Elastic Collisions
For collisions using 2 frames of reference make it clearer. One frame is the source the other is the target.
Example: A ball is thrown at the stern of a barge. We assume for arguments sake the coefficient of restitution is 1 (loss-less). We also assume the mass of the target is such that the ball does not measurably change it.
Condition 1. The barge is stationary. The thrower sees the ball leave his hand at 40 feet per second and the observer on the barge sees it approach at 40 feet per second. The ball then bounces back at 40 feet per second. And the thrower sees it return at 40 feet per second.
Condition 2.The barge is moving from the thrower at 20 feet per second. The man on shore throws the ball at 40 feet per second but the observer on board sees it approach at 20 feet per second and bounce back at 20 feet per second. To the observer on shore the ball appears to strike and stop. The full mv of 40 has been imparted to the barge and this is the selected operating point of devices like Pelton Wheels. The bucket turns at half the velocity of the stream for maximum transferred power.
Condition 3 The barge is approaching shore at 20 feet per second. The thrower sees the ball leave at 40 feet per second and the observer on the barge sees it approaching at 60 feet per second then bounces and departs at 60 feet per second. The thrower sees it approaching at 80 feet per second.
Manipulating Momentum
Moderator: scott
Manipulating Momentum
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Manipulating Momentum
What is kinetic Energy?
Well it certainly isn't momentum. Momentum observes Newtons maxim “For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction� . What the average reader fails to appreciate is although ke expresses the potential energy of motion those foot pounds are qualified. A discussion of rifles is perhaps of use here.
The.308, which is the NATO cartridge, is very popular with civilians in the United States. It is difficult to generalize because of the diversity of bullet styles and loads but I think you will find these typical or close to it.
150 grain spitzer muzzle velocity 2820 fps published muzzle energy of 2680 foot pounds
165 grain spitzer muzzle velocity 2700 fps published muzzle energy 2679 foot pounds.
180 grain spitzer muzzle velocity 2620 fps published muzzle energy 2743 foot pounds.
Lets run a few calculations. A pound is 7000 grains so there are 46 and 2/3 bullets (150 grain) in a pound or in other words 150 grains equals .021486 pounds. A slug would contain 32 times that many so a 150 grain bullet is about .000671 slug.
Since a pound weighs 46 2/3 times more than a 150 grain bullet to achieve 2680 foot pounds it has to be 46 2/3 times higher or 125064.9 feet. Normally we wont see this altitude achieved by a bullet because resistance from the air takes much more energy than gravity does. An amazing amount of potential energy is available don't you think?
Lets calculate kinetic energy from the velocity and see how closely it matches. 2820 squared is 7952400 which times m/2 = 2668 so considering rounding error and the rest 2820 is probably a real value. So we see that without atmospheric drag the altitude reached by the 150 grain slug is about 2800 foot pounds equivalent. The momentum on the other hand is mv or .021486 times 2820 or 60.59. When you consider the momentum of an 8 pound rifle dropped 1 foot is an mv of 64 that pretty well matches my recollection of shooting a 308.
So we see momentum matches the conditions of the experience and obeys Newtons equal action rule. Fortunately this disparity is what gives us exploitable free energy.
Well it certainly isn't momentum. Momentum observes Newtons maxim “For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction� . What the average reader fails to appreciate is although ke expresses the potential energy of motion those foot pounds are qualified. A discussion of rifles is perhaps of use here.
The.308, which is the NATO cartridge, is very popular with civilians in the United States. It is difficult to generalize because of the diversity of bullet styles and loads but I think you will find these typical or close to it.
150 grain spitzer muzzle velocity 2820 fps published muzzle energy of 2680 foot pounds
165 grain spitzer muzzle velocity 2700 fps published muzzle energy 2679 foot pounds.
180 grain spitzer muzzle velocity 2620 fps published muzzle energy 2743 foot pounds.
