Centripetal/Centrifugal anomolies

[Patrick]

...

[Jonathan]

Michael, you didn't even look at the third attachment did you? One uses that nonlinear centripetal acceleration by having another inclined plane (I've been calling it a centripetal ramp), parallel to the radius of the first, to redirect the nonlinear outward force upward. As of yet I havn't figured out how having the ball leave the fixed radius will change things, so this is of course still speculatory. But your assertion that centripetal acceleration can't lift an object proves: 1) you're stupid, 2) you're confused, or 3) we're stupid. To determine which, I emplore you to point out the mistakes in my reasoning. As I'm sure I've not made any of any consequence yet, and that I haven't even claimed anything yet, I know you know what conclusion I've come to.
As to your answer, you may well be right, given that we havn't yet determined if the equations cancel out. But given the complexity of the problem, and the fact that even I'm still not sure if it has any use, I'm certain this area hasn't been researched, and it is therefore worthy of it.
And I want to know why, if you are going to come to the conclusion that the energy will always be m*g*h, you come here to poopoo ideas you don't understand?

[Michael]

Jonathan,
1. a skeptical point of view was asked for nay-demanded. Go look.
2. I did look at your drawings and although if it were a test I would be forced not to answer because I don't agree with your choices, it definately is not 1, or 2. Ie:
>But your assertion that centripetal acceleration can't lift an object proves: 1) you're stupid, 2) you're confused, or 3) we're stupid.

The point isn't if a ramp can be used to redivert mass with energy, the point is can it make more? The answer is no. Obviously. Obviously since you were responding to a thread by someone who thinks it can be done, and your in agreement with this, then OBVIOUSLY anyone reading your messages is going to think that that is your point of view.

3. Why do you constantly feel the need to belittle other people on this board when they are" different" than you? Even if they do come off as pompous (George is case in point); or question them when they post something that seems irrelevent to you? Are you that threatened with life? I'm not someone who really likes to get personal with someone Jonathan over discussions, especially when it's content that should be discussed and not personal opinion, but you've been wrong on several occasions, and instead of thinking of peoples answers as an attack you should probably review your thinking processes.
4. To answer your question, quite simply the force of gravity -measured vertically- causes the object to descend. Any object (ramp etc.) that imposes an obstruction to this action is going to take energy away from the event. Quite elementary really.

Mike

[Jonathan]

1. Yes, but an arguement is needed to make a point. You had no arguement based on anything I wrote. You have not pointed out in flaw in the math I did.
2. I disagree, it seems to be no, but I have never seen a proof either way, and this is what I'm attempting.
Also, I have already pointed out in several posts that I don't know that it will create more energy or extract it from somewhere or what have you. All I have is a half finished proof that at this point is leaning one way but it is too soon to tell yet, I'm working on the rest of the math.
3. I feel the urge to belittle people who disagree with me because I put a lot of time and thought into my opinions and proofs. But I always put critical thought into what they have to say. And lets not forget to mention that your arguement didn't actually make one, you have still not shown a single error in my work thus far.
When something seems irrelevant to me, I have to ask why it is posted, how else will I know why? And I've got to know, because someone might be making an important point with it.
I agree, content not opinion. Yet you haven't argued against the maths I did. And what are these several occasions? There was the Cowlishaw device, and IIRC, I proved me wrong on that one. Are you refering to when I reinvented that guy's square wheel? Or that time that I thought MrTim's lever idea was an interesting one, and did many tens of experiments to prove myself wrong again? As near as I can tell, I am my own worst critic, because it is always me who proves me wrong. In fact, IIRC, you said that Cowlishaw device wouldn't work, but you wouldn't tell me why then either. What good is it to be right but not be able to prove it?
4. Yes, that seems to be the case. But can one prove it? I'm trying.
5. But we can agree on one thing, Georg is far too pompous with his as yet unfounded claims. Although I do get the feeling that if all of a sudden I could really understand him, he'd either be obviously brilliant or obvioulsy insane.

[Sevich]

Not sure why it states that there is a new post on (centripetal/centrifugal) on 1st December when in fact it's 29th....Jonathans comment?

[Sevich]

Sorry!......One hour later it's come through??????

[Jonathan]

I don't know what date problems you are having, but I bet it's because you're in Australia. To me it says I posted Sunday, November 30, 10:33PM.

[Nitro]

AlanR

Nice post with reference to the rocket on a string.
You should continue with that frame of insight.
That is the key to besslers work.

