You are only partially correct. Your 2.1 kg pully is acting like it is 672 kg because you are not accelerating it at it's 9.5" (0.2413 meter) radius, you are accelerating it at a 3/8" (or 0.009535 meter) radius. http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6912#96912 Your bearing resistance accounts for the rest of the lost mass.
If you have a very large number, and add a small number to it, you are basically going to see the very large number.
If you take the small number and multiply it by 25.33 (or 22.8) and add that to the original very large number, you are still basically going to see the very large number.
Even though something is 25.333 times larger, you are still basically going to see the very large number.
That is what the bearing friction and inertia of the pully are doing to your experiment. They are killing your ability to see the acceleration difference.
.
My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing experiments" thread
Moderator: scott
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
It takes more than 2.5 pound to just move the bearing. If I had picked a drive mass of 3 pound it may have appeared to have a mass on 100,000 kilograms. Who knows; who cares; not me.
No they are not killing anything; you forget I do experiments. I could easily pick up a ten gram difference in the 1.800 kg. The experiment is deadly accurate.
No they are not killing anything; you forget I do experiments. I could easily pick up a ten gram difference in the 1.800 kg. The experiment is deadly accurate.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Deadly accurate with a stopwatch, stiff bearings, and a 3 centimeter drop? Sure pequaide.
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Hello pequaide,
Anyway, such high bearing resistance would represent a fairly large energy loss in your system.
I see that Wubbly has addressed the apparent mass "felt" at the drive shaft of your system. The slow rate of acceleration you gave for your tests seems to bear this out.
You say that your 19" diameter plywood wheel with the two 0.9 kilogram masses suspended from the rim accelerates through 1/2 a turn - 180 degrees - in 2 seconds.
From this information (assuming a constant acceleration) we can determine the acceleration of the rim and thus the acceleration of the masses suspended from the rim - and we can also calculate the gained kinetic energy of those masses.
s = 1 / 2 * a * t^2 (Distance equals one half the acceleration times the time squared)
...so...
a = 2 * s / t^2 (Acceleration equals two times the distance divided by the time squared.)
If for the distance we use half the circumference of your 19" diameter wheel we get an acceleration of:
2 * (3.14 * 19 inches / 2) / (2 seconds)^2 = 15 inches / sec^2
..or..
(15 inches * 2.54 cm / inch) * (1 m / 100 cm) = 0.38 m / sec^2
The speed of the rim after 2 seconds would be this acceleration times the 2 seconds:
0.38 m / sec^2 * 2 sec = 0.76 meters/second
Since the speed of the rim is approximately the same as the speed of the suspended masses, we can now calculate their total kinetic energy:
k = 1 / 2 * m * v^2
1 / 2 * (2 * 0.9 kilograms) * (0.76 m / sec)^2 = 0.52 kg * m^2 / sec^2 = 0.52 Joules
So, with the data you've given, your two suspended masses gained a total of only 0.52 Joules of kinetic energy after the 2 second acceleration.
That's only a fraction of the energy input into the system by suspending your 7.5 lb weight from the drive shaft and letting it drop 3 cm.
(Actually, due to the rope diameter, I would suspect your drive mass dropped even a little farther for a 1/2 rotation of the wheel, but anyway...)
1 lbf = 4.45 Newtons.
So, 7.5 * 4.45=33.4 Newtons
The energy you input was (at least) 33.4 N * 0.030 m or 1.0 Joule
Where is your energy gain?
That's an energy loss.
Wubbly, thanks for the link to the videos, but I've yet to see them due to browser problems. Google says I don't have a modern browser. :(
Oh, and I didn't realize you were down in the rabbit hole with me. I did do some spelunking in my youth, though, so getting stuck crawling through mud in the dark is not altogether unfamiliar territory. ...lol
pequaide, if in your tests you properly accounted for the energy loss in the bearings and the energy stored in the plywood "flywheel", it might make your other claims a little more believable. Your claims of energy creation still just do not add up, though, likely due to false assumptions on your part.
