re: energy producing experiments

[Tarsier_79]

I=mr² is easy to prove.

Static balance does not mean equal inertia. You can't pick and chose when you will use 1/2mv².

I do not know why you got the results you did. I suspect there is a problem with your setup. Probably bearings able to hold 60kg, but able to rotate freely. A bicycle wheel might be a good start for a test such as you suggest.

You do have one good point. I do not know how a balanced offset weight (eg 8Kg at 10cm vs 1Kg at 80cm) doesn't rotate around a virtual inertial center, rather than the static balance center.

[Delburt Phend]

Demonstrating Rotational Inertia (or Moment of Inertia) - YouTube     flipping physics

Question for you:   Why is the torque formula one r and (your) inertia formula is two r s? Because changing the location of torque is exactly the same thing as changing the location of inertia. It is a relationship between the two radii not an actual distance.

I don't think they (guts back then) did do extensive and elaborate research; and that is why you cannot find the experiments. Just like the flipping physic guys; they don't do data: just; it is faster it is slower, etc.

You have a 80 cm wheel with a 2 cm shaft and you have 40 kg suspended from the left side of the shaft and 1 kg suspended from the right side of the wheel. It is balanced: but you then add 5 grams to the 1 kg on the right. We will let those 5 grams accelerate the wheel to .1 m/sec. At one tenth meter per sec we add 200 grams to the 40 kg on the shaft left side.    What happens to the acceleration?

[Tarsier_79]

Question for you:   Why is the torque formula one r and (your) inertia formula is two r s? Because changing the location of torque is exactly the same thing as changing the location of inertia. It is a relationship between the two radii not an actual distance.

Torque has nothing to do with inertia. Torque is a measurement of applied force. Inertia is a measurement of how difficult something is to accelerate, and mathematically relates to how much energy is gained or lost during rotation.

Getting back to a static balanced 8Kg vs 1Kg rotating in space (or on an ice rink). The 1kg is 8 times further from the point of rotation, and is 8x more difficult to move. Logic does tell me that the assembly should rotate around a point where both sides are equally difficult to rotate comparatively......Diving Deeper: Again if I am at the center of static balance, the 8kg pulls my left arm forward with 8x less energy than the 1kg pulls my right arm backwards. Again, I feel like this is not where the assembly wants to rotate around if it were not constrained on an axle.

[Delburt Phend]

Energy?? Tarsier; since when does F and m make energy?  F = ma makes linear momentum. "Rotation gained or lost" is acceleration. So you have the three components of Newtonian motion; and Newton never made energy.

Torque is an applied force upon a resistance; if there is no resistance there is no torque. From Newton Third Law we know that the inertia is applying a force upon the torque: equal and opposite but entirely in the same manner. It is a reverse torque upon the applied torque. This inertial resistance is force being applied at a radial distance.

I will give two arguments:

Make a horizontal lever arm with one kilogram attached (at rest) at one meter. You then (perpendicularly) collide 2 kg moving 5 m/sec at the .5 meter location. What is the resultant motion?

Second argument:

In the flipping physics 'Demonstrating Rotational Inertia (or Moment of Inertia) - YouTube' lets assume that the torque can be placed at two locations, on the pulley, where one location is twice the radius of the other. And we know that we can place the inertia at twice the distance; one location toward the middle, and then one location on the end of the rods.

Now we have four possible arrangements of the spoke wheel: small pulley torque to inertia position on the end of the rod, small pulley torque to inertia position in the middle of the rod; large pulley torque position to inertia position on the end of the rod; large pulley torque to inertia position in the middle of the rod.

Now ask yourself; is the small to small equal to the large to large? And I hope you say yes.

So if you halve the torque radius you double the inertial resistance.

But (for your law): if you double the inertia radius you quad the inertial resistance.

So you can move from 'large radius torque and middle radius inertia': to 'large r torque to large r inertia'. And you say it will be one fourth the acceleration. 

Or you can move from large radius torque and middle radius inertia: to small r torque to middle r inertia. And it will be one half the acceleration.

But the radius torque / radius inertia is the same in these two changes.

You can't have two rules.

[Tarsier_79]

1 newton meter of torque is 1 newton of force at 1 meter, or its equivalent regardless of the radius it is applied. 2 newtons at 1/2 meter etc. It doesn't care if there is very little resistance or very much.

inertia is directly related to energy math. To accelerate a mass till it has 50 joules of energy takes 50 joules of energy. A mass at 2x radius at a fixed rpm will have 4x the energy, just as it is 4x harder to accelerate, because it takes 4 times the energy to accelerate it to that energy level. Putting a mass on a lever doesn't magically contravene physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNx0yPdl960
See the acceleration at 2:40. According to your theory, the masses are around 3x further out, so should be approx 3x harder to rotate. This is clearly not the case. According to conventional physics, it should be around 9x harder to accelerate. The inner weight model moves a full rotation as the outer weight model only moves around 1/8th.

I understand your unwillingness to accept this fact. Accepting it would throw many or all of your "creating energy" theories away.