Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
Moderator: scott
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:18 am
Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
A while ago I drew up these diagrams to show the concept of energy transfer from one location to another.
I think the images are self explanitory.
Now the big question is how much energy does the Blue ball have if it hit another rod?
and
What would happen if we increase the number of tracks, say to 10?
Would the energy in the system increase or would it flatten to the maximum gravitational potential allowed for our balls?
Care to discuss?
I think the images are self explanitory.
Now the big question is how much energy does the Blue ball have if it hit another rod?
and
What would happen if we increase the number of tracks, say to 10?
Would the energy in the system increase or would it flatten to the maximum gravitational potential allowed for our balls?
Care to discuss?
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
I assume the reaction would taper... too nothing...
"A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds."~ M. Twain.
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
Ignoring friction and conservation of momentum, the blue ball has enough energy to reach twice its original height. If you kept adding tracks in this way, the last ball in the track series would have enough energy in it to go x times higher than it started, where x is the number of tracks.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:18 am
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
Jonathan, so you think that the effect of gravity will continue to add to the energy of the balls as they are propelled by the previous balls energy?
This is an interesting question to me.
If I am in an aeroplane and fire a shot from a rifle towards the ground 100 meters away. Does gravity add energy to the bullet beyond what it would normally?
In other words say I drop the bullet and it gains [x] amount of energy because of gravity. Is the bullet fired gunpowder energy + [x] or is it just gunpowder energy?
This is an interesting question to me.
If I am in an aeroplane and fire a shot from a rifle towards the ground 100 meters away. Does gravity add energy to the bullet beyond what it would normally?
In other words say I drop the bullet and it gains [x] amount of energy because of gravity. Is the bullet fired gunpowder energy + [x] or is it just gunpowder energy?
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:18 am
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
Theoretically, ignoring friction it would take three tracks to get enough energy to lift the two previous balls back to the top.....
So in effect we have a perpetual energy cycle using gravity only and transfering the momentum back to the top by way of an 'inanimate' [ha] iron rod.
So in effect we have a perpetual energy cycle using gravity only and transfering the momentum back to the top by way of an 'inanimate' [ha] iron rod.
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
I'm not sure I understood the bullet analogy. If you drop a bullet from a given height it will gain kinetic energy from gravity. Then if you shoot it straight down from the same height, it will have gun energy + gravity energy.
"Theoretically, ignoring friction it would take three tracks to get enough energy to lift the two previous balls back to the top....."
You could do it with two tracks and have none left over, or you could do it with three tracks and have some left over. But in order for the process to be cyclic, that bit left over must be used to lift the third ball back up, and then we will just break even.
"Theoretically, ignoring friction it would take three tracks to get enough energy to lift the two previous balls back to the top....."
You could do it with two tracks and have none left over, or you could do it with three tracks and have some left over. But in order for the process to be cyclic, that bit left over must be used to lift the third ball back up, and then we will just break even.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:18 am
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
I guess what I am trying to talk about is consceptually the ways in which energy can be transfered with out loss upwards contra to gravity.
Sort of like if you imagine a thousand dominos all set to tip over and every domino as it hits the ground face down transferes that energy back to the dominos at the start setting them on their edge again only to fall over again and repeat the cylce.
And the sound they make as they fall can be channeled to vibrate a speaker membrane that vibrates a magnet thus creating free electricity...and so on....
Sort of like if you imagine a thousand dominos all set to tip over and every domino as it hits the ground face down transferes that energy back to the dominos at the start setting them on their edge again only to fall over again and repeat the cylce.
And the sound they make as they fall can be channeled to vibrate a speaker membrane that vibrates a magnet thus creating free electricity...and so on....
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:18 am
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
another example would be a car that stored the energy needed to brake the car so that that energy can be used to later propel the car.
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
The car and domino examples would just break even, any sound or friciton would stop them.
Also, energy technically can't be moved upward without loss, because lifting energy through a given height is the same as lifting E/(c^2) worth of mass over the same height.
Also, energy technically can't be moved upward without loss, because lifting energy through a given height is the same as lifting E/(c^2) worth of mass over the same height.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:18 am
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
does this apply to the transfer happening in our steel rod and ball race scenario?Also, energy technically can't be moved upward without loss, because lifting energy through a given height is the same as lifting E/(c^2) worth of mass over the same height.
Is the steel rod transfering energy? Or is it transfering something else?
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
Yes, it is trasfering energy literally like a sound wave. But the energy that comes out of the bar goes into the ball and comes back down in the ball, and so it regains the little energy lost when the energy was on its way up. Kinda confusing...
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
Hi
Can someone please explain this result..?
This should be impossible!!
Why is the first ball quicker..?
Can someone please explain this result..?
This should be impossible!!
Why is the first ball quicker..?
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
I think it has to do with the brachistochrone problem.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Energy Transfer in principle - discussion
Here's an approximate velocity versus time graph. Notice the green line is the average velocity.
- Attachments
-
- Brachistochrone.GIF (1.68 KiB) Viewed 12394 times
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.