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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: re: energy producing experiments  (Read 101586 times)

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3595
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #300 on: December 18, 2021, 06:36:13 PM »
Im sure you have pulleys, ropes, wood, etc. wherever you are
This shouldn’t be hard to build a series of mechanisms to demonstrate
everything we are discussing here.


It is not the math and theory we are after


It is Energy Producing Experiments


A Lever, the top of the short end is placed at “0”
the Atwood has an H of the large weight, directly above the short end


The long end connects to a chain


Another lever, that when it is fully activated, the long end sits at the
just higher than the bottom of the smaller weight after the Atwood is stopped.
But also such that when at rest the lever swings low enough to provide clearance
for the smaller weight to rise.


The chain goes from the lower lever, under a pulley and up to the short end of
the upper lever, such that when the Atwood drops, the heavy weight hits the lever,
pulling the chain, activating the other lever
Sending the smaller weight upwards, operating the Atwood in an upward vector
and measure the rise of the larger weight as the smaller weight reaches the end
of its string.




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3595
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #301 on: December 18, 2021, 06:41:49 PM »
If it can lift the larger weight all the way back up,
Then the energy produced would be


The m of the smaller weight, * 9.8 * the length of the string

Floor

  • Guest
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #302 on: December 18, 2021, 07:32:17 PM »
The RATE here (in the graph attached below) at which the acceleration is occurring, is constant.
             (3 meters per second per second in the graph)

This is like when gravity accelerates an object while within a vacuum.
             (9.80665 meters per second per second when caused by Earth's gravity)

The kinetic energy in a free falling object increases within each interval of time
within which it free falls.  This is so even though the force of gravity is constant
during that free fall.

The RATE AT WHICH THE SPEED IS INCREASED is the same in each given time
interval.

The SPEED ITSELF, that the object is traveling at is greater in each successive interval
of time that passes.

There fore the object is moving faster and travels farther in each successive interval of time,
than it did during the previous interval of time.

The momentum of a given mass or object is greater when its speed is greater.

momentum = mass * velocity
momentum = force * time

The longer the time that a given force acts upon an object that it is ACCELERATING,
the faster that objects moves, the greater is that objects momentum, and the greater is
the kinetic energy of that object due to that motion.

Ek = 1/2 * mass * velocity ^2

But also I agree that actual measurements and experiments are what are probably
most appropriate to the topic so...  I'll bow out for now.

      Again
         best wishes
               floor

P.S.
   Given that the mass of the object remains constant, the reason the rate of
acceleration is constant ... is because the force applied is constant.

  The energy reqired to maintain the force as constant increases through out each
  interval of time.

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3595
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #303 on: December 18, 2021, 10:14:57 PM »
This will hold true in the vertical domain if the force applied is from gravity alone
(or more appropriately stated: at vectors perpendicular to the center of gravity of the source field)

The same if the force applied was constant in the horizontal on a rigid surface
Such that gravity could be negated.


In either case, the second derivative can be negated, as its’ effective value is 0


But the full equation allows for analysis of both an applied force,
and the force of gravity, at any vector.


A ‘ballistics calculator’ does this for us, and can be used in automated trajectory devices.
Or in the field using manually controlled ballistics
The solid-state version of the quivering nerd in the trenches with a notepad


Gravity will always prove to be a conservative field in the perpendicular vector.
And consistent in most locations. (there are anomalies that could be exploited)
What we put in to lift a mass, will always return the same; minus wind resistance,
and other losses.








Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3595
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #304 on: December 18, 2021, 10:29:29 PM »
In the most extreme example, we have a slim 1 meter rod of titanium with pointed ends.
We launch this straight up using a small railgun coil, a series of capacitors and a small power supply


It leaves the rail gun at approximately 10km/sec
And returns in roughly the same general area at about 8 km/sec


Thats mach 23, it destroys the launch-site and the rod,
leaving nothing but a crater.


Consuming 30MW for 5 seconds
Returning with a power of 0.126GJ
And a loss of ~ 15% of our power
And about 20$ from our pockets


Your railgun must be engineered to NOT exceed 10km/sec
or you risk endangering low-orbit technologies.


Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #305 on: December 29, 2021, 03:41:21 AM »
Very large quantities of energy can be produced by placing large quantities of momentum in a small mass.

 And very large quantities of momentum can be produced by a rim that is accelerated by a weighted string wrapped around the rims circumference.

A vertical rim will accelerate like a modified Atwood’s; which means it will be an F = ma acceleration. The one kilogram is on a string that is wrapped around the rim. As the 1 kg mass drops one meter it will accelerate the 100 kg vertical rim.

So:  The one kilogram has 9.81 N of force.  9.81 N = 101 kg * a   = .0971 m/sec/sec. is the acceleration of the rim.

d = ½ v²/a:  so: v = sqrt (1 m * 2 *.09871 m/sec/sec) = .4407 m/sec.  is the velocity of the rim after it has dropped one meter.

