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.
 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: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...  (Read 22230 times)

hartiberlin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 8123
2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« on: May 06, 2005, 03:05:01 AM »
Hi All,
please have a look at this:

Movie :

Please let me know, why the ball which goes lower is faster at the end
and leaves the slope faster.

Does it have more kinetic energy ?

Or is the ball on the upper slope just having more friction, so
it is slower at the exit ?

What do you think ?
As the balls have the same potential energy at the exit,
the kinetic energy should be equal regarding the energy laws...

Regards, Stefan.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2005, 05:26:15 AM by hartiberlin »

PaulLowrance

• Guest
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2005, 04:22:05 AM »
Dear Stefan,

It is not going faster.  Both balls end at the same speed.  I just used calipers to measure the velocity from frame to frame at the very end.  As far as I can tell on video they are traveling the same velocity in the end.  Of course if you had high speed measuring devices you'll notice a slight difference just because of friction differences in the fall and rise.

Traveling from Point A to Point B in a faster time does not require more energy.  The reason the front ball gets there faster is because it accelerates to a faster speed as it converts PE to KE. Therefore the ball is traveling at that higher speed for the entire length of the bottom part of the track.  Then it slows back to normal speed when it climbs back up the ramp as it converts KE back to PE.

Paul

Hi All,
please have a look at this:

Movie :

Please let me know, why the ball which goes lower is faster at the end
and leaves the slope faster.

Does it have more kinetic energy ?

Or is the ball on the upper slope just having more friction, so
it is slower at the exit ?

What do you think ?
As the balls have the same potential energy at the exit,
the kinetic energy should be equal regarding the energy laws...

Regards, Stefan.

terry5732

• Newbie
• Posts: 20
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2005, 06:33:02 AM »
The ball traveling the longer distance has a shorter(edit) SECOND  bounce in the movie i watched. And it would reason to have less energy as it had longer friction contact.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2005, 08:36:31 PM by terry5732 »

hartiberlin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 8123
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2005, 06:32:14 PM »
No, I watched the movie in single stepby step and it seems both bounce on the table at the same
distance from the ramp! Also somewhere in the article it was said, that with measuring with
carbon black paper you can actually see where they bounce onto the table and that the
distance is equal.

Now it seems, how can we use this principle that the one ball runs faster to generate
somehow a difference voltage ?
Maybe slowing the balls down ins some magnet-electromagnet arrays to induce a voltage ?
But then the faster one must already be  generating more voltage than the slower one
and somehow both must adds up and the balls must also be again accelerated from it...

Hmm...

Regards, Stefan.

PaulLowrance

• Guest
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2005, 07:16:02 PM »
Now it seems, how can we use this principle that the one ball runs faster to generate
somehow a difference voltage ?

Both balls are going the ~same speed at the end.

hartiberlin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 8123
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2005, 01:04:48 AM »
Yes, Paul,
but one ball is faster in the middle...
There must be a principle to use this difference in speed
or location.

kenbo0422

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 73
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2005, 03:32:54 AM »
I quite agree.  The end results are NOT the same.  Time is a factor.  One ball arrives ahead of the other.  Time seems to be the difference.  KE and PE being conserved with all due respect to conventional physics, but time is altered.  It may not be altered to that particular ball, but a change in time should be significant.  This kind of test is, in my opinion, is overlooked and explained away, even correctly, but a change in time should be explored unconventionally.  Isn't this where we are trying to look anyway?

terry5732

• Newbie
• Posts: 20
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2005, 03:57:54 AM »
Time IS a component of the formula for horsepower, therefore using that formula for energy comparison the ball arriving first has(edit-had) more? HORSEPOWER.

To argue otherwise would be to say horsepower isn't energy?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2005, 04:35:06 PM by terry5732 »

hartiberlin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 8123
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2005, 08:37:45 AM »
Hmm,
maybe not more horsepower, cause the kinetic and potential energy is equal with both ball
at the end of the ramp.
Only the time and location difference could be used somehow.
I wonder if some kind of see-saw could be used like the ball which is faster will
turn the lever faster up and thus lifting the other ball with it.
So how could we apply this to an infinite looping mechanismus ?
Any clever and smart ideas ?

Regards, Stefan.

PaulLowrance

• Guest
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2005, 03:59:55 PM »
I quite agree.  The end results are NOT the same.  Time is a factor.  One ball arrives ahead of the other.  Time seems to be the difference.  KE and PE being conserved with all due respect to conventional physics, but time is altered.  It may not be altered to that particular ball, but a change in time should be significant.  This kind of test is, in my opinion, is overlooked and explained away, even correctly, but a change in time should be explored unconventionally.  Isn't this where we are trying to look anyway?

I already addressed this.  Classical physics has never stated it takes more energy to get to a destination in a shorter amount of time.  The ball falls downward and converts PE, from height, to KE, in the form of velocity.  This makes the ball travel at a higher speed for a longer period of time.  Then the ball moves upward and converts KE, from velocity, back into PE, in the form of height.

