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 109192 times)

Offline Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #360 on: September 12, 2022, 12:47:26 AM »

thank you Tarsier

good demonstration .


Levins last sentence..not payed attention to:


https://youtu.be/lvfzdibrUFA?t=817


I emphasize this because he made the same remark in a electro-physics lecture of induction. Induction very much resembles inertia.


I have to say that I am very grateful to Delburts effort of showing the Cyl. & Spheres system. It certainly was not easy to
analyse the NASA Despin correctly and do all the video-demonstration years ago.
This Cyl. & Spheres System is extraordinary and has a embedded working principle which is not easy to detect/ understand  and demonstrates that
energy is not conserved. It contains this plus-element NASA was hiding by blasting away the steel-balls at the most interesting point in time concealing the kinetic engergy of the balls


The lever-system is conventional physics and only shows energy-conservation.


The whip-System is another one I regard as suspicious but hard to repeat without complex measurement-equipment.


I myself concentrate my efforts on Cyl & Sphere System.




Mike


Offline Tarsier_79

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #361 on: September 12, 2022, 10:50:19 AM »
The cylinder and spheres is interesting. I have not looked at it in depth for a long time. IMO a better experiment needs to be done. I have not had the time or motivation yet to do one., and I have not seen one done the way I want to see one.

I would like to to see a measured input, a calculated kinetic total energy, a complete despin,  where the balls are released and their exit KE measured through distance traveled. Not an easy task to successfully test and accurately measure each step. For me it would be ideally on a fixed axle.

I look forward to seeing your tests.

Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #362 on: September 13, 2022, 04:08:01 AM »
A Beautiful and Engaging Investigation of Angular Motion! | Rotational Inertia Demonstrator - YouTube  This difference is not so monstrous     8.4 sec to 3.4 sec for an acceleration difference  of 1 to 6.1, which looks very close.

The closer you are to just overcoming the friction; the more friction affects the experiment. The slower the rotation or lower the rotational force, the greater the percent bearing friction plays upon the system. The friction can be significant.

You could conduct the experiment at the same rotational speed; and in that why frictional differences drop out. Such as placing 1/3 the mass at three times the distance. You can accelerate 1/3 the mass at 3 times the distance and it will rotate at the same rate. 

You both ignored the negation of your math. The radii ratio of the small ‘torque’ pulley and the near inertia position can equal the radii ratio of the large pulley to the long inertia position.

But when you move from the small inertia position (15 cm) to 3 times that radius; then the inertia for r² is 9 times as great.  You can multiply the force by moving the applied torque to the large radius pulley position but that only gets you to three times harder to move.

Let put this in an algebraic description: the small pulley is 2 cm and the large pulley is 6 cm. the small inertia position is at 15 cm on the rod and the large is at 45 cm.

You start with 2 cm / 15 cm ‘torque over inertia’ and end with 6 cm / 45 cm ‘torque over inertia’. But your r² says that 6 / 45 is three times harder to move than 2/ 15. This is impossible because they are the same numerical relationship between force and mass. This is a fatal math error, you can not brush this aside.

If you put the mass at 5 cm it allegedly would be 9 times easier to move; and you could move the applied torque to 2/3 cm. It would still be 3 times easier to move but you are back at the original ratios of radii. This 2/3 cm / 5 cm  should not accelerate 3 times faster:  2/3 cm / 5 cm, 2 cm / 15 cm, and 6 cm / 45 cm should all have the same acceleration.

Tarsier quote: 1 newton meter of torque is 1 newton of force at 1 meter, or its equivalent regardless of the radius it is applied. 2 newtons at 1/2 meter etc. It doesn't care if there is very little resistance or very much.


‘It doesn't care if there is very little resistance or very much.”


This simply is not true; If you are tightening a lug nut and it is moving freely, the torque wrench reads zero. Only when the nut tightens against the rim is any torque applied. And the resistance always equals the torque. 

Offline Tarsier_79

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #363 on: September 13, 2022, 09:23:24 AM »
Quote
The radii ratio of the small ‘torque’ pulley and the near inertia position can equal the radii ratio of the large pulley to the long inertia position.

That is a good point. It is a pity that wasn't shown.


Quote
This simply is not true; If you are tightening a lug nut and it is moving freely, the torque wrench reads zero. Only when the nut tightens against the rim is any torque applied. And the resistance always equals the torque. 

If a constant torque is applied to a free spinning nut, it will spin very fast. Like what happens to a wheel nut with a pneumatic hammer drill.

Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #364 on: September 14, 2022, 03:47:41 AM »
You have a one meter low mass tube that has 2 kg attached to one end and 5 kg attached at 30 cm from the other end. The tube is moving sideways at 3 m/sec so that both the 2 kg and 5 kg masses are moving at the same speed (3 m/sec). 

The tube is caught on the end near the 5 kg. The tube’s end is then on a bearing and the tube is forced to rotate. The 5 kg now has a 30 cm radius, and the 2 kg has a 100 cm radius.

Where is the center of mass and what is its speed?

Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #365 on: September 15, 2022, 07:44:23 PM »
From experiments like the hammer or tennis racket toss; the center of mass is the point on the object that travels at the same speed even while the object is put in rotation. The tube is put in rotation by catching its end.

The center of mass of the tube, with a mass of 5 kg at 30 cm and a 2 kg mass at 100 cm, is at 50 cm.    We assume the tube has no mass; for easier math.

So, with the center of mass at a 50 cm radius and moving 3 m/sec: then the 5 kg mass with a 30 cm radius would be moving 1.8 m/sec after the tube is caught on the end.

The 2 kg mass has a radius of 100 cm and therefore would be moving 100 cm / 50 cm * 3 m/sec = 6 m/sec.

After the tube is caught on the end: the 5 kg mass would be rotating faster that the 2 kg so it would have to transfer its motion to the 2kg so that they could rotate at the same rate. You could say that the 5 kg is placing torque on the 2 kg. But for you the 2 kg is inertia and would be (2kg * 10 dm * 10 dm) / (5 kg * 3 dm) 200 / 15 harder to move. Then why does the 5 kg lose the same amount of momentum as the 2 kg gains.  5 kg * 3 m/sec = 15    5 kg * 1.8 m/sec = 9   15- 9 = 6   and 2 kg * 3 m/sec to 2 kg * 6 m/sec is also 6. The same thing is the same thing. It is not about torque and r² inertia it is about momentum.

The 5 kg’s momentum changes from 15 to 9 kg m/sec; and the 2 kg’s momentum changes from 6 to 12 kg m/sec.

The total initial momentum was 7 kg * 3 m/sec = 21 kg m/sec; and the final linear Newtonian momentum is   5 kg * 1.8 m + 2 kg * 6 m/sec = 21 kg m/sec.

Why does the 2 kg gain the same amount of momentum that the 5 kg loses when the 2 kg is allegedly 200 / 15 harder to move?

When you swing a baseball bat you place torque on it to accelerate it; but if you miss the ball then you place torque on the bat to decelerate it. So the application of torque does not have to be acceleration. Why would it not be legitimate to say that the 2 kg torques the 5 kg. Then the 5 kg would be the inertia and it would be 45 / 20 harder to move than the 2 kg.

Newton’s view is that the 5 kg pushes the 2 kg and the 2 kg pushes the 5 kg; and it all works out beautifully.  But your 200 / 15 and 45 / 20 has no math for a real-world event.

Offline Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #366 on: September 16, 2022, 01:41:18 AM »

Delburt,


[quoteyou have a one meter low mass tube that has 2 kg attached to one end and 5 kg attached at 30 cm from the other end.
The tube is moving sideways at 3 m/sec so that both the 2 kg and 5 kg masses are moving at the same speed (3 m/sec).


The tube is caught on the end near the 5 kg. The tube’s end is then on a bearing and the tube is forced to rotate.
The 5 kg now has a 30 cm radius, and the 2 kg has a 100 cm radius.
Quote


You need to be consistent with your arguments. You changed systematics.


We talk about intertia torque which  means angular acceleration of masses at a distance from its center of rotation.
We accelerate by applying torque on the axis. Here we experience moment of inertia ( m*r² ) of the masses to be accelerated


Your last example describes a bar with two weights at different position from a center bearing which moves translational then
hits an obstacle and then at almost the same instant is suddenly connected to a bearing around which it rotates.


1) you changed systematics by describing the conversion of a translational moving system to a rotational one.
2) the transition between both systems is irrational in regard to a practical solution


Since there is no practical solution to this transition you need to change the system as follows:


The bar is mounted on the bearing which is fixed to the ground of the earth and another mass with the same mass as the earth hits the system a one end at 3m/s.


Got the point ?


The same irrationality


If we design a system like this which accellerates a rotational system at rest by applying a force ( translational[/font][/size] moving mass M hits the system) at a point on the circumference where the mass is,
then we have inertia of the mass involved and not moment of inertia. The masses then rotate freely at the final speed by translational[/font][/size] acceleration multiplied[/font][/size] [/size]by[/font][/size] the time of physical impact leaving again the system without torque.


Wasn't the topic "pure rotational systems set in motion by angular acceleration" ?


Suddenly we are a lost in a discussion caused by the compulsion to find another counter-argument to defend a claim of creating OU.


Mike


Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #367 on: September 16, 2022, 03:42:55 AM »
It is not irrational and in fact it is deadly simple; and the solution is given.

You could place objects on a cart and drive the cart up against a wall. Fix one end of an object to the edge of the cart. You could test and see if the linear speed of the center of mass of your chosen shapes proceeds at the same rotational speed. You would need a means of reducing friction.

