Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity

[gravityblock]

  Hope you don't mind if I disagree with you on this point;
"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed"
The reason being is that the slower something moves, the more force it can impart. Also, the greater the distance it travels between 2 points gives it a greater potential.
An example of this last part is if point A is 9.8 meters above point B. Either way, via the straight line or if travelling with a radius of 9.8 meters, they are considered to have identical velocities at point B minus resistence.
How ever, with aradius of 9.8 meters, the velocity of m*9.8m/s/s/9.8*3.14 is greater tha work = mass times distance travelled.
By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially. As such, the greater the radius of a weights downward path,the greatness in the amount of work it can perform increases like wise.

                                                                                                                                  Jim

"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed" is based on using galactic time as the yardstick instead of kilometers or miles.  You were taught to use kilometers or miles as a measure of distance, whereas I'm referring to using galactic time as the yardstick. This is hard to explain to those who are unaccustomed to seeing things from a different point of view. Instead of going into complicated mathematical calculations to determine, let us say, the diameter of the Earth's orbit in the number of kilometers this represents, I'm referring to its equivalent in galactic time. 

In other-words, if you're impelled by a force which takes you 100 hours to make a round trip through a galaxy, and I'm impelled by a force which takes 1 hour to make a round trip, then I know the force which is impelling me is 100 times greater than the force which is impelling you.  I could also say, the distance or space you traversed was 100 times greater than the space I traversed, because in reality the force doesn't exist.  All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it.

According to your logic above, the greater the distance between 2 points, the greater the potential is given to it.  If this is true in all cases, then we should be able to raise a ball higher than it's original starting position just by having a greater distance (a slope or curved path) between 2 points as it rolls down a ramp while having a shorter distance (more of a straight path) between 2 points as it rolls up the ramp.

By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially is also false.  Willem Gravesande monumental contribution to physics and discovery involved his experiment in which he would drop a lead ball from varying heights into a bed of soft clay.  From these varying heights the ball would then obtain different velocities into the clay surface.  Willem then discovered that a ball with two times the velocity would leave an indentation in the clay that was four times as deep, and that a ball with three times the velocity would leave an indentation nine times as deep, and so on.  This is exponential.  But you're confusing two different things.  It's similar to the "difference"  between a ball that is moving horizontally in space and the ball that Willem Gravesande used in his experiment (one that is Accelerating as it falls to earth).  It's the difference of the Velocity of Gravity.  A falling weight loses it's acceleration factor as it does work, which is proportional to the amount of work it is doing, thus the exponential factor you are familiar with no longer applies.  A good example is a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 20 meters can't do any more work in lifting a 10 kilogram weight than a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 1 meter.  How is this exponential?  It can't do any work because it has no acceleration to do so.  Even if they both had the same velocity at the very moment of starting the work, it wouldn't be exponential because they will both decrease in velocity at the same rate.  I don't mind if you disagree with me, but at least have a good argument.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

One example my father gave me a long, long time ago was a weight dropping 1 meter can only lift another weight 1 meter.

Have you ever heard of a block and tackle?  It can also be used in reverse, where a weight dropping 1 meter can lift another weight 4 meters.  The same concept also applies to gears, where a movement of 1 inch on the input will produce a movement of 4 inches on the output or vice versa.  What is taught or passed down to us doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.  You have a mind of your own, so use it instead of having other people do your thinking for you.  This is only a suggestion.

Gravock

[johnny874]

"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed" is based on using galactic time as the yardstick instead of kilometers or miles.  You were taught to use kilometers or miles as a measure of distance, whereas I'm referring to using galactic time as the yardstick. This is hard to explain to those who are unaccustomed to seeing things from a different point of view. Instead of going into complicated mathematical calculations to determine, let us say, the diameter of the Earth's orbit in the number of kilometers this represents, I'm referring to its equivalent in galactic time. 

In other-words, if you're impelled by a force which takes you 100 hours to make a round trip through a galaxy, and I'm impelled by a force which takes 1 hour to make a round trip, then I know the force which is impelling me is 100 times greater than the force which is impelling you.  I could also say, the distance or space you traversed was 100 times greater than the space I traversed, because in reality the force doesn't exist.  All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it.

According to your logic above, the greater the distance between 2 points, the greater the potential is given to it.  If this is true in all cases, then we should be able to raise a ball higher than it's original starting position just by having a greater distance (a slope or curved path) between 2 points as it rolls down a ramp while having a shorter distance (more of a straight path) between 2 points as it rolls up the ramp.

By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially is also false.  Willem Gravesande monumental contribution to physics and discovery involved his experiment in which he would drop a lead ball from varying heights into a bed of soft clay.  From these varying heights the ball would then obtain different velocities into the clay surface.  Willem then discovered that a ball with two times the velocity would leave an indentation in the clay that was four times as deep, and that a ball with three times the velocity would leave an indentation nine times as deep, and so on.  This is exponential.  But you're confusing two different things.  It's similar to the "difference"  between a ball that is moving horizontally in space and the ball that Willem Gravesande used in his experiment (one that is Accelerating as it falls to earth).  It's the difference of the Velocity of Gravity.  A falling weight loses it's acceleration factor as it does work, which is proportional to the amount of work it is doing, thus the exponential factor you are familiar with no longer applies.  A good example is a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 20 meters can't do any more work in lifting a 10 kilogram weight than a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 1 meter.  How is this exponential?  It can't do any work because it has no acceleration to do so.  Even if they both had the same velocity at the very moment of starting the work, it wouldn't be exponential because they will both decrease in velocity at the same rate.  I don't mind if you disagree with me, but at least have a good argument.

Gravock

  Gravock,
Hope you don't mind but I would prefer to stick with mechanical engineering   
To that end, tomorrow I'll see about rebuilding it. I'll be able to have a better go of it this time.
I'll be using 4 - 1 lb. weights with a diameter of about 2 inches. The wheel will be about 30 inches
in diameter. I'll probably try for about 4 - 6 inches of over balance with a block that can be added to reduce the amount of over balance.
This would allow for comparison to acceleration with maximum over balance and with less over balance, and how quickly the weights change their balance in the wheel (move to the inner or outer position). I think this might help everyone to understand why I have some of the opinions that I do.
I'll try to have it done by Wednesday with some videos up on youtube.

                                                                                                                      Jim

[johnny874]

  Gravock et al,
  Have decided to wait until after surgery next week to build. Don't want to get started and then stop.
Did find out today I am not the only person who is doing wood working where I have my shop at.
I like this as I'll feel a lot more comfortable and will build new work benches  Also will buy some
more tools to work with. This will help me to get better results when I want to build a prototype.
And for something like what I have mentioned, it will be a much better demonstration as the build
will be to better tolerances. And when discussing how the balance of a design is important, it will help
to show it better.
I did mention to Gravock that torque is important and by waiting, I will be better able to show this
specific principle. In the mean time, it will be something for you guys to think about.

                                                                                                              Jim

edited to add; to give you guys something to wrap your minds around, 2 opposing weights have equal lift / drop. One weight rotates around the axis of the wheel 90 degrees, one only 60 degrees yet both travel the same distance.
The weight rotating 90 degrees would be moving 1.5 x's faster. Extra energy. And the better inertia can be nullified, the more potential that might be realized.

[MoRo]

  Overunity is here!

Have a little fun with this...

http://youtu.be/7Vch0p2VlDY

And I made the music too.

MagnaMoRo