By my calculations the simulation’s original momentum is 210 units and the final momentum is 62.2 units. Obviously this is not what happens in the real world, unless of course Newtonian physics is false.
So what makes these software programmers think that 2 kg can stop all the motion of 20 kilogram that is moving much faster. I have stopped over 1000 gram with 132 grams in the lab but I am sure these programmers haven’t.
The programmers must have intuitive knowledge that this transfer of motion from 20 to 2 will happen, because they don’t have the math right and have undoubtedly never done any experiments.
I wonder where they got the intuitive knowledge.
If they can’t get the math right I would not trust their simulation predictions. I don’t think what they are showing will happen in a vertical plane. I think momentum conservation with the rod would occur in a horizontal plane, but in the vertical you have gravity playing with your motion, especially at slow speeds.
Broli; maybe you should sell your ignorant program and use the money to do really world experiments, then you could spoon feed me something real.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
In which world do you live, because it sounds like fun.
I showed a possible DESIGN in animation so YOU and others can see how it works. For the second time we have already estabalished wm2d doesn't give the right numbers but that doesn't mean the behaviour is incorrect.
You make essay long posts telling people how to glue some pipes and tethers without a single illustration or animation. While I try to keep the text as little as possible.
Maybe you're misunderstanding me but I'm trying to help you and you don't seem to appreciate it much. If I had the equipment to build it do you think I haven't done it already? Any one with a garage workshop can make such a horizontal wheel and attach weights with rods to it. But this forum is in favor of individualism instead of helping each other with the skills each one has.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.�
Abraham Lincoln
I showed a possible DESIGN in animation so YOU and others can see how it works. For the second time we have already estabalished wm2d doesn't give the right numbers but that doesn't mean the behaviour is incorrect.
You make essay long posts telling people how to glue some pipes and tethers without a single illustration or animation. While I try to keep the text as little as possible.
Maybe you're misunderstanding me but I'm trying to help you and you don't seem to appreciate it much. If I had the equipment to build it do you think I haven't done it already? Any one with a garage workshop can make such a horizontal wheel and attach weights with rods to it. But this forum is in favor of individualism instead of helping each other with the skills each one has.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.�
Abraham Lincoln
re: energy producing experiments
About the last picture: A wire loop comes through the sphere and connects to a snap lock which is connected to a string. The string goes through a slit in the cylinder wall and then through a center hole in the black plastic strip. You can barley see the string on top of the black plastic. The string feeds through and under the plastic strip and leads to and wraps around a set screw that can adjust the length of the string so that the spheres sets in the seat properly. The strings or wires break often so the set screw saves allot of time when replacing the string.
Re: re: energy producing experiments
Yes it is.pequaide wrote:Is this K'nex horizontal?
From that picture you posted would my assumption be correct if the below animation shows how that sphere swings out?
If so then this is pretty much the same as the rod replacement. But with the rod you don't need to worry about gravity or use a frictionless plane if you do worry about it.
- Attachments
-
re: energy producing experiments
Yes: your animation is very close, with a few changes.
The string is always straight unless it is against the cylinder wall.
The string is always tangent to the surface of the cylinder until it comes to the slit.
The portion of the string that is away from the surface of the cylinder is very short at first.
The greatest acceleration of the sphere occurs in this tangent area.
When the portion of the string that is away from the cylinder has come to the slit; and is only touching the cylinder on the front edge of the spit, the string can then move beyond tangent to 90° to tangent. The least acceleration of the spheres occurs at the higher angles.
Look at pictures #3 and #4 on page 29 of this thread; you will see the spheres in their tangent position.
Picture #5 shows the spheres just before 90°. At 90° the string enters the slit; and ideally the cylinder is stopped.
Picture #6 shows the spheres fully extended and the strings are in the slit.
In picture #7 the string is on the far end of the slit and will begin accelerating the cylinder.
I think the cylinder is stopped in about a fifth rotation.
The rod does seem similar; and I will think about the advantages you mentioned.
The string is always straight unless it is against the cylinder wall.
