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

Custom Search

Author Topic: re: energy producing experiments  (Read 145812 times)

Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #405 on: January 14, 2023, 04:44:57 PM »
The false ‘law of conservation of energy’ is protected by four false axioms.

I. A spinning rim has no momentum.

II. If you tie a string on a moving mass it gives it more momentum.

III. A small mass can give its energy to a large mass.

IV. When the energy conservation math fails just claim there is heat loss.

Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #406 on: February 02, 2023, 06:04:07 PM »
I would suspect that at first angular momentum was done properly. In that the velocity was originally angular velocity not linear velocity. Then a mass with the same linear velocity that is in a smaller circle would have a greater angular velocity; this would be compensated for by the smaller radius. A mass in motion would have half the angular velocity in a double (double the radius) size circle. Triple the radius of the circle and (at the same linear speed) you reduce the angular velocity by 1/3. So L = m * v angular * r   is correct, and it could be conserved. After the concept received acceptance, someone switched angular velocity for linear velocity. No one objected and the concept became false.

You can see the fallacy of the concept when they can find the angular momentum of a mass moving in a straight line. And down the road of fantasy land they went, and they have never come back. 

A pulley changes the direction of the force; so, all of the direction complaints are false. 

Remember the modified Atwood's. The mass that is being stopped is moving in a straight line and the released mass is moving in a straight line. The force direction is changed by the pulley.

Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #407 on: February 03, 2023, 04:27:51 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-7d66JscI8

Let’s look at the above experiment: 132 grams of spheres stopping and restarting a 1320 gram “cylinder and spheres”. When the spheres have all the motion their speed would be 10 times the speed of the rotating cylinder for Newtonian momentum conservation to be true; and 3.16 (square root of ten) times faster for Kinetic energy conservation. Of course, there is no such think as kinetic energy conservation so that puts your theory in jeopardy right away.
I have done frame by frame evaluations of the experiment and the starting speed for the cylinder is about 1.2 m/sec in rotation. This would be 1.320 kg * 1.2 m/sec = 1.584 kg m/sec. This momentum would need the application of 1.584 N applied for 1 sec. This quantity of force times time is contained in the spheres when they have all the motion; because the spheres can return all the motion back to the cylinder.  So 1.584 N applied to the .132 kg spheres for one second would give the spheres a velocity of: 1.584 N / .132 kg = 12 m/sec.
So 12 m/sec velocity is required for Newtonian Momentum conservation; and 3.797 m/sec (12 / square root of ten) is required for energy conservation.
Some falsely claim that Newtonian Physics does no work in a circle and we do not know the velocity of a wheel: it is always zero. This is totally false and is intended to keep you from knowing the truth.
A wheel or rim has a known mass that can be placed in dry ice. We can apply a known force to the rim for a known time.  F = ma; a = v/t So Ft = mv If we know F, t, and m we can find v.  mv is momentum so we can know the momentum of a wheel. Whoever tells you that we cannot know the momentum of a wheel is simple not telling you the truth.

You should ask yourself what is this person’s motive for telling you we cannot know the Newtonian momentum of a rim or wheel. Maybe it is because he does not want you to know that you can make energy from gravity. 

Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #408 on: April 01, 2023, 06:28:48 PM »
A conversation about mr² and mr

Wow: a lot of questions: I will try to organize the answers in a useful manner.

I don’t think you are going in blind (with an open mind) when your equation has R² and r². I think you have predetermined that if the data does not match your equation then the data is wrong. You do not present the alternate formula which would be mr. For you it is mr² and nothing else.
 
Are you sure that your reliance on symbolic formulas isn’t just a means by which you ignore the actual experiment? I think that is the case; the formulas are mr and mr² one is correct and the other is wrong.

But you have some good comments and a few good insights; so I will go through it again.

The beam apparatus can be seen on Home Science Tools; demonstration balance and weights.

The 13.7 g are hangers that are fixed to the beam; they can be adjusted to any location along the beam. The extra mass is hung from the hangers.

So, the original arrangement is two (one on each side) 13.7 g hangers slid up against the center pivot. The distance to their center of mass is 2 cm. The mass of the pivot and beam is not taken into account (assumed to be zero). At first the beam is balanced so placing a small amount of mass on either side will make the beam rotate clockwise or counterclockwise. A reasonable angular acceleration is just a few extra grams on one side. So, if I want to make the right side accelerate upward, I can place 1 gram on the left side. 