Lets run a few calculations. A pound is 7000 grains so there are 46 and 2/3 bullets (150 grain) in a pound or in other words 150 grains equals .021486 pounds. A slug would contain 32 times that many so a 150 grain bullet is about .000671 slug.
Since a pound weighs 46 2/3 times more than a 150 grain bullet to achieve 2680 foot pounds it has to be 46 2/3 times higher or 125064.9 feet. Normally we wont see this altitude achieved by a bullet because resistance from the air takes much more energy than gravity does. An amazing amount of potential energy is available don't you think?
Lets calculate kinetic energy from the velocity and see how closely it matches. 2820 squared is 7952400 which times m/2 = 2668 so considering rounding error and the rest 2820 is probably a real value. So we see that without atmospheric drag the altitude reached by the 150 grain slug is about 2800 foot pounds equivalent. The momentum on the other hand is mv or .021486 times 2820 or 60.59. When you consider the momentum of an 8 pound rifle dropped 1 foot is an mv of 64 that pretty well matches my recollection of shooting a 308.
So we see momentum matches the conditions of the experience and obeys Newtons equal action rule. Fortunately this disparity is what gives us exploitable free energy.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Manipulating Momentum
Momentum and Impulse
Kinetic Energy
Simply put momentum is inertia, mass multiplied by its velocity. Newton defined inertia as the tendency of a mass in motion to stay in motion or conversely as a mass at rest to stay at rest.
Impulse is the change in momentum – force times time. Force times time equals mass times change in velocity
F times T = m times delta V. Symmetry applies of course.
A discussion of momentum would be incomplete without mentioning frame of reference (where you are measuring from). Momentum is the measure of motion and is expressed as mv – mass times velocity. This product, mv, can also be expressed as force time or impulse. Velocity is, of course, relative to something if only its prior condition. Equivalence in momentum is expressed as m1v1 = m2v2. As long as the units and products match they are equivalent. In other words a mass of 10 with a velocity of 1 is equivalent to a mass of 1 with a velocity of 10. Kinetic energy on the other hand describes motion in a gravity well, ke = 1/2 mv squared. The gravitational constant is included inside m as m is expressed in slugs. A slug was defined by Newton as that mass which when operated upon by a force of one pound accelerates at one foot per second. Since gravity on earth accelerates mass by about 32 feet per second a slug is g/1 or about 32 pounds. The potential energy attained by a mass is non linear whereas velocity is linear per unit time.
The following table of motion at 1g reflects this. Notice time or velocity when graphed are a straight line whereas the distance quadruples for every doubling in velocity.
The result is 32 pounds falling 1 foot has the equivalent momentum as 1 pound falling 256 feet or 32 foot pounds in for an output of 256 - a ratio of 8 to 1. All this is implemented courtesy of our transformer/wheel.
Time
Velocity
Kinetic Energy
0.25
8
1
0.5
16
4
1
32
16
2
64
64
4
128
256
Angular momentum is how energy is stored in a wheel. Unlike a mass in flight the velocity is proportional to the distance from the axis of rotation. Calculation of momentum requires knowing the distribution of mass. Mass in the rim stores the most energy.
Kinetic Energy
Simply put momentum is inertia, mass multiplied by its velocity. Newton defined inertia as the tendency of a mass in motion to stay in motion or conversely as a mass at rest to stay at rest.
Impulse is the change in momentum – force times time. Force times time equals mass times change in velocity
F times T = m times delta V. Symmetry applies of course.
A discussion of momentum would be incomplete without mentioning frame of reference (where you are measuring from). Momentum is the measure of motion and is expressed as mv – mass times velocity. This product, mv, can also be expressed as force time or impulse. Velocity is, of course, relative to something if only its prior condition. Equivalence in momentum is expressed as m1v1 = m2v2. As long as the units and products match they are equivalent. In other words a mass of 10 with a velocity of 1 is equivalent to a mass of 1 with a velocity of 10. Kinetic energy on the other hand describes motion in a gravity well, ke = 1/2 mv squared. The gravitational constant is included inside m as m is expressed in slugs. A slug was defined by Newton as that mass which when operated upon by a force of one pound accelerates at one foot per second. Since gravity on earth accelerates mass by about 32 feet per second a slug is g/1 or about 32 pounds. The potential energy attained by a mass is non linear whereas velocity is linear per unit time.
