Is the formula of the angular momentum conservation wrong?

[rlortie]

Okay guys!

I am sorry and apologize for entering this thread. I cannot debate what I do not know and I am really not all that interested.

Rather than debate whether a formula is right or wrong, I feel more productive if I play an idiot and spend my time in the shop doing hands on research. I learn more there than debating an unknown here.

All I know about angular momentum conservation is, the bigger and heavier the wheel, the more force it takes to overcome static inertia, and once overcome it takes more force to stop dynamic inertia. As long as Cp holds together Cf is not going anywhere. Through the use of fluid dynamics, I hope to prove that I am wrong.

I cannot open Fletcher's or Helloha's WM2D simulations as I do not have the computer smarts. WM2D was buried in a desktop folder after it crashed and I paid for an upgrade from XP to Windows 7, but I do not know how to import it back to where it should be, nor do I know where it should be?

It is in a desktop short cut avatar titled "Lortie" and with it is a lot of other documents and apps.

I gracefully bow out, and I am sorry for the interruption.

Ralph

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

Watch this video from 1 minute to 1.10 minute
Here is a experiment where the battery's can also be seen as two orbiting planets and the pull of the hand at the center point may be seen as a Sun wherein the pulled lines is the force of gravity's acting on the planets, the planet are happy with their 4 inch orbits until the hand stops doing work at about 1.10 minutes, then as predicted by Newton, mass in motion wants to travel in a straight line path, and with no force being exerted on the planets they go off on there separate ways until the return to there straight line path or crash into something or another force acts upon them.

Watch this video from 1 minute to 1.10 minute with the sound off , you will see two planets approach the sun until the force of the Sun (in this case the pull of the Hand) accelerate the two planets to put them in there forced orbit position, when the force stops CF take them away in a straight line path.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MGQJar8 ... SM4lz2-aYw

Edit, change 6 inches to 4.

[Fletcher]

That is the original video of Wubbly's thread that prompted him to build the spreadsheet & me the sims.

The masses move inwards from 8 inches to around 4 inches, when the string is pulled on [adding energy to the system] - as Franklin says the rpm quadruples - for it to quadruple at half radius then something must be going on ?

Here is a simple explanation.

If we have a mass rotating at radius 1 meter & it is doing 10 rpm then we can work out its speed.

distance travelled = circumference length = 2.Pi.r = 2 x 3.141 x 1.0 = 6.282 meters. RPM is 10. So in one minute the mass will travel 10 times 6.282 meters = 62.82 meters. We need to know the speed per second so we divide by 60 to get 1.047 m/s.

If we have a mass rotating at radius 1/2 meter & it is doing 40 rpm [quadrupled] then we can work out its speed.

distance travelled = circumference length = 2.Pi.r = 2 x 3.141 x 0.5 = 3.141 meters. RPM is quadrupled to 40. So in one minute the mass will travel 40 times 3.141 meters = 125.64 meters. We need to know the speed per second so we divide by 60 to get 2.094 m/s.

At 1/2 radius the tangential speed is 2.094 m/s. At 1.0 radius the tangential speed is 1.047 m/s => 2.094 / 1.047 = 2 => tangential velocity at 1/2 radius has doubled.

And when he releases the string tension the masses move outwards again [following the tangential path] until they are stopped at the rim & the rpm stabilizes to the original rpm.

ETA: forgot to mention; if Franklin had not turned the hangar first i.e. it was stationary, when he pulled the string, the masses would move inwards - but rpm would remain at zero [0] - that in itself proves CoAM.

When it IS moving CoAM is preserved - both are consistent with CoAM.


...........

The s'Gravesande experiment shows that as long as the wheel has some motion the Lift mass will act as the system driver & lose PE - in doing so it will speed up the wheel rpm until Cf's are greater than the gravity force acting on the Lift mass - so the Lift mass rises slightly, then sinks again, as forces attempt to find equilibrium between gravity & Cf's [it oscillates up & down & in & out].

It never gains additional PE.

Of course, Franklin's hangar experiment is s'Gravesandes experiment except he adds energy via his muscles rather than a weight losing PE.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

your quote,

The masses move inwards from 8 inches to around 4 inches, when the string is pulled on [adding energy to the system] - as Franklin says the rpm quadruples - for it to quadruple at half radius then something must be going on ?

It maybe just that the energy in the system is doubled by the pull of the hand.

It would not be to hard to find out, just do the same experiment and replace the pull of the hand with a drop weight, dropping the weight when you want the pull in on the battery's, find out the weight needed to replace the work of the hand, then do the maths. Repeat the experiment with a longer rod or make a bigger coat hanger and see if the results are sequential. With the longer rod I would also go form 16 inches to 4 inches to see what happens as well.

I have got what I wanted to see from this experiment and that is the work being done on the mass by the pull to the center, and CF being the dominant force and vectors on a system with rotating mass if the pull to the center is removed, far greater than the effects of angular momentum, wherein angular momentum would play a very small part on orbiting planets, with the big players being, Gravity's, mass velocity, and CF, wherein the constant exertion of the force of Gravity's is the main player because it can increase and decrease mass velocity and thus increase and decrease CF.

[Grimer]

Everything depend on where you take the datum for acceleration.

