energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
A collision is itself an amazing phenomena. In a fraction of a second the mass of a speed becomes 0 and an equivalent mass gains all that speed. This tells us that the acceleration/deceleration reaches infinity for a very short period of time. Maybe this is why conservation of energy is used rather than the laws of motion :p.
re: energy producing experiments
Broli: you say that I have explained my concepts more often than necessary, and that I should advance to the next step. But then you say you are attempting to create computer models that do not have tethers. All the large quantities of energy that I have produced have been with tethers. So this makes me think that I need to explain it once again.
Let’s look at the difference between a catapult and a trebuchet. Now I know I look at thing differently but bear with me. For reason of argument catapult means; that type of machine with no tether, and trebuchet means with tether.
Both the catapult and the trebuchet are wheels. Both wheels can rotate about their center of mass. Acceleration is achieved by over balancing the short arm of the two lever arms: this is an overbalanced wheel if you will. Different masses can be placed in the catapult projectile basket and probably different masses were place in the short arm basket. The long lever arm side of the catapult has more energy than the short massive arm, so in that respect you can say that a catapult makes energy. For example: build a catapult with two short arms. There is no point to it is there; because no energy is made.
If the catapult made energy then why was the trebuchet an improvement over the catapult?
When the missile was released from the catapult the overbalanced mass, and the short arm mass, and the long arm mass were all continuing to move. This was a waste of motion and therefore a waste of energy. This squandering of motion need not be true of the trebuchet. As the sling swings out the mass of the projectile of the trebuchet could absorb the momentum of the overbalanced mass, and the momentum of the short arm mass, and the momentum of the long arm mass thus delivering more energy to the missile.
Now remember that this was medieval times; and the efficiency of both the trebuchet and the catapult were poor. But the trebuchet was more efficient; and I think the cylinder and spheres effect is why. The rotating wheel can be stopped by an unwinding tether.
Do you think NASA’s yo-yo De-Spin device look more like a trebuchet or a catapult.
My calculations show that a catapult could multiply the energy by 3 and the trebuchet could multiply the energy by 10. This would be under ideal conditions.
So I conclude that you can make energy without the use of an unwrapping tether. But I would rather go for ten than three. These calculations assume that Newton’s Three Laws of Motion are correct.
Let’s look at the difference between a catapult and a trebuchet. Now I know I look at thing differently but bear with me. For reason of argument catapult means; that type of machine with no tether, and trebuchet means with tether.
Both the catapult and the trebuchet are wheels. Both wheels can rotate about their center of mass. Acceleration is achieved by over balancing the short arm of the two lever arms: this is an overbalanced wheel if you will. Different masses can be placed in the catapult projectile basket and probably different masses were place in the short arm basket. The long lever arm side of the catapult has more energy than the short massive arm, so in that respect you can say that a catapult makes energy. For example: build a catapult with two short arms. There is no point to it is there; because no energy is made.
If the catapult made energy then why was the trebuchet an improvement over the catapult?
When the missile was released from the catapult the overbalanced mass, and the short arm mass, and the long arm mass were all continuing to move. This was a waste of motion and therefore a waste of energy. This squandering of motion need not be true of the trebuchet. As the sling swings out the mass of the projectile of the trebuchet could absorb the momentum of the overbalanced mass, and the momentum of the short arm mass, and the momentum of the long arm mass thus delivering more energy to the missile.
Now remember that this was medieval times; and the efficiency of both the trebuchet and the catapult were poor. But the trebuchet was more efficient; and I think the cylinder and spheres effect is why. The rotating wheel can be stopped by an unwinding tether.
Do you think NASA’s yo-yo De-Spin device look more like a trebuchet or a catapult.
My calculations show that a catapult could multiply the energy by 3 and the trebuchet could multiply the energy by 10. This would be under ideal conditions.
So I conclude that you can make energy without the use of an unwrapping tether. But I would rather go for ten than three. These calculations assume that Newton’s Three Laws of Motion are correct.
- Attachments
-
-
-
re: energy producing experiments
These are frame by frame from a video, if I remember correctly they are 1/30 of a second apart.
- Attachments
-
-
-
-
re: energy producing experiments
Oops the last picture is the first frame.
I understand a Trebuchet to be a subset of Catapults - the important difference being the use of a counterweight, as opposed to Torsion engines or cross-bows. Basically using a heavy mass as a gravity-spring. This allows storage of energy, together with leverage. AFAIK, there is no potential for energy creation - but I would like to be proved wrong. I see the leverage as allowing the trading of force with distance. This makes it easy for men to raise the massive weight, at the expense of time. Then, when fired, it works in reverse - allowing a lot of energy to be released in a short amount of time.
I understand that the big advantage was power and accuracy.
But that's just my opinion.
I agree it seems to have a lot in common with a yo-yo despin. The fact that it does provide an increase in velocity would suggest that on paper it should show an increase in 'energy' - given that energy is all about squaring velocity ...