The following table of motion at 1g reflects this. Notice time or velocity when graphed are a straight line whereas the distance quadruples for every doubling in velocity.
The result is 32 pounds falling 1 foot has the equivalent momentum as 1 pound falling 256 feet or 32 foot pounds in for an output of 256 - a ratio of 8 to 1. All this is implemented courtesy of our transformer/wheel.
Time
Velocity
Kinetic Energy
0.25
8
1
0.5
16
4
1
32
16
2
64
64
4
128
256
Angular momentum is how energy is stored in a wheel. Unlike a mass in flight the velocity is proportional to the distance from the axis of rotation. Calculation of momentum requires knowing the distribution of mass. Mass in the rim stores the most energy.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Manipulating Momentum
The Secret
In summation – the energy of a mass accelerated by gravity is directly proportional to the time it is accelerated by that force. The energy at two seconds is twice the velocity at one second. The possible potential energy it can attain is quite different though. One second at 1g is 32 feet per second which takes 16 feet to accomplish, conversely moving upward at 32 feet per second takes one second to reach zero velocity and uses 16 feet in the process. Note these processes all observe symmetry.
The same amount of acceleration is added for another second yet the 16 feet of the first condition now becomes 64 feet. Doubling velocity results in quadrupling the potential energy.
Obviously we need the mechanical analog of the electrical transformer. You insert a voltage at one level and depending on the turns ratio you take a different voltage from the secondary. The first thing that may come to mind is a lever. If you have ever tried to roll a rock out of the ground the ratio of the lengths of the lever on each side of the fulcrum become immediately apparent. The force is multiplied by that ratio and the distance moved also is modified by that ratio. Just like the turns ratio in our electrical transformer.
Unlike the electrical transformer trading force for velocity – ie volts for amps – we get an increase mechanically. In the electrical world 10 volts at 1 amp is equivalent to 1 volt at 10 amps. In the mechanical world 1 pound at 10 feet per second may be equivalent to the momentum of 10 pounds at 1 foot per second but the kinetic energy is vastly different. Therein lies our free lunch. Properly understanding what kinetic energy is and isn't is essential to grasping this. Be sure you understand the comments on kinetic energy before moving forward or you may stumble.
So we see a lever may help us translate momentum from a massive slower object to accelerate a less massive object to a higher velocity. If we, for example, translate the momentum of a one pound object dropped 1 foot, and thus attaining 8 feet per second in its ¼ second journey to a ¼ pound object and thus attaining 32 feet per second we see momentum is balanced m1v1 = m2v2 or 1 times 8 = ¼ times 32. They are equivalent. We also see 8 feet per second requires investing 1 foot of potential energy for a return of 16 feet of potential energy. The mass is ¼ of the original so the net return is 4 foot pounds for an input of one.
The problem with this is we have neglected the lever. It has mass which also has to be accelerated. Some of this loss can be recovered by making the lever and an accelerated mass one object which then transfers its motion to a target mass via elastic collision.
Better yet though in our quest for a transformer is a wheel. It can be brought to speed and further transfers of momentum in and out of the wheel only see the overhead of bearing drag, a bit of air drag and the imperfectness of the elastic collisions at the input and output. If the collisions do not exceed the strength of the material ( no permanent deformation) the loss at each collision for a material such as hardened steel should be less than three percent. An efficiency of 90 percent should be easy for you to achieve for the total wheel. The alloy “liquid metal� should halve those losses. It is currently used in some sporting goods.
