Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

### GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

Many thanks.

# New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

### Statistics

• Total Posts: 524110
• Total Topics: 15603
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 3
• Guests: 15
• Total: 18

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3265
« Reply #195 on: September 11, 2014, 09:01:54 PM »
Yes, good point!  It is shown by experiment the conservation of mass doesn't hold either!  So, how can the kinetic energy equation be internally self-consistent when we have a conservation of mass violation, and mass itself is inside the kinetic energy equation?

Gravock

Theoretically, if we can instantly transfer the whole momentum from a heavier object to a lighter object, then we can create as much excess energy as we like according to the kinetic energy equation of KE = ½mv2.

A 5 kg mass moving 1 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 2.5J.  A 1 kg mass moving 5 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 12.5J

12.5J > 2.5J !!!  Is this internally self-consistent?

Thanks,

Gravock

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #195 on: September 11, 2014, 09:01:54 PM »

#### telecom

• Hero Member
• Posts: 550
« Reply #196 on: September 11, 2014, 10:08:25 PM »
Theoretically, if we can instantly transfer the whole momentum from a heavier object to a lighter object, then we can create as much excess energy as we like according to the kinetic energy equation of KE = ½mv2.

A 5 kg mass moving 1 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 2.5J.  A 1 kg mass moving 5 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 12.5J

12.5J > 2.5J !!!  Is this internally self-consistent?

Thanks,

Gravock

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:47 am    Post subject: re: energy producing experiments   Reply with quote  Report Post to Admin
http://video.mit.edu/watch/mit-physics-demo-low-friction-atwood-machine-3138/

Yes: the 10 gram is causing all the motion; it is the only unbalanced force. This is 10 grams accelerating 1110 grams
.
I did not say their experiment made energy. But add to this the experimental concept proven by the double and triple Atwood's and you have a means of making energy. This concept is that the Laws of Levers applies to Atwood's pulleys connected over the same axis but with different radii. As described below.

Let’s say that the radius of the pulley is 8cm.

550 grams on the left side at 8 cm places a certain torque on the point of rotation.  This torque is perfectly countered with an equal amount of torque from 550 grams on the right side at 8 cm.

The extra 10 grams on the right side is the accelerating force of .01 kg * 9.81 N/kg = .0981N which is expressed as torque upon the center point of rotation. These 10 grams of measured force remains constant throughout the acceleration. There is not one force for the static position and then another force for the acceleration. Acceleration can be determined from F = ma; F/m = a; .0981 N / 1.110 kg = .08838 m/sec²

The individual torque of each 550 grams was caused by the gravitational pull on the mass. The one side’s torque canceled the others side’s torque but the inertia of the 550 (1100 grams) grams is not canceled.  This inertia is proportional to the previously existing torque.

In Newtonian Physics inertia is measured by the change in momentum (linear Newtonian momentum) caused by an applied force. The change in linear Newtonian momentum of both 550 gram sides is equal. The bobs are viewed as going in the same positive direction.

55 grams at 80 cm has an equal amount of torque as 550 grams at 8 cm. If you try to move the 55 grams at 80 cm you will find that it acts like it has an equal amount of inertia from the point of rotation as 550 grams at 8 cm.  When moved; it also has an equal amount of linear Newtonian momentum, and an equal amount of centrifugal force. The system is balanced and it acts like it.

The 10 gram will accelerate the 55 g at 80 cm just as easily as 550 g at 8 cm; in fact it will accelerate two 55 grams on each side at 80 cm just as easily as it accelerates two 550 grams at 8 cm on both sides. The final velocity for the 10 grams (left at the 8 cm position) with two 55 grams at 80 cm will be exactly the same as when you had two 550 grams at 8 cm; with the additional 10 grams at the 8 cm position. And the velocity of the 10 grams will be .42 m/sec. Velocity can be determined by a rearrangement of the distance formula: v = the square root of (2 * d * a) = the square root of (2 * 1 m * .08837m/sec²)

After a drop of one meter for the 10 grams; the 110 (55 + 55) grams on a 80 cm wheel will be moving 4.2 m/sec; this (1/2mv²) is .971 joules of energy. The input energy was (10 grams dropped one meter.01 kg * 9.81 N/kg *1 m =) .0981 joules. Roughly 10 times the energy
For a logical proof place 550 grams on one side at 8 cm and 54 grams on the other side at 80 cm. The 550 grams will rotate the 54 grams.  Place 550 grams on one side at 8cm and 56 grams on the other side at 80 cm. The 550 grams will be rotated by the 56 grams. With 55 gram on the other side at 80 cm there will be no rotation.

