Accelerating forces

[libra_spirit]

Chas Campbell has stated a very good point for our mathematicians to try to cypher. This is a major part of understanding forces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qyvX9j5i3U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4kFG4cJMk

As I understand this, here is the basic model:

We set up a long angle iron for a ball to roll down. Actually we set up two of these one about 12 feet long and one about 6 feet long.
We jack up one end of both now to 4" so here we should get the same energy from gravity moving into the inertial momentum of the ball on each track. Newtonian physics claims the energy will be the same as if we just drop the ball without spinning it along its path.

We release a ball on both tracks and observe that at the point where the balls hit the floor both sould have the same momentum imparted in the conversion of gravity to linear motion.

However from what he is stating the ball rolling down the longer track may have more energy and roll further along the floor.
Giuded into a lifting mechnism of some kind he claims the ball can end up higher then 4" off the floor, it has somehow gained energy along the track. I have envisioned a 45 degree circle curve to lift the ball and release it at 45 degrees while accelerating it up wards.

Does the time the ball spends rolling as compaired to how far it falls effect the balls energy as it exits the track?

What is the difference? The ball on the longer track spent more time spining in which time is felt more spin, or more centrifigal forces inside itself.

I believe I may have touched on the solution to this simple mechnism to support what he is stating. The comprehension lies in realizing the difference between gravity as an acceleration and spin as a centrifugal force acceleration and that acceleration is not linear when you start to sum up totals.

For example in the off balanced wheel on Archers thread I discovered, if the off balanced weight is 1/32 of the wheels weight we have a 1^2 acceleration of the wheel which is 1, but if the off balanced weight is 1/16 we get a 4 foot per second of 2 squared acceleration. The point is that acceleration does not add up as 1 + 1, but squares. Doubeling a velocity at each interval is not the same as simply adding 1 to the total velocity at each interval.

If we only consider the forces on the ball up and down, we see an acceleration of gravity downwards, and we see two vectors of momentum inside the ball one up and one down, in a balance from centrifugal force. However these are all accelerating forces, and are not simple linear forces.

It is the two inside the ball that give the clue, although they do cancel mathematically with respect to one another, is this what actually happens?

An accelerating force increases when summed as a squared function of the total force, and not a linear function. So we add the downwards centrifugal force to gravity to the get the total downwards force knowing this force is a squared acceleration and the longer the ball rolls the longer this higher acceleration is present. We subtract the upwards force from gravity to get the total upwards force which is negative. The ball will not lift it will become heavier! Top of the ball will experience some acceleration less then gravity, bottom of the ball will experience some acceleratioin more then gravity. The square of these two numbers does not cancel and over time while the ball is spining it will weight more then it normally weighs at rest. This is because one number will be smaller then the other number, and the acceleration is the square of each.

Any acceleration added to gravity will increase gravity by a distance squared function. A bigger number squared is greater then a smaller number squared. The bottom of the ball will get heavier, and the top of the ball gets lighter by a smaller factor. The factor is the difference between these two numbers squared.

Thus if we had a track 100 miles long with a perfect incline of 4" end to end, by the time the ball hits the end of this track it should have way more energy inside it then the 12 and 6 foot tracks back at the garage, and probably be comparable to a bullet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are the magnets?

Inside all matter in every atom is a perfectly balanced or scalar cancelling set of opposing magnetic fields. The nuclear mass of all atoms is floating on an opposing magnetic field. Over 90 percent of the atoms weight is free to turn and spin up any direction that an outside force places on it.

Wheels being spun up can be stopped and then quickly spun up the second time with far less energy. This is because the mass spining inside the atoms, or the nuclear mass has a delayed reaction to alterations of the shell of the atom which is bonded into the structure of the matter. Torsion is stored in the matter itself, but there is a delay to this interaction.

What this means is that if I shoot a bullet, the bullet will spin. Now if I add fins it becomes a rocket and will not spin on the outside, but the nuclear mass will still spin on the inside. The force of torsion is present in the matter and stored there as a torsion force. A gyro if you will.

Increasing spin on a rolling ball:

If we set a track that splits such that the balls are now contacted closer to their sides the balls will spin up faster as they roll downards. We have increased the energy present in the gyro of spin parallel to the track. Now if the ball hits a perfect cup with rubber to fully grab the outer surface will the ball be flug upwards higher then the start of the track?

