Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic

[TinselKoala]

I don't know how you are planning to maneuver me into following your garden path, so I'm not even going to start. I can't see how your device moves, so I don't know how or where straight paths become curved ones, nor do I know the degree of curvature, nor a multitude of other things that are needed for a correct analysis. I'm sure we could arrive at one, with some work. But kinematic analyses are not really my forte, so maybe I shouldn't even have started replying here. But it sounds like you are trying to claim a violation of conservation of momentum, and that's even less likely than a buoyancy drive or a gravity wheel, just on first principles, that much I do know.

If it's not spinning as it translates, it has zero angular momentum, and its linear momentum is mv, or 3 kg-meters/sec. As you well know.
But as soon as it is forced into a curved path, by a centripetal acceleration, it acquires angular momentum. I think.

[pequaide]

Newton said F = ma. Newton’s momentum conservation was linear. You absolutely can not conserve both linear and angular and Newton did enough experiments to know this.

Construct two equal mass vertically mounted rim mass wheels with different radii. If you hang the same mass from each rim the force of the hanging mass will accelerate each rim to the same circumference velocity in the same period of time.  This will be linear Newtonian momentum; it is not angular momentum being produced.  The angular momentums of the two rims are not equal. F = ma does not make angular momentum, and in fact no such angular momentum is ever conserved in the laboratory.       

[Kator01]

Hello TinselKoala,

I also had a difficult time to visualize this process.
For better understanding have a look at the pics way back at the pages 9, 12 and 17. Especially the three phases of the spheres-movement until they are fully swung out ( 90 degrees to tangent) are very well shown on page 17.
The only difference is that here instead of the puc steel-balls are used and a cylinder instead of the white disc.
The prime mover for the spinnig ot the complete setup is not shown there as this can be done in very different ways.

Regards

Kator01

[TinselKoala]

From Wikipedia:

"Definition

Angular momentum of a particle about a given origin is defined as:

    \mathbf{L}=\mathbf{r}\times\mathbf{p}

where:

    \mathbf{L} is the angular momentum of the particle,
    \mathbf{r} is the position vector of the particle relative to the origin,
    \mathbf{p} is the linear momentum of the particle, and
    \times\, is the vector cross product.

As seen from the definition, the derived SI units of angular momentum are newton metre seconds (N·m·s or kg·m2s-1 or joule seconds). Because of the cross product, L is a pseudovector perpendicular to both the radial vector r and the momentum vector p and it is assigned a sign by the right-hand rule."

Well, the math symbols didn't translate, but you can see from the definition on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
that angular momentum is defined as the vector cross product of the particle's (or object's) position vector and its LINEAR MOMENTUM.

Linear momentum is conserved; angular momentum is conserved; and the two are related by vector mechanics, just as I have said.

An excellent basic text on these matters is
Statics and Dynamics
Vector Mechanics for Engineers
By Johnston and Beers
(now in its at least 12th edition)
Wherein you will find your problem and many many other similar ones analyzed with excruciating thoroughness.

[TinselKoala]

Newton said F = ma. Newton’s momentum conservation was linear. You absolutely can not conserve both linear and angular and Newton did enough experiments to know this.

Construct two equal mass vertically mounted rim mass wheels with different radii. If you hang the same mass from each rim the force of the hanging mass will accelerate each rim to the same circumference velocity in the same period of time.  This will be linear Newtonian momentum; it is not angular momentum being produced.  The angular momentums of the two rims are not equal. F = ma does not make angular momentum, and in fact no such angular momentum is ever conserved in the laboratory.       

Sorry, you are wrong about your assertion re the wheels and masses. Please don't make me construct an apparatus to prove it.
You have said nothing about moment arms in your thought experiment. If one wheel's mass is concentrated at the rim, and the other's is at the hub, there will be differences in the circumferential velocity as the linear momentum of the falling mass is coupled to the angular momentum of the wheels. If the (PE-KE) of the mass as it leaves the wheels is the same, then the angular momentum of the wheels will be the same, but if the mass distributions are different the circumferential velocities will be different--hence the velocity of the weight when it drops off the wheel will be different--hence the (PE-KE) of the weight will be different--
you can see how the complexities multiply.
But you may rest assured, momentum, whether angular or linear or some combination, is conserved. There are ample experiments, all around you, that confirm this fact.
Ever ride in an automobile, or an aircraft? Then you can be glad of CofM.