambient in an otherwise apparent closed system & be itself OU, before it gets to work on masses & gravity - if its OU then it is likely that the kinetic energy to do work will come from a heat source of some nature, as jim mentioned earlier today i.e. heat is joules, capacity to do work !