Pulsing nature of the outside of the rolling ball:

Watching a ball roll along, you notice the surface on the floor is stationary and the top of the ball is moving at 2x the balls forwards velocity. The outside of the ball is being pulsed, the surface is not moving smoothly, but accelerating forwards faster and then completely stopping. This means that a rolling ball has a constant acceleration along the top and a constant decelleration along the bottom, but any one point is being pulsed.

If I want to predict which direction the ball will jump based on these gyro forces, if the ball hits a 90 degree stop face on, I must consider all the spin forces acting on the ball and determine the direction the point furthest from the stationary point will move.

The energy is stored into matter as it moves straight in any direction as spin momentum. This momentum acts like torsion and there is delay to altering it. This is probably the source of inertia to begin with. However spin is inherently present in all motion.

Now the ball rolling down the track has two major spin forces, but actually three that I can see right off.

1 - Coriolus force of gravity as it drops - very weak

2 - Coriolus force of its trajectory - stronger with velocity

3 - Torsion pulsing of a tire on the road - this is not so aparent but the bottom of a wheel is stationary and the top is moving at 2x the speed of the center. Circumference of the rolling surface is pulsing from stationary to 2x at any one point along the surface.

All these forces are being stored into the wheels nuclear mass momentum whether physical spin is present or not.

In any ball rolling we do have magnets, where are they? Inside all the atoms, and all the nucleus or the main mass of the system is floating on an opposing or scalar cancelling field. Built right into all matter is already the most incredible magnetic system. We do not need magnets to get OU. All we need is spin.

A track that slowly widens as the ball moves down will increase the balls spin as it contacts the outer sides of the sphere. Spin can be increased to a high degree. Now the ball hits a nice curve at the bottom coated with rubber for traction at the center and the fast spining surface grips, and the ball flies upwards right?

If we can use spin to beat gravity, this is not really mysterious at all. We only need beat 32 feet per second squared. Not a hard thing to do with a spinning wheel. To see this take a weight on a string and twirl it until the weight arcs over the top just weightless but not falling. This is not a high RPM at all. Any spin exceeding this acceleration can be manipulated to propell the ball upwards using an impulse jerk to the outside surface.

Is this why OU devices need to be pulsed?

Precession:

If there is a method to make the ball precess as well, we may be able to make it also loose weight. This was reported a long time ago. There was a man who would spin up heavy wheels on an axle, whack them into precession and lift them with a single hand. Aparently this got him into trouble with the current entrophy society also, he was kicked out. LOL! Do not remember his name right off. Also do not know which direction to whack the wheel to achieve this, but seeing a ball rolling down an incline it may not take much to figure out which direction to deflect the trajectory of the ball.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks so much,
Dave L
c_s_s_p group

[libra_spirit]

An additional percpetion:

As we spin up a wheel vertically what happens to the center of gravity?

As centrifigal force reaches 32 foot per second squared, top of the wheel becomes weightless. Now the bottom of the wheel is much heavier at 64 foot per second squared force downwards. If the wheel is rolling how does this shift of weight effect forwards motion? Forwards motion is linear and has only inertial forces side to side acting on it but centrifigal force is a circle shifting the force as it rotates.

The heaviest part of the wheel is setting stationary on the track, while the lightest part of the wheel is moving the fastest over the top.

The real question is how does this effect the conversion process of gravity into momentum of the wheel down the track. Shifting the center of gravity down does what? Even if total weight does not increase this must have an effect.

As the force of gravity is shifted into momentum, what will a 64 foot per second squared force do as the wheel moves to 45 degrees? Now the top having O feet per second squared does what? Top of the wheel is moving forwards and bottom is stationary.  Will there be less resistance to forwards motion at the top of the wheel and more push upwards turned into spin from the bottom?

Now consider the center of the wheel is dropping slowly, how does this effect its drop turning into motion along the track? The wheels weight now shifts again lagging the center, as a falling mass is lighter then a rising mass.The low side of the wheel looses weight, and the high side of the track the wheel gains weight.

You can see this math problem may become complex very fast, and this is not the same as merely dropping the ball without spin involved.

In gyro experiments they determined that gyros spining horizontally drop slower.
Did they ever try dropping a gyro spining vertically? Will it drop faster? If so there is one energy gain for allowing spin to last longer.