A 4 foot diameter wheel with a stepped 1 foot wheel incorporated as the driven element is a good demonstration of the principle. The small part of the wheel is turned at 4 feet per second which makes the outer part of the wheel turn 4 times that or 16 feet per second. A protrusion or target on the smaller radius is struck by a 1 pound tool steel ball dropped 1 foot thus moving at 8 feet per second. If you remember from condition 2 in chapter 3 an elastic collision with a target moving at ½ the velocity of the driving mass effects a total transfer of the momentum, in this case mv=8. If the driven mass is ¼ pound and the collision is elastic the ¼ pound achieves rim speed (16fps) and then the compression accelerates it another 16fps (at 100% efficiency) for a total of 32 feet per second. This can be used to raise the ¼ pound mass 16 feet for a kinetic energy of 4 foot pounds for an investment of 1. Momentum is 8 in both masses so is balanced.
Designing a power producing wheel requires accommodating a lot of trade offs. Rifle velocities achieve tremendous kinetic energies with small investment in momentum but it is impractical to lower a mass from great heights plus air resistance becomes a greater and greater loss. At 64 feet per second (just over 40 miles per hour) air resistance is tolerable and your tower height would be 64 feet. 10 pounds of mass delivered per second would be 10 times 64 = 640 whereas 1 horsepower is defined as 550 pounds per second. If your elevator descended the mass to ground at 8 feet per second 1 foot of the 64 would be lost accelerating it to that velocity. The total transit would be about 8 seconds so the mass in work would be 80 pounds (80 times 8 = 640). For 10 horsepower you would need to move 10 times that. The driver wheel can be made wider to accommodate multiple masses and can accelerate more than 1 mass per second. An 8 foot diameter wheel has a circumference of 25.13 feet so would only turn 1.27 revolutions per second or 76.4 revolutions per minute for a rim speed of 32 feet per second. Slightly higher will be needed as the coefficient of restitution is not 1 so when desiring 64 feet of flight that missing from elastic deficiency has to be made up.
Does the collision ave to be elastic? No, they do not. In fact if noise is a serious issue one might sacrifice some efficiency in he interest of lowering operating noise. A higher rim speed would be needed.
Does there have to be a collision? No. You could use a magnet dropping into a coil and a second coil accelerating a lighter mass. It is the transfer of momentum to a higher velocity that makes this work.
In summation – the energy of a mass accelerated by gravity is directly proportional to the time it is accelerated by that force. The energy at two seconds is twice the velocity at one second. The possible potential energy it can attain is quite different though. One second at 1g is 32 feet per second which takes 16 feet to accomplish, conversely moving upward at 32 feet per second takes one second to reach zero velocity and uses 16 feet in the process. Note these processes all observe symmetry.
The same amount of acceleration is added for another second yet the 16 feet of the first condition now becomes 64 feet. Doubling velocity results in quadrupling the potential energy.
Obviously we need the mechanical analog of the electrical transformer. You insert a voltage at one level and depending on the turns ratio you take a different voltage from the secondary. The first thing that may come to mind is a lever. If you have ever tried to roll a rock out of the ground the ratio of the lengths of the lever on each side of the fulcrum become immediately apparent. The force is multiplied by that ratio and the distance moved also is modified by that ratio. Just like the turns ratio in our electrical transformer.
Unlike the electrical transformer trading force for velocity – ie volts for amps – we get an increase mechanically. In the electrical world 10 volts at 1 amp is equivalent to 1 volt at 10 amps. In the mechanical world 1 pound at 10 feet per second may be equivalent to the momentum of 10 pounds at 1 foot per second but the kinetic energy is vastly different. Therein lies our free lunch. Properly understanding what kinetic energy is and isn't is essential to grasping this. Be sure you understand the comments on kinetic energy before moving forward or you may stumble.