And this event of the tube mentioned does not conserve energy; so, I guess it is a third way of making energy
 

Offline Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #368 on: September 20, 2022, 12:44:25 AM »
No,


there are to cases to be considered:


1) elastic impact


2) no elastic impact


3) premise:
    configuration must be symmetric, i.e. two identical masses attached to the edge- better to 2 bearings on a shaft on two levels ( one above the
    other) , shaft mounted in the mass-center of the car.


ad 1)
[size=78%]
[/size]
car will be repelled -> situation develops into chaotic behaviour , behaviour can not be predicted because of timing difference between angular accelleration of the the masses on the edge and the time lapsed during repelling of the car.




ad 2)


momentum of the car will be used up by deformation of the wall and the car ( molecular destruction and heat) . Only initial momentum of the objects attached to the edge of the car is left. No gain possible




Mike

Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #369 on: September 26, 2022, 04:13:36 PM »
Suppose you were to swing a rod from a 20 meter string as in a physical pendulum. The end of a 1 meter rod is attached to the end of the 20 meter string. Thirty cm down from the attachment of the rod is a 5 kg mass fixed to the rod. And 100 cm down from the string attachment is a 2 kg mass fixed to the rod.

This 20.5 meter pendulum is swung into a pin at the down swing position. The pin is at the point of the attachment of the rod to the 20 meter string.

If the speed of the center of mass of the rod is 1 m/sec before contact with the pin at the downswing position: then what it the speed of the center of mass after contact with the pin?

Offline Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #370 on: September 30, 2022, 12:47:12 AM »



Premise of 20.5 m Pendulum-Length ( center of mass ) is not correct. According to my calculation center of mass is at 20.58 m


When the top of the 1 m rod hits the pin the rim-velocity ( at 20.58 m radius)  of the center of mass stays the same at the moment of impact.
The angular velocity of the 20.58 m long pendulum however is suddenly increased at the time of impact because angular momentum must be conserved  as the radius of rotation is reduced by 20 meters


Shortly after impact however deceleration of the center of mass takes place as it climbs up against 9.81 m/s² gravitational acceleration ( better deceleration) until all momentum is compensated.
I dont do the math but it might happen that the short pendulum loops past the top position ( at 12 o 'clock ) ccw-wise and then the behaviour is not
predictable .
I do not see any gain here...standart phisics...the plus-element of the Cyl & spheres experiment is missing


Mike


Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #371 on: September 30, 2022, 03:17:18 AM »
Well; do the math, angular momentum, cannot remain the same if the velocity of the center of mass remains the same. The velocity of the downswing tells us all we need to know.

The energy cannot remain the same either.  What you wish to happen simply doesn't. We are not talking about the 'cylinder and sphere' we are proving that energy can be made in the lab.

Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #372 on: September 30, 2022, 08:04:25 PM »
Would you like to show your math for the 20.58? 

The center of mass is 20 cm from the 5 kg and 50 cm from the 2 kg. The 5 kg is 30 cm from the point of rotation which leaves the center of mass at 50 cm from the pin.

Angular momentum is linear velocity time radius. When the radius is changed from 20.5 m to .5 m, and linear velocity remains the same (as you state) then angular momentum cannot remain the same.

A mass moving 1 m/sec can only rise .051 meters. So we can identify the original velocity.

The momentum is not (compensated ???); it come back every swing.

You keep pretending that energy is conserved, but it never is. Only when no experiment is conducted or with magic friends; is energy conserved. 

Offline Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #373 on: October 01, 2022, 02:12:27 AM »

your quote
Quote
When the radius is changed from 20.5 m to .5 m, and linear velocity remains the same (as you state) then angular momentum cannot remain the same.
Quote


increased angular momentum is caused by increased angular velocity ( mass is unchanged)


thats what I said:


my quote
Quote
The angular velocity of the 20.58 m long pendulum however is suddenly increased at the time of impact because angular momentum must be conserved  as the radius of rotation is reduced by 20 meters"[/size]
Quote


I am sorry for not showing my math...as I have a very serious flue and my eyes are very much affected.
Promise, I will first recheck it and then post it later


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6PuutIm5h4


since the value of the moment of inertia is smaller ( arms tight to the body) , the angular velocity increases and thus the value of angular momentum
stays the same.


Quote
You keep pretending that energy is conserved
Quote


No, I just can not see it in this setup. The total moving mass of the guy sitting on the chair does not change and his main body-structure
still co-rotates with his arms and hammers


There is no full momentum-transfer from the big to the small masses as in the cyl and the spheres ( this is crucial !!! ). In the cyl and the spheres you need to step in at maximum speed of the small mass and seperate it when the big mass stops. If you dont do this the momentum flips back and forth between the big and the small mass until friction brings it to and end- momentum is used up - Your movies show this


Mike

Offline Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #374 on: October 01, 2022, 03:16:50 AM »
Look it up; it is not angular velocity it is linear velocity; you can’t make up your own formula.

People in spinning chairs are not experiments; you have no idea of the distribution of mass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sptVeNr_MpQ


Yes, when the spheres secure all the motion from the cylinder they must be released. 

The center of mass between 5 kg and 2 kg: separated by 70 cm; is 20 cm from the 5 kg, and 50 cm from the 2 kg. Not 28 cm from the 5 kg.