Author Topic: A rolling cylinder and piezos (Read 9693 times)

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #15 on:** March 07, 2010, 04:13:56 AM »

Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on March 06, 2010, 10:49:48 AM

do you see the incline? the incline only has as much kinetic energy as the highest point over time, a longer incline means that the object will roll slower over time, it doesn't contain anymore kinetic energy than the very height of incline.

a height of 1 meter with a falling incline of 1 foot has the same kinetic energy as a height of 1 meter with an incline of 1 mile. the difference is the rate of fall over time. the rate of fall is divided up.

if an object falls at 1 Newton straight down from 3 meters up it will have the same kinetic equivalent of an object falling at an incline of 1 mile who's height started at 1 meter up.

a lot of people are fooled by this illusion of distance over time.

incorrect. the incline has NO kinetic energy. the incline doesn't move, and only objects in motion have kinetic energy...

incorrect. a height of 1 meter with a falling incline of 1 foot has zero kinetic energy.

now you are on track, only objects in motion have kinetic energy.

a lot of people make the same error you have made, please read a physics book.

Rapadura · « **Reply #16 on:** March 07, 2010, 04:49:03 AM »

Kinetic energy have no importance in this case. What is important to the piezos in this case is the weight of the rolling sphere or cylinder. The weight will determine the deformation.

onthecuttingedge2005 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 07, 2010, 05:20:47 AM »

Quote

incorrect. a height of 1 meter with a falling incline of 1 foot has zero kinetic energy.

wow, you actually changed my wording from the original post, you are not only a true retard you are a flagellant moron. which is another reason there is no perpetual anything. that 'you' could control that is! what are you going to do, generate thousands of megatons of energy from the satellite voyager to feed Earth's needs.

you need to rethink your shit because it ain't going to happen.

'all' energy is balanced out, do you care to bet on this wager?

rules of the bet, current data over rules none existent data!!!

Rapadura · « **Reply #18 on:** March 07, 2010, 05:45:52 AM »

Hey Jerry, who talked about Voyager 1 was me (Rapadura), not this guy WilbyInebriated...

Calm down!

onthecuttingedge2005 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 07, 2010, 05:50:07 AM »

Quote from: Rapadura on March 07, 2010, 05:45:52 AM

Hey Jerry, who talked about Voyager 1 was me (Rapadura), not this guy WilbyInebriated...

Calm down!

Sorry Rap, I needed that one to jest a point. my apologies good friend.

DreamThinkBuild · « **Reply #20 on:** March 07, 2010, 06:11:00 PM »

I put the video up on YouTube. The quality is a little better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtEuvwGm24A

DreamThinkBuild · « **Reply #21 on:** March 08, 2010, 12:23:44 AM »

Here is a second version of the oscillator. This one is enclosed in a box could be a vacuum to reduce air friction. The magnets are attached to the ends of the box and coils are used push the beam back into oscillation or collect the energy from the oscillating motion. Another option could be to eliminate the ball and replace the slope with a maglev like track. The weight can ride on a magnetically levitated platform inside the box which would oscillate back and forth.

Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdsDbD0Ql6o

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: A rolling cylinder and piezos (Read 9693 times)

WilbyInebriated

Re: A rolling cylinder and piezos

Rapadura

Re: A rolling cylinder and piezos

onthecuttingedge2005

Re: A rolling cylinder and piezos

Rapadura

Re: A rolling cylinder and piezos

onthecuttingedge2005

Re: A rolling cylinder and piezos

DreamThinkBuild

Re: A rolling cylinder and piezos

DreamThinkBuild

Re: A rolling cylinder and piezos