Dwayne
If the wheel slowed to a stop, then the drive weight of 2.5 pounds was probably not enough to overcome the bearing resistance. Had the weight of the drive mass been equal to the bearing resistance (air resistance and whatnot being negligible), the wheel would have continued to turn at a constant rate - and, of course, if the weight had been greater, the wheel would have accelerated.pequaide wrote:I went to the 19 inch plywood wheel and suspended 2.5 pounds from the shaft. The 2.5 pounds would not rotate the wheel. If you started it moving it would slowly stop. So I am going to guess that 2.5 pound is the force necessary to overcome the bearing resistance.
Anyway, such high bearing resistance would represent a fairly large energy loss in your system.
I see that Wubbly has addressed the apparent mass "felt" at the drive shaft of your system. The slow rate of acceleration you gave for your tests seems to bear this out.
You say that your 19" diameter plywood wheel with the two 0.9 kilogram masses suspended from the rim accelerates through 1/2 a turn - 180 degrees - in 2 seconds.
From this information (assuming a constant acceleration) we can determine the acceleration of the rim and thus the acceleration of the masses suspended from the rim - and we can also calculate the gained kinetic energy of those masses.
s = 1 / 2 * a * t^2 (Distance equals one half the acceleration times the time squared)
...so...
a = 2 * s / t^2 (Acceleration equals two times the distance divided by the time squared.)
If for the distance we use half the circumference of your 19" diameter wheel we get an acceleration of:
2 * (3.14 * 19 inches / 2) / (2 seconds)^2 = 15 inches / sec^2
..or..
(15 inches * 2.54 cm / inch) * (1 m / 100 cm) = 0.38 m / sec^2
The speed of the rim after 2 seconds would be this acceleration times the 2 seconds:
0.38 m / sec^2 * 2 sec = 0.76 meters/second
Since the speed of the rim is approximately the same as the speed of the suspended masses, we can now calculate their total kinetic energy:
k = 1 / 2 * m * v^2
1 / 2 * (2 * 0.9 kilograms) * (0.76 m / sec)^2 = 0.52 kg * m^2 / sec^2 = 0.52 Joules
So, with the data you've given, your two suspended masses gained a total of only 0.52 Joules of kinetic energy after the 2 second acceleration.
That's only a fraction of the energy input into the system by suspending your 7.5 lb weight from the drive shaft and letting it drop 3 cm.
(Actually, due to the rope diameter, I would suspect your drive mass dropped even a little farther for a 1/2 rotation of the wheel, but anyway...)
1 lbf = 4.45 Newtons.
So, 7.5 * 4.45=33.4 Newtons
The energy you input was (at least) 33.4 N * 0.030 m or 1.0 Joule
Where is your energy gain?
That's an energy loss.
Wubbly, thanks for the link to the videos, but I've yet to see them due to browser problems. Google says I don't have a modern browser. :(
Oh, and I didn't realize you were down in the rabbit hole with me. I did do some spelunking in my youth, though, so getting stuck crawling through mud in the dark is not altogether unfamiliar territory. ...lol
pequaide, if in your tests you properly accounted for the energy loss in the bearings and the energy stored in the plywood "flywheel", it might make your other claims a little more believable. Your claims of energy creation still just do not add up, though, likely due to false assumptions on your part.
Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
You two missed Galileo's pendulum because you won't admit what conserved means. You are the fellows that think energy is conserved. The energy lost to the bearing is the same in both runs. The energy of the wheel is the same in both the 41.08 run and the 1.8 run. According to your law; When the 41.08 run finishes the total energy of the system (wherever it goes) is equal to the starting potential energy. It is your rule is it true or not. It is the same physical event except that I can change the 41.08 to 1.8 at the rim and then the energy is much greater. You can't produce two quantities of energy from the same potential energy, and still pretend you have a Law of conservation.
I have done; lever, force, and mass experiments on a frictionless plane. Here you have no bearing and no flywheel. But real rules really work, no matter where. F = ma works.
The momentum of the 1.8 and the 41.08 are equal. There is a real Law.