Now place 550 grams on one side at 8cm and 549 grams on the other side at 8 cm. The 550 grams will rotate the 549 grams.  Place 550 on one side at 8 cm and 551 grams on the other side at 8 cm. The 550 grams will be rotated by the 551 grams.  With 550 grams on both sides there will be no rotation.

Conclusion: the Difficulty of rotating 55 grams at 80 cm is somewhere between the difficulty of rotating 549 grams at 8 cm and 551 grams at 8 cm.

When an outside force is asked to accelerate 55 grams at 80 cm it will find it as difficult (somewhere between 549 grams at 8 cm and 551 grams at 8 cm) as rotating 550 grams at 8 cm.  Don’t buy into the myth that a different force takes over as soon as motion begins. Their experiment proves that the 10 grams of force starts the motion and it stays with the system throughout the one meter drop. The 4.80 seconds is predicted for the 10 grams of force (.0981 N) by F = ma. d = 1/2at² = 4.757 seconds.
The 110 grams moving 4.2 m/sec could rise .889 meters for .110 kg * 9.81 N/kg  * .889 m = .9702 joules

Detractors will try to angular momentum you; but Atwood’s are linear and Angular Momentum is for space.

#### Tusk

• Full Member
• Posts: 158
« Reply #197 on: September 12, 2014, 08:24:26 AM »
I get the impression from this:

Quote
When they make a balance of the energy before and after, they find a huge gap - they conclude that the collision was unelastic,
since they can't find any other explanation for the gap...

and this:

Quote
Theoretically, if we can instantly transfer the whole momentum from a heavier object to a lighter object, then we can create as much excess energy as we like according to the kinetic energy equation of KE = ½mv2.

......that you are both standing at the edge, willing yet not quite ready to take a leap of faith. Very interesting points made, but that OU device still not quite revealing itself. Whilst I am uncomfortable presenting work for which I have not yet formulated a robust explanation perhaps in this instance there should be an exception. Not knowing if you have accepted the secondary reaction at the cm/axis, there is the risk of firing blanks but here goes.

Allow me to repeat an earlier statement re the secondary reaction:

Quote
a force equal to the applied force - which has the unique ability to accelerate a mass while maintaining frame of reference with that mass; or more simply, much like a rocket engine, velocity has no impact on either the work done or the acceleration - although the rocket must eject mass to function whereas the secondary reaction does not. The rocket engine (or reaction engine if you prefer) always applies force from the frame of reference of the body on which it acts so that acceleration from say 10m/sec to 20m/sec costs no more than acceleration from 110m/sec to 120m/sec.

In case you missed it, a mass accelerated from 110m/sec to 120m/sec gains substantially more KE than the same mass accelerated from 10m/sec to 20m/sec (thanks v²). Which typically suggests more work is done to achieve that gain (since the distance covered by the point of force is far greater, and this typically costs us dearly). But with the secondary reaction, which manifests in the FoR of the cm regardless of it's velocity, we now have the means to realise this gain. While not actually missing it the first time around, I am culpable in terms of distracted focus; perhaps beguiled by the dynamics of the PE with it's curious motions.

Anyway, since we can easily bring our drive disk/s back to a manageable rate of rotation ready for another acceleration cycle without losing E in the main rotor arm - using regenerative braking btw, therefore much of the disk E is recovered - it is inevitable that at some point our main rotor arm will achieve OU.

In simple terms we have a constant force (although possibly periodic as we cycle the disk/s) applied to a mass (the main rotor arm and all parts thereof) accelerating (therefore) at a constant rate due to a (nearly) constant input. I say nearly because as the rotor arm rotation rate increases the apparent disk rotation rate over the central axis of the unit increases, which will eventually create an upper limit. But I firmly believe this is just a matter of optimal engineering.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #197 on: September 12, 2014, 08:24:26 AM »

#### CANGAS

• Full Member
• Posts: 235
« Reply #198 on: September 12, 2014, 08:36:14 AM »
Hmmmm. You have gone beyond the boundaries of the proposed experimental parameters CANGAS. If I may borrow a relevant term from the sporting realm, 'foul!' (blows whistle).