The 13.7 g hanger on the right side is then moved to 20 cm radius on the right side. According to mr that will make the right side 10 times harder to accelerate upwards.  According to mr² that will make the right side 100 times harder to accelerate upwards. 

If mr is correct, then the right side will be accelerated upward with (13.7 g * 10) +1 g placed at 2 cm on the left side.

If mr² is correct, then the right side will be accelerated upward with (13.7 g * 100) +1 g placed at 2 cm on the left side.

Internet def: “Moment of inertia also known as the angular mass or rotational inertia can be defined w.r.t. rotation axis, as a quantity that decides the amount of torque required for a desired angular acceleration or a property of a body due to which it resists angular acceleration.”

Okay: I choose an acceleration of .01 rad/sec². By moving the 13.7 g to 20 cm the resistance to angular acceleration (to .01 rad/sec²) has been multiplied by 10. This is proven by the FACT that the quantity of torque that is needed to make it rotate counterclockwise had to be increased by 10 times. (142 g at 2cm)

I thought I would do the experiment again just for fun. But this time I changed the mass at 2 cm and then balanced again by moving the 13.7 g out on the right side.

I placed (13.7 + 100 g + 50 g) 163.7 grams at 2 cm. So, this is an increase of 163.7/13.7 = 11.95. This can be balanced again by moving the 13.7 g on the right side out to (2 cm *11.95) 23.9 cm. So, the radius on the right side was increase by 11.95 times and the torque needed to make it again rotate counterclockwise at .01 rad/sec² had to be increase by 11.95 times.

I moved the 13.7 g out to a 23.9 cm radius, and it balance perfectly; by adding a gram or so to the left side it would again rotate .01 rad/sec² counterclockwise.

It is amazing to me that this mr² which is part and parcel to angular momentum had never been experimentally proven. And I can also understand how you have to keep obfuscating and promote mr² because you are part of the system.

Yes, I understand what is going on in the experiment and I don’t have to pretend that I don’t know. mr is the inertia of the mass and not mr²

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #409 on: April 01, 2023, 08:13:49 PM »
Do you have a working machine yet?

Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #410 on: April 02, 2023, 03:25:22 AM »
 Delburt Phend  youtube

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #411 on: April 04, 2023, 03:42:30 PM »
Delburt Phend  youtube


Yes i have watched your hand spun cylinder videos from years ago
I was just wondering, if after all these years,
If you have constructed any type of device that actually verifies your theory?


Or at least a valid test apparatus, which has a consistent initial force and acceleration
which is necessary to accurately perform this type of test?




sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #412 on: April 04, 2023, 04:21:42 PM »
The problem with doing it that way, you can only observe changes in location,
and a rotational reference with respect to the camera view
at intervals of your camera’s framerate:


This has no respect to initial force applied,
or even the direction of acceleration between frames
is it accelerating or decelerating when you count your first frame?
can you even know from that ad-hoc experiment?


The test must be repeatable, and performed with consistent launch every time
spinning by hand gives you no data.


Measuring the difference in rotation and difference in location gives some limited data,
but not enough to derive the energy of the system at any point in time.


further still, when under the influence of gravity, changes in the angle of the cylinder (off vertical) affect the forces imparted onto the system.
This is not accounted for anywhere in your mathematics.
Yet you claim your experimental results match with your faulty math.

Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #413 on: April 04, 2023, 05:53:11 PM »
Agree with sm0ky2;

I've looked at a few of the short videos, but all I see is added layers of complexity and interactivity of mass without clear claims let alone attempts to measure anything.
Added complexity compels at least equally increased clarity and accuracy.
Or does anyone disagree?

Can you state clearly what proposed principle you are intending to exploit, and how success thereof would be expressed in an experiment?

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #414 on: April 04, 2023, 06:21:37 PM »
Agree with sm0ky2;

I've looked at a few of the short videos, but all I see is added layers of complexity and interactivity of mass without clear claims let alone attempts to measure anything.
Added complexity compels at least equally increased clarity and accuracy.
Or does anyone disagree?

Can you state clearly what proposed principle you are intending to exploit, and how success thereof would be expressed in an experiment?


What this is:
Its’ a free falling representation of conservation of momentum, that was derived from the Atwood Machine, some time in the 60’s-70’s and passed through colleges as a thought experiment.
This was tested on board Space Lab by NASA in the 80’s and help confirm that momentum is indeed conserved, even in complex systems.