I have done; lever, force, and mass experiments on a frictionless plane. Here you have no bearing and no flywheel. But real rules really work, no matter where. F = ma works.
The momentum of the 1.8 and the 41.08 are equal. There is a real Law.
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Pequaide,
I believe the resistance of bearings depends upon the load on the bearings. So, when you hang much more weight from the drive shaft in one experiment than you do from the rim of the wheel in the other, the bearing resistance could be different - and possibly very different.
Such a difference could be an explanation for the similar times in your two experiments, too, for that would mean the energy lost in the bearings in the two experiments were not the same.
So, until things like this are accounted for and ruled out as an explanation for the similar times, your claims are still suspect.
...even ignoring that my earlier calculations showed no energy gain, anyway.
Dwayne
I believe the resistance of bearings depends upon the load on the bearings. So, when you hang much more weight from the drive shaft in one experiment than you do from the rim of the wheel in the other, the bearing resistance could be different - and possibly very different.
Such a difference could be an explanation for the similar times in your two experiments, too, for that would mean the energy lost in the bearings in the two experiments were not the same.
So, until things like this are accounted for and ruled out as an explanation for the similar times, your claims are still suspect.
...even ignoring that my earlier calculations showed no energy gain, anyway.
Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Is the KE greater than the PE lost - simple ?
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
An industrial bearing with a dynamic load capacity of 2000 pounds will not freak out because you put 90 pounds on it. Otherwise it would be useless at its intended load.
Can the same PE product two different KEs; simple.
It would be simple enough to do the same experiment without bearings. Why don't you think of that; but instead you reach for excuses.
Obviously F = ma rules in this experiment, and in any other.
Can the same PE product two different KEs; simple.
It would be simple enough to do the same experiment without bearings. Why don't you think of that; but instead you reach for excuses.
Obviously F = ma rules in this experiment, and in any other.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Actually the 90 pounds is suspended between two industrial bearing so that is only 45 pounds each. And the wheel and 1.8 kilograms is beyond the bearing and have leverage over the bearing. The stress on the bearing is probably similar in both arrangements.
Re: re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy produc
Apparently a pic is worth some words pequaide.pequaide wrote:
Can the same PE produce two different KEs; simple.
The two see-saws are initially balanced - an extra 100 gms is attached to the left hand side to unbalance them.
The rhs see-saw has less inertia therefore arrives at the stop quicker than the lhs - both grey drivers loose the same PE.
The yellow lifted mass of 2 kg @ half the distance of the blue lifted mass of 1 kg has a KE less than the faster blue lifted mass, so ...
The same PE [loss of a driver] can produce two different KE's; simple.
The point IS .. & has been made from day one IS .. add up the PE differences AND the KE's to sum the systems PE & KE's.
If you have created energy then the sum of the other energy's will be greater than the system PE losses - simple !
- Attachments
-
- Different KE's
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
But you contend that there is a Law of Conservation of Energy?
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Yes .. KE is only part of the energy budget for Energy - the Work Energy Equivalence Principle states that since both KE & Work Done [f x d] are in Joules then they are interchangeable/equivalent & this is important for mechanical energy & mechanical systems.
Momentum is the more fundamental property of mass than KE which is proportional to velocity squared.
Total Energy is contained in the Laws of Thermodynamics, using Fluid Dynamics & ideal gases as the examples, not the Laws of mechanics.
Momentum is the more fundamental property of mass than KE which is proportional to velocity squared.
Total Energy is contained in the Laws of Thermodynamics, using Fluid Dynamics & ideal gases as the examples, not the Laws of mechanics.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Just for the ease of mathematics lets run the 41.08 kilograms up to one meter per second. The same drive force dropped the same distance can drive 41.08 to 1 m/sec or it can drive 1.8 kilograms to 22.8 m/sec.
The energy in the flywheel is the same in both, and the bearing resistance is the same in both runs. Everything else is the same except that 41.08 kilograms moving 1 m/sec is 20.54 joules and 1.8 kilogram moving 22.8 m/sec is 467.8 joules.