So we see a lever may help us translate momentum from a massive slower object to accelerate a less massive object to a higher velocity. If we, for example, translate the momentum of a one pound object dropped 1 foot, and thus attaining 8 feet per second in its ¼ second journey to a ¼ pound object and thus attaining 32 feet per second we see momentum is balanced m1v1 = m2v2 or 1 times 8 = ¼ times 32. They are equivalent. We also see 8 feet per second requires investing 1 foot of potential energy for a return of 16 feet of potential energy. The mass is ¼ of the original so the net return is 4 foot pounds for an input of one.
The problem with this is we have neglected the lever. It has mass which also has to be accelerated. Some of this loss can be recovered by making the lever and an accelerated mass one object which then transfers its motion to a target mass via elastic collision.
Better yet though in our quest for a transformer is a wheel. It can be brought to speed and further transfers of momentum in and out of the wheel only see the overhead of bearing drag, a bit of air drag and the imperfectness of the elastic collisions at the input and output. If the collisions do not exceed the strength of the material ( no permanent deformation) the loss at each collision for a material such as hardened steel should be less than three percent. An efficiency of 90 percent should be easy for you to achieve for the total wheel. The alloy “liquid metal� should halve those losses. It is currently used in some sporting goods.
A 4 foot diameter wheel with a stepped 1 foot wheel incorporated as the driven element is a good demonstration of the principle. The small part of the wheel is turned at 4 feet per second which makes the outer part of the wheel turn 4 times that or 16 feet per second. A protrusion or target on the smaller radius is struck by a 1 pound tool steel ball dropped 1 foot thus moving at 8 feet per second. If you remember from condition 2 in chapter 3 an elastic collision with a target moving at ½ the velocity of the driving mass effects a total transfer of the momentum, in this case mv=8. If the driven mass is ¼ pound and the collision is elastic the ¼ pound achieves rim speed (16fps) and then the compression accelerates it another 16fps (at 100% efficiency) for a total of 32 feet per second. This can be used to raise the ¼ pound mass 16 feet for a kinetic energy of 4 foot pounds for an investment of 1. Momentum is 8 in both masses so is balanced.
Designing a power producing wheel requires accommodating a lot of trade offs. Rifle velocities achieve tremendous kinetic energies with small investment in momentum but it is impractical to lower a mass from great heights plus air resistance becomes a greater and greater loss. At 64 feet per second (just over 40 miles per hour) air resistance is tolerable and your tower height would be 64 feet. 10 pounds of mass delivered per second would be 10 times 64 = 640 whereas 1 horsepower is defined as 550 pounds per second. If your elevator descended the mass to ground at 8 feet per second 1 foot of the 64 would be lost accelerating it to that velocity. The total transit would be about 8 seconds so the mass in work would be 80 pounds (80 times 8 = 640). For 10 horsepower you would need to move 10 times that. The driver wheel can be made wider to accommodate multiple masses and can accelerate more than 1 mass per second. An 8 foot diameter wheel has a circumference of 25.13 feet so would only turn 1.27 revolutions per second or 76.4 revolutions per minute for a rim speed of 32 feet per second. Slightly higher will be needed as the coefficient of restitution is not 1 so when desiring 64 feet of flight that missing from elastic deficiency has to be made up.
Does the collision ave to be elastic? No, they do not. In fact if noise is a serious issue one might sacrifice some efficiency in he interest of lowering operating noise. A higher rim speed would be needed.
Does there have to be a collision? No. You could use a magnet dropping into a coil and a second coil accelerating a lighter mass. It is the transfer of momentum to a higher velocity that makes this work.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Manipulating Momentum
What's it Worth?
So how does this method compare to wind or solar? Solar is definitely periodic plus suffers a seasonable variation. NREL has an online calculator
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators ... /version1/
to help you evaluate solar panel power. Our momentum machine works 24 hours a day so the need for battery packs and inverter is not as essential. Wind likewise suffers the vagaries of weather and is location sensitive. Commercial power engineers recommend that the grid use a maximum of 15% wind power else suffer reliability problems.