This is .4407 m/sec * 101 kg = 44.51 kg * m/sec units of momentum.

This is 44.51 units of momentum that was produced by one kg dropping one meter.  It takes 4.429 units of momentum for a one-kilogram mass to be raised one meter. So, you produced 44.51 units of momentum from 4.429 units.

A stack of 30 (1000g / 30) 33.33 gram masses evenly spaced 30 meter high is also 1 kg. This stack can also be dropped one meter. After the one meter drop the stack can be reconfigures by raising one 33.33 gram mass 30 meters.

To raise 33.33 gram 30 meters it needs to be moving 24.26 m/sec. This is 24.26 m/sec * .03333 kg = .8087 units of momentum.

You produce 44.51 units of momentum using .8087 units.     

Floor

  • Guest
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #306 on: December 29, 2021, 05:21:59 PM »
I'm glad to see that you are still exploring this !

        best wishes
               floor

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3595
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #307 on: January 01, 2022, 01:42:59 PM »
I would like to see a demonstration of this “energy producing experiments”


We can excite ions with a simple electric field
(Ionized plate particle accelerator)


Even with tiny atomic masses and near relativistic velocities
there have been no anomalies concerning momentum observed
outside the expected quantum factor


as such would alter our view of the equations


Momentum is conserved throughout the entire system being analyzed
Even in the transferring from one mass to another.
If there is any mass at all involved,
you will always have less momentum than before the transfer


If there is no mass, momentum would transfer pure and lossless


[For this reason i argue that a photon cannot be massless,
but rather releases countably infinite energy for a finite time upon impact,
when we set the total energy values to be equivalent the calculated mass of
the photon corresponds to the expected value observed from the physical impact]


Archimedes, Da Vinci, Descartes, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Rankine, Einstein, Froude
They all agree on the theory of momentum
The Universe as we understand it would collapse if this theory were to break.


Offline NathanCoppedge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
    • QUORA PROFILE
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #308 on: January 02, 2022, 05:19:23 PM »
Good research but you may find Nathan Larkin Coppedge's experiments more ambitious.

Nathan's experiments can be investigated here at the rather original https://emporium.quora.com/The-History-of-Perpetual-Motion-Machines

Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #309 on: January 04, 2022, 11:07:21 PM »
The cylinder and spheres experiments make energy; you would do better to build and experiment with something that works.

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 604
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #310 on: January 10, 2022, 01:23:52 PM »
I would like to see a demonstration of this “energy producing experiments”


We can excite ions with a simple electric field
(Ionized plate particle accelerator)


Even with tiny atomic masses and near relativistic velocities
there have been no anomalies concerning momentum observed
outside the expected quantum factor


as such would alter our view of the equations


Momentum is conserved throughout the entire system being analyzed
Even in the transferring from one mass to another.
If there is any mass at all involved,
you will always have less momentum than before the transfer


If there is no mass, momentum would transfer pure and lossless


[For this reason i argue that a photon cannot be massless,
but rather releases countably infinite energy for a finite time upon impact,
when we set the total energy values to be equivalent the calculated mass of
the photon corresponds to the expected value observed from the physical impact]


Archimedes, Da Vinci, Descartes, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Rankine, Einstein, Froude
They all agree on the theory of momentum
The Universe as we understand it would collapse if this theory were to break.


Mass is a function. Could it be done away with? Yes, partially, if it is converted to energy. The energy in question is a part of spacetime. However, this does not happen easily as something has to facilitate the change, IE the function has to be manipulated by an outside source. Inertia is a resistance to changes of position concerning what we call matter to the surrounding medium, which we currently call spacetime. Momentum is based upon mass, but it is not mass itself, and is a resistance to changes in spatial velocity. Lambda F does equal mc^2 in a particle at rest. Mass is a byproduct of a self-propagating wave packet, stable or unstable (real or 'virtual'). Light does indeed have mass, which is to be expected, as you cannot separate mass from energy. If there is energy, then there is mass, or vice versa. However, conversion of one to the other can reduce or increase the measurable amount. Momentum is ultimately energy being stored as mass. It is converted back to energy during a collision with something else.


Spacetime itself is somewhat stupid as a notion goes, since adding time to an absence of anything does not yield something which can be bent, warped, torn , tunneled through, or otherwise spatially or physically manipulated. Gag. Many of the supposed effects become iimpossible when viewed in anything but two dimensions, such as warped or 'dented' space causing gravity. (When applied with no frame of reference being given special dispensation, IE in all three dimensions at the same time, since gravity pulls straight towards the center of any mass, the "warp" completely envelopes any object.)