If the Law of Conservation of Energy is true then it should be true in the 41.08 run. Whatever the wasted energy on the bearing, whatever the energy of the flywheel, and the energy of the 41.08 kilograms should give you the total maximum output of energy. But the 1.8 run finds 447 more joules.
But we can't squeeze any more momentum out of it; we already had the max on momentum.
So which of the two is more likely a conserved quantity: The Law of Conservation of Energy or The Law of Conservation of Momentum; F = ma.
The energy in the flywheel is the same in both, and the bearing resistance is the same in both runs. Everything else is the same except that 41.08 kilograms moving 1 m/sec is 20.54 joules and 1.8 kilogram moving 22.8 m/sec is 467.8 joules.
If the Law of Conservation of Energy is true then it should be true in the 41.08 run. Whatever the wasted energy on the bearing, whatever the energy of the flywheel, and the energy of the 41.08 kilograms should give you the total maximum output of energy. But the 1.8 run finds 447 more joules.
But we can't squeeze any more momentum out of it; we already had the max on momentum.
So which of the two is more likely a conserved quantity: The Law of Conservation of Energy or The Law of Conservation of Momentum; F = ma.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
In order for pequaide's energy creation to work in the Atwoods, it has to be just as easy to rotate one tenth the mass at ten times the radius. (pequaide doesn't believe in mr²).
But we already had this argument in Tarsier79's thread here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... hlight=mrr
Tarsier79's experiment clearly showed the relationship was not mr.
But pequaide's experiment showed an mr relationship. Why couldn't pequaide see the mrr relationship? It was probably because he was using a massive flywheel and stiff bearings, but you can't really tell since he seldom describes his experiments accurately or completely. I'm guessing he was measuring the acceleration of his flywheel and the bearing resistance. From his experimental setup, there was no way he would be able to see the mrr relationship of the masses hung off of it. Since two different setups accelerated the same, he concluded mr is the correct relationship. And since he did his own experiment, that's what he chooses to believe, even though his experimental setup was not optimized to give the correct result.
But we already had this argument in Tarsier79's thread here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... hlight=mrr
Tarsier79's experiment clearly showed the relationship was not mr.
But pequaide's experiment showed an mr relationship. Why couldn't pequaide see the mrr relationship? It was probably because he was using a massive flywheel and stiff bearings, but you can't really tell since he seldom describes his experiments accurately or completely. I'm guessing he was measuring the acceleration of his flywheel and the bearing resistance. From his experimental setup, there was no way he would be able to see the mrr relationship of the masses hung off of it. Since two different setups accelerated the same, he concluded mr is the correct relationship. And since he did his own experiment, that's what he chooses to believe, even though his experimental setup was not optimized to give the correct result.
re: My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing
Tarsier uses a double size circle; that would mean that mrr would predict that the system would be twice as hard to rotate than the prediction from mr.
Tarsier thinks that means it will take twice the time, but it does not.
Twice as hard to rotate would mean half the acceleration.
Half the acceleration would take only 1.414 times as much time. Tarsier thinks it is twice the time and those are the numbers he gives us. What is clear is that there is something amiss with Tarsier's experiment.
And; mrr predicts that the 1.8 kilograms at the circumference will be 22.8 times harder to rotate than the 41.08 at the shaft. That would be 1/22.8 times the acceleration rate but not 22.8 times as much time. It would only be the square root of 22.8 or 4.77 times as much time; for 2 seconds * 4.77 = 9.5 seconds as stated before.
Tarsier thinks that means it will take twice the time, but it does not.
Twice as hard to rotate would mean half the acceleration.
Half the acceleration would take only 1.414 times as much time. Tarsier thinks it is twice the time and those are the numbers he gives us. What is clear is that there is something amiss with Tarsier's experiment.
And; mrr predicts that the 1.8 kilograms at the circumference will be 22.8 times harder to rotate than the 41.08 at the shaft. That would be 1/22.8 times the acceleration rate but not 22.8 times as much time. It would only be the square root of 22.8 or 4.77 times as much time; for 2 seconds * 4.77 = 9.5 seconds as stated before.