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

Custom Search

### Author Topic: re: energy producing experiments  (Read 117203 times)

#### Belfior

• Hero Member
• Posts: 562
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #90 on: May 09, 2018, 12:04:16 PM »

The mass difference, of cylinder to sphere, is only about 3 to 1.There are not two spheres only one. Half the motion is on the other side of the center of mass still in the mass of the cylinder. The motion is complex.

All the motion comes from gravitational potential energy. The sphere’s tether gets very long, but the sphere is moving very fast.

If angular momentum is conserved the arc velocity of the sphere would become only .375 of the original speed of the rotating cylinder; because of the long radius. It is obvious that the sphere velocity is much higher. And the gravitationally source is not at the center of rotation: as is the situation in space.

For kinetic energy to be conserved the top velocity of the sphere would have an increase from only 1 to 1.73.

If momentum were to be conserved the velocity of the sphere would have an increase from 1 to 3. These higher speeds seem more apparent; especially since the sphere can stop and lift a falling cylinder.

One might ask why the sphere does not return the cylinder to the top starting position. Well the cylinder’s spinning first has to be stopped and that takes time. It takes time for the sphere to restart the spin of the cylinder in the opposite direction. And it would take time to bring the cylinder back up to another stopped position at the top. Going from stop to stop would take a ton of time. And in all of this time the cylinder is under gravitational acceleration.  It is amazing that the single sphere gets the cylinder as far back up as it does.

Sorry: that the release position is not in view; it starts just above the viewing area. There are two strings on the cylinder and the sphere is in the center.

I think these kinetic, gravitic, whatevertic ideas are a good thought experiment, but when you have your "analogy" figured out with the balls and strings then you want to convert that idea to something that is not diminished by air drag or friction. Humans think you want to go bigger and bigger, but the correct answer might be to go smaller and smaller. maybe even to molecular levels. If you got problems in transfering the energy back from molecular level then just heat water with it and use a turbine.

Even electricity has inertia so if your idea is kinetic, you might be able to do a solid state version of it.

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 201
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #91 on: May 19, 2018, 05:51:52 PM »

The reason this works is because you can apply the same quantity of force for different periods of time. You can apply the force for a short period of time on the side going up; and on the side going down you can apply the same force for a long period of time. This process will produce massive quantities of energy.

By throwing a mass up fast; you can pass units of distance that result in only minimal loss of momentum.  By changing the arrangement of the applied force (from the same mass); these passed units of distance can give you larger units of momentum on the way back down.  Momentum is a function of time.

An example for a one kilogram mass: The first meter of an upward throw of 100 meters only costs you .222 units of momentum. The same meter of drop on the way back down can give you 4.429 units of momentum. The speed of the upward throw of 100 meters; changes from only (square root of (100 m*2*9.81m/sec/sec) 44.294 m/sec to 44.0724 m/sec in the first meter up. But you get 4.429 units of momentum on each individual meter on the way back down.  You gain (4.429 -.222) 4.207 units of momentum.

It takes .4515 sec to drop one meter: that means you have applied the force for .4515 second.

If you are moving up at 100 meter per second you can cross 19 meters in .4515 second.

On the way back down ‘each’ of these 19 units of distance can be crossed in .4515 seconds; this is 18 more units of time from the same distance of 19 meters. Gravity does not make you pay for these 18 extra units of ‘time’ over which the force is applied.

In the kilowatt hour you are paying for each unit of time ‘of the applied force’; you won’t get 18 free units.  Gravity will apply the force for free.

#### broli

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2246
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #92 on: May 21, 2018, 12:08:21 AM »

What were the parameters of this experiment, the mass of the tube and ball? How come did the the tube start rotating when you let it go, was it weighted on one side? Did you calculate the amount of energy that was transferred between the two?

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 201
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #93 on: May 21, 2018, 10:57:47 PM »
Do not repeat this experiment.
Even after the sphere careens off of a well-padded floor; it then snaps a knot of a 65 pound test fluorocarbon fishing line; and then bounces off of a cardboard box and crosses back (above the viewing area) to the other side the room and hits the chair I had been sitting in.  This one might be unsafe; and all of the experiments have some danger.   The video is 1/8th speed.

We can predict the velocity of the sphere from the other experiments.

In several of the posted experiments the original rotational speed is returned to the cylinder and spheres “combination” at the end of the experiment. This means that the motion has to be maintained throughout the entire length of the experiment.

The ballistic pendulum proves that the small spheres can only give Linear Newtonian Momentum to the larger cylinder and spheres combination. Let’s look at the experiments that start with a spinning combination; that then move to the spheres having all the motion; and then back to a spinning combination. These experiments can only conserve Linear Newtonian Momentum; because half of the experiment is the same as a ballistic pendulum experiment. The motion of the small spheres is being transferred to a larger combined mass of the cylinder and spheres.

So the first half (of these motion conserving experiments) has to conserve Linear Newtonian Momentum as well; because that is where the spheres got there motion.  If the spheres can give it back then they must have received it.