Nitro

[Sevich]

Forum index states that under (Centripetal/Centrifugal Anomolies) Nitro is the latest one to post as at Sat Dec 06 2003 9.29pm But when I loged on to it , Jonathan came up as the last one to post on Sat Nov 29 2003 9.31am ........Not only that but I've been emailed for this one also??

[AlanR]

Thanks Nitro

maybe though the cord is forcing a small component of the thrust to act vertically, raising the rocket and subtracting from the resultant velocity.
Still working on that.

Some thoughts related to this stuff....

[1] "Centripetal Potential Energy"

I'd like to use the term "Centripetal Potential Energy" (I dont know if that term is already used) to refer the the potential energy that an object has purely as a result of its rotation. Heres what I mean: An object has a given velocity and kinetic energy as it orbits a central point. The object is "trying" to move outwards as a result of Centrifugal force, but is being held in place by the equal and opposite centripetal force. Now, if the radius of the orbit is allowed to suddenly increase from say, 1metre to 2 metres, heres what happents - (1) the object does work (expending energy) as it moves outwards, and the new KE is less than it was when the object was at 1 metre. Further work can theoretically be done as the radius is allowed to expand infinitely, but trails off exponentially with increasing radius. In an extreme case, say the radius was now at 100 M, the velocity would be very low, KE now very low.

[2] The sudden (approaching instantaneous!) increase in radius causes a very high "spike" in the rate of change of (outward) acceleration, a non-linear pulse that can be extremely large. Of couse as the mass moves outward the Acc trails off linearly with distance. This spike, being the derivative of acceleration, will have components in higher derivatives also - the effect I am still calculating...


[3] Also, unrelated, is the large accelerations observed in modest velocities and radii - simple stuff, but still something i found interesting. Eg, a mass (irrelevant) whose velocity is just 10 m/s (36 kph) at a fixed point (radius) of 20 cm (so thats 50 cycles per second (Hz)) has an outward acceleration of (10 squared over 0.2) = 500 M per sec per sec!
Thats 50g in this simple case.

[4] I think i may have partly explained the whole "anomoly" thing.

Here goes: I (moment of Inertia) = half * Mass * ((Rads/sec) squared)
KE = half * (I) * ((Rads/sec) squared)
(of course 1 rev/sec = 2Pi rads/sec)

Combining these two and cancelling terms gives

KE = (Pi squared) * Mass * (radius squared) * (Revs/sec squared)

Removing constants for a static mass, KE is proportional to radius * Revs per second.
BUT, by conservation of angular momentum, if radius doubles, velocity halves (which is true) so radius * Revs/sec = constant.
Therfore KE is proportinal only to mass.

I'm still working on the full explanation re the actual "upwards" (anti-grav) effect of the redirected Fc by way of the sloped wall.

[5]Re an actual Bess wheel, I'm thinking that maybe the very large, transient acc pulse my "throw" the mass horizontally quickly, ie as it is raised (by whatever means) to axle level, it could be force to "turn very quickly" (forced around a tight arc) and the transient high Acc could throw it straight across to the downward "power stroke" - in effect the movement of the weights would "out run" the movement of the wheel, leaving the Vertical plane the wheel is in, zapping across to the rim on the downward stroke and falling back into the wheels plane for delivery of the power.
Pretty abstract, sure, Ill be more detailed if theory "holds water" over next few days.

I actually enjoy proving myself wrong - clears the head of thoughts that may lead nowhere and often opens up lateral thinking for new ideas.

Regards,
Alan.

"The universe is unfolding as it should"

[Jonathan]

I think you got [4] wrong. It'll take a lot of space and time to write out everything with words to explain, so I will go step by step and hope what I'm trying to say is clear.
T=Fr=I(alpha)
F=ma
T=mar=I(alpha)
a=(alpha)r
T=m(r^2)(alpha)=I(alpha)
T/(alpha)=mr^2=I

KE=(1/2)I(omega)^2
I=mr^2
KE=(1/2)m(r^2)(omega)^2
1(omega)=(1/(2pi))(rps)
KE=(1/2)m(r^2)(rps/(2pi))^2

What is not explicitly clear from this is that rps or omega or instantaneous velocity varies inversly with the radius so that the kinetic energy is constant when the radius varies. There is no free energy only by moving it in and out. However I'm still interested in using rediected centipetal acceleration to fight gravity in the case of an object moving in an upward spiral.
Regardless, [5] seems like a good idea, because the mass needn't have more energy to swing faster and out run the wheel, you could just have it do that near the axle and CoAM will do it for you. But I don't know how you'll get it nearer to the center without putting energy in....

