energy producing experiments

[Fletcher]

Pequaide .. recap ..

Try the experiment with the cart wheel mounted on a light weight stand with coasters on the legs on a smooth level surface.

Watch what happens to the stand when the tether comes tight & pulls on the cart & stand.

The missile/driver will stop the cart wheel - in the process Cf's are generated - in an anchored cart & stand the Cf's take the momentum from the wheel - what has really happened is that the earth beneath the cart & anchored stand has moved a little [conserving momentum].

I'd be interested to hear what you found with a cart on wheels ?

Did it move in the direction that the missile pulled ?

In which case Momentum was still conserved & the cart moved to show it.

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

Newton : The Energy change is the difference in maximum vertical height the missile achieves converted to Potential Energy of position in a gravity field & expressed in joules.

If it is greater than the starting height of the driver/missile converted to Pe joules then you have proved that gravity is not conservative.


Please do the experiments - if you note something different than I postulate I'd be interested to hear about it & 'll dig a bit deeper ?


P.S. I think what you're saying is you expect the speed of the missile to be high & if the Ke of that were accurately videoed then that Ke should be far greater than the Pe lost ? - if the missile is moving sideways with a little vertical climb for instance, then you should be able to make it curve/roll up a ramp to see how high vertically it reaches ? - same analysis rules apply !

The way you do that is find out the velocity of the missile & calculate its Ke - then that Ke calculation will tell you how much height that will convert to in Pe equivalent, less a few friction losses.


Here's a few more equations that might help if you want to look closer.

a = v^/r [acceleration in a curve] ... F = m.a => F = m.v^2/r

[pequaide]

Actually there would be an easier way to test your (earth being a momentum absorber) theory.

Separate the 185 g missile into two equal parts and place the 92.5 gram bags on equal length strings of 24.5 inches each, then counter appose them across the circle of the wheel at 180°. Then there would be no unbalance forces placed upon the wheel as the tethers unwind. Then if the wheel stops as it did before we can conclude that your earth anchor theory is false.

Many of my experiments were done with two counter weights on two tethers so I think I already know the answer. But it is a good experiment; and I will do it. It should take about 3 hours: worked in among my other projects.

I actually did the sliding cart experiment by accident. I placed a throwing table on the frozen driveway and I was noticing low throwing results, I then discover that the entire table was sliding backward (if I remember correctly). I was thinking that the table legs would embed in the ice, but they did not; they slipped.

I agree with this statement: “The way you do that is find out the velocity of the missile & calculate its Ke�. All we need to know is the rate of rotation at release and the final velocity of the missile.

[Fletcher]

Seems simple enough to test different variables & extrapolate some math, then take the objective data & arrive at logical conclusions.

Looking forward to the experimental results.

I'd like to see that gravity wasn't conservative in some circumstances !

EDIT : Just had a further thought about what you said pequiade - as long as the driver masses Pe is lost & measured, & then compared to the Ke of the 92.5 g dual missiles.

No hand spinning this time - pure objective science please !

[pequaide]

I constructed two BB bags each with a mass of approximately 92.5 grams. I used a crude balancing beam system to adjust their mass to be half of the 185 gram bag. I placed a second release pin (Allen wrench) at 180° around the circle of the wheel from the other Allen wrench. I placed both bags on a 24.5 inch tether and looped the other end of the tether; I then placed the loops over the Allen wrenches. Then I wrapped the tethers, spun the wheel and released the bags. The wheel came to a very nice stop; the same as it did with one tether and one 185 gram bag.

This proves that the earth does not absorb some of the momentum of the single one bag system. If the end velocities are the same for the two experiments then there can be no missing motion.

I said that the two bag system gives the wheel no unbalanced forces: I should have specified that the bearing has no unbalanced forces. The circumference of the wheel is brought to a stop as the bags (bag) are accelerated.

Another good experiment: thanks for suggesting it.

[Fletcher]

The Centripetal Forces [Cp's : .. curvature acceleration a = v^2/r ... m = kg ... F = m.v^2/r] are what stops the wheel pequiade - the missiles have inertia & velocity - because of the tether connection to the wheel, the tensional strength of the tether itself & the angle the tether makes with the wheel, the inertia of the missiles is enough to stop the wheel.

