Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: hartiberlin on May 06, 2005, 03:05:01 AM
-
Hi All,
please have a look at this:
http://faraday.physics.uiowa.edu/mech/1D15.50.htm
Movie :
http://faraday.physics.uiowa.edu/movies/MPEG/1d15.50.mpg
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.
-
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:
[/url]http://faraday.physics.uiowa.edu/mech/1D15.50.htm[/url]
Movie :
[url]http://faraday.physics.uiowa.edu/movies/MPEG/1d15.50.mpg[url]
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yes, Paul,
but one ball is faster in the middle...
There must be a principle to use this difference in speed
or location.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
Where did the PE go if no dam?
Into KE in the form of heat.
Did it light Las Vegas?
No, the flowing water heated the environment.
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.
No, you do not understand.? Drawing more current creates a strong back-force on the generator. If the gasoline motor is to maintain the same rpm then it must increase the gas flow to generate more power.
The PE game from the gasoline.
Time IS energy!
Incorrect. I clarified all your above points.? Time is not in energy units.? In your dam example the energy came from the PE of the water.? In the gas motor it came from the PE in gas.
People, there are a few in the FE community that have a deep understanding of physics.? IMHO they are our only hope to success.? As for the rest, please do every one a favor and study.
Paul
-
Imagine that the 2 balls would be circle ball magnets.
Now the ball magnet which runs faster would be able to induce
bigger voltages in pickup coils.
Now we only need to find out, how also we don?t have
any drag back while the current in the coils flows.
If the faster magnet ball will have more drag back then all the
bigger voltage induction is also lost.
Regards, Stefan.
-
Now the ball magnet which runs faster would be able to induce bigger voltages in pickup coils.
The balls are traveling at the same speed.
-
No Paul,
the lower ball is travelling faster as it has more speed !
-
No Paul,
the lower ball is travelling faster as it has more speed !
I looked at frame by frame and measured it with calipers. They are traveling the SAME speed.
-
The water behind the dam goes nowhere unless you release it.
Does it really have PE then?
It certainly has no KE while held.
When you generate electricity by releasing it, it has KE and the PE is released.
If you hold it , there is only theoretical energy.
While releasing flow from dam, ENTIRE water of resevoir IS MOVING - just SLOWER per cross section.
All the dam changes is time/rate behind it.
If you burn a given amount of gasoline, you get a certain amount of heat.
Burn same amount in motor and get same heat plus rotation.
-
The water behind the dam goes nowhere unless you release it.
Does it really have PE then?
Yes.
It certainly has no KE while held.
Not on a macroscale. I have no idea where you are going with this but there is energy in all matter-- E = mc^2
When you generate electricity by releasing it, it has KE and the PE is released.
If you hold it , there is only theoretical energy.
Yes there is. It is called PE and it very real. It is a cause from the gravitational force pulling on the water. That is the PE.
While releasing flow from dam, ENTIRE water of resevoir IS MOVING - just SLOWER per cross section.
All the dam changes is time/rate behind it.
The energy does not come from the time dimension. By means of time the water may flow and generate energy. Just as by means of the ground / floor the water may flow over the ground and generate energy, but that does not mean the energy came from the floor. The energy did not come time. It came from the PE-- the distance and the force of gravity on the water.
If you burn a given amount of gasoline, you get a certain amount of heat.
Burn same amount in motor and get same heat plus rotation.
No offense but I can only suggest to you that you study a lot more. You are passing around incorrect information to people and that has a consequence. To clarify your problem I hope you study this ->
If you burn the gas in motor and prohibit the motor from turning then the motor will get a lot hotter than if you allow the motor to turn. So right off the bat you are incorrect. When gas burns in a motor, the cylinder chamber volume expands by magnitudes. As you know, this is caused by the piston moving up and creating more volume. In basic thermodynamics they clearly teach and should demonstrate that as gas expands it gets colder. Additionally, after the cylinder chamber has expanded to a certain degree, then the exhaust valves opens and the gas expands a lot more to escape and then the piston pushes the rest of the remaining gas out of the chamber.
Truly I hope that helps in some way, eventually.
Sincerely,
Paul
-
You look at this one. I hope it make more clear!
http://www.hcrs.at/VIDEOS/KUGELA.MPG
-
Dear rensseak,
Thanks for posting that. I hope Stefan will now see that both balls are moving the same speed at the end.
Sincerely,
Paul
-
But the way through the hollow is longer and nevertheless the ball is faster at the aim. :o
-
But the way through the hollow is longer and nevertheless the ball is faster at the aim. :o
That video just confirms it.? All that matters is the ball travels at same speed while at the same height.? The ball is faster when it falls because it gains KE but loses PE.? To loop it then the ball needs to end at the same height it started.? So when the ball goes back up it loses its KE and gains back the PE resulting in ~same velocity.
Sorry, no FE or OU.? This is as clear as it gets in physics.? For the people who cannot get this either need to seriously seriously study basic physics or I say you are trying to cause noise in the FE community to distract and delay any possible legitimate FE machine.
-
For me it seems that the Ball with longer way is accumulating the gravity, thats why he is faster at the end.
So what is wrong with it? If you build it so that both balls are at same time at the end one ball will be in higher position. And if you repeat it, slowly one ball comes further more highly.
-
Dear rensseak,
Thanks for posting that. I hope Stefan will now see that both balls are moving the same speed at the end.
Sincerely,
Paul
Yes, the same speed, but the first ball is first at the end, cause there is a time shift
won through the faster speed when it went down.
-
Yes, the same speed, but the first ball is first at the end, cause there is a time shift
won through the faster speed when it went down.
Right, but the other question is, why the ball dont lose the time shift again, against the gravitiy, when it went up?
rensseak
-
Well. it just is braked to the same speed again, but as it was already faster during one
time the offset of the location is still there.
Regards, Stefan.
-
The apparatus is very similar to Pendulums. The time between swing repetitions depends only on the length of the support cable / arm not the weight of the bob or the width of the swing. A longer cable / arm takes more time to repeat. The ball on the lower path is most like a shorter pendulum cable / arm because it dips more. I would be entertained by watching a rolling ball on a complex track with gently sloping upward end sections at the same height where the ball starting at the heigest part of the first end ramp would return and turn around several times on lower parts of the end ramps until losses were so much that it would not climb into the rend ramps. Eventually the ball will stop moving.
Aloha, Charlie
-
OK, here's my analysis: the 'faster' ball drops through the dip and turns PE into KE. In the return to its original track, the KE isn't turned completely back to PE. Why? it isn't returning to the same height as where it started. A net KE effect remains. Still, the KE gained through the initial drop has given it a 'head start', even though the distance travelled is greater due to the dip in the track. Now, how can this 'gain' in position be utilized? Overall speed has increased (mean speed), so there is a time factor that can be used.
It was rudely pointed out that both balls were travelling at the same speed when they exited the track. I will only concur when someone can do accurate measurement, not 'scientifically' looking at a low res video and making the 'call'.
I don't think this little device will give any more efficiency to anything unless it is used as part of another process. Maybe even water flow. However, I don't think it should be discarded because someone puts out an answer that is scientifically based, but not proven. Experiment with this one and see what happens.