There is NO OU or FE!

No offense intended, but I am baffled why this is so difficult to understand.

Sincerely,
Paul

kenbo0422

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 73
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2005, 02:07:24 PM »
Paul said:  I already addressed this.  Classical physics has never stated it takes more energy to get to a destination in a shorter amount of time.  The ball falls downward and converts PE, from height, to KE, in the form of velocity.  This makes the ball travel at a higher speed for a longer period of time.  Then the ball moves upward and converts KE, from velocity, back into PE, in the form of height.

There is NO OU or FE!

Then again Paul, classic physics sees it, but seems to ignore the time difference.  I think its because they don't know what to do with it.  Isn't that why we're trying to be a little bit more unconventional?      I read an interesting article, the results of a survey inside a large corporation.  They categorized the number of inventions and patents they claimed and used by the education of the people involved (this was one aspect). By far, the less education they person had, the more inventions and patentable ideas were brought out.  My point being, conventional physics and especially the PhD's who teach it and maintain it, are less the thinkers than the average person.  They have been taught how to think by the institutions of higher education, and in many cases they won't stray from that way of thinking because they have to keep a job.

The point of this is I really believe this and many other ideas presented on these pages are things that were passed over with quick explanations of logical physics and not pondered long enough.   The difference in time with the two balls may present a really big problem in trying to utilize it, but maybe a year or two down the road someone will have a bright light go one inside their head and something will come of it.  I think that your pointing out the physics aspect of this simple experiment is vital, but using that as a base, lets delve into the things that aren't being thought of.

This was pretty much my point, not intending to put you or anyone else down.  I just think that there is more to the simple things than what is first apparent.

PaulLowrance

• Guest
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2005, 04:07:48 PM »
Dear kenbo0422,

And how do you propose to get energy from time?  If you know for certain then you should get Nobel prize.

Let's analyze this and ignore friction losses for sake of simplicity. As you know, the two balls have the same velocity while at the same height.  Both balls always have the same energy though.  The ball that falls has more KE but less PE.  So the end results in two balls with same velocity but one ball is farther ahead.  So then I ask you at what difference does it make if the ball is in a different locaiton?  So what if one ball is in New York and one ball is in Los Angeles.  So what?  Are you suggesting that one point in space at the same height from Earth has more energy than another point in space?

I hope people see this before it turns into another intentional distraction such as the SMOT or RV.

Sincerely,
Paul

Paul said:  I already addressed this.  Classical physics has never stated it takes more energy to get to a destination in a shorter amount of time.  The ball falls downward and converts PE, from height, to KE, in the form of velocity.  This makes the ball travel at a higher speed for a longer period of time.  Then the ball moves upward and converts KE, from velocity, back into PE, in the form of height.

There is NO OU or FE!

Then again Paul, classic physics sees it, but seems to ignore the time difference.  I think its because they don't know what to do with it.  Isn't that why we're trying to be a little bit more unconventional?      I read an interesting article, the results of a survey inside a large corporation.  They categorized the number of inventions and patents they claimed and used by the education of the people involved (this was one aspect). By far, the less education they person had, the more inventions and patentable ideas were brought out.  My point being, conventional physics and especially the PhD's who teach it and maintain it, are less the thinkers than the average person.  They have been taught how to think by the institutions of higher education, and in many cases they won't stray from that way of thinking because they have to keep a job.

The point of this is I really believe this and many other ideas presented on these pages are things that were passed over with quick explanations of logical physics and not pondered long enough.   The difference in time with the two balls may present a really big problem in trying to utilize it, but maybe a year or two down the road someone will have a bright light go one inside their head and something will come of it.  I think that your pointing out the physics aspect of this simple experiment is vital, but using that as a base, lets delve into the things that aren't being thought of.

This was pretty much my point, not intending to put you or anyone else down.  I just think that there is more to the simple things than what is first apparent.

terry5732

• Newbie
• Posts: 20
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2005, 04:31:24 PM »
Dear kenbo0422,

And how do you propose to get energy from time?? If you know for certain then you should get Nobel prize.

A river originates in the mountains.
You put a dam on the river.
You generate electricity from the held water.
The water continues to the sea.
You have created power from time!

PaulLowrance

• Guest
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2005, 04:34:19 PM »
A river originates in the mountains.
You put a dam on the river.
You generate electricity from the held water.
The water continues to the sea.
You have created power from time!

LOL, no you didn't.  The energy came from the PE in the water.

terry5732

• Newbie
• Posts: 20
Re: 2 Balls on slope, one is faster...
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2005, 07:00:31 PM »
Where did the PE go if no dam?

Did it light Las Vegas?

By your reasoning Paul:

Say a 5 HP gasoline engine turning a generator.
Drawing a larger current off the generator cools the motor?
After all , the PE must come from somewhere.

Time IS energy!
« Last Edit: May 11, 2005, 07:25:57 PM by terry5732 »