[AlanR]

[1] re Jonathan,

I think you got [4] wrong.

and

KE=(1/2)m(r^2)(rps/(2pi))^2

yep, your're right. I had inverted the omega term.

anyway, expanding the last equation gives KE = (1/8Pi squared) * m * (r^2) * (R^2) , so we have a constant * mass * (r^2) * (R^2), so the text still applies, ie a change in r causes an inverse change in R (revs/second) , effectively meaning r * R = a constant, leaving KE proportinal to mass, regardless of delta r or delta R.

I hope these cancellations dont also kill the Fc anti-grav theory...

[2] Success by Principle or by Design? I see a lot of wheel designs, where it "looks" like they will work - and the search for the principle at work is elusive, and generally does not exist - ie Newton has it catered for. On the other hand there is the search for the abstract Principle, and then the issue of how to implement the principle.
I wonder which will come first in the case of success - will a design be made first or the abstract principle be thought of, and a successful wheel exhibiting the applied principle? IMO the principle should be sought by means of finding ANY unexplained anomalies within physics and applying them laterally to the application of Besslers wheel. The vast majority of wheel designs seem to rely on "this looks like it could work" and then be (mostly) proven unworkable, first by math and if not, by building it and using "seeing is believing".

[3] Does "Incomplete" mean "wrong"? Some theories say that "Newton is right, but incomplete" regarding a certain law. eg, conversion of Angular KE to translational (linear) KE (this includes the GIT and the CIP (Cooks Inertial Propulsion)). Can long-believed laws remain true if incompleteness is proven? Also, is "Centripetal Potential Energy" a fair term to use? (re my previous post)

[AlanR]

re Jonathan,

What is not explicitly clear from this is that rps or omega or instantaneous velocity varies inversly with the radius so that the kinetic energy is constant when the radius varies. There is no free energy only by moving it in and out.

I wish that were true, as then I could definately extract energy by allowing the radius to expand (eg, the cord holding the mass in its radius could be used to lift another mass, as Fc pulls the mass outwards) and still have the same KE - isn't that "free?"

Tell me where I'm wrong here:
If you double the radius, you get half the rotational velocity.
But KE = (1/2)*m*(v^2)
so, v being halved, you have (1/4) of the original KE now.

The movement outwards (which was work perfomed, F * d) used the KE up. Or this way, in order to reduce the radius back to its original size (half of what it is now) you must INPUT energy to fight against Fc! (alright, its Centrifugal, but interchangability of Fcentripetal & Fcentrifugal is irrelevant) - in order to restore the object to its original radius. Wheres the error there?

Regards, AlanR.

"I like being proven wrong -it clears stubborn thoughts"

[Nitro]

As long as the forward velocity is the same the KE is the same no matter what radius is.

[Jonathan]

[1]You inverted the omega term and had the wrong equation for I. Yours was for a disk, mine was for a point mass.
There is a problem, what you said might accidentally be applied in all cases, but it only applies to some. The problem is that KE is at first proportional to mass, radius squared, and rps squared. After that, we implicitly made the assumption that it is a closed system, so KE can't be proportional to mass, because mass will be constant. In this simple case, once you close the system the KE will be constant.
I still think that there might be something to the centripetal force to 'antigrav' force thing isn't a bad idea, but I can't prove it one way or another just yet.
[3]Technically, incomplete is wrong. But Newton applies in all nonrelativistic cases, so it is close enough to right.

I didn't entirely follow your thoughs on that last post, but in the first specific case mentioned the equations we've been talking about no longer apply, so we can't come to any conclusion yet.
In the second case,
KE=(1/2)m(r^2)(omega)^2
Is true, but one musn't forget CoAM. Once one sets up and closes the system,
L=mr(omega)
therefore,
(omega)=L/(mr)
and substituting,
KE=(1/2)m(r^2)(L/(mr))^2
KE=(1/2)m(r^2)(L^2)/((m^2)(r^2))
and canceling terms,
KE=(1/2)(L^2)/m
Where all the terms in the last equation are constants, so KE is constant too. Your problem in this case was using the equation:
KE=(1/2)m(v^2)
while refering to radius and rotational velocity. What you did was double the radius and so therefore half the rotational velocity, but then put it in an equation that wanted instantaneous velocity as an input, not rotational velocity.