Since your question was aimed specifically at gravock there seems little point in engaging with it. With some relief, bearing in mind the obvious challenge it represents, a clear 'calling out' much like the ornery gunfighter in the saloon scene of an old western. So I guess there's no suprise you went straight for that 44 stuffed down your breeches. And I thought you were just pleased to see me.

But staying with the metaphor, I suppose the job of barkeep in this little drama is down to me. I'm simply trying to keep the peace and help maintain some focus on the main topic. We don't want no trouble around here stranger. This is a quiet town. So quiet there's days you couldn't snuff your cigar in the spittoon.

The raison d'etre for this thread is the PE device and associated concepts, which may well call for a discussion of v² and the "1/2" in the energy equation but would probably be best served by an absence of gunfights. I can either pour you another glass of rotgut or fetch the big double out from under the bar.

So; you skin that smoke wagon and we'll see what happens.

LOL! Better than Groucho Marx!

Now, to help your short memory span break out of your hallucinatory phase and get back to reality.....I asked somebody if he REALLY did not understand, as he had claimed he did not understand, how the v SQUARED belonged in the Newtonian physics  based Kinetic Energy Equation, and likewise the 1/2. An alternative being that he could be leading up to try to fool some of us.

It is extremely interesting that he has avoided making a direct statement verifying or denying his previous assertions that the SQUARED and the 1/2 don't really belong there in the framework of Newtonian physics logic.
And it is extremely interesting that you are jumping to try to be his bodyguard.

Maybe YOU don't understand how the SQUARED or the 1/2 got there.

Tell you what, forget about about your imaginary hallucinatory shotgun and explain to us the Newtonian physics derivation of the Kinetic Energy Equation especially pointing out the conventional rationale for the SQUARED and the 1/2.

I'll know if you are lying because I have derived the derivation and I know exactly why everybody (pretty much) accepts the presence of the SQUARED and the 1/2. I'll even give you a strong hint.....it has something to do with ARBITRARY DEFINITIONS.

CANGAS 75

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3265
« Reply #199 on: September 12, 2014, 12:27:30 PM »

LOL! Better than Groucho Marx!

Now, to help your short memory span break out of your hallucinatory phase and get back to reality.....I asked somebody if he REALLY did not understand, as he had claimed he did not understand, how the v SQUARED belonged in the Newtonian physics  based Kinetic Energy Equation, and likewise the 1/2. An alternative being that he could be leading up to try to fool some of us.

It is extremely interesting that he has avoided making a direct statement verifying or denying his previous assertions that the SQUARED and the 1/2 don't really belong there in the framework of Newtonian physics logic.
And it is extremely interesting that you are jumping to try to be his bodyguard.

Maybe YOU don't understand how the SQUARED or the 1/2 got there.

Tell you what, forget about about your imaginary hallucinatory shotgun and explain to us the Newtonian physics derivation of the Kinetic Energy Equation especially pointing out the conventional rationale for the SQUARED and the 1/2.

I'll know if you are lying because I have derived the derivation and I know exactly why everybody (pretty much) accepts the presence of the SQUARED and the 1/2. I'll even give you a strong hint.....it has something to do with ARBITRARY DEFINITIONS.

CANGAS 75

Where did I make the claim I do not understand how the v2 and the 1/2 belonged in the kinetic energy equation, as you wrongly assert?  In addition to this, where did I make a previous assertion that the squared and the 1/2 don't really belong in the framework of Newtonian physics logic, as you once again wrongly assert?

Gravock

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #199 on: September 12, 2014, 12:27:30 PM »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3265
« Reply #200 on: September 12, 2014, 12:32:39 PM »
If you have been noticing alertly, you will alertly recognize that I have not stated a pro or con belief, but have simply asked for his belief. I have asked if he understands how the Kinetic Energy Equation was derived and therefore if he understands how the specific terms came to be, and if he understands whether it is all self consistent or not. And he will bend over backwards and whistle Dixie instead of saying YES or NO!!

