Accelerating forces

[ARMCORTEX]

Can anybody confirm the validity of what this guy said?

Who is the scientist that this guy read to give him such crazy ideas.

This guy is a special user.

[magneat]

Can anybody confirm the validity of what this guy said?

Who is the scientist that this guy read to give him such crazy ideas.

This guy is a special user.

https://overunity.com/17113/re-energy-producing-experiments/msg541516/#msg541516


https://overunity.com/17113/re-energy-producing-experiments/msg541532/#msg541532

"Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity."
/ Marshall McLuhan /

[sm0ky2]

@Dave:


In Archer's device the "wall" is just the angle of approach.
When it is at the proper curvature (elliptical)
gravity can easily push it into the field and activate the mechanism.
Providing the proper proportions are maintained in terms of mass,
magnetism, and distance.


When you have two forces in opposition
the net difference produces a 3rd value
this is the acceleration of the motion. Each second
the change in velocity adds to the speed.


What we find it is not just a raw difference in static force
i.e. the lifting force of the magnet
But rather a difference in velocity over distance through the magnetic field
Vs change in velocity over time through the gravitational potential well.


I don't want to get too much into the mechanics of this situation since it has
it's own thread. (which will be reactivated in the upcoming months)


But to keep in mind the difference between the acceleration forces.
Like the dance played out between the earth, moon, and ocean.


———————————————————————————————————————


Looking at the rolling ball:
Let's consider 2 extremes.


1) a short ramp with a near vertical incline.
here we have close to mgh, a short drop time and a small derivative final velocity.
Energy adds up close to our input.


2) a very long incline, where almost all of the vertical force has been transferred to
linear and rotational momentum.
here we have our momentum vector approaching 0 in the vertical dimension.
Gravity has literally been re vectored into the horizontal.
acceleration is —>, and for longer time and distance.
final velocity and momentum is greater for the object that fell for a longer time and
distance.


Even though the actual height within the potential well is the same,
the path traveled is longer. It "fell" longer than the other ball.
The track caused it to "fall" horizontally.


This change occurs at about a 45-degree angle.
Acute angles are similar to driving off a ledge.
Obtuse angles are similar to rolling downhill with no brakes.


Dropping off the ledge you stop very abruptly.
Rolling down a gradual hill, you can coast into town after ran out of gas.


(a car is slightly different because there are two axles.)


Looking again at the ball.
The center of mass is assumed to be the fulcrum.
This is false.
What I mean by that is when you set a ball on a surface
the point of contact is BDC.
Most people assume this will always be the case when it rolls.
And on a level pool table this is sometimes the case.....


But not on our ramp. I'll try to explain why:
If you think of the ball as being a flat rod of the same mass
and the point which makes contact is always at the center of the rod
considering the angle of the rod to be the angle of the incline
the center of gravity is vectored UPhill!!!
Or more accurately, down on the uphill side of the fulcrum.
this lifts the front of the ball (downhill side) and causes the ball
to sit on a point uphill from the center of mass.
(basically perpendicular to the ramp +/-)
We see our "flat rod" is not actually fulcrumed at its' center but shifted
uphill a tad. This shift is what vectors the force along the direction of the ramp.


This description is much different than the brute force analogy presented by physics
professors 15 yrs ago. Which attributed the rolling to the ramp inhibiting gravity and
friction on the surface of the ball.
In all reality on a frictionless surface a ball rolls the same. (actually faster...)




Here is the conundrum:
We take 3 ramps identical in length and height and angle.
and a 4th, equal in height but elongated at a greater angle.
and a translational interface to allow the ball to roll off one ramp
and up the next.


The experiment is simple.
Release the ball from the top of the ramp and observe its momentum as
a height reached as it rolls up the ramp on the other side.
This coincides with our first experiment comparing both ramps side by side.
By converting the momentum back into the vertical plane against gravitational
acceleration: we see that the longer ramp imparted something the shorter ramp
did not.


What is the variable?
Our theory allows us to negate horizontal translation
Mass and initial Height are constant.
The Archimedean leverage I describe above has been known for 2300 yrs.
What is left?


Time (how long it was falling)


[consider a meteor in free fall with theoretically no terminal velocity]
  [How high would you drop it from to reach "c"?, and how long would
    it take to get here?]
If a ball rolled down a long enough ramp would it reach a terminal velocity?
————————————————————————————————————




Dropping a ball off a cliff and landing it in a bucket to turn a wheel
or on an impact pressure plate to measure it
we can calculate mgh, and get back (most of) our energy we spent
lifting the ball: as impact force, or impact + remaining mgh 
This experiment has been used to set the standards for physical constants.
A Pendulum impact hammer operates by these principals.