As for exploiting it? All i see are the claims in this thread, with no clear explanation of what exactly is being measured. When all variables are accounted for, momentum is conserved.


Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #415 on: April 04, 2023, 11:03:39 PM »
Correct momentum is conserved. Linear Newtonian momentum is conserved.
 
I posted several experiments because each tells us something; but lets use the 1320 g cylinder and spheres throwing 132 g spheres.
 
You can do a frame by frame evaluation the any of these experiments.

By counting the frames that it takes to move from one side of the black square to the other; we can determine that the cylinder is rotating about 1.2 m/sec. The cylinder throws the spheres out and at one point all of the motion is held by the spheres. At the point where the cylinder has stopped rotating the spheres start returning the rotational motion back to the cylinder. At the end of the experiment the cylinder is again moving about 1.2 m/sec.

1.2 m/sec * 1320 g = 1.584 kg m/sec of momentum

When the spheres have all the motion they too must have 1.584 kg m/sec of Newtonian momentum.

For the .132 kg sphere to have 1.584 units of momentum then they must be moving 12 m/sec. At 12 m/sec the spheres have ½ .132 kg * (12 m/sec)² = 9.5 joules of energy.

And the system started with .9504 joules.

So, these videos are the first machines that show energy being produced in the lab; and the concept is worth several trillion dollars.

By using this event and an Atwood's you can make free energy from gravity. 

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #416 on: April 05, 2023, 03:46:32 AM »
except that you lifted the mass of the cylinder, the strings; and both spheres to height h before you began.
Subtract that


sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #417 on: April 05, 2023, 03:48:11 AM »
Now consider that when you view the frame when the cylinder stops:
It is at an angle, the lower sphere is accelerating; the upper sphere is decelerating.
Your assumptions about the velocity of the two spheres is simply incorrect.


The only time during the experiment, when the spheres have the same velocity,
Is when the cylinder is perfectly vertical in the gravitational field.
at all other moments their acceleration is different, as is their velocity.


Which is why the microgravity tests were very important

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #418 on: April 05, 2023, 03:53:26 AM »
Another fallacy about the velocity of the spheres comes from the changing length of the string.
Here is an example of the correct mathematics:


https://youtu.be/G0RikmNonoU

Delburt Phend

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #419 on: April 05, 2023, 03:35:08 PM »
Anybody can do a mathy video but experiments tell the truth.

Increasing the length of your string does not change the momentum in the tiniest bit. Law of Levers proves angular momentum is false. Repeat the following experiment and you will see.

A pulley could have two radii: one radius at 2 cm and another at 20 cm. 1 kg suspended from the 20 cm radius balances 10 kg suspended from the 2 cm radius; this means that the sides have equal angular accelerated. An extra mass of 10 kg can accelerate 2 kg (one kg on each side) at the 20 cm radius just as easily as it would accelerate 20 kg (ten kg on each side) at the 2 cm radius.

This pulley can be used in an Atwood’s machine and you could place 10 kg on both sides of the 2 cm radius or you could place 1 kg on both sides at the 20 cm radius. These two arrangements would have the same angular acceleration.

An extra 10 kg accelerating another 20 kg all at the 2 cm position would be the same angular acceleration as an extra 10 kg at the 2 cm accelerating 2 kg at the 20 cm position.  I have done this type of experimentally many times.

Ten kilograms accelerating another 20 kg, all at the 2 cm position, would have a linear arc acceleration of 3.27 m/sec². After the suspended 10 kg has dropped 1 m all three 10 kg masses would be moving; d = ½ v²/a; 1 m = ½ v²/9.81 m/sec² = 2.557 m/sec. The angular acceleration would be the same for the 2 kg at the 20 cm position. So the two 1 kg masses at 20 cm radius would be moving 25.57 m/sec.

The energy input here is 10 kg dropped one meter: 9.81 N/ kg * 10 kg * 1 m = 98.1 joules.  A joule is a Nm

The energy of 2 kg moving 25.57 m/sec is ½ mv² = 654 joules. The 10 kg moving down at 2.557 m/sec is 32.7 joules. This is a total energy of 686.7 joules; 700% of the original energy used to make the motion.

700% of the original input energy.

There is a means of transferring the motion from the falling 10 kg and the spinning mass of the pulley for 1500%