Mechanism for consideration

[ovyyus]

How do you expect to measure "resistance to change" except by measuring force?

Inertia exists without measurement. Mass is a measure of inertia.

[jim_mich]

Are you saying inertia does not exist unless you're measuring it? An object in motion has inertia.

No.

You said, "Inertia is not a force."

And I'm simply stating the without force you don't have inertia. Thus my objection to your statement that, "Inertia is not a force. "

Inertia is force. If you remove the force then you no longer have inertia.

[ovyyus]

Sorry Jim, you slipped in before an edit.

Mass, not motion, is a measure of inertia. If you remove the mass you no longer have inertia. Inertia is not a force.

[jim_mich]

Inertia without force is a meaningless concept. The only way to conceptualize inertia is by the force required to accelerate or decelerate a mass. Therefore, it is the force involved that defines inertia as being inertia.

Thus my original objection to your statement that, ""Inertia is not a force."

[ovyyus]

Jim, how can you separate mass and inertia? Mass without force is not a meaningless concept. Relative motion between two objects is not inertia.

[jim_mich]

Jim, how can you separate mass and inertia? Mass without force is not a meaningless concept. Relative motion between two objects is not inertia.

Please stop twisting my words. I stated that, "Inertia without force is a meaningless concept."

Yes, relative motion between two objects is not inertia. You must include force between the two object before the concept of inertia is apparent.

[ovyyus]

edit

[KAS]

[quote="jim_mich
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[/quote]

We are on tricky ground here chaps!

For every CF (lets call it action) there is an equal and opposite reaction cancelling its effect.

Therefor, CF alone could not have turned his wheel. Without an a motive force of some kind, nothing would happen. Gravity must have played a part as well.

After all, there's nothing else!

Kas

[Tarsier79]

Why do you say there's nothing else? The possibilities of what was behind the canvas are limitless. You are correct though, we need a force that isn't conservative, or that draws power from the environment.

Assuming gravity and inertia/CF are conservative, then Besslers wheel made use of, and contained something else.

[jim_mich]

Momentum is conservative.

Centrifugal force is NOT conservative.

The strength of centrifugal force depends upon a number of factors which need not be equal as a weight moves inward as when it moves outward.

[daanopperman]

jim_mich ,
I agree with you fully , maybe I just understand what you say , when you say centrifugal force is a force . Was it not a force , what force pushes the shoes against the disk in a centrifugal clutch . It can rip a flywheel to pieces if spun to fast , it needs very little energy to generate , but once u used it , you need to shut it down for the return movement , which means you have to stop things turning , and start from afresh . The more force you want , the more work you must do , the more work you need to stop and start over , that is the only thing I have against using centrifugal force . If you have found a way to undo the effect after you used the force , you have found a answer to pm .

JB said , ( and this is not from Robsang Lampa's note's ) if he use a cross , weights and strings , the wheel moves so slow you can hardly see it moves , but if he uses many crosses , Zugge und gewicht , it can turn much faster . By the way , zugge is a harness , as you would put on a horse , which means to me , the weights is in a harness .

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Jim,
Sorry you have lost me here, why would you want to move weights in and out from the axle using CF if you did not intend to use the force of gravity? Or did you need the input of gravity? If you need the input of Gravity then it is a gravity wheel!
Edit,also to move a weight inward against CF to thrust it out again, would be just as bad as lifting a weight against gravity so CF must be a conservative force!
Edit, I have just read Kas post and we are both saying the same thing more or less. it seems logical!

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi jim,
I see no way to use Centrifugal force on its own, all you well end up with is a flywheel as the weights are locked out, you would need a mechanism to move the weights anywhere, and the friction losses moving against CF would stall the CF, I have found CF to be a problem in all of my designs and would need to keep the designs at low RPM to prevent a build up of the CF forces! It is one of the main factors in chaos in a lot of designs, I do not see it as a friend!

[eccentrically1]

Momentum is conservative.

Centrifugal force is NOT conservative.

Non-conservative forces are dissipating forces. They irreversibly waste kinetic energy to heat, sound, or irretrievable kinetic energy.

[path_finder]

Conservative or not, an acceptable (efficient) CF is only available if the mass is in rotation, and if the distance to the axis is significative.
Any other point is not so important.

All controversial discussions are coming from the multiparts bodies, where the resultant COG rotates itself around the axis, but being not included in any mass (material).
See the patent of Tesla about the 'flying stove'.
Remember here:
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/tesl ... -motor.php