Dave L

[libra_spirit]

Now finally we factor in coriolus force and as a ball moves forwards it will want to spin perpendicular to it's forwards motion spin, as would a bullet or water down the drain. If at the bottom of the track we set up a curve to offer a spin or curve of least resistance will the change of direction at the impulse point allow more upwards force one way then the other way? I am guessing some kind of 45 degree turn with 45 degree curved incline upwards would produce the strongest effect to get the ball higher then its starting point. If you turn the wrong direction the ball will almost stop.

Spin introduces gyro effects, and if torqued properly a gyro can jump in some direction. To get the ball to jump highest this may be a key ingredient. The 45 degree angle is probably the key to grabbing more then the sum of two spins at 90 degrees because at 45 degrees the vectors of each is still over half.

If we take gravity, a DC constant acceleration downwards, and now convert it into spin as well as linear roll, how can this spin of cubed volume be used as a gain over gravities squared force by manipulation? What exactly does spin give us? If we turn spin sharply what happens? Can this be directed upwards?

Dave L

[libra_spirit]

Experiment 1:

Steel track about 25 feeet long drop is about 8" or so. At the end I have a simple angle iron that I can shift from right to left.
Steel balls are about 5/8".

As the ball hits the angle iron dflecting off to the left it goes into a circular motion and curves away from the angle of deflection arcing back to the ground.

As the ball hits the angle iron off to the right it tends to hug the edge and climb up it without any circular motion of the ball, finally dropping back down more straight.

It would appear the two deflections are not equal for my track.

Finally there is no gian of height over the starting point of the track in either deflection, but the right deflecting one is definitly higher by a small amount. I am lucky at this point to get 1/2 the height of the starting position.

Physics would tend to suggest using bigger balls may increase my chances of success.

Many of the folks doing this always speak of there being more power in a spining wheel then it takes to get the wheel spining. This must be based on something they are intuiting or observing.

I will search out some bigger and heavier balls. Pool balls would probably be perfect as they are designed to impact and survive better.

Successive experiments - I can not find a combination to cause an OU jump in balls on a track, to a higher position then they started. Try as I might. Dissapointing.

Dave L

[libra_spirit]

As to the flywheel OU device of Chas's:

Why is an old style sling a more effecient way to throw a rock then simply using an arm? This is like the sling of David And Goliath.
At the rock there is more energy contained in the highest velocity point of the spin.
By swinging the rock in a balanced circle up to a high velocity, when released it acts more like a bullet then just trying to hurl it with an arm. This is all done with the small flick of a hand that could never crush a skull without the sling. There is power in velocity.

Grantid there is leverage here but something more I believe.

With a lever:

We have a rock weighing 100 pounds and wish to lift it with a lever. The base of the lever is going on a box made of wood that can only stand a pressure of 120 pounds.

If we place 100 pounds on the opposite side of the lever at equal distance from the weighted end what happens? The box breaks under a 200 pound load. Now if we extend the lever out to the proper distance and place 15 pounds on it the 100 pound rock lifts, and the box does not break. We have lifted the rock but stressed the floor much less by using the lengthened lever.

In both instances above where we have two weights on a lever, one is equal weights and one is a lighter weight on a longer side, what happens if we drop both weights simultaniously. The energy impacing the floor is greater for the two equal weights right?
The lever has altered not only how the weight is lifted but it has altered how much stress the fulcrum must carry overall at the fulcrum. Something has changed at the center of this setup.

The mind stopping question is if the lever is experiencing the same force from the fulcrum to the heavy weight and this end is suposedly the same in both cases, how come the floor is not having the same experience at the balance point but gets off easy with the longer lever? This is not equivalent by any means.

The solution is that the center of weight shifted for the entire system to an off centered place as now one side is longer then the other and the fulcrum is no longer in the middle. We see that shifting the weight off centered can do the same work using less mass.

Wheel in high speed revolutions:

I am swinging a small weight on a string at about 1 meter radius, as Archer suggested, and have determined it takes about 60+ RPM to keep the string tight at the top of the motion. I shorten the string and this rate does not really change much until I get down to well under half this radius.