A lot of what we know is still backwards or outdated thinking, unfortunately. When you consider that the medium that we have given the moniker of spacetime is the source for all of the energy we use, and that, according to at least one prominent Physicist, one cup of it could boil off all the oceans of earth concerning the amount of energy stored their, I would say that our notions of efficiency leave something to be desired. If any scientist desired to see how badly off our estimate of the subject is, they should try to heat 100 ml f water 10 degrees, and calculate exactly how much energy is required, then do it. BUT, they should record the whole event with a thermal imaging camera (fleer type) and fail the test if they see any energy radiation in the form of heat into the ambient surroundings, from any source connected to the test, from any angle, including the water or the container it is in, as well as any power sources involved. (That would be the thermal definition of Unity or COP=1)


That also won't happen, let alone measuring for EM loss, EF loss, friction, hysteresis, or other potential forms of energy loss or conversion not accounted for in the factoring as well.


Even if they did all of those things, the question still remains of whether the method used has any real efficiency for increasing the rate of vibration of water molecules (heating water). If any technique is more efficient than merely bashing water molecules with brute force, then the testing method for efficiency is still invalid.


It is time people start calling the BS card.


Paul Andrulis






Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #311 on: January 26, 2022, 10:07:07 PM »
Disks and rim mass wheels are used to store motion, so it is important to know how they store it.

The moment of inertia for a rim (or ring) is mr²; and for a disk it is 1/2mr².  So is a disk, with the same mass and radius, twice as easy to rotate as a rim?

The word inertia implies that The Moment of Inertia has something to do with the difficult of moving the object; or how much force needs to be applied to accelerate the object.
 
 Also, it should be noted that the r in 1/2mr² is the r of the outside circumference, it is not a new r.

For a rim and a disk of the same mass the m is the same. So, the r is the same and the m is the same in 1/2mr² for the disk, and mr² for the rim.

So, the formula is clearly saying that a disk is ½ as difficult to rotate as a rim. So, at the same rate of angular acceleration the mass of the disk is applying half of the inertia; which means the mass is being accelerated half as fast; which means that the average position of the mass is half the distance to the circumference.  Or the mass is at ½ r.

But is the average mass of a disk at ½ r?

The disk with its circumference at ½ r has 1/4th the mass of the disk with a radius of r. So, 3/4th of the mass of the disk is beyond ½ r.

Plus, this 3/4th mass is in a position to have a greater portion of the velocity because it is closer to the circumference.

I do not think that if you apply the same force to a disk that it will accelerate twice as fast as an equal mass rim. What does this video show?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsKIPa4Fnfo

Floor

  • Guest
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #312 on: January 27, 2022, 02:57:07 AM »
What do we mean by faster ?

Rotations per unit of time ?
          or
The numbers of some unit of length around the circumference, that pass a
given point per revolution ?

Given that the disk and the rim have the same r

 No real real world, rim has zero thickness toward the center of rotation.
     Its mass is not concentrated in an imaginary line.  Although as a model we
     may consider it as such.

A wheel driven from near its center is a lever.  The greater the radius of the
   rim in relationship to radius at which the wheel is driven, the greater is the leverage. 
   
The leverage here in, is considered as acting against the resistance to acceleration solely.

Levers trade off, force for distance or distance for force.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
The mass around a wheel which is being accelerated has, differing amounts of
       leverage being applied to it depending upon the r at which that mass is
       located (average).

 Like wise is the        resistance to acceleration     against the applied force
       of a band of mass at a leverage (r), due to
                                 both
     the mass (average) and the leverage factor r.

This is Newton's equal and opposite, acting force and resisting force.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

A given mass has the resistance to acceleration that it has against a given force
period. 

When that force is applied to a lever and from thence to the mass, it does not
change the force needed to accelerate that mass.  It changes the force applied.
... ... ... ... ...
A given mass has the resistance to acceleration that it has against a given force
period. 

When the     resistance of a mass to acceleration      is applied to a lever and from
thence to the accelerating force, it does not change the force needed to accelerate
that mass.  It changes the    force (reactive force)   of that resitance to the applied force.

"I do not think that if you apply the same force to a disk that it will accelerate twice
as fast as an equal mass rim."   

Incomplete statement.  i.e. force is applied at what r ?
                     and
                   Do both the rim and the disk have the same diameter ?
                                     
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 06:22:17 AM by Floor »

Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #313 on: January 27, 2022, 03:34:59 AM »
1/2mr² is a claim that the disk has ½ as much resistance to motion as a hoop; and should therefore accelerate down the ramp twice as fast. If the disk is rotating down the ramp twice as fast, then it should cover twice the distance in the same period of time. The disk should reach the end of the ramp when the hoop is only halfway down the ramp.

The experiment shows that the disk is harder to rotate than 1/2mr² predicts.

Floor

  • Guest
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #314 on: January 27, 2022, 05:58:52 AM »
OK, I was looking primarily at why the mass s cancel out.



" The experiment shows that the disk is harder to rotate than 1/2mr² predicts. "



I don't know why with complete certainty but I think it is that...

No real world rim,  has zero thickness from the circumference, toward the center of rotation.

Its mass is not concentrated in an imaginary line.  Although as a model we
may consider it as such.