One to beam up, Scotty.

CANGAS 72

How convenient of you not to state a pro or con belief for yourself, so you may use the position of one or the other as an escape goat down the road.  You have bent over backwards and whistled dixie to avoid having to state your own belief.  Once again, you have yet to provide a scientific or mathematical rebuttal to what I have previously posted!

Gravock

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3265
« Reply #201 on: September 12, 2014, 01:27:58 PM »
I get the impression from this:

and this:

......that you are both standing at the edge, willing yet not quite ready to take a leap of faith. Very interesting points made, but that OU device still not quite revealing itself. Whilst I am uncomfortable presenting work for which I have not yet formulated a robust explanation perhaps in this instance there should be an exception. Not knowing if you have accepted the secondary reaction at the cm/axis, there is the risk of firing blanks but here goes.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).  You see, faith is based on evidence, and this evidence is proof of a person's belief.

Gravock

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #201 on: September 12, 2014, 01:27:58 PM »

#### Tusk

• Full Member
• Posts: 158
« Reply #202 on: September 12, 2014, 04:47:41 PM »
And so it goes on; does someone pay you to run spoiling attacks like this CANGAS, or do you just have something personal against progress? I make a strong statement concerning OU based on what at first sight looks like a sound theoretical construct and it gets lost in a flurry of posts stirred up by what is clearly a personal attack on gravock, who's crime appears to have been nothing more than posting a quote from another source, which you apparently misread or at least failed to apprehend. And btw, any preferential treatment he gets from me is simply a result of his conducting himself like a gentleman, as opposed to your own approach which is more akin to a drunken glassing attack at an elderly ladies sewing circle. I was hoping my little comedy act earlier might get a laugh out of you and calm things down; alas, I see you are cut from a different cloth.

So here's some ammunition for you, since you seem hell bent on disruption; off the top of my head I have no clue about the history of the energy equation, neither it's formulation or the life and times of those responsible for it. I assume that the v² and the 1/2 are included because if you left them out or replaced them with other variables/values the equation would not equate. Which would make it kind of an oxy moron. But if I had to go deeper, I'd hazard that the v² is due to the exponential increase in distance covered each second during acceleration. As for the 1/2.......  hmmmm, that's a tricky one; I can see the obvious formulaic origin (W=mas, v²-u²=2as etc etc) but I assume we are looking for actual causal physics here and not simply painting by numbers.

Ok, I'll go with this; I reckon we might be losing half the energy somewhere. Something to do with momentum maybe, since in reality all collisions take place in that domain. And that's a complete 'fire from the hip' snap shot. Probably rubbish. Blew a big hole in the spittoon, I shouldn't wonder. But I've said enough to suggest that I fly by my wits rather than flapping a bunch of papers written by someone else. So if you really want to get me in a corner then drag out the filing cabinet and start quoting irrelevant minutia and make pointless and insulting challenges...... because clearly what we need in OU research is more adherence to the rules and less of this irresponsible creativity and imagination. But then, I may just choose to ignore you. At the end of the day, I understand certain things which clearly you do not, you are in my thread ostensibly to learn something or impart some wisdom (or then why else?) and quite frankly, I don't have enough time or energy left to be wasting it on the feckless.

Keep the Faith gravock

#### telecom

• Hero Member
• Posts: 550
« Reply #203 on: September 12, 2014, 11:42:03 PM »

Allow me to repeat an earlier statement re the secondary reaction:

In case you missed it, a mass accelerated from 110m/sec to 120m/sec gains substantially more KE than the same mass accelerated from 10m/sec to 20m/sec (thanks v²). Which typically suggests more work is done to achieve that gain (since the distance covered by the point of force is far greater, and this typically costs us dearly). But with the secondary reaction, which manifests in the FoR of the cm regardless of it's velocity, we now have the means to realise this gain. While not actually missing it the first time around, I am culpable in terms of distracted focus; perhaps beguiled by the dynamics of the PE with it's curious motions.

Anyway, since we can easily bring our drive disk/s back to a manageable rate of rotation ready for another acceleration cycle without losing E in the main rotor arm - using regenerative braking btw, therefore much of the disk E is recovered - it is inevitable that at some point our main rotor arm will achieve OU.