This experiment is the first half of the motion returning experiments. And this experiment must conserve Linear Newtonian Momentum. All the Linear Newtonian Momentum of the spinning cylinder must be transferred to the sphere; with the exception of the pendulum movement of the cylinder and air resistance.

The cylinder is suspended from only one side by two strings. This causes the cylinder to rotate, unhindered, counterclockwise.  The string of the sphere is wrapped in the other direction. The sphere stays put until the cylinder rotates down to it. The input motion is the spinning cylinder; or the total distance dropped at the point where the cylinder is stopped.

The cylinder starts throwing the sphere as soon as contact is made. It takes a while to transfer all the motion to the sphere; but eventually the sphere has the cylinder stopped. The sphere even lifts the cylinder and counter rotates it a bit.

The cylinder has a mass of approximately 2700 grams; the sphere has a mass of 66 grams; about 40 to 1. If we attribute a fourth of the motion to the swinging cylinder: then that means the sphere is moving about 30 times faster than the cylinder was rotating.

This is a proportional kinetic energy increase of about ½ * 2.7 kg * 1 m/sec * 1 m/sec = 1.35 J; to   ½ * .066 kg * 30 m/sec *30 m/sec = 29.7 J     about 22 times.

If energy were to be conserved the sphere would be rotating about half as fast as the cylinder; how can you unwrap when you are rotating at .50 the rate of rotation. The sphere would have trouble unwrapping at the speeds required for energy conservation. And the experimenter would not be wearing a helmet for fear of getting thumped.

The experimenter can comfortable catch the spinning cylinder with his left arm; but the sphere could put you in the hospital or the funeral parlor.

#### broli

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2246
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #94 on: May 22, 2018, 12:53:27 AM »
If we attribute a fourth of the motion to the swinging cylinder: then that means the sphere is moving about 30 times faster than the cylinder was rotating.

Like you say "IF". however "if" is not based on any data you collected from your experiment. I agree your experiment does show a complete stop of the cylinder but nowhere have you measured the actual speeds involved in this experiment. I also agree with the fact that the total energy input is equal to the drop of the tube to where it comes to a complete stop but again, nowhere do you mention the exact height of where this happens relative to the starting height. You just assume the final speed of the sphere has conserved all the linear momentum of the cylinder and go on to explaining how much energy gain this gives you.
Please share the actual data of this experiment as it's hard to deduce from this video without having some calibration points. Or redo the experiment from a different point of view (looking directly into the tube) and adding a calibration stick perhaps at the front/rear of the view.

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 201
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #95 on: May 22, 2018, 02:52:33 AM »
I would say that the ballistic pendulum is a solid fact; and that only linear Newtonian momentum is conserved when a small object gives its motion to a larger object.

I would also say that, in several of these experiments, there is a complete restoration of the motion to the cylinder and spheres combination. If half of the experiment conserved linear Newtonian momentum then so also does the other half of the experiment. The same motion is maintained throughout.

The current experiment (a gravitational energy source) shows that these experiments are not condemned to avoid speed. High speeds a obtained easily; so much so, that some experiments are to be avoided.

#### broli

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2246
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #96 on: May 22, 2018, 11:39:20 AM »
You haven't answered the question at all, in fact you are encouraging me to not even experiment which is hilarious. Again I ask you, what is the measured final velocity of the sphere, what is the height difference of the dropped tube from where it's dropped to where it comes to a halt? If you do not have these numbers how can you make any statement about energy gain/loss?

#### broli

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2246
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #97 on: May 22, 2018, 01:23:05 PM »
Let's see I used your latest video and did some calculations from what I can roughly deduce from the video. It was interesting to see that even with the rough estimates the input energy is pretty much equal to the output energy. According to your statements the sphere has to be moving at much greater velocities for your theory to hold.

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 201
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #98 on: May 22, 2018, 10:47:25 PM »
I think you have calculated the average speed not the top speed.

As far as claiming the production of energy I will sight Issac Newton. When Newtonian momentum is conserved there is a massive increase in energy.

Please consider that someone (Newton, or Leibnitz, or a faulty use of Kepler) has to be right and someone else has to be wrong. There is going to be only one velocity. There are two or three equations under consideration and the same number will not satisfy more than one of these equations.  The three formulas are mv for Newtonian momentum: ½ mv² for kinetic energy: and mvr for angular momentum.

The Dawn Mission is a big throwing device so let’s use it; it is about a 400 to one ratio.

So: We have a 400 kilogram (399 kg cylinder + 1kg spheres) thin walled hollow cylinder. The cylinder is spinning in space with an arc velocity of 1 m/sec around the arc of the circle.  It can be stopped by two .5 kilogram spheres.

When the cylinder is stopped: what is the arc velocity of the spheres?

The choices are 400 m/sec. for mv;     20 m/sec. for 1/2mv²;     or 16 m/sec. for mvr.

There is the concept of verification; but there is also the concept of elimination. How close do we have to be to 400 to eliminate 20? This is not the introduction of a new concept that needs verification: it is picking which one of the three hundred year old concepts is actually applicable to the experiment.

