re: energy producing experiments

[Tarsier_79]

I don't have any problems. I am not the one claiming to have broken energy conservation with a half baked experiment.

35 kg dropped one meter can accelerate 140 kg to 2.21 m/sec. Model: Atwood's Machine

This isn't energy gain. I do not see a video of this. Your atwoods video is not 140 or 35kg, and does not have a scale for the distance traveled over what time.

A 35 meter high stack of evenly spaced 1 kilogram masses exert the same force as a 35 kilogram mass. Model: scale balance

Balance has very little to do with Potential or kinetic energy.

After a drop of one meter the stack can be reconfigured by accelerating one kg to 26.24 m/sec, costing 26.24 units of momentum. The one kilogram moving 26.24 m/sec will rise 35 m. Model: kinematic equations.

Sounds like energy conservation in an imaginary world with no resistance from your description.

140 kg moving 2.21 m/sec equals 310 units of momentum and you only need 26.24 units to recycle the system. Model: kinematic equations.

If the 310 units of momentum is placed in one kg the rise would be 4900 m.  Only 35 of those meters is needed to reconfigure the stack. Model: kinematic equations.

or Naive mathematics...

The momentum of a large mass can be given to a small mass. Model: cylinder and spheres machine where all the motion is returned to the cylinder; and the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

With a claim of 10x energy and an unconvincing proof.

The stack of 35 1 kg masses could accelerate a 140 kg rim and stack to 2.21 m/sec and then the rim could throw one kg 140 times higher than the original drop. Model: cylinder and spheres machine; the Law of Conservation of Momentum: kinematic equations.

More naive maths. Show physical proof.

The double yo-yo despin 'cylinder and sphere' transfers all the motion of the "cylinder and sphere" to only the spheres. Then the spheres transfer the motion back to the cylinder and spheres combination.

The conservation of energy could not return the motion of the spheres back to the cylinder. Because as the conservation of momentum would require a 10 m/sec speed for the spheres the conservation of energy would only require a 3.16 m/sec velocity.

Again uninformed mathematics.

When masses collide, or transfer motion, smaller masses do not and can not give their energy to a larger mass. The smaller masses can and do however give all of their momentum to the larger mass.

Do they? Show proof and how this helps in energy creation.

[Kator01]

Tarsier,


concerning your formula ( relpy#315):


Have you ever made the effort of reading for what a condition this formula is true ?
It needs sharp eyes to read the bottom right sentence


My impression :  the discussion is - because of a lot of false assumptions and arguments- is rather
exausting and not constructive.


Try first to understand instead of endless arguments and build it...its not so complicated.




@Delburt:
how is this possible that the rotation of the Cylinder is CCW since the steel-ball is hanging at the right of the cylinder and it seems the steel-ball  remains at the same hight in the first moments ? Can you explain it ? Did you give it a ccw-spin before releasing the cylinder ?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q7L2BOYkjE




Mike





I ask because I am working on a concept of repeating one of the experiments

[lancaIV]

                                  #325 :                        " ....  More naive maths. ... "

                                                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics
                                   
                                                                   "maths" = ALL spectrum ,non naive/naif

                                          dialectical materialism = theory in images and/or words/numbers about object :

                                                        material,non dialectical = without words/numbers/image


                                                                                                 #315
                                                                 
                                                                    FORMULA : as AXIOMATIK part right/wrong ?
                                                                                      https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
                                                                                      the basic law/Fixpoint : Anti-/ Hypo-/These
                                                                                      https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondition_(Mathematik)
                                                                                      https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkonditionierung

                                                                                   : not applyable for this case,conditioning !?


                                                                   Application and physical result ,between
                 
                                                                                            Hub-Kraft

                                                                                    AUFTRIEBSKRAFT,LASTSCHWERKRAFT,"GRAVITY"

                                                               https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=hubkraft
                                                               https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=hubkraft+diagramm
                                                https://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~diening/ws11/numerik/numscript.pdf

                                                                                              and ,point of view :

                                                               https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=abtriebskraft

                                                               https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalkraft
                                                                                           
                                                                                            Zug-Kraft
                                                                                      ANTRIEBSKRAFT

                                                              https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=zugkraft
                                                              https://studyflix.de/ingenieurwissenschaften/zugkraftdiagramm-1171

                                                             Force/s their scalar,vectorial,tensorial orientation from source to target

                                                            Pressure : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druck_(Physik)                                                            https://www.linguee.com/german-english/translation/spezifischer+druck.html

                                                            Force,specific :

               https://www.linguee.com/german-english/translation/spezifische+kraft.html


                        The      FORMAT        https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_(Philosophie)

                                    LOGOS         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus 
                                                         
   
                                                          https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
                                    ALGORYTHM  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmus


wmbr
OCWL

[Tarsier_79]

@Delburt:
how is this possible that the rotation of the Cylinder is CCW since the steel-ball is hanging at the right of the cylinder and it seems the steel-ball  remains at the same hight in the first moments ? Can you explain it ? Did you give it a ccw-spin before releasing the cylinder ?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q7L2BOYkjE

This is a much better experiment IMO. Input can be measured, but it is still difficult to measure the output.

I suspect the Ball hangs in the same spot because the tube is wound up on a piece of fishing line/string, its drop causes the unwind and spin. In the initial moments, the ball is being wound up at the same rate the tube unwinds as it is accelerated by gravity.

concerning your formula ( relpy#315):

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hoocyl.html
The formula on the top left is a cylinder rolling without slipping, the formula top right is a hoop rolling without slipping.
The formula at the bottom is either slipping without rolling, the text on the bottom right refers to that bottom formula.

It was in response to:

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

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.

This is the computer calculated race under perfect conditions in a simulation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia#/media/File:Rolling_Racers_-_Moment_of_inertia.gif
It closely resembles the outcome of the physical test.
Delberts assumption that the hoop should only be half way down the ramp based on 1/2mrr shows a naive view of the math involved.

Try first to understand instead of endless arguments and build it...its not so complicated.

1. I am not convinced there is enough evidence to justify a build.
2. My build time is currently allocated elsewhere.
3. If I were to build it, I would be complicating it enough to measure input vs output.

[Tarsier_79]

IancaIV, what point are you trying to make? Let us look at context:

140 kg moving 2.21 m/sec equals 310 units of momentum and you only need 26.24 units to recycle the system. Model: kinematic equations.

Using online calculators:
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/free-fall
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/gravitational-potential.php
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/kinetic.php

The 140KG falls from 0.25m to achieve this speed. (343 J)
1kg can rise to 35m at 26.24 kgm/s, which also costs 344 J
There is a difference in momentum, bu where is the energy gain?

If the 310 units of momentum is placed in one kg the rise would be 4900 m.  Only 35 of those meters is needed to reconfigure the stack. Model: kinematic equations.

So unless I am missing something, it takes 51,200 J to "place" 310 units of momentum on 1kg. How did we magically transfer 310 units of momentum from a 140kg at 2.21m/s mass to a 1kg mass at 310m/s?