re: energy producing experiments

[Delburt Phend]

We have two extremes here: how much money does it take to prove the theory; and how much money will it take to make a useful machine? One that will keep you alive in Alberta.

I was raised in Colorado; my uncle lived in the San Luis Valley; - 40° was common in the Valley. In a breeze, unprotected skin would freeze in a minute or so. My aunt would freeze dry close on the close line. I remember duck hunting on ten inches of ice. The ducks and geese kept a spot open, over some springs I assume. Back up systems, and good neighbors keep the residents alive.

The actual proof that energy can be produced takes less than one hundred dollars. If a 'cylinder and spheres' has a mass 16 times greater that the spheres then the spheres must be moving 16 times as fast when they have all the motion: or they are only moving 4 times as fast. 16 conserves mv.  And 4 conserves ½ mv².

But if the spheres are only moving 4 times as fast then they can not restore the motion to the cylinder if the spheres are left attached. A one kilogram object with only 4 m/sec velocity would only give (upon collision) 16 kilograms a velocity of .25 m/sec. Ballistic pendulums are common and we know what velocity a small object gives a large object.

Plastic tubing used for electrical conduit; 4 inch schedule 80, would work great. You could use a schedule 80 fitting; ten or twelve dollars.  Spheres are also available; for only a few dollars each. And a few feet of fishing line.   You could probably build a cylinder and spheres for less than 50 dollars. The experimental proof is worth upwards of 5 trillion dollars.

Now about surviving in Alberta. Well: why would a gravity dam cost more than a hydroelectric dam. Glen Canyon Dam has been a cash cow for about fifty years now and it produces no carbon emissions.

[norman6538]

Delbert have you done this experiment below? Could you give us a drawing? I don't quite understand it. Or did I miss previous posts?  Norman 

Delbert said .....
"The actual proof that energy can be produced takes less than one hundred dollars. If a 'cylinder and spheres' has a mass 16 times greater that the spheres then the spheres must be moving 16 times as fast when they have all the motion: or they are only moving 4 times as fast. 16 conserves mv.  And 4 conserves ½ mv².

But if the spheres are only moving 4 times as fast then they can not restore the motion to the cylinder if the spheres are left attached. A one kilogram object with only 4 m/sec velocity would only give (upon collision) 16 kilograms a velocity of .25 m/sec. Ballistic pendulums are common and we know what velocity a small object gives a large object.

Plastic tubing used for electrical conduit; 4 inch schedule 80, would work great. You could use a schedule 80 fitting; ten or twelve dollars.  Spheres are also available; for only a few dollars each. And a few feet of fishing line.   You could probably build a cylinder and spheres for less than 50 dollars. The experimental proof is worth upwards of 5 trillion dollars. "

[Delburt Phend]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boLk57cKNao

I went into the lab and found what looks like this experiment. The tape on the cylinder is different but the tape can change any time. The cylinder has 972 written on it; and that no doubt is its mass. The spheres are the steel spheres with a hole through a diameter and they have a mass of 66 each (66 g *2 = 132 grams). So the total mass before the spheres swing out is (972 g + 132 g) 1104.

So the ratio of total mass to spheres is 1104 g /132 g = 8.36.   

As you see the rotation of the cylinder is quickly stopped. The string has not come close to the 90° position to a tangent line on the surface of the cylinder. Before the 90° position the spheres will cause the cylinder to reverse the spin; and that is what you see. Before the video stops you can see a spin magnitude that equals the original spin. The sphere motion has restored the motion back to the cylinder.   


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-7d66JscI8

This looks like the same length of schedule 80 conceit with the addition of a schedule 40 water tubing connecter. These connecters have a mass of about 218 and that brings us to 1320 grams for the total mass.

So the ratio of total mass to spheres is 1320 g /132 g = 10.0.

The spheres find it harder to stop the cylinder; but they do and they also restart the cylinder.

There are other experiments out there if you type in Delburt Phend youtube. One mass ratio stops the cylinder twice; some have more massive spheres.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgT70vSIUgA

[Delburt Phend]

I posted a video of the Atwood's that I collect data from. It is a heavy flywheel that has two radii: the shaft at 10 mm and the outside circumference at 97 mm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iM_thYbDlc

In one experiment the accelerating mass of 219.87 g was placed on the shaft radius. Without any added mass on the fly wheel the gate tripped at .0266 seconds.  This was an average of 5 runs  (.0266, .0264, .0266, .0267, .0267).

I then placed the small masses on the outside of the wheel. This would be about 67.7 grams on each side.  The gate was then tripped at .0271 seconds, (.0269, .0272, .0272, .0271, .0272.). By adding 135 grams to the outside of the wheel the gate trip; of the Atwood's; was slowed by .0005 second. This may not seem like much but the flywheel is heavy and 135 grams probably is that proportion of that mass. But the more important experiment was to compare the light outside mass with the balancing heavy mass placed on the inside.

The next experiment had the gates repositioned so the times are not the same as the previous experiment.

I placed the light masses (67.7 g each side)) on the outside circumference of the flywheel and the gate tripped at .0294 seconds (.0294, .0296, .0293, .0295, .0292).

I replaced the light mass with the balancing heavy mass on the inside shaft radius. This would be about 657 grams on both sides.  The gate now tripped at .0294 seconds (.0291, .0293, .0296, .0297, .0292). 

The Atwood's accelerate the same for 135 grams at the 97 mm radius as it does for 1313 grams at the 10 mm shaft radius.

If the inside shaft circumference was moving 1 m/sec

The energy of the .135 kg is:   ½ * .135 kg * 9.7 m/sec * 9.7 m/sec   = 6.35 joules

And the energy of the 1.313 kg is:   ½ * 1.313 kg  * 1 m/sec * 1 m/sec = .6565 joules

[sm0ky2]

What he is talking about is a crudementary hand-spun version
of an experiment performed by George Atwood in 1790.
He spins it with his hand and drops it, then estimates rpm based
on his camera frame rate.
No experimental controls, no accuracy of velocities, no real data...
Just "blah blah I can spin this cylinder and make the balls spin really
fast, and I think the cylinder would spin faster than it started if the
thing didn't hit the ground so fast"
This of course doesn't work with the cylinder on a bearing because
you can see it slow down.
but when it hits the ground just before you can make a determination!
it's all up to the observer and his/her imagination.


For those that don't know, Atwood is the guy that standardized
weights and measures by using gravity and a pulley.
(for some reason we ignore Archimedes...)


This experiment was performed by NASA in low g orbit
with much greater precision, and they had nothing of the sort
to say about the experiments. It is about as interesting as a yo-yo.


Great way to observe conservation of momentum.
In low g the cylinder de-spins then spins back up re-wrapping the
strings and this continues each time slowing down more and more
until the balls no longer wrap around and instead spin on straight
strings with the rotating cylinder.
Then it stops.