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 107929 times)

Offline Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 874
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: 75
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: 186
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: 75
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: 186
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: 186
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: 874
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: 186
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: 874
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