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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 514352
  • *Total Topics: 15304
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 6
  • *Total: 7

Author Topic: DESTROYING Energy  (Read 8621 times)

Offline EHT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2018, 06:25:42 AM »
Let me simplify this for you and the others, since my word experiment is somewhat confusing.

A good example in how COM (Conservation Of Mass) holds while COE (Conservation of Energy) is violated can be seen in transferring the momentum of a heavier mass to a lighter mass, according to KE = 0.5 * mv2.  It's known by top physicists that Newton's zeroth law is invalid.

A 5 kg mass moving 1 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 2.5J.  A 1 kg mass moving 5 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 12.5J

12.5J > 2.5J !!!  <------ Conservation of energy is violated when transferring the momentum of a heavier mass to a lighter mass, while the 5 units of momentum is conserved!

Gravock

The confusion here is that momentum is not a conserved quantity in this example. Momentum is mass x velocity and NOT the same as energy. You cannot transfer momentum and expect the same energy because they have different equations.

IF a 100% transfer of energy between the masses were to be effected, then it would result in the 1kg mass having a velocity of sqrt(5) m/sec - approx 2.236 m/sec

Mass 1kg. Energy=2.5J

V=sqrt(2E/m)
=sqrt(2 x 2.5/1)
=sqrt(5)
=2.236 m/sec

E=(mv*2)/2
= 1 x sqrt(5)^2/2
=5/2
=2.5J

Ask any "top physicist" (or just a "normal" physicist, for that matter) and they will tell you the same.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2018, 06:25:42 AM »

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2018, 07:28:29 AM »
The confusion here is that momentum is not a conserved quantity in this example. Momentum is mass x velocity and NOT the same as energy. You cannot transfer momentum and expect the same energy because they have different equations.

IF a 100% transfer of energy between the masses were to be effected, then it would result in the 1kg mass having a velocity of sqrt(5) m/sec - approx 2.236 m/sec

Mass 1kg. Energy=2.5J

V=sqrt(2E/m)
=sqrt(2 x 2.5/1)
=sqrt(5)
=2.236 m/sec

E=(mv*2)/2
= 1 x sqrt(5)^2/2
=5/2
=2.5J

Ask any "top physicist" (or just a "normal" physicist, for that matter) and they will tell you the same.

Where did I transfer momentum and received the same energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?  Where did I use the same equation for both the momentum and energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?  I used mass x velocity for momentum and 0.5 * mv2 for the kinetic energy!

5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity).  <-------  KE = 2.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity)   <-.------  KE = 12.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2

As you can clearly see, momentum is a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted was not a conserved quantity in my example!  Also, energy is not a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted that it is a conserved quantity in my example.

2.5J is not the same energy as 12.5J!  I never transferred momentum and expected the same energy in my example because I used different equations for the momentum and energy.

You're clearly trying to mislead the reader!

Gravock

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2018, 07:39:02 AM »
Where did I transfer momentum and received the same energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?  Where did I use the same equations for both the momentum and energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?  I used mass x velocity for momentum and 0.5 * mv2 for the kinetic energy!

5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity).  <-------  KE = 2.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity)   <-.------  KE = 12.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2

As you can see, momentum is a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted was not a conserved quantity in my example!

2.5J is not the same energy as 12.5J!  I never transferred momentum and expected the same energy in my example because I used different equations for the momentum and energy.

You're clearly trying to mislead the reader!

Gravock

Four false assertions by EHT in a single post!  This is an interesting pattern developing from EHT...ROFLMAO!!!!

Gravock

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2018, 07:39:02 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2018, 06:29:37 PM »
Four false assertions by EHT in a single post!  This is an interesting pattern developing from EHT...ROFLMAO!!!!

Gravock

....and EHT falls flat on his face like the Double Domino Effect (wait for it)!  Additional angle of the Reverse Domino Effect.

Gravock

Offline EHT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2018, 07:22:27 PM »
You're clearly trying to mislead the reader!
Gravock

I'd bet that the readers here are not as easily misled as you seem to think.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2018, 07:22:27 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2018, 07:32:27 PM »
I'd bet that the readers here are not as easily misled as you seem to think.

So, you have no scientific or mathematical rebuttal of my reply to support the four false assertions you made in your post?  If not, then this is evidence of you intentionally misleading the reader with false assertions and is proof of you being wrong!

Gravock 

Offline EHT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2018, 07:45:31 PM »

Have you built the testbed?
So to make sure I am understanding you correctly your assumption is that the input force for the second axis of rotation will be high, relatively speaking, due to the rotation of the flywheel AND that when you stop the input for the second axis of rotation the system will stop rotating in that second axis, correct?
My assumption would be that it would take as much input to stop the second axis of rotation as what was put in to create it.

Thank you for your interest, Webby.
I am in the process of building it. Rather than trying to use a manually spun-up flywheel, I intent to add a small motor and battery to maintain the flywheel at constant RPM. That way, I can run the unit continuously for a long period knowing that the flywheel inertia is constant.
Yes you understand correctly.
I know from previous experiments that rotation in the second axis ceases instantly upon removal of the actuating force. This is what got me interested in the idea in the first place;
The flywheels inertia acts like a brake on the second axis - a perfectly resistive load - but one that does NOT dissipate heat in the process of its braking.
This is the curious bit - there does not appear to be ANY reaction or transformation that could account for the expenditure of the energy.
I believe that complete proof would best be made by having a large motor doing the work of rotating the second axis and showing the power used to do so.
If, say, 500W were being used by the motor, and the motor was 90% efficient, then the only "output" from the device will be the 50W worth of heat resulting from the motors losses.
Of course, it would be better if we could make 450W APPEAR rather than disappear, but either event suffices to show contravention of the conservation law.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2018, 07:45:31 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #37 on: February 03, 2018, 07:49:00 PM »
I'd bet that the readers here are not as easily misled as you seem to think.