The cheapest power is hydro but has limited supply. Whatever source of power we use it is essential we eliminate waste where possible. Our momentum machine may harvest free power but the machinery isn't free. The biggest plus is the absence of a fuel bill and essentially pollution free operation once built. The pollution of fabrication is less than that of photovoltaics as silicon foundrys are notoriously filthy rendering water tables toxic.
The cost of generation of commercial power ranges from 0.8 to 5 .7 cents a kilowatt hour according to US Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricit ... at8p2.html
Average Power Plant Operating Expenses for Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities (table)
Unfortunately wind and solar are not part of the statistics.
So how does this method compare to wind or solar? Solar is definitely periodic plus suffers a seasonable variation. NREL has an online calculator
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators ... /version1/
to help you evaluate solar panel power. Our momentum machine works 24 hours a day so the need for battery packs and inverter is not as essential. Wind likewise suffers the vagaries of weather and is location sensitive. Commercial power engineers recommend that the grid use a maximum of 15% wind power else suffer reliability problems.
The cheapest power is hydro but has limited supply. Whatever source of power we use it is essential we eliminate waste where possible. Our momentum machine may harvest free power but the machinery isn't free. The biggest plus is the absence of a fuel bill and essentially pollution free operation once built. The pollution of fabrication is less than that of photovoltaics as silicon foundrys are notoriously filthy rendering water tables toxic.
The cost of generation of commercial power ranges from 0.8 to 5 .7 cents a kilowatt hour according to US Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricit ... at8p2.html
Average Power Plant Operating Expenses for Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities (table)
Unfortunately wind and solar are not part of the statistics.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Manipulating Momentum
I hope this is received in the spirit in which it is given. Free energy belongs to all and hopefully will end much of the travail in this world. No longer do we need to covet our neighbors fuel supply. Food should cost less and the oceans are available as a source of fresh water if the energy to provide reverse osmosis is freely available. May this discovery herald a golden age for mankind where we may truly listen to the admonition of God to love one another.
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Manipulating Momentum
Thank you Jim
l value your opinion very much
l value your opinion very much
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
-
FunWithGravity2
- Devotee
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:32 pm
re: Manipulating Momentum
Ditto,
Kirk, excellent work. enjoyable read, and very agreeable
Dave
Kirk, excellent work. enjoyable read, and very agreeable
Dave
Si mobile in circumferentia circuli feratur ea celeritate, quam acquirit cadendo ex
altitudine, quae sit quartae parti diameter aequalis ; habebit vim centrifugam suae
gravitati aequalem.
altitudine, quae sit quartae parti diameter aequalis ; habebit vim centrifugam suae
gravitati aequalem.
re: Manipulating Momentum
Glad you liked it Dave. Now we need to set up a shop and turn them out by the thousands. Free energy should generate some interest I would hope.
Kirk
Kirk
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
Re: re: Manipulating Momentum
Very good writing Kirk. Can we look forward to you building a working device in the near future ?Kirk wrote:I hope this is received in the spirit in which it is given. Free energy belongs to all and hopefully will end much of the travail in this world. No longer do we need to covet our neighbors fuel supply. Food should cost less and the oceans are available as a source of fresh water if the energy to provide reverse osmosis is freely available. May this discovery herald a golden age for mankind where we may truly listen to the admonition of God to love one another.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
re: Manipulating Momentum
I am retired and my health is a trainwreck. Without my daughter I would be living in the street.
Any ideas re construction though I am glad to share.
Kirk
Any ideas re construction though I am glad to share.
Kirk
Not knowing is not the problem. It is the knowing of what just isn't so.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
It is our responsibilities, not ourselves,that we should take seriously.
re: Manipulating Momentum
Thanks Kirk. So you've become a 'Momentumist' eh? Pequaide & myself have been trying to push the same ideas up hill now for some years, and so far the idea seems to have gone down like a cup of cold sick.
Congratulations on phrasing things a little differently and getting a more positive reception.