Try repeating the experiment with a drive mass ? - do not hand spin it as you just reported ! - did the tethers deploy correctly or wasn't there enough wheel speed ? - if you use a heavy drive mass & they do deploy correctly & stop the wheel, calculate the Pe difference between start & finish.

See if its 10x more than you started with ?

If you can show a gain in system Pe, or measure the Ke of the missiles as the wheel stops, & then via equivalence convert that to potential height gain, then you will have proven that gravity is not conservative in this instance & that you have created Energy !

N.B. this assumes that gravity is the only source of wheel acceleration - a video analysis will help you determine the accuracy of your results & photo gates cross check, since you have them.

[pequaide]

Except for starting the spin with gravity this is exactly what I did with the cylinder and spheres. I geared (pulleys and belts) down a drill press motor so that it spun at 3.25 rps. I had mechanical arms that would simultaneously release the spheres and cylinder while they were spinning. The tether entered a slit in the cylinder so that the spheres were independent of the cylinder for a period of time. While the cylinder was stopped and the tether was in the slit the spheres were photographed with strobe light photography. Energy increases to around 400% were observed; which was consistent with the mass differences between the cylinder and spheres.

I just finished a series of experiments with a gravity drive mass and the the speeds are sufficient for a throw. It has been observed that the tethered missile can stop the wheel and the drive mass that is still attached. Or you can mount the wheel to spin horizontally and higher speed is no longer needed for a good throw.

We know the quantity of motion drive mases give us from Atwood's experiments. And we know that the energy of that motion can be multiplied with tethered throws off of the Atwood's pulley.

[path_finder]

For sure there is no possible comparison with the heavy Roshin/Godin experiments.
See here: http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Roschin ... ffects.htm
It was just a modest experiment build with some limited means.
The top on the right arm is this one already shown earlier here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 37a255eaba
and put in motion manually at a mainly low rotation speed.
Nevertheless I can observe a difference of few millimeters in the position of the arm's end until the top was about stopped.
I was a little bit surprised because for a significant result the COG must rotate far for the geometrical axis of the top (wich is not the case today).
May be my top was not perfectly balanced around its axis?
I will try now with four small stepping motors.

[Fletcher]

pequaide .. sounds like you can put it all together into one objective experiment, video it to give consistent transparent data, give the discussion board your analysis methods & conclusions - then the members will either agree with you or give you suggestions to improve the experimental design & technique until the data, results & conclusions are reliable & beyond reproach !

The steps required are quite clear !

[pequaide]

I taped two bolts and a nut (494g * 2 + 120g) to the outside circumference of the wheel that had a rotational mass of 2521 g. That puts the rotational inertia of the wheel at 3663 grams. So I am now throwing in the 3663 + 92.5 / 92.5 = 40 to 1 category. The wheel does not stop because the tether is to short for this differential of mass. I am leaving the tether at 24.5 inches. A gentile spin and release does however throw the 92.5 g BB bag across the room in a near blur with no apparent arch.

It is becoming apparent that the machine is capable of all manner of speed.

[FunWithGravity2]

pequaide .. sounds like you can put it all together into one objective experiment, video it to give consistent transparent data, give the discussion board your analysis methods & conclusions - then the members will either agree with you or give you suggestions to improve the experimental design & technique until the data, results & conclusions are reliable & beyond reproach !

The steps required are quite clear !

Obviously NOT,

pequaide stop touching the wheel,

use a replicatable driver mass to induce initial motion.

How in the world can you hope to achieve any amount of worthwhile data if your using "a gentile push" a "slight spin" or any other random intial input of energy to induce the motion into your system. Unless your willing to concede that your constaining your experiments to produce results that make you happy ,and begin to push them to the point where they fail then i fear you will be stuck in an endless and fruitless loop.

I know you understand the request, I am here to say that it's not the request of just one person. I assume that some others feel the same way but we assume that you only need to be asked by one person to use a measurable input force. If you need everyone else who is not responding to ask for the same thing then let us all know. The silence by most is them waiting for you to do what has been asked of you numerous times and numerous ways. We don't want you to show a working wheel or expect a complete priciple, but if your trying to have meaningful conversation regarding your ideas then you need to provide a much better understanding of the importance of a measurable input force, otherwise it would seem their is a major communication problem or a ignorance of the importance.