For instance if you have a man standing on a rock, A, on the earth and another large rock, B, falling down a very deep hole then relative to A, B is acceleration but relative to B, A is accelerating.

Relative to A, the force of Newtonian Gravity (NG) is doing work but relative to B the force of the earth's reaction (ER) is doing work. Relative to a midpoint both forces are are doing work.

The trouble is we have a biased anthropomorphic view of things since we are stationary with respect to the earths reaction acceleration force.

The same kinds of consideration apply to motion in a circle and the resulting Ersatz Gravity reaction.

By taking a frame of reference half way between the NG acceleration down and the earth reaction acceleration up we can see that we have a shearing action, a couple in other words. It is this couple that the Gravity Pulse Motor (the basic element of the Keenie), the extended Milkovic Pendulum and the Bessler Wheel is invoking.

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,

your quote,

The masses move inwards from 8 inches to around 4 inches, when the string is pulled on [adding energy to the system] - as Franklin says the rpm quadruples - for it to quadruple at half radius then something must be going on ?

It maybe just that the energy in the system is doubled by the pull of the hand.

It would not be to hard to find out, just do the same experiment and replace the pull of the hand with a drop weight, dropping the weight when you want the pull in on the battery's, find out the weight needed to replace the work of the hand, then do the maths.

Repeat the experiment with a longer rod or make a bigger coat hanger and see if the results are sequential. With the longer rod I would also go form 16 inches to 4 inches to see what happens as well.

Hi Trevor .. that is exactly what the s'Gravesande experiment does - it replaces the hand energy with PE lost from a Drop weight, which is also the Lift weight, because once it falls a certain distance the Cf's pull it up again - it oscillates up & down [with no losses] - that is what I was describing.

And the math is easy to work out if you know the tangential speeds - a hypothetical mass of 2 kg at 1 m/s has KE = 1/2mv^2 = 1 joule.

At half radius & 2x previous speed [2 m/s] we have KE = 1/2mv^2 = 4 joules i.e. Energy is quadrupled, so not doubled - energy & rpm is quadrupled, velocity is doubled.

This will be the PE lost by the Drop weight.


..........................

Grimer .. I'd like to see some experimental proof of your comments - perhaps I could sim it - then I might be able to see what you are getting at ?

Can you design a simple POC experiment [like s'Gravesandes experiment] that could prove your point ?

[pequaide]

Hu; if you are out there.

It is the simplest thing in the world.

Rotate a puck on a frictionless plane, on the end of a one meter string. Interrupt the string with a pin at 45 cm. The puck will come back around and hit the original point of rotation and have a 10 cm string.

All of the three circles have the same tangent velocity for the puck.

None of the circles have the same angular momentum.

Two of the circles have the same point of rotation.

You do not need outside force to change the size of the circle, the puck can have only one linear Newtonian momentum, but it can have an infinite number of angular momenta.

Math formulas do not make things happen they only explain it. And the formula then predicts what will happen under similar conditions.

[Grimer]

...
Grimer .. I'd like to see some experimental proof of your comments - perhaps I could sim it - then I might be able to see what you are getting at ?
...

That is precisely what I have been doing in the Priority Claim thread.

If you sim it correctly (Tarsier had it running out of steam because the energy was wasted in friction according to my sim advisor) you will see that it demonstrates the point of principle.

[Fletcher]

Please point me there & I'll take a look at at Tarsiers sim.

[pequaide]

You can see why people, other than myself, can't build energy producing machines; they don't know how the universe works; and they refuse instruction.

[Tarsier79]

OMG!....

Anyway, Fletcher, I have posted the WM2D files on Franks thread.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

Fletcher wrote this,

Can you design a simple POC experiment [like s'Gravesandes experiment] that could prove your point ?

Can the extra energy wind the drop weight back up to the start position?

Can you show me a real world [like s'Gravesandes experiment] video.

I could and would like to build related experiments, but this is only a welcome distraction as I wait for work to drop off, so I can build a lot more important experiments and when I am finished I think you will like them.

[zoelra]

In the puck experiment, the pin simply changes the direction of movement. You are not forcing the puck into a smaller orbit against it's CF which would result in greater velocity and energy. Angular momentum is only conserved for a specific set of movements. The moving puck experiment is not unlike an object coasting along a curved path (no friction). It changes directions along the way, but it's velocity remains the same.

[Grimer]

In the puck experiment, the pin simply changes the direction of movement. You are not forcing the puck into a smaller orbit against it's CF which would result in greater velocity and energy. Angular momentum is only conserved for a specific set of movements. The moving puck experiment is not unlike an object coasting along a curved path (no friction). It changes directions along the way, but it's velocity remains the same.

Surely, it's a bit more complicated than that. Work is done on the string since the tension in the string goes up and the string strains. So strain energy is put into the string. Because we implicitly assume the string to be infinitely stiff we tend to ignore this aspect.

It's a bit like that animation someone gave recently where a small mass impacts a large mass. Superficially it looked as though the large mass remained stationary but when it is examined closely it is seen that the large mass moves, very, very slowly. If one didn't appreciate that linear momentum must be conserved then one would probably miss that movement.

[zoelra]

Grimer,

As long as the string doesn't expand then strain in the string isn't going to have any effect on the movement. If the string stretches then you have changed the equation and have to account for the change in path and energy.