ok, looks like I misunderstood this.


Did you test springs in practical setups ? I did, but there are certain problems which can not mechanically be solved . one problem is the almost unbelievable acceleration a spring is able to produce upon being released. It can reach 330 m/s² and more which means that mechanically it is almost
impossible to construct a release-mechanism which is fast enough to get out of the way of the accelerating spring. Most of  the momentum
is eaten up by the inertia of the mechanism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V08J3joavk


Anyway...yes I saw your double yo-yo despin. In my small flywheel I saw the ransfer of momentum more than  3 times ( back and forth between
big and small mass) It must do so because the small mass stays connected.


Mike

A momentum transfer does however occur in a cylinder and spheres. The momentum of the large mass transfers to the small mass.  Did you see this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaUmzekdxTQ  It transfers the motion twice.

This was a very important experiment, that not only demonstrates the conservation of momentum, but when performed on board Space Lab, helped NASA solve the problem of what happens when a tethered object can affect the motion of a space craft when the two have different relative velocities.

...wait until after the Gozilla-scene:....


momentum-transfer in plain sight


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vuVrGrdg0qo


Mike

An energy producing experiment is found in ‘figure 7’ in http://www.gyroscopes.org/masstran.asp. The title “mass transfer Laithwaite W.R.C. Dawson” A SYSTEM FOR THE TRANSFER OF MASS DERIVED FROM
THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM’ indicates that they expect momentum to be conserved by the masses transferring motion in figure 7.

From the overhead view the masses are initially moving up and down. The momentum to be shared with the center block is ‘both masses time their speed’. If the center block has the same mass as the two pucks then the mass in motion will be twice as much.

When the mass is twice as much, and the momentum remains the same, then the velocity must drop to one half. At half the velocity the energy is half. So, the system in figure 7 has half the energy when the puck masses are fully extended up and down and the center block has half the momentum.

But from the position of full extension the masses come back around to the left. Their velocity times their mass is the same as their initial momentum. The center block is again stopped, and the energy of the extended masses is recovered in the left spring. That recovered energy is said to be the same as the initial energy. 

You could start the experiment where the small masses are fully extended, and the block is in motion. From this half energy position, you can go to the full energy position and double your energy per cycle. This is very significant because it proves that the law of conservation of energy is false, and that energy can be made in the lab.

So, why do debunkers of perpetual motion not sight experiments like this; but they would rather sight known frauds.

Starting at the half point, you would have to input half of the final energy to increase the momentum enough to reach the final state, but only if it was in motion.
From a state of 0 momentum: the full energy is required from half to final state transition

The “ideal case” is a boomerang.
It returns with close to 99% of its initial energy.


This is because of its shape and the angular momentum.
Air pressure is different in the top than the bottom
And also the angle gives it additional torque on top of the ‘throw’


This gives it lift and conservation of energy.
Gravity, being a conservative field, returned all of that to it.
The >1% loss is from wind resistance, which can be reduced further with wax


The end result when it hits you in the head…
Is almost exactly the same momentum you imparted when you threw it


Which is your body mass + the mass of the weapon * velocity

You have to admit to yourself that you do not know what the velocity of the block is going to be; you have never seen data for such an experiment. But there are some really good clues.

It is experimentally proven that a small mass cannot give its kinetic energy to a larger mass. When a small mass interacts with a larger mass a large quantity of kinetic energy disappears from motion. You pretend that this motion lost in collisions is lost to heat; but no matter where it goes you cannot get it back.

In ‘figure 7’ can the energy reduce to half in the middle of the experiment and then come back again at the end of the experiment. There is not mechanism for this to occur.

I agree that the energy at the beginning and end of the experiment are the same. But this is a consequence of the momentum being conserved not a consequence of energy being conserved.

So now I have a question for you. A 1000 kg Mercedes is moving north, at 35 m/sec, on interstate 75; and a 1000 kg Mercedes is moving south at 35 m/sec on the same interstate. What is the momentum of the system?

You could divide ‘figure 7’ in half horizontally and let the block become a linear bearing. The puck moving up would accelerate the bearing to the right until full extension. Then the puck would accelerate the bearing to the left until the bearing stopped. While in motion the bearing would have a portion of the puck's initial momentum. While the bearing is being stopped the momentum is given back to the puck. This allows the initial momentum to be equal to the final momentum. This would mean that the velocity is the same and the kinetic energy would be the same.

But if you use this same bearing arrangement and try to conserve energy you will find the about ½ of the energy disappears in the middle of the experiment. And there is no way to get it back.

Energy is not a conserved quantity, and this fact is worth several trillion dollars. I do not know if ‘figure 7’ is a thought experiment or if Laithwaite did an experiment like it. I know that he was an experimental scientist. And I also know that the 'cylinder and spheres' do this very thing. 

A common misinterpretation of the cylinder w spheres
Is to measure the rotational velocity of cylinder
and try to apply that velocity to the spheres, at a greater radius


This is not what occurs


The spheres lag behind, as depicted in the arc of the strings