Bah Humbug, Just kidding

Happy Holidays

crazy Dave

[FunWithGravity2]

DP, oops i only hit it once i swear :(

[pequaide]

I did the replicable (or hanging) drive mass experiments. I am not worried about it. They worked fine and I am sure I posted. I am moving on to mechanical release.

[pequaide]

Search smokin lamas www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mqcK45VRug

[pequaide]

The ‘Smokin Lamas’ trebuchet is physical proof that a spinning wheel can give all of its motion to a smaller object in linear motion. ‘Smokin Lamas’ is interesting in several ways. It throws from an inside radius. I think its hang time in #9 is about 9 seconds that means it goes up for 4.5 sec and then comes down for 4.5 second. We know that d = ½ at²; that means that it rises about 99 meters. This is consistent with the estimated 725 foot distance down range.

Well at least now you know that such machines exist. And the argument continues, who is right Newton or Leibniz.

If you were to ask Physics students to predict the outcome of simple experiments like the interaction of pucks on a frictionless plane or ballistics pendulum experiments they would use the Law of Conservation of Momentum (mv) for their predictions. And they would be correct, momentum conservation always works. After determining the correct answer they would add the appropriate amount of heat to the formula that does not work (1/2mv²).

Yet when the students are asked to make a prediction for a slightly more complex experiment, that has not yet been done, they will use the subordinate formula that always needs the magic wand of heat waved over it. They will drop the consistently correct formula in deference to the mystic formula. Newton advised against dropping formulas that work, but it is done all the time.

The numbers are rounded and I am going to simplify things a little but this is a realistic scenario.

A military air craft is equipped with cannon that can fire a 1 kilogram hardened projectile at a velocity of 600 m/sec.

While it is parked of the runway the air craft fires its cannon at a combat ready tank with hardened steel plate. The 1 kg missile hits the tank at 600 m/sec; this is 600 units of momentum and 180,000 joules of energy.

The projectile is placed on one of the aircraft’s bomb ports and it proceeds down the runway. It circles the airport and comes back in just over the runway at 1,342 miles per hour. It drops the dead weigh bomb on the tank and it hits it at 600 m/sec; this is 600 units of momentum and 180,000 joules of energy.

The combat aircraft then circle the airport and come back in low at 1,342 miles per hour; it fires its cannon and the shell proceeds away from the aircraft at 600 m/sec. The tank is struck with a one kilogram hardened shell moving 1200 m/sec. So you add the 180,000 joules given to you by the aircraft to the 180,000 joules provided by the cannon and the tank is struck with 360,000 joules; right?

Wrong; the tank is struck with 720,000 joules of energy (½ *1kg * 1200 m/sec * 1200 m/sec = 720,000 J). Why does 180,000 + 180,000 = 720,000? It doesn’t; the momentums are added but the energy is the square of the velocity.

This is nothing new; but look at this.

A professor in a college demo swings a one kilogram missile into a 4 kilogram sled on dry ice. The projectile has an original velocity of 2 m/sec and a momentum of 2. The combined sled and missile have a momentum of 2 and a velocity of .4 m/sec. The professor shows that momentum is conserved but swears up and down that energy is also conserved. He apparently thinks that the energy of the projectile after collision and the energy of the sled after collision should add up to the original energy; but it does not. The professor apparently knows that this is the definition of conserved; that the two energies of the missile and the sled should add together to equal the original energy. But it is not equal so the professor concocts the presence of, and adds in, another form of energy that he does not trouble himself to measure (heat). He is a knows all and sees all type guy that need not prove what he says. And of course the students dare not ask for proof.

It appears that the military does not know the rules like the professor; or maybe it is just that energy is not a conserved quantity.

You may say that “You cannot place the motion of the sled on top of the motion of the projectile�. Oh but you can; I have actually used sleds. They work as well as wheels.

[nicbordeaux]

Can't say from a very quick glance where you are going w/ this peq, but creating energy is an imposibility. Harnessing it, sure, it's everywhere. You're giving a "unacceptable" mathematical explanation to a simple mechanical principle , which nobody apparantly understands. How about you think in terms of drive and flung whilst still being apparantly linked are in fact at some times during your launch process or else being dissacotiated ? At some points before the release the flung mass is something like a "dumped" mass, which really "F's" up the behavior pattern and energy expediture and leads to nice results ?

Hopefully more soon, lacking time...