It isn't something anyone has to prove anymore ruggerodk. It's been proven so many times that it's considered universal except in cases where we can't test it, like black holes.
On the other hand , the burden of proof is in your court. And the bar is set so high, it virtually doesn't even exist.
Gravity, CF, or both?
Moderator: scott
-
justsomeone
- Addict
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:21 pm
re: Gravity, CF, or both?
Jim, please show where it is written where the scientists say a PM wheel is possible using CF.
The way I see it, in a way CF acts like gravity. Correct me if I am wrong.
What ever energy that could be generated by gravity pulling down on a weight would be used up to lift said weight back up. Believe me, I get it.
What ever energy that could be captured by CF forcing a weight to the perimeter would be used up bringing it back to it's starting point.
Sounds like we are in the same boat Jim.
The way I see it, in a way CF acts like gravity. Correct me if I am wrong.
What ever energy that could be generated by gravity pulling down on a weight would be used up to lift said weight back up. Believe me, I get it.
What ever energy that could be captured by CF forcing a weight to the perimeter would be used up bringing it back to it's starting point.
Sounds like we are in the same boat Jim.
. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills.
re: Gravity, CF, or both?
Scientists believe that PM in any form is impossible. They will change only after seeing an actual working PM wheel.justsomeone wrote:Jim, please show where it is written where the scientists say a PM wheel is possible using CF.
OK, you're wrong.justsomeone wrote:The way I see it, in a way CF acts like gravity. Correct me if I am wrong.
You're right.justsomeone wrote:What ever energy that could be generated by gravity pulling down on a weight would be used up to lift said weight back up. Believe me, I get it.
You're wrong. CF does not force a weight. CF is the inertial momentum of the weight. When a weight moves outward due to CF then the momentum of the wheel forces the weight to accelerate. Thus you have a pure momentum transfer mechanism.justsomeone wrote:What ever energy that could be captured by CF forcing a weight to the perimeter would be used up bringing it back to it's starting point.
There is a very big difference between Gravity Force and Centrifugal Force.
Gravity Force is a conservative force which acts constantly on a weight.
Centrifugal Force is not conservative and acts variably depending upon radius and velocity.
-
justsomeone
- Addict
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:21 pm
re: Gravity, CF, or both?
OK Jim,
In a high RPM wheel a ten lb. weight would require more force ( than say 10.5lbs. ) to move the weight toward the axle. Isn't the extra force equivalent to the force you captured from it's movement to the perimeter?
In a high RPM wheel a ten lb. weight would require more force ( than say 10.5lbs. ) to move the weight toward the axle. Isn't the extra force equivalent to the force you captured from it's movement to the perimeter?
. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills.
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3150
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
The CF varies with the centripetal acceleration; which is what gives rise to CF. Forces outside the wheel system have to come into play to increase the centripetal force and thus the centrifugal force. Centrifugal force can't increase centripetal acceleration. They're 180 degree opposing forces.
Momentum is conserved in cyclic systems. All of the torques net to zero.
Momentum is conserved in cyclic systems. All of the torques net to zero.
No! You didn't read what I wrote...justsomeone wrote:Isn't the extra force equivalent to the force you captured from it's movement to the perimeter?
Change the parameters so that moving the weight inward is very easy and movement of the weight outward is extremely forceful.Jim_Mich wrote:Centrifugal Force is not conservative and acts variably depending upon radius and velocity.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: Gravity, CF, or both?
The wheel would not work without gravity . In a device designed to work by exploiting the powers of nature , especially gravity ... the forces would all come to a stop .
Nic, you will see much more than a sketch when the final piece 'L' of "The Plan" falls into place. :))
Jim_Mich wrote: A] First get something that works!!!
B] Take steps to insure the idea survives in case of calamity.
C] Define the principle or the reason why it works!
D] Design a simple cheap working POP (proof of principle) sample model.
E] (omitted by mistake)
F] Build as many of these models as money/time/reasoning suggest.
G] Plan Ad campaign, including literature, web space, documentation, etc.
H] Write patent applications for most major countries.
I] Prepare a list of names, addresses of who is to receive what.
J] Always continue research into increasing power output and alternate designs.
K] Load up on liability and life insurance.
L] When all is prepared, file patents, upload web site, mail plans, ship models, etc. Hit the media hard! Make a sensation! Be on the evening news worldwide.
Do what needs to be done to keep those in power from suppressing your invention. It is much harder to put the genie back into the bottle after everyone has seen it. They move slow. You must move fast. The window of opportunity is between when the PTO receives your application and when someone reviewing it realizes what your invention really does.
re: Gravity, CF, or both?
Jim, that must mean you have achieved A] ?
Regards from your abandoned love child :D
Regards from your abandoned love child :D
Judging from this statement I doubt very seriously that he has a working wheel. The only force which could help the wheel to gain speed in the beginning is the same force that would sustain it's motion and that is only gravity . CF may help in the extension of the weights but it will not drive the wheel by itself.jim_mich wrote:The total driving force would remain unchanged and thus the wheel speed would remain unchanged.
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3150
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
Well then, from the great Simanek's Museum of Unworkable Devices:
Is centrifugal force a good energy source?