In simple terms we have a constant force (although possibly periodic as we cycle the disk/s) applied to a mass (the main rotor arm and all parts thereof) accelerating (therefore) at a constant rate due to a (nearly) constant input. I say nearly because as the rotor arm rotation rate increases the apparent disk rotation rate over the central axis of the unit increases, which will eventually create an upper limit. But I firmly believe this is just a matter of optimal engineering.

Hi Tusk,
have you actually tried estimating of extra power for you single disk setup at different RPM?
I presume that the efficiency of regenerative braking shouldn't exceed .7 though...

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #203 on: September 12, 2014, 11:42:03 PM »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3265
« Reply #204 on: September 13, 2014, 04:26:57 AM »
Everyone should be jumping on this concept!  I'm going to attempt a replication and throw a little homopolar action using a conducting logarithmic spiral, which is the shortest spiral with the maximum electromagnetic torque!  The emf and torque of the Faraday Disc and the conducting spiral is due to the continuous variation of the electromagnetic angular moment of the continuous current.  Electromagnetic Induction and the Conservation of Momentum in the Spiral Paradox.  A paradox on top of a paradox!

Gravock

#### Tusk

• Full Member
• Posts: 158
« Reply #205 on: September 13, 2014, 05:30:56 AM »
Quote
have you actually tried estimating of extra power for you single disk setup at different RPM?
I presume that the efficiency of regenerative braking shouldn't exceed .7 though...

I only went as far as comparison between rotor arm secure and rotor arm free to a given RPM telecom; and let's not forget that this phenomenon only manifests during acceleration/deceleration. Data from a typical test run (posted some way back in this thread) suggested somewhat less work to achieve a higher disk RPM with the rotor free, and this without consideration of the additional rotor rotation which is clearly a gain. I would have been content with the same amount of work, and my thinking is that due to the apparent increase in disk RPM in the FoR of the EM drive (which is also the location of the logging sensor) what I was actually seeing was equal disk RPM in both tests in the observer FoR. This falls in line with my initial theory, suggesting the capability to additionally motivate the rotor arm for the same energy expenditure as before.

As for regenerative braking, 70% sounds like a fair starting point although I believe around 90% is considered achievable in sophisticated flywheel technology. But if you take my point on the nature and potential of a force locked in the FoR of the point of force, I believe we can actually live with lower efficiency; repeatedly cycling the disk through it's optimum RPM range until the rotor arm reaches an RPM at which the exponential increase in KE overtakes the linear increase in work done and catapults it into the realm of OU. I might even prefer this mode of operation to those outlined/suggested earlier, it seems a more likely bet in engineering terms - at least for a working prototype.

Quote
I'm going to attempt a replication

That's good news gravock

Quote
and throw a little homopolar action using a conducting logarithmic spiral, which is the shortest spiral with the maximum electromagnetic torque!  The emf and torque of the Faraday Disc and the conducting spiral is due to the continuous variation of the electromagnetic angular moment of the continuous current. A paradox on top of a paradox!

Hopefully you will be able to identify the source of any advantage amongst all these dark arts? lol. Will you start another thread or post news/results here?

An afterthought gravock - the point of applied force on the disk/s must be at or near the edge and keeping a small footprint for best effect; not sure how you are going to achieve this with the method you outlined.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

« Reply #205 on: September 13, 2014, 05:30:56 AM »

#### CANGAS

• Full Member
• Posts: 235
« Reply #206 on: September 13, 2014, 10:43:53 AM »
And so it goes on; does someone pay you to run spoiling attacks like this CANGAS, or do you just have something personal against progress? I make a strong statement concerning OU based on what at first sight looks like a sound theoretical construct and it gets lost in a flurry of posts stirred up by what is clearly a personal attack on gravock, who's crime appears to have been nothing more than posting a quote from another source, which you apparently misread or at least failed to apprehend. And btw, any preferential treatment he gets from me is simply a result of his conducting himself like a gentleman, as opposed to your own approach which is more akin to a drunken glassing attack at an elderly ladies sewing circle. I was hoping my little comedy act earlier might get a laugh out of you and calm things down; alas, I see you are cut from a different cloth.