The string is always tangent to the surface of the cylinder until it comes to the slit.
The portion of the string that is away from the surface of the cylinder is very short at first.
The greatest acceleration of the sphere occurs in this tangent area.
When the portion of the string that is away from the cylinder has come to the slit; and is only touching the cylinder on the front edge of the spit, the string can then move beyond tangent to 90° to tangent. The least acceleration of the spheres occurs at the higher angles.
Look at pictures #3 and #4 on page 29 of this thread; you will see the spheres in their tangent position.
Picture #5 shows the spheres just before 90°. At 90° the string enters the slit; and ideally the cylinder is stopped.
Picture #6 shows the spheres fully extended and the strings are in the slit.
In picture #7 the string is on the far end of the slit and will begin accelerating the cylinder.
I think the cylinder is stopped in about a fifth rotation.
The rod does seem similar; and I will think about the advantages you mentioned.
re: energy producing experiments
Pequaide I don't know whether it has any significance to these momentum transferring systems but I may have discovered another interesting design. This design could transfer momentum in an interesting new way.
You have your two masses that will perform their momentum transfer, they are attached to each other with a rod. Both of these masses can only move in one dimension along some slot or rail. You position the heavy mass in the middle and give it an initial speed.
pic: http://ziosproject.com/NJ/nLR109.jpg
video: http://ziosproject.com/NJ/exvid77.avi
The video was made in wm2d to aid with the visualization. So ignore the numbers in it, as momentum is lost and energy is conserved.
I discovered something new in wm2d though. If you reverse this setup and started with a high speed green mass at the center and stationary red mass. Since wm2d cannot disobey CoE it was forced to create 10 times more momentum than started with. This is just a funny side note.
Edit: Btw I don't know why I made that rod so long in the video. It can be made real small. Most of the momentum is transferred when the green mass is near the cross. So if you make it shorter you can make the shift take place faster.
You have your two masses that will perform their momentum transfer, they are attached to each other with a rod. Both of these masses can only move in one dimension along some slot or rail. You position the heavy mass in the middle and give it an initial speed.
pic: http://ziosproject.com/NJ/nLR109.jpg
video: http://ziosproject.com/NJ/exvid77.avi
The video was made in wm2d to aid with the visualization. So ignore the numbers in it, as momentum is lost and energy is conserved.
I discovered something new in wm2d though. If you reverse this setup and started with a high speed green mass at the center and stationary red mass. Since wm2d cannot disobey CoE it was forced to create 10 times more momentum than started with. This is just a funny side note.
Edit: Btw I don't know why I made that rod so long in the video. It can be made real small. Most of the momentum is transferred when the green mass is near the cross. So if you make it shorter you can make the shift take place faster.
- Attachments
-
re: energy producing experiments
Hmmm, by that same principle even a simple reciprocating piston can transfer its momentum to a small rotating mass.
- Attachments
-
re: energy producing experiments
Yes: but not as drawn. You must show the small mass unwinding on a string from the zero mass pulley or wheel. To take no bold new steps: you should have a string or chain or belt drawn from the large mass to the circumference of the pulley. With these changes Yes: “a simple reciprocating piston can transfer its momentum to a small rotating mass.�
That doesn't make sense to me. Can you modify the drawing or something to show what you mean.
Also on a side note. Have you done or planning to do any new experiments in these past days?
The pace is really killing me. I want this whole to progress a bit faster. Currently you're responding with one post per day and they usually are very similar to each other. Can't we be progressive? Since 2 years you have been promoting the same pipe and sphere idea without progressing too much. What's holding you back? I can help but we need to have clear goals to make fast progress.
Also on a side note. Have you done or planning to do any new experiments in these past days?
The pace is really killing me. I want this whole to progress a bit faster. Currently you're responding with one post per day and they usually are very similar to each other. Can't we be progressive? Since 2 years you have been promoting the same pipe and sphere idea without progressing too much. What's holding you back? I can help but we need to have clear goals to make fast progress.
re: energy producing experiments
The cylinder and spheres phenomenon has also be conducted on a frictionless plane with a disk and pucks. So there is no doubt that masses on roller bearing would work also. So objects with mass of 50 ton (disk) and 5 tons (pucks) would also work. But larger sizes cost larger quantities of money. And then there is the big Atwood’s to be built.