It seems to me that if you marry the two seperate machines together: one that accululates large amounts of momentum over time for a relatively low input cost, and the other that turns a relatively slow but massive momentum into high velocity energy ... this could be a winning concept.
But if i'm not mistaken this is what Pequaide has always been presenting. I just don't see why this has been so difficult for people to see.
One without the other is meaningless. Hence my annoyance at attempts to discredit this method with worthless experiments that do not incorporate the full concept.
I understand that the big advantage was power and accuracy.
But that's just my opinion.
I agree it seems to have a lot in common with a yo-yo despin. The fact that it does provide an increase in velocity would suggest that on paper it should show an increase in 'energy' - given that energy is all about squaring velocity ...
It seems to me that if you marry the two seperate machines together: one that accululates large amounts of momentum over time for a relatively low input cost, and the other that turns a relatively slow but massive momentum into high velocity energy ... this could be a winning concept.
But if i'm not mistaken this is what Pequaide has always been presenting. I just don't see why this has been so difficult for people to see.
One without the other is meaningless. Hence my annoyance at attempts to discredit this method with worthless experiments that do not incorporate the full concept.
re: energy producing experiments
A trebuchet looses a massive amount of Pe in the driver mass - the whip end of the lever creates Ke in the mass to be hurled - there is an increase in Ke of that mass but over all there is no energy gain - just potential energy of position converted to energy of motion - that's the full concept, after men raise the counter weight of course.
re: energy producing experiments
Note that all the spinning motion of the PVC pipe is transferred to the spheres.
I have conducted this experiment with the length of the pipe in a horizontal plane and all the spinning motion of the PVC pipe is transferred to the spheres.
I have used a vertically mounted wheel instead of a PVC pipe; and I placed a bearing in the center of the wheel; I used one tethered mass instead of two; and all the spinning motion of the 4,000 gram wheel was transferred to the 300 gram tethered mass.
I think the trebuchet, the vertically mounted wheel, and the cylinder and spheres are all using the same fundamental structure to create the same fundamental effect. The wheel, and the cylinder and spheres, take the motion of a more massive object and place all that motion into a much smaller object. The trebuchet does the same but is less efficient.
We can’t realistically argue the efficiency of a medieval trebuchet, but we can argue the efficiency of a freefalling cylinder and spheres.
The thick dark tangent line in the picture is a tether with around 280 grams in the end.
I have conducted this experiment with the length of the pipe in a horizontal plane and all the spinning motion of the PVC pipe is transferred to the spheres.
I have used a vertically mounted wheel instead of a PVC pipe; and I placed a bearing in the center of the wheel; I used one tethered mass instead of two; and all the spinning motion of the 4,000 gram wheel was transferred to the 300 gram tethered mass.
I think the trebuchet, the vertically mounted wheel, and the cylinder and spheres are all using the same fundamental structure to create the same fundamental effect. The wheel, and the cylinder and spheres, take the motion of a more massive object and place all that motion into a much smaller object. The trebuchet does the same but is less efficient.
We can’t realistically argue the efficiency of a medieval trebuchet, but we can argue the efficiency of a freefalling cylinder and spheres.
The thick dark tangent line in the picture is a tether with around 280 grams in the end.
- Attachments
-
I don't see why the tether is superior. Having a tether introduces many variables. If the tether increases too fast in length your masses will be no longer part of the rotating system if it increases too slow the centrifugal force will only partially accelerate the mass.
With a guiding rail all of these problems are not present. The mass increases at its own natural rate in every setup and it always stays fixed inside the rotating system.
Btw here's how my catapult would look like:
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/catapultwm2d2.avi
As the mass increases speed it gains radial velocity. At the end of the catapult the rail is bent 45° to put that radial velocity in to a long throw.
With a guiding rail all of these problems are not present. The mass increases at its own natural rate in every setup and it always stays fixed inside the rotating system.
Btw here's how my catapult would look like:
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/catapultwm2d2.avi
As the mass increases speed it gains radial velocity. At the end of the catapult the rail is bent 45° to put that radial velocity in to a long throw.
re: energy producing experiments
Okay; it looks like your sphere is released while the system is vertical. You could suspend a cable above the catapult so that it catches the released sphere at maximum velocity. The sphere would also be at a maximum height while in the system just at the release position. When the sphere is caught on the end of the cable it would become a pendulum bob. The sphere/bob would then rise according to its acquired velocity.
It appears that the lever arm lengths are about 10 to 1.
Let’s say that the velocity of the red mass is one meter per second at the point of release, which would put the sphere velocity at 10 m/sec.
At 10 m/sec the sphere would rise 5.1 meters.
You can add the lever arm length to this 5.1 meters. Is this sufficient height to lift the red mass back to its original position?
It appears that the lever arm lengths are about 10 to 1.
Let’s say that the velocity of the red mass is one meter per second at the point of release, which would put the sphere velocity at 10 m/sec.
At 10 m/sec the sphere would rise 5.1 meters.