So here's some ammunition for you, since you seem hell bent on disruption; off the top of my head I have no clue about the history of the energy equation, neither it's formulation or the life and times of those responsible for it. I assume that the v² and the 1/2 are included because if you left them out or replaced them with other variables/values the equation would not equate. Which would make it kind of an oxy moron. But if I had to go deeper, I'd hazard that the v² is due to the exponential increase in distance covered each second during acceleration. As for the 1/2.......  hmmmm, that's a tricky one; I can see the obvious formulaic origin (W=mas, v²-u²=2as etc etc) but I assume we are looking for actual causal physics here and not simply painting by numbers.

Ok, I'll go with this; I reckon we might be losing half the energy somewhere. Something to do with momentum maybe, since in reality all collisions take place in that domain. And that's a complete 'fire from the hip' snap shot. Probably rubbish. Blew a big hole in the spittoon, I shouldn't wonder. But I've said enough to suggest that I fly by my wits rather than flapping a bunch of papers written by someone else. So if you really want to get me in a corner then drag out the filing cabinet and start quoting irrelevant minutia and make pointless and insulting challenges...... because clearly what we need in OU research is more adherence to the rules and less of this irresponsible creativity and imagination. But then, I may just choose to ignore you. At the end of the day, I understand certain things which clearly you do not, you are in my thread ostensibly to learn something or impart some wisdom (or then why else?) and quite frankly, I don't have enough time or energy left to be wasting it on the feckless.

Keep the Faith gravock

You sure do get easily confused.

Nobody could be a stronger supporter of Overunity Energy than me. I have invented more than one device that appears to be capable.

Your best bro made a statement that was ridiculous. Yo bro said that he did not understand how the "squared" got into the Newtonian physics equation for Kinetic Energy. And the "1/2" was in question too. But it is all splained by waves and half waves and double waves or some kind of rot other than a logical derivation based on arbitrary definitions.

I asked yo bro if he REALLY believed that the "square" and the "1/2" were there by mistake or accident (or if he was trying to fool us).

You leaped up to defend yo bro with absurd hallucinatory imaginings resembling a Clint Eastwood western.

HEY, Jack, all I did was ask yo bro if he REALLY believed that the "squared" and the "1/2" were there by accident. And then I asked you pretty much the same question. I NEVER PROTESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF OU OR THE POSSIBILITY THAT YO BRO AND YOU WERE CORRECT.

His, and your, reaction to throw verbal turds at me rather than to simply answer my question tell me volumes. I am told that you don't really know what you are talking about and are trying desperately to bluff.

I perceive that he and ye do not understand that the standard Newton equation is internally self consistent.

Now, what you clowns have overlooked is that the definition of kinetic energy is simply an ARBITRARY DEFINITION. The "square" and the"1/2" are there because the inventor of Kinetic Energy arbitrarily chose to invent a new science thing and define it in a specific mathematical way. But, of course, within the bounds of mathematical logic, the equation can be shown to make perfect sense in conjunction with the arbitrary definition of WORK and its arbitrary mathematical definition.

After asking you clowns repeated times to tell me that you already this stuff, all you can do is quasi-threaten me in hallucinatory wild west terms.

CANGAS 76

#### Tusk

• Full Member
• Posts: 158
« Reply #207 on: September 13, 2014, 06:17:56 PM »
Well CANGAS, perhaps we are victims of an unfortunate failure in communication; these things happen. I'll go with that explanation in the interests of OU and common decency.

Quote
I have invented more than one device that appears to be capable.

I would be happy to look at your work if it is available for public review.

Quote
the definition of kinetic energy is simply an ARBITRARY DEFINITION. The "square" and the"1/2" are there because the inventor of Kinetic Energy arbitrarily chose to invent a new science thing and define it in a specific mathematical way.

While I may not entirely agree, your views are encouraging; progress requires a healthy suspicion of convention. You may need to read this twice since it may at first appear deliberately argumentative; I assure you it is not. Firstly, I think you will find that all these equations are born of observed behaviour in the real world. 'Back in the day' when this level of understanding was in it's infancy, the approach to science seems to have been fundamentally grounded in this method, and not by accident. So these equations reflect the experimental data obtained and the assumption that they hold true even beyond the reach of experimental ability at the time. This assumption - as I understand it - was part of scientific discipline and commonly acknowledged. Perhaps not so much today.