Right now we are working on posting videos on the internet, to stir a little more interest to find that corporation that is willing to build.
I think of building different experiments but what is the point? I would be repeating my own experiments, so what. Already pictured are three different types (in dozens of masses), so would seven impress you? 12? 50? No there is no point in making more experiments. Working on catch and releasing large objects at the correct time would be more useful. If you won’t build something costing $25 then I am not going to spend my time trying to impress you with something bigger.
Tell me what would impress you, I give you pictures and you ask for drawings?
Right now we are working on posting videos on the internet, to stir a little more interest to find that corporation that is willing to build.
I think of building different experiments but what is the point? I would be repeating my own experiments, so what. Already pictured are three different types (in dozens of masses), so would seven impress you? 12? 50? No there is no point in making more experiments. Working on catch and releasing large objects at the correct time would be more useful. If you won’t build something costing $25 then I am not going to spend my time trying to impress you with something bigger.
Tell me what would impress you, I give you pictures and you ask for drawings?
re: energy producing experiments
Pequaide
We do understand that the principle is scalable.
What some of us are looking for is an alternative to the "disk and spheres", that may be "easier" to fit into a resetting rotating mechanism.
It appears you have no other such mechanism for the momentum transfer in mind and, at the moment, I for one can't see a way to incorporate your solution into a rotating machine.
I think catches and release systems will be designed when the idea is shown to be "do-able".
I believe Broli is showing the collective frustration of us all at the lack of an alternative approach.
Regards
Mick
We do understand that the principle is scalable.
What some of us are looking for is an alternative to the "disk and spheres", that may be "easier" to fit into a resetting rotating mechanism.
It appears you have no other such mechanism for the momentum transfer in mind and, at the moment, I for one can't see a way to incorporate your solution into a rotating machine.
I think catches and release systems will be designed when the idea is shown to be "do-able".
I believe Broli is showing the collective frustration of us all at the lack of an alternative approach.
Regards
Mick
re: energy producing experiments
The attached pdf is a paper by Tom Shum from May 2007 that discusses Pequaide's theory. This paper was written years before I had heard of Pequaide via this forum. There is a line that I tend to agree with ... "Either energy appears from nowhere, or the kinetic energy formula is defective".
I'm very grateful to Pequaide for his theory and experiments. But my considered opinion is that this is proving the kinetic energy formula itself is defective. It seems fairly self-evident that in situations where momentum is conserved but velocity increases, it is impossible for energy to remain unchanged. Simply because v does not equal 1/2V^2 (unless V=0). That part shouldn't be in question. Although Vector maths can screw up the reality of the situation: why isn't momentum defined as Speed time Mass rather than Velocity times Mass?
Anyway - the point I wish to make is that I question the need for some things in order to make a working gravity motor:
1 - do we need to increase velocity just for the sake of increasing velocity to make this (probably erroneous) kinetic energy equation 'work'? Can we not use slow speed momentum to achieve our goal of resetting the system and powering a load? I'm just saying that many mechanical applications that perform work don't need high velocity ... are we just doing this for the sake of numbers, or for getting a job done?
2 - do we need to transfer "all" the momentum precisely? Seems to me that if we have far more momentum than we need to get the job done, it may not matter greatly how precisely we use this momentum. Obviously we don't want uncontrolled oscillations - but that would be a nice problem to have if that was the only problem. I am reminded of Bessler's "dog" from Apologia that "wags it's tail" ... without going into detail, I can picture a mechanical devices gently oscillating after the impulse transfer ...
Obviously we need to achieve height for resetting our falling masses. But I can think of at least one example how height can be achieved with a very slow moving heavy mass with lots of momentum but (according to the dodgy equation) very little energy ...