I have experiments that consistently fell within a 5% error range. In one experiment I would make four runs to get four data points: of the four data points two were sometimes the same thousandth of a second (i.e. .643, .642, .640, .642.) But I would not risk my photo gates on a sphere that is a blur. I do not have the capacity to measure blurs. And this brings us back to 400, 20, and 16.

If in the Dawn Mission experiment we got 30 m/sec would you be content to eliminate 400 m/sec. But in the same way if you got 270 m/sec would you be happy to eliminate 20 m/sec and 16 m/sec?

I know for a fact that the two .5 kilograms spheres can return all the motion back to the 399 kilogram cylinder. You simply leave the spheres attached and all the motion returns to the cylinder. You can not do that with 20 units of momentum. It will take 400.

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 201
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #99 on: May 23, 2018, 12:51:32 AM »
Lets use Broli's chart to see how much momentum he has lost.

The drop is .5 meters. That is a final velocity of 3.13 m/sec.   The square root of (.5 m  * 2 * 9.81 m/sec/sec)

This gives us an input momentum of 2.7 kg * 3.13 m/sec = 8.451 units

Broli's chart has the final velocity of the sphere (.066 kg) at 20.56 m/sec.

That will give us a output momentum of 20.56 * .066 = 1.35 units.

That will give us 8.45 – 1.35 = 7.1 units of lost momentum.

Which means that 7.1 / 8.45 = 84% of the momentum is lost.

You can't possibly lose this much momentum. The Law of Conservation of Momentum (Newton's Three Laws of Motion) is the only motion law that actually stands up under real physical experiments.

I think these experiments can be conducted with only 5% loss of momentum; which gives you massive increases in energy.

#### broli

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2246
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #100 on: May 23, 2018, 09:04:38 AM »
You seem to be contradicting yourself. I'm gathering data from YOUR experiment. Even if I was accounting for half the velocity the final energy should at least be double of what I can deduce from your video. At around 7 sec the tube stops completely and the sphere makes a half turn from bottom to top, in fact your average speed argument does not hold as the speed stays fairly constant because it took around 11 frames for a 90 degree turn from 6 to 3 o'clock and then another 11 frames from 3 to 12 o'clock. In other words 22 frames for 180 degree turn.

This is all from your own video.

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 201
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #101 on: May 24, 2018, 10:59:14 AM »
But is there a portion in the 22 that is faster?

Is the cylinder moving a few mm per frame? Put that motion in the sphere and energy is way over.

#### broli

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2246
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #102 on: May 24, 2018, 02:11:24 PM »
But is there a portion in the 22 that is faster?

Is the cylinder moving a few mm per frame? Put that motion in the sphere and energy is way over.

You will always argue the contrary even if the slow motion was at 1 million fps, you'll argue the excess velocity will be hidden in between frames. If you cannot analytically show an excess of energy then what's the point of claiming there is one?

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 201
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #103 on: August 05, 2018, 03:39:39 AM »
It takes four frames to cross from one side of the black square to the other side; at the start and at the finish of the video. In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaUmzekdxTQ  If energy produced all that heat it would drop to 16 frames by the end of the video. It would be hard to mistake 4 for 16; energy is not conserved. There is no heat given off when the spheres restart the cylinder. Only Newtonian momentum is conserved.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3726
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #104 on: August 08, 2018, 05:14:22 PM »
It seems rather silly to make presumptionous acusations of some arbitrary energy
value, based on a partial (visual) analysis of only a small portion of the interactions
taking place. In short, you have yet to even identify all of your variables,
or present an accurate description of the momentum, or the changes in energy
throughout the system.

To make any definitive evaluation of what is going on, you must find a method of
gathering accurate real-time velocity data.
Of not only the cylinder, but each individual weight, and their support strings.
Who’s tension coefficient must also be taken into account.

https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Tension-in-Physics

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy

consistency of release (not by your hand) is essential.
not just height, and mechanism of release.
But also orientation - as release from different orientations around the circumference

there are pages of variables which are being ignored here
some are frivolous, while others can be shown to be rather significant
but they must be identified

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Accurate data, controlled variables, unbiased observation

there is a reason these things are important

if you are serious about investigating this device
then set up a ‘controlled’ experiment
and collect real data

your conclusion, in a way that reflects the results of experiment, rather than

the human self cannot make accurate measurement
because of the way our brains dilute the passage of time.
your physical state determines the length of the ‘second’ as you perceive it.
this experiment requires a tool to gather the data.
some way to accurately measure speed and distance, over time.

Video analysis CAN be a useful tool, but it has its limitations
and should not be considered an ‘accurate’ measurement device.
especially when all of the variables are not considered
i.e.: sample rate, processing speed (and relevant duty cycles),
playback speed, buffering delays, compression ratios,
angle and distances of observational perspective,
this is a simplified short-list, but you get the idea.

A lot of time an effort has been put into this
by its’ inventor, and by others following along.
it’s time to put away the crayons and put on your lab coats.