A lot rides on your statement: "It is the transfer of momentum to a higher velocity that makes this work." I believe that Gravesend could see this in the maths too - but couldn't figure out how Bessler did it.
Common consensus of the grumpy skeptics around here is that it is 100% impossible to transfer all momentum from a heavy mass to a light mass. For the very simple reason that it is obvious that this would result in energy gain.
p = mv
e = 0.5mvv
Since energy goes up with the square of velocity, any transfer of momentum that results in a large increase in velocity would result in a disproportionate increase in Energy - hence the extreme reluctance of Energy believers to accept that this could be possible.
This will need a simple experiment that can prove the principle, otherwise this idea will sink like a stone.
Congratulations on phrasing things a little differently and getting a more positive reception.
A lot rides on your statement: "It is the transfer of momentum to a higher velocity that makes this work." I believe that Gravesend could see this in the maths too - but couldn't figure out how Bessler did it.
Common consensus of the grumpy skeptics around here is that it is 100% impossible to transfer all momentum from a heavy mass to a light mass. For the very simple reason that it is obvious that this would result in energy gain.
p = mv
e = 0.5mvv
Since energy goes up with the square of velocity, any transfer of momentum that results in a large increase in velocity would result in a disproportionate increase in Energy - hence the extreme reluctance of Energy believers to accept that this could be possible.
This will need a simple experiment that can prove the principle, otherwise this idea will sink like a stone.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: Manipulating Momentum
Being a 'Momentumist' is not new or unique. What would be new and unique would be an 'Momentumist' demonstration which proves a real gain. That's what everyone wants, even if some might doubt it is possible.
Kirk, thanks. I remember you mentioned some years ago that you would post a description of your idea. If so, it was a long time coming. How do you view the basket ball/tennis ball demonstration in terms of momentum transfer between a large and small mass?
Kirk, thanks. I remember you mentioned some years ago that you would post a description of your idea. If so, it was a long time coming. How do you view the basket ball/tennis ball demonstration in terms of momentum transfer between a large and small mass?
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: Manipulating Momentum
It's hardly complex to set up an experiment with conditions which would show w/o doubt what happens in a transfer of momentum from a heavy mass to a small one.
Let's look at the problems in experiments so far, not many of which had for primary aim the transfer of momentum... We've used tethers with the aim of gaining height, but radial/elasticity issues are too complex to work out in experiments not conducted under rigorous scientific protocol.
In a ball collision scenario, we have to be 100% sure that the collision is totally "frontal" so the transfer is perfect. This has not been demonstrated. Also, most attempts have not had a perfectly controlled release of/impulse to large mass.
So we are left with as best choice a mechanical release system, such as a pinball machine shooter. Impacting a cube bang in the middle of one of the six sides, inasmuch as a cube has 6 sides. The cube is on ice. It is allowed to travel x distance before impacting bang head on a smaller cube.
Determine the size ratios, build the setup, and all of you unfortunate enough to live where there are ice hockey rinks, off ye go to perform the experiment.
No argument possible. We know or can work back to all the friction factors etc, and find out for once and for all.
Let's look at the problems in experiments so far, not many of which had for primary aim the transfer of momentum... We've used tethers with the aim of gaining height, but radial/elasticity issues are too complex to work out in experiments not conducted under rigorous scientific protocol.
In a ball collision scenario, we have to be 100% sure that the collision is totally "frontal" so the transfer is perfect. This has not been demonstrated. Also, most attempts have not had a perfectly controlled release of/impulse to large mass.
So we are left with as best choice a mechanical release system, such as a pinball machine shooter. Impacting a cube bang in the middle of one of the six sides, inasmuch as a cube has 6 sides. The cube is on ice. It is allowed to travel x distance before impacting bang head on a smaller cube.
Determine the size ratios, build the setup, and all of you unfortunate enough to live where there are ice hockey rinks, off ye go to perform the experiment.
No argument possible. We know or can work back to all the friction factors etc, and find out for once and for all.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.