I couldn't have said it any better myself!  However, as can be seen from the comment to my post below by gsmsslsb, along with silence from the other readers, and your lack of scientific or mathematical rebuttal to my post, it's not in your favor!

Where did I transfer momentum and received the same energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?  Where did I use the same equation for both the momentum and energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?  I used mass x velocity for momentum and 0.5 * mv2 for the kinetic energy!

5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity).  <-------  KE = 2.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity)   <-.------  KE = 12.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2) 

As you can clearly see, momentum is a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted was not a conserved quantity in my example!  Also, energy is not a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted that it is a conserved quantity in my example.

2.5J is not the same energy as 12.5J!  I never transferred momentum and expected the same energy in my example because I used different equations for the momentum and energy.

You're clearly trying to mislead the reader!

Gravock

Thanks Gravlok
the above is good
Love it

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2018, 08:11:23 PM »
So if energy can be "destroyed" ie made to disappear without leaving a trace, then we can say for sure that we have a violation of the energy conservation law - at least one half of it. And if THAT is the case, then the other part of that law about "creating" energy is liable to be also just as breakable.

I have already shown mathematically how the "other part of that law about creating energy" in which you speak of isn't valid, and you throw one false assertion after another at it without any scientific or mathematical rebuttals!  If the COE (Conservation Of Energy) doesn't hold for creating energy as I have shown mathematically, then this gives support to your claims that the COE doesn't hold for destroying energy.  In addition to this, I have mathematically shown how transferring momentum from a lighter mass to a heavier mass will destroy energy.  The funny thing is, you are rejecting the very thing that gives support to your own claims!  ROFLMAO!!!

Gravock

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2018, 08:11:23 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3025
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #39 on: February 03, 2018, 08:20:59 PM »



D) 30 / .1225 = 244.897959
   (sqrt)244.897959 = 22.1313 rad/s -> 211.3383 RPM
     FAIL



Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #40 on: February 03, 2018, 08:26:25 PM »
Where did I transfer momentum and received the same energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?  Where did I use the same equation for both the momentum and energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?  I used mass x velocity for momentum and 0.5 * mv2 for the kinetic energy!

5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity).  <-------  KE = 2.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity)   <-.------  KE = 12.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2

As you can clearly see, momentum is a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted was not a conserved quantity in my example!  Also, energy is not a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted that it is a conserved quantity in my example.

2.5J is not the same energy as 12.5J!  I never transferred momentum and expected the same energy in my example because I used different equations for the momentum and energy.

You're clearly trying to mislead the reader!

Gravock

@Smoky,

I simplified what I was trying to originally convey and now it is Successful!!!

Gravock

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #40 on: February 03, 2018, 08:26:25 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline EHT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #41 on: February 03, 2018, 08:38:25 PM »
Where did I transfer momentum and received the same energy in my example as you have falsely asserted? 
I never asserted that. I simply showed how transferring momentum does NOT violate the energy conservation law.
Where did I use the same equation for both the momentum and energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?
I never asserted that either. What I said was that Momentum is mass x velocity and NOT the same as energy.
I used mass x velocity for momentum and 0.5 * mv2 for the kinetic energy!
Good work. Equations rock, don't they!
I never transferred momentum and expected the same energy in my example because I used different equations for the momentum and energy.
Using different equations for momentum and energy - wow! What a breakthrough.
Gravock

After your first unsuccessful attempt at showing the world how easily you can break the laws of physics, you shifted the focus to an example involving transfer of momentum instead of energy KNOWING that doing so would make it APPEAR that energy has not been conserved when in fact a true transfer of motion in this example MUST constitute an exchange of energy, not momentum.

Case closed.


Offline EHT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #42 on: February 03, 2018, 08:48:49 PM »
I have already shown mathematically how the "other part of that law about creating energy" in which you speak of isn't valid, and you throw one false assertion after another at it without any scientific or mathematical rebuttals!  If the COE (Conservation Of Energy) doesn't hold for creating energy as I have shown mathematically, then this gives support to your claims that the COE doesn't hold for destroying energy.  In addition to this, I have mathematically shown how transferring momentum from a lighter mass to a heavier mass will destroy energy.  The funny thing is, you are rejecting the very thing that gives support to your own claims!  ROFLMAO!!!
Gravock
Firstly, I have made no claims. Secondly, even if I did decide to do so, I would not need any of your "support", thank you.
Lastly, all the relevant math was in my rebuttal. If you want to argue, show me where it is wrong.

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #43 on: February 03, 2018, 08:56:51 PM »
The confusion here is that momentum is not a conserved quantity in this example.   <-----This is the false assertion you originally made

Please show how the momentum isn't a conserved quantity in this example:

A)  5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity).
B)  1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity).
 
Both A and B have 5 units of momentum, so you did make a false assertion that momentum isn't a conserved quantity in this example!

Gravock

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3260
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: DESTROYING Energy
« Reply #44 on: February 04, 2018, 06:35:55 AM »

After your first unsuccessful attempt at showing the world how easily you can break the laws of physics, you shifted the focus to an example involving transfer of momentum instead of energy KNOWING that doing so would make it APPEAR that energy has not been conserved when in fact a true transfer of motion in this example MUST constitute an exchange of energy, not momentum.

Case closed.

The kinetic energy of an object is related to its momentum by the equation:  Ek = P2 / 2m :  Where P is momentum and m is the mass of the body

5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity).  <-------  KE = 2.5J ( Ek = P2 / 2m)
1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity)   <-.------  KE = 12.5J ( Ek = P2 / 2m)

A transfer of momentum is an exchange of energy!

Case Closed!

Gravock

 

OneLink