re: energy producing experiments

[pauldude000]

I would like to see a demonstration of this "energy producing experiments"


We can excite ions with a simple electric field
(Ionized plate particle accelerator)


Even with tiny atomic masses and near relativistic velocities
there have been no anomalies concerning momentum observed
outside the expected quantum factor


as such would alter our view of the equations


Momentum is conserved throughout the entire system being analyzed
Even in the transferring from one mass to another.
If there is any mass at all involved,
you will always have less momentum than before the transfer


If there is no mass, momentum would transfer pure and lossless


[For this reason i argue that a photon cannot be massless,
but rather releases countably infinite energy for a finite time upon impact,
when we set the total energy values to be equivalent the calculated mass of
the photon corresponds to the expected value observed from the physical impact]


Archimedes, Da Vinci, Descartes, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Rankine, Einstein, Froude
They all agree on the theory of momentum
The Universe as we understand it would collapse if this theory were to break.

Mass is a function. Could it be done away with? Yes, partially, if it is converted to energy. The energy in question is a part of spacetime. However, this does not happen easily as something has to facilitate the change, IE the function has to be manipulated by an outside source. Inertia is a resistance to changes of position concerning what we call matter to the surrounding medium, which we currently call spacetime. Momentum is based upon mass, but it is not mass itself, and is a resistance to changes in spatial velocity. Lambda F does equal mc^2 in a particle at rest. Mass is a byproduct of a self-propagating wave packet, stable or unstable (real or 'virtual'). Light does indeed have mass, which is to be expected, as you cannot separate mass from energy. If there is energy, then there is mass, or vice versa. However, conversion of one to the other can reduce or increase the measurable amount. Momentum is ultimately energy being stored as mass. It is converted back to energy during a collision with something else.


Spacetime itself is somewhat stupid as a notion goes, since adding time to an absence of anything does not yield something which can be bent, warped, torn , tunneled through, or otherwise spatially or physically manipulated. Gag. Many of the supposed effects become iimpossible when viewed in anything but two dimensions, such as warped or 'dented' space causing gravity. (When applied with no frame of reference being given special dispensation, IE in all three dimensions at the same time, since gravity pulls straight towards the center of any mass, the "warp" completely envelopes any object.)


A lot of what we know is still backwards or outdated thinking, unfortunately. When you consider that the medium that we have given the moniker of spacetime is the source for all of the energy we use, and that, according to at least one prominent Physicist, one cup of it could boil off all the oceans of earth concerning the amount of energy stored their, I would say that our notions of efficiency leave something to be desired. If any scientist desired to see how badly off our estimate of the subject is, they should try to heat 100 ml f water 10 degrees, and calculate exactly how much energy is required, then do it. BUT, they should record the whole event with a thermal imaging camera (fleer type) and fail the test if they see any energy radiation in the form of heat into the ambient surroundings, from any source connected to the test, from any angle, including the water or the container it is in, as well as any power sources involved. (That would be the thermal definition of Unity or COP=1)


That also won't happen, let alone measuring for EM loss, EF loss, friction, hysteresis, or other potential forms of energy loss or conversion not accounted for in the factoring as well.


Even if they did all of those things, the question still remains of whether the method used has any real efficiency for increasing the rate of vibration of water molecules (heating water). If any technique is more efficient than merely bashing water molecules with brute force, then the testing method for efficiency is still invalid.


It is time people start calling the BS card.


Paul Andrulis

[Delburt Phend]

Disks and rim mass wheels are used to store motion, so it is important to know how they store it.

The moment of inertia for a rim (or ring) is mr²; and for a disk it is 1/2mr².  So is a disk, with the same mass and radius, twice as easy to rotate as a rim?

The word inertia implies that The Moment of Inertia has something to do with the difficult of moving the object; or how much force needs to be applied to accelerate the object.

Also, it should be noted that the r in 1/2mr² is the r of the outside circumference, it is not a new r.

For a rim and a disk of the same mass the m is the same. So, the r is the same and the m is the same in 1/2mr² for the disk, and mr² for the rim.

So, the formula is clearly saying that a disk is ½ as difficult to rotate as a rim. So, at the same rate of angular acceleration the mass of the disk is applying half of the inertia; which means the mass is being accelerated half as fast; which means that the average position of the mass is half the distance to the circumference.  Or the mass is at ½ r.

But is the average mass of a disk at ½ r?

The disk with its circumference at ½ r has 1/4th the mass of the disk with a radius of r. So, 3/4th of the mass of the disk is beyond ½ r.

Plus, this 3/4th mass is in a position to have a greater portion of the velocity because it is closer to the circumference.

I do not think that if you apply the same force to a disk that it will accelerate twice as fast as an equal mass rim. What does this video show?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsKIPa4Fnfo

[Floor]

What do we mean by faster ?

Rotations per unit of time ?
          or
The numbers of some unit of length around the circumference, that pass a
given point per revolution ?

Given that the disk and the rim have the same r

No real real world, rim has zero thickness toward the center of rotation.
     Its mass is not concentrated in an imaginary line.  Although as a model we
     may consider it as such.

A wheel driven from near its center is a lever.  The greater the radius of the
   rim in relationship to radius at which the wheel is driven, the greater is the leverage. 
   
The leverage here in, is considered as acting against the resistance to acceleration solely.

Levers trade off, force for distance or distance for force.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
The mass around a wheel which is being accelerated has, differing amounts of
       leverage being applied to it depending upon the r at which that mass is
       located (average).

Like wise is the        resistance to acceleration     against the applied force
       of a band of mass at a leverage (r), due to
                                 both
     the mass (average) and the leverage factor r.

This is Newton's equal and opposite, acting force and resisting force.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

A given mass has the resistance to acceleration that it has against a given force
period. 

When that force is applied to a lever and from thence to the mass, it does not
change the force needed to accelerate that mass.  It changes the force applied.
... ... ... ... ...
A given mass has the resistance to acceleration that it has against a given force
period. 

When the     resistance of a mass to acceleration      is applied to a lever and from
thence to the accelerating force, it does not change the force needed to accelerate
that mass.  It changes the    force (reactive force)   of that resitance to the applied force.

"I do not think that if you apply the same force to a disk that it will accelerate twice
as fast as an equal mass rim."   

Incomplete statement.  i.e. force is applied at what r ?
                     and
                   Do both the rim and the disk have the same diameter ?
                                     

[Delburt Phend]

1/2mr² is a claim that the disk has ½ as much resistance to motion as a hoop; and should therefore accelerate down the ramp twice as fast. If the disk is rotating down the ramp twice as fast, then it should cover twice the distance in the same period of time. The disk should reach the end of the ramp when the hoop is only halfway down the ramp.

The experiment shows that the disk is harder to rotate than 1/2mr² predicts.

[Floor]

OK, I was looking primarily at why the mass s cancel out.



" The experiment shows that the disk is harder to rotate than 1/2mr² predicts. "



I don't know why with complete certainty but I think it is that...

No real world rim,  has zero thickness from the circumference, toward the center of rotation.

Its mass is not concentrated in an imaginary line.  Although as a model we
may consider it as such.