You can add the lever arm length to this 5.1 meters. Is this sufficient height to lift the red mass back to its original position?
pequaide, the sim only shows the design of the momentum transfer catapult. Although I wouldn't say it's the best one. This serves as an argument for your trebuchet vs catapult discussion as a classic catapult has no momentum transfer concept behind it.
Edit: The design of a trebuchet just made me think of another way to transfer momentum having the velocity end up tangentially to the wheel. But not using a rope or tether but a rigid rod.
Edit2: Experimenting with this I can see what you meant by transferring ALL the momentum. I can even manage to get the cylinder spinning in the other direction for a bit.
Edit: The design of a trebuchet just made me think of another way to transfer momentum having the velocity end up tangentially to the wheel. But not using a rope or tether but a rigid rod.
Edit2: Experimenting with this I can see what you meant by transferring ALL the momentum. I can even manage to get the cylinder spinning in the other direction for a bit.
re: energy producing experiments
Good work Broli: I often thought that a rod would work, but I had limited funds to explore the idea.
Yes; opposite direction spin is a dead giveaway. You can’t make something spin the opposite direction without first making it stop. Again: good work.
Yes; opposite direction spin is a dead giveaway. You can’t make something spin the opposite direction without first making it stop. Again: good work.
Here's the video showing 3 setups:
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/exvid75.avi
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/nLR107.jpg
They are all the same except for the rod length
The setup that is most ideal is the middle one. Where all the momentum is transferred when the rod is nicely radially. This way all the momentum has a tangential velocity.
In the first setup not all the momentum is transferred. In the third case you see all the momentum is transferred BEFORE the rod becomes radial.
The graphs show the angular velocity of each setup. Interestingly in this case the point in time where the graph becomes lowest is exactly when the mass is radial. I don't know if this would be the case in a real world experiment.
But if it was we can look for a setup that has its lowest value exactly 0. In other words a setup that:
a) stops completely
b)does not go in the other direction
In that case all momentum would be transferred AND our mass would have a perfect tangential velocity component.
This is very easy to find. Just like this simulation one could make the rod longer until he finds the exact length where the velocity hits 0 angular speed.
I hope this is a breakthrough.
Edit: Lol even wm2d is forced to partially bend with this setup.
Initial energy = 1025J. Energy when small weight has all momentum = 1030J. Energy created 5 J. BAD wm2d, you shouldn't give in so easy!
Setup:
PS: Scott the upload ftp for attachments is broken.
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/exvid75.avi
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/nLR107.jpg
They are all the same except for the rod length
The setup that is most ideal is the middle one. Where all the momentum is transferred when the rod is nicely radially. This way all the momentum has a tangential velocity.
In the first setup not all the momentum is transferred. In the third case you see all the momentum is transferred BEFORE the rod becomes radial.
The graphs show the angular velocity of each setup. Interestingly in this case the point in time where the graph becomes lowest is exactly when the mass is radial. I don't know if this would be the case in a real world experiment.
But if it was we can look for a setup that has its lowest value exactly 0. In other words a setup that:
a) stops completely
b)does not go in the other direction
In that case all momentum would be transferred AND our mass would have a perfect tangential velocity component.
This is very easy to find. Just like this simulation one could make the rod longer until he finds the exact length where the velocity hits 0 angular speed.
I hope this is a breakthrough.
Edit: Lol even wm2d is forced to partially bend with this setup.
Initial energy = 1025J. Energy when small weight has all momentum = 1030J. Energy created 5 J. BAD wm2d, you shouldn't give in so easy!
Setup:
PS: Scott the upload ftp for attachments is broken.
- Attachments
-
- exvid75.wm2d
- (11.91 KiB) Downloaded 218 times
-
-
re: energy producing experiments
Calculate your Newtonian momentum loses.
Your computer is programmed to conserve kinetic energy, which is strange because real world experiments don’t.
Plug in a ballistics pendulum and see if it misses that one too.
I could play the catapult but not the last two.
Your computer is programmed to conserve kinetic energy, which is strange because real world experiments don’t.
Plug in a ballistics pendulum and see if it misses that one too.
I could play the catapult but not the last two.
Re: re: energy producing experiments
pequaide, yes we went over this already wm2d doesn't conserve linear momentum.pequaide wrote:Calculate your Newtonian momentum loses.
Your computer is programmed to conserve kinetic energy, which is strange because real world experiments don’t.
Plug in a ballistics pendulum and see if it misses that one too.
I could play the catapult but not the last two.
As for the video you're probably missing the codec for it. To fix that install a codec pack such as:
http://www.freewarefiles.com/K-Lite-Cod ... 13643.html
I also asked you to install the free trial version of wm2d the other time which you didn't seem to do. This will make things easier for both of us. The trial can be downloaded here:
http://www.design-simulation.com/WM2D/download.php
And finally here's the youtube versions of the videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeQRzzE7X4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI9O2wIEB3k
pequaide, you should do a little more effort to make both our time more useful. I can't keep spoon feeding you with illustrations, images, videos because you can't do some simple things on your pc.