Centrifugal force is a widely misunderstood concept, often badly presented in physics courses. "Centrifugal" means "fleeing outward". It is not some exotic kind of force found in nature. It is nothing more than a convenient mathematical concept used when physicists and engineers do analysis of rotating systems using non-inertial rotating coordinate systems. Forces are never sources of energy. Forces occur when bodies interact, and that interaction may result in one body losing energy and the other gaining an equal amount of energy. No energy is ever created by a force.
How about converting momentum to energy?
Momentum and energy are two different concepts, and are not convertible one to the other. They have different physical dimensions and units. Mathematically, momentum is a vector and energy is a scalar. Energy is conserved in every closed system we have ever studied, and energy is niether created nor destroyed. Momentum is also conserved in such systems, and the two conservation laws represent independent facts about nature. In the early history of physics when these were not yet understood, there was much debate over which was the "better" or "proper" way to describe motion. This debate was settled in the 17th century, when we realized that both concepts are necessary to fully describe how mechanical things work and how bodies interact. Many physical problems simply cannot be solved using only one, but not the other, of these concepts. Both concepts must be used simultaneously.
Could we convert angular momentum to linear momentum, rotational kinetic energy to linear kinetic energy, or convert rotational motion to linear motion, or vice versa?
Some have tried to convert rotational motion to linear motion. The Dean Drive was one such example. Dean was taken in by a stick-slip friction phenomena that he didn't understand. He seemed unconcerned that his device, if it actually worked on the principle he claimed, would be violating not only energy conservation but momentum conservation as well, and would therefore amount to a "reactionless thruster". Indeed, others still hold out hope of making such a third-law-violation device. But most inventors totally ignore momentum of all kinds because they simply don't know anything about it. They may not even realize that the conservation of momentum law is just as solidly established in physics as the conservation of energy law that they generally despise.
Rotational kinetic energy is just ordinary kinetic energy, since kinetic energy is a scalar and does not depend upon the direction of a body's motion or whether the path of a moving body is straight or curved. So there's nothing more to say about that.
Energy, angular momentum and linear momentum are all different beasts. They have separate conservation laws, different dimensions and units, and aren't convertible one to the other.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/whynot.htm
Is centrifugal force a good energy source?
Centrifugal force is a widely misunderstood concept, often badly presented in physics courses. "Centrifugal" means "fleeing outward". It is not some exotic kind of force found in nature. It is nothing more than a convenient mathematical concept used when physicists and engineers do analysis of rotating systems using non-inertial rotating coordinate systems. Forces are never sources of energy. Forces occur when bodies interact, and that interaction may result in one body losing energy and the other gaining an equal amount of energy. No energy is ever created by a force.
How about converting momentum to energy?
Momentum and energy are two different concepts, and are not convertible one to the other. They have different physical dimensions and units. Mathematically, momentum is a vector and energy is a scalar. Energy is conserved in every closed system we have ever studied, and energy is niether created nor destroyed. Momentum is also conserved in such systems, and the two conservation laws represent independent facts about nature. In the early history of physics when these were not yet understood, there was much debate over which was the "better" or "proper" way to describe motion. This debate was settled in the 17th century, when we realized that both concepts are necessary to fully describe how mechanical things work and how bodies interact. Many physical problems simply cannot be solved using only one, but not the other, of these concepts. Both concepts must be used simultaneously.
Could we convert angular momentum to linear momentum, rotational kinetic energy to linear kinetic energy, or convert rotational motion to linear motion, or vice versa?
Some have tried to convert rotational motion to linear motion. The Dean Drive was one such example. Dean was taken in by a stick-slip friction phenomena that he didn't understand. He seemed unconcerned that his device, if it actually worked on the principle he claimed, would be violating not only energy conservation but momentum conservation as well, and would therefore amount to a "reactionless thruster". Indeed, others still hold out hope of making such a third-law-violation device. But most inventors totally ignore momentum of all kinds because they simply don't know anything about it. They may not even realize that the conservation of momentum law is just as solidly established in physics as the conservation of energy law that they generally despise.
Rotational kinetic energy is just ordinary kinetic energy, since kinetic energy is a scalar and does not depend upon the direction of a body's motion or whether the path of a moving body is straight or curved. So there's nothing more to say about that.
Energy, angular momentum and linear momentum are all different beasts. They have separate conservation laws, different dimensions and units, and aren't convertible one to the other.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/whynot.htm
re: Gravity, CF, or both?
So eccentrically1 what is stopping us from harvesting rotational energy off the earth; other than a viable design?
What goes around, comes around.
re: Gravity, CF, or both?
What goes around, comes around.
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
re: Gravity, CF, or both?
The moon is harvesting the rotation of Earth, with the moon's orbital speed increasing and its orbital path becoming a larger and larger circle, around the Earth. In the one source I could find, this ends when the Earth completes tidal locking with the moon and ends up facing the moon the same way the moon is facing the Earth now, all in about 50 billion years.
There is a bit of a problem with this as the sun becomes a red giant, expands to roughly the orbit of Mars and consumes the Earth, in about five billion years.
Other than that, Earth's rotation is pretty much on its own.
There is a bit of a problem with this as the sun becomes a red giant, expands to roughly the orbit of Mars and consumes the Earth, in about five billion years.
Other than that, Earth's rotation is pretty much on its own.