The same ball rolling down a long ramp impacting the wheel in the direction
of rotation does what?


The rest of Chas' wheel is perfectly balanced. Just that tiny impulse gives it
enough to kick the wheel back over the top.


I'm not claiming that I can build one. The precision and craftsmanship to
balance a machine like that would require more than myself to accomplish.
But I have built mechanisms and contraptions to test these theories enough
to understand what Chas was doing with his wheel.
(and why no one else was able to replicate it)


The difference in acceleration is the key. On the balanced wheel you have
the balls accelerating downward from gravity on both sides. Only the
momentum of the wheel keeps it turning, and it will wind down on its own.
But while the ball is in transition there is a slight gravitational imbalance
the mass of the ball is no longer opposing rotation, and an acceleration is
imparted on the wheel by the weight in the other side.
The ball on the ramp accelerates at a different rate.


The time it takes to drop Chas holds constant by the length of the ramp
and the diameter of the wheel. But the difference in acceleration results in
a difference in momentum between the point where the ball is on the imbalanced
wheel vs the ball when it rolls off the ramp, exactly at the location it needs to balance
the wheel again and allow the flywheel to carry the next ball over the top.


——————————————————————————————————————————-


Take 2 identical block of styrofoam, 2 pieces of sheet metal to match and glue them
together.
And 1 Bowling ball.


And a very long ramp.


The experiment is simple:
set the height less than the length (sorry to point out the obvious)


1) drop the ball off the back side (vertical) and land it on the sheet metal.
2) roll the ball down the ramp and impact it onto the sheet metal perpendicular
    to the ramp angle.


Compare the dents.
We can spend days arguing about wind resistance vs friction but clearly the
magnitude of the difference in momentum makes such efforts futile.
——————————————————————————————————————————-


If we use magnetism, wind or water pressure, heat, light, sound or vibration
we can create a force to oppose gravity.
slowing down the fall of an object, or making it rise.
With careful tuning we can match the 9.8 m/s/s of our gravity and perfectly
suspend an object in the air. (or on the water column/ magnetic field/ etc)


By changing the difference between the forces (difference in acceleration)
We can manipulate the system to do work for us.
It is not a matter of energy input to create the forces.
But the difference between the forces and the energy we use to switch them.


For example: if we use water pressure to lift a bowling ball.
The energy in our water reservoir is mgh
So is the ball to lift it.


The pressure to lift it is a different story.
This is the weight of the ball vs the surface area of contact.


The pressure available at the nozzle is the aperture and height of water column.


The "energy" used is a factor of flow rate, which is not entirely related to the bowling ball.


A system of precision valves can reduce flow rate to negligible values.
While creating an oscillatory momentum in the bowling ball.
Attaching this motion to a flywheel to ascertain the kinetic energy:
We see that this can exceed the mgh of the water reservoir.


Compare this to a pressure engine operating in the horizontal plane:
Stroke extends the piston and the engine stalls.
So we add a spring to return the piston and complete the cycle.
We use energy to load the spring but it is returned to us making it similar
to the gravity engine above.
What is the difference?


The first thing that becomes apparent is the timing.
We can fiddle all day adjusting the horizontal engine to match the vertical one
and it never will.
Because  with gravity there is a difference in acceleration between the strokes.
notice in old trains, the cam is different when it is vertical.
the down stroke is constant (fraction of gravity).
upstroke is based of the compression/expansion of the fluid.


Horizontally you have only the fluid to consider, and the action of the return
be it from a spring or flywheel cam or another pressure chamber, etc.
(and  there is less torque for the piston mass)


If you were to explain this to an ICE mechanic you would say that gravity adds
to the compression ratio.
This is caused by a difference in acceleration between the fall of the piston
and the expanse of the fluid pushing it back up.


What makes this interesting is that with a hydraulic liquid we can return pressure
to the system that drives it. Further decreasing the energy input to the engine.
—————————————————————————————————————————


Take a fan and a compressed air source.
The experiment is simple::


1) air from 2 nozzles is directed onto the fan on each side
in opposite directions.
with a set source pressure and flow rate (total flow from source)


2) nozzles are expanded and constricted in such a way that:
    one produces a faster jet of air than the other, while maintaining
    same source pressure and flow rate as the 1) test.


Compare how the difference in acceleration effects the experiment.

[magneat]

the shortcut is not always the fastest -


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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03T2jiJPRGc

[gyulasun]

Yes, and here are measurements with more precision https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BdO8J0iynY 

Some say (elsewhere) that the kinetic energy of the balls are the same at the end of their course and others believe the fastest ball has obtained higher kinetic energy with respect to the other ball(s)...

Gyula