The fact that a mass with velocity 2v requires four times the distance to stop under constant retarding force F as an equal mass with velocity v is not arbitrary. It simply reflects the reverse condition in which the same mass requires four times the distance to achieve velocity 2v as  it does v and while perhaps not perfect, the application of force over a distance seems a reasonable method of determining work done and the KE equation follows from this logic. The application of springs (for instance) to the task of motivation provides a ready (apparent) confirmation of the theory, also experiments in momentum and the study of objects falling under gravitational influence. But 'back in the day' scientists acknowledged such ideas as theories, useful and applicable in general but not beyond disproof. Again, not so much today.

So I think it a little cavalier to say 'arbitrary', but I will agree that we need to look hard out beyond the limits of what is believed, also revisit what is thought to be 'known'. In particular, to seek new combinations of various phenomena in the belief that these 'laws' may not apply across all conditions. Another thing worth remembering is that concepts like force and energy, while useful, are simply models and may not reflect reality without some small aberration.

Quote
I am told that you don't really know what you are talking about and are trying desperately to bluff.

I have no way of knowing where that comes from but I assume someone with an academic background. Astute enough to recognise 'self taught' but not enough to realise that this in itself is insufficient grounds for casual dismissal. I gauge my understanding by experiment, or at least by first attempting an independent understanding then checking the literature where the material is established. And bluff? To what end? Show me a critical error in the material which negates the entire thesis and I will acknowledge it, but so far the skeptics have revealed no such error - a simple matter surely, for an astute academic. The fact is that I have unearthed phenomena either little known, long forgotten or possibly even unknown, and assembled a logical method of application for them. So I am quite content to distance myself from academia, since breaking rules comes easier outside the prison walls.

Anyway, perhaps we are not so very different. If you are offended beyond redress then hopefully you will attend your own affairs and enjoy good fortune. If not feel free to wade in at any level other than personal, since we appear to be pushing in the same general direction.

#### telecom

• Hero Member
• Posts: 550
« Reply #208 on: September 14, 2014, 02:36:21 AM »
I only went as far as comparison between rotor arm secure and rotor arm free to a given RPM telecom; and let's not forget that this phenomenon only manifests during acceleration/deceleration. Data from a typical test run (posted some way back in this thread) suggested somewhat less work to achieve a higher disk RPM with the rotor free, and this without consideration of the additional rotor rotation which is clearly a gain. I would have been content with the same amount of work, and my thinking is that due to the apparent increase in disk RPM in the FoR of the EM drive (which is also the location of the logging sensor) what I was actually seeing was equal disk RPM in both tests in the observer FoR. This falls in line with my initial theory, suggesting the capability to additionally motivate the rotor arm for the same energy expenditure as before.

As for regenerative braking, 70% sounds like a fair starting point although I believe around 90% is considered achievable in sophisticated flywheel technology. But if you take my point on the nature and potential of a force locked in the FoR of the point of force, I believe we can actually live with lower efficiency; repeatedly cycling the disk through it's optimum RPM range until the rotor arm reaches an RPM at which the exponential increase in KE overtakes the linear increase in work done and catapults it into the realm of OU. I might even prefer this mode of operation to those outlined/suggested earlier, it seems a more likely bet in engineering terms - at least for a working prototype.

I've estimated that for the disk speed of 100m/sec with the disk's diameter of 30 cm,
it will need to rotate at 6000 rpm.
What would be the rpm of the arm in this case?
How much energy will it produce by cycling between , say, 6000 to 7000 rpm
for the disk?

#### tesla2

• Full Member
• Posts: 195
« Reply #209 on: September 14, 2014, 06:41:27 AM »

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i0QAJkwDUfU/VBGtJcwO_PI/AAAAAAAAB90/GgkSTBMgMDQ/s1600/CIMG3319.JPG

Do You understant what mean difference between paralel and perpendicular situation

HISTORY  = ACTUAL BOOKS

" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).

This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving .

The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."
http://youtu.be/HXKwNvA8VHs