If we spin up a wheel of about 1 meter diameter then at about 60 RPM the top of the wheel becomes totally weightless! The bottom point of the wheel becomes twice as heavy right? The center of gravity for the wheel drops lower. I feel the strongest pull on the line from 6 oclock to about 8 or 9 oclock and the rest of the spin is almost effortless. I notice I am adding energy to the spin momentum only from 7 to 9 oclock and only a small flick of the wrist timmed just right. I would not want to get hit with the weight on the end of this string, although I would have no problem dealing with the hand motion hitting me. Is this what Archer Quinn is talking about?

So whats going on here? Is there more energy in a spining wheel, and particularly along its circumference? Along the entire circumference the weight has a powerful momentum to impact objects and leave a dent in something that my hand could never do alone. This must be impulse energy and what Chas has recognized also in his flywheel device.

Is OU as simple as spining up a heavy massive wheel using a small force and then tapping its higher energy or spin momentum?

I am recalling all the rather lengthy dissertations on the Searl Disc duplication at Helsinki Finland, and all the elaborate physics models trying to explain how it sinks down into the vacuum to bring up energy of over unity from some 5th or 6th dimension, or folding space time sheets! Totally incomprehensible on closer examination personally. If a simple wheel of the correct mass spining can do this also....well it makes me laugh a bit now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My good friend Dell is always reminding me of the Density model of Wilbert Smith. Often we talk about things like sheer forces where opposing densities come together like at the strong force area of the atom. Opposing forces comming together like opposing magnets and such, and how this raises density of the vacuum, or space, and this can alter the c velocity constant and make things operate differently.

Now lets say that at the very edge of the wheel we have both centrifugal force and cetrepital force opposing one another. That is as the wheels mass is hurled outwards, the material of the wheel is flexed pulling back inwards from its structure bonds and this creates one of these opposing forces that starts to alter the density of space as well as the lightspeed constant operating in the area of the wheel.

The circumference area of the wheel starts to shift into a higher density or a compression, as the center of the wheel shifts into a lower density or at worst remains about the same. The center of the wheel of corse is experiencing a total pulling outwards everywhere so tends to want to stretch outwards. The structural bonds of the wheel win and the wheel does not fly apart but it does alter the physical parameters of stress, and torsion along its volume. What happens?

Well in a higher density system light velocity is increased ever so slightly, can this results in an uneven time flow rate along the outside of the wheel where the two opposing forces meet with the most strength. This is suposedly the crux of what a torsion field is.
So what happens if lightspeed increases on the circumference of the wheel, it starts to appear to move faster to us right?
The stronger these opposing forces become, the faster the wheel seems to be moving, and yet to the wheel, if you were on it, all would seem to be moving normally while the entire world outside seemed to slow down.

I now wonder why Searl placed the opposing magnets pulsing along this same area of the wheel? Can there be a connection here? Add just a bit more opposing stress at the critical area of the wheel and maybe lower the RPM needed to get OU. The Searl duplication showed I believe about 7Kwats of power but was not easilly controllable until he later devised an RF method to stopping it.

http://www.rexresearch.com/roschin/roschin.htm

We do not have any idea at present what the ratio or math would be at this time as no one to date has accuratly recorded this. The wheel is the first oppertunity to attempt to make a math fit. If the increased power levels can be accuratly measured for one of these in operation, or better for two of different size now we can start to predict what other sizes will do. The function for increasing lightspeed, we are all familiar with Einstiens math, it was proved accurate for the strong force area of the atom already, and the loss of weight is also converted into the energy of the strong force itself. This verification is right on the peroidic table as we see the sum of the mass of the parts of the nucleus of atoms is more then its resulting weight when assembled and this equals perfectly based on E=MC^2. So if we increase C we get a squared increase in either mass or energy. We see that mass usually drops a bit and even more energy comes out of these opposing force sheers.

The first step is for the mainstream to gain a faith and belief that this is not only possible but is very likely been done in many devices already. As well it is happening inside all atoms also.

Up until now I believed we needed a device using pulsing magnets like the UTRON of Otis Carr. Chas is showing us this may not even be necessary. As the weight travels around the wheel it is being pulsed! On the top it becomes weightless on the bottom it has 2G's or more. As well Archers model is very intresting in that it may also have some connection to this sort of gain.

I believe there is something within the operation of a wheel mainstream science is still radically missing.

Dave L