For example sake - a very large waterwheel could be impacted with a very slow but powerful impulse that would turn it a few degrees at a time. Without requiring high speed, it could raise massive amounts of water to a great hight. Admittedly, this wouldn't look as impressive as using high velocity to fire the water upwards in one shot. But the end result, in X mass of water raised Y height, would be the same.
I can see many practical problems with the spinning cylinders and balls and lightweight tethers. I'm not seeing a commercial product here.
As a scientific experiment in the lab - this should go down in the history books as a bit of a watershed. But for a practical gravity motor??
I'm just sayin', is all ...
I'm very grateful to Pequaide for his theory and experiments. But my considered opinion is that this is proving the kinetic energy formula itself is defective. It seems fairly self-evident that in situations where momentum is conserved but velocity increases, it is impossible for energy to remain unchanged. Simply because v does not equal 1/2V^2 (unless V=0). That part shouldn't be in question. Although Vector maths can screw up the reality of the situation: why isn't momentum defined as Speed time Mass rather than Velocity times Mass?
Anyway - the point I wish to make is that I question the need for some things in order to make a working gravity motor:
1 - do we need to increase velocity just for the sake of increasing velocity to make this (probably erroneous) kinetic energy equation 'work'? Can we not use slow speed momentum to achieve our goal of resetting the system and powering a load? I'm just saying that many mechanical applications that perform work don't need high velocity ... are we just doing this for the sake of numbers, or for getting a job done?
2 - do we need to transfer "all" the momentum precisely? Seems to me that if we have far more momentum than we need to get the job done, it may not matter greatly how precisely we use this momentum. Obviously we don't want uncontrolled oscillations - but that would be a nice problem to have if that was the only problem. I am reminded of Bessler's "dog" from Apologia that "wags it's tail" ... without going into detail, I can picture a mechanical devices gently oscillating after the impulse transfer ...
Obviously we need to achieve height for resetting our falling masses. But I can think of at least one example how height can be achieved with a very slow moving heavy mass with lots of momentum but (according to the dodgy equation) very little energy ...
For example sake - a very large waterwheel could be impacted with a very slow but powerful impulse that would turn it a few degrees at a time. Without requiring high speed, it could raise massive amounts of water to a great hight. Admittedly, this wouldn't look as impressive as using high velocity to fire the water upwards in one shot. But the end result, in X mass of water raised Y height, would be the same.
I can see many practical problems with the spinning cylinders and balls and lightweight tethers. I'm not seeing a commercial product here.
As a scientific experiment in the lab - this should go down in the history books as a bit of a watershed. But for a practical gravity motor??
I'm just sayin', is all ...
- Attachments
-
- pequaides_cylinder_and_spheres.pdf
- (54.47 KiB) Downloaded 292 times
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
Pequaide it's a shame your PR skills SUCK. At least when I have an idea I can illustrate it in a decent way so many others instantly get it. You can't even make a paint mock up to help clear up confusion. How's that being progressive? It's the little things that matter.
As for a catch and release system. How do you think people will help you on that if only a handful of people understand what it is you're doing. I can suggest ideas but what will the point of them be? The current trend on this and most other forums is that ideas are worthless if the one suggesting them can't build them. This is kind of funny seeing how paranoid a lot of patent people get just by sharing an unbuild idea.
Don't waste your time waiting on that dream of yours of having some corporate entitity pay you some millions. If it was up to me I would build a free open energy institution where everyone who's interested is welcome to conduct research and development. But hey this f-ed up world isn't ready for that yet.
Do it now or never.
As for a catch and release system. How do you think people will help you on that if only a handful of people understand what it is you're doing. I can suggest ideas but what will the point of them be? The current trend on this and most other forums is that ideas are worthless if the one suggesting them can't build them. This is kind of funny seeing how paranoid a lot of patent people get just by sharing an unbuild idea.
Don't waste your time waiting on that dream of yours of having some corporate entitity pay you some millions. If it was up to me I would build a free open energy institution where everyone who's interested is welcome to conduct research and development. But hey this f-ed up world isn't ready for that yet.
Do it now or never.