Magnet force shield

[conradelektro]

I think power is not a useful unit here, because we want to know about energy. Excluding for now accelleration and deaccelleration, assuming we can recover or nullify these by a spring.

Work <= Energy, or at unity Work=Energy, as far as I see. Comparing work A and B seems legit to me.

Time is yuge, it's true, make  T I M E  great again, it will be great! T I M E first, T I M E first. Work without time, total looser, no power or energy.

It is very important how long you do some work. If you do some work for 1 hour it is less energy than doing the work of for two hours.

If your lamp uses 8 Watt, it is meaningless before you switch it on. Only once you switch it on for one hour it will consume 8 Watt-Hours, 8 Watt of power consumed for one hour.

The power company does not charge for Watt, it charges you for Watt-Hours. And this is true, so true.

Greetings, Conrad

[conradelektro]

Luc's machine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUlDMY1iE5A is great, very ingenious (and I really mean it, it really is amazingly exciting).

I cite from his video, the complete cycle needs:

540 grams work linear
336 grams work rotary

Now time comes in. For how long is Luc applying this work.  We need work-hours (not only work) or work-seconds in order to calculate energy expenditure or energy production.

Remark: Work alone is meaningless. One has to do work for some time to produce something. Your work might well be excellent but it does not help if you do it for zero hours. And it will be worth more (will produce more power or energy) if you do it for two hours instead of only for one hour.

I want to propose a very simple experiment which Luc could do easily with his very nice machine:

-          Luc turns the wheel of his machine continuously in a leisurely way, just easy, no hast. (It does not matter that it will not really be a constant turning rate in a strict theoretical sense. As continuous as he manages without stressing himself and without overburdening the mechanics of his machine.)

-          Luc will put in continuously a work of 336 grams.

-          But the output of his machine, the movement of the sledge (the linear movement) will not be continuous. The sledge will rapidly move away from the wheel and then it will rest for a moment. Then the sledge will rapidly move towards the wheel and will again rest for a moment. And so on.

-          So, the input of 336 grams of work is continuous, but the output of 540 grams of work is intermittent.  Well, you see, it now depends on how long the sledge is at rest.

-          Let's assume that Luc is turning his machine in a way that a full cycle takes one second. So he will put in 336 Gram-Seconds. The energy or power he needs will be 336 grams per second.

-          But he does only get out 540 grams for 0.62 seconds because the sledge only moves 0.62 seconds (each cycle) and will put out energy or power only as long as it moves (not when it rests).

Remark: Why do I know that the sledge only moves for 0.62 seconds (for every second of movement of the wheel) in my example above? Well, I know that input and output of an ideal machine (no friction, no heat losses) will be equal. And therefore 336 * 1 = x * 540, which means that time x is 336/540 = 0.62

But you do not have to believe my calculation (because you probably want to believe in OU). You only have to admit that Luc's (really nice and well-crafted machine) needs a continuous input and gives only an intermittent output. That should speed up your brain and make you believe in time instead of OU. 336 grams of continuous input can well equal 540 grams of intermittent output (power wise or energy wise). To do the time measurements will be tricky and needs photoelectric sensors and an oscilloscope. You should believe in time measurements when talking about power or energy (work has to be done for some time to produce power or energy).

Greetings, Conrad

[norman6538]

The test method I prefer to use would be.

1. drive the input with a falling weight on a rope like the kookoo clock.

2. lift a weight with the output work available and then calculate
  the weight x distance in and the weight x distance out and NOBODY
HAS ANY ARGUMENT ABOUT MEASUREMENTS BEING WRONG.

Its all there right in front of your eyes.  My pendulum that travels higher than
its dropped point is such an example - its all visible - no measurements required.


Norman

[gotoluc]

Dear Conrad,

Lets look at a test device which can test your distance time beliefs.

Test device parts needed:
A DC electric motor which has a flywheel attached to its shaft and use of photo switch to turn the motor on and off.

First test:
We attach a scale to the outer circumference of the flywheel and adjust the current to the motor so it can pull 34 grams. Then we adjust the photo switch to power the motor 110 mm distance of the flywheel outer circumference. We note of the RPM in this condition.

Second test:
We attach a scale to the outer circumference of the flywheel and adjust the current to the motor so it can pull 538 grams. Then we adjust the photo switch to power the motor 11 mm distance of the flywheel outer circumference. We note of the RPM in this condition.

If your belief is correct, the RPM should be greater on the first test compered to the second test, correct?

Regards

Luc

But you do not have to believe my calculation (because you probably want to believe in OU).

Please note, I have already stated that I need true measurement data to believe a device is OU. I do not just believe a device is OU until I have the measurement data to prove it or the device is running on its own and I can witness it. So please stop judging me that I just want to believe in OU as I have made no claims of OU.
Stick only to what has been presented and keep your personal opinions out.
You should know this to be the correct scientific approach.

[dieter]

Yeah TIME, and loosers, right.


Forget about time. It's a fog granade. Conrad just seems to insist on being correct, although already being prooved being wrong, which he temporarily agreed with.


With your bicycle you can drive with a high or low gear from town A to town B. If you dive with little force, it takes less force over a longer period of time, if you dive fast it takes more force over a shorter period of time. Total energy used is eighter time * force OR distance * force. Every discussion about this subject seems like good ol merry go round to me.







furthermore, rotational vs straight push is of little meaning since the Radius of the wheel is really big.


What is still a question is how the 11mm push is measured over that distance, with the wheels' magnet aligned in the center, or with it passing by.