Heavier object does in fact fall faster than lighter object

[cameron sydenham]

the cub scouts new about the fact that the heavier the object was, the faster the cart went, all else contstant. the guy i am representing that is building an "over unity" motor has also built a "box cart racer". we can easily demonstrate that by adding more wight to the cart, the faster it goes.

@koren- i spent all afternoon with 2 identical pvc cyllinders, one hollow, one with a metal rod through it, one with liquid nail in it( which took forever to dry) and for kicks, i filled one with water and froze it,
each one rolled at different speeds.

before i started, i "raced" each one down the incline all hollow and they were identical in accelleration and final speed as observed with my naked eye.
the slope i used was a lond wooden buffet table about 6-8 feet lond, i placed a fat book about 3 inches under one end and went racing.

the way i raced them was by placing the 2 or 3 or 4 cyllinders pointing down the hill behind each other, then repeat the process alternating a different one in the front each race. i would hold my finger in front of the front one and watch. then repeat the process with a different one in front. they all pretty much stayed together all the way down.

then when i made the modifications to the pvc cyllinders did the same race. if the heavy one was in front, it would leave the others behind. if the light was in front, it would get pushed.

here is a a real funny one for you bigface. if you have two identical wheels, both of the same mass, but one has the mass around the perimiter and the other is equally distributed like a disc, wich one goes faster now???
now one step even further, the anser to the last statement is opposite in a Centrifugal environment.!!!

[cameron sydenham]

koren, all i am talking about is rolling down an incline, falling is different. the all fall at the same rate. rolling though......

[Koen1]

If you're talking to me, my name is not Koren.

Anyway, yes, there can be a difference in rolling speed,
but does that really have to do with the Galileo experiment?
I think that with increased weight comes increased friction,
and that can influence rolling speed.
But that doesn't change the fact that they fall equally fast,
and that gravity 'pulls' them equally hard, thus accellerating
them equally. Galileos observation still seems valid.

So you may have a point there, in that rolling down a ramp is
not the same as falling vertically. In the ramp situation friction,
mass distribution, rotational momentum, etc all play along in the equation,
whereas in a fall it is mainly friction and gravity.

Can you please drop some more clues in respect to the alleged motor
based on this? sounds interesting.

[cameron sydenham]

well stated. as far as comparing to gallileo, i am not exactly sure if i am contradiction him or not. all i can say is this, when i boserve 2 identical "wheels" with a modification to thier weight, the heavier one will always roll faster. the only thing i came up with was this, if the incline was too aggressive, they seem to "fall" more than "roll." so i think that the fact that when i observe the actual rolling of the 2 masses, someone else brought up the rolling enertia or something, this is why the 2 roll at different speeds.

as far as our motor, i posted a month or so ago about a motor that we are working on that with an input or @2000 watts, we can possibly get out @200 hp and 650 lb of torque a 1000 rpm / opm(orbits per minute) this went over like a lead ballon for obvious reasons, conservation of energy, newton and so on.

if you take into consideration that a motor(the one we are building) can actually use the centrifugal force that in all motors is a biproduct and "feed" it back into the center, the amount of additional power is remarkable.

for example, if you take an 8 lb mass and rotate it around a central point with a radius of 6 inches and a velocity of 1000 rpm, if that motor were to "break off", it would have a "weight" of 1346 pounds.
we do not let it "break off" we have found a way to utilize this added force/ energy
now you can take that 1346 and turn that into torque = 682 lbs of torque
and that turns into hp of 129hp. all at 1000 rpm.
the law of conservation of energy, newtons laws all play a major part on why our motor will do what we intend it to do.
equations for above are Cf= m x r x rpm ^2 x .000341
                                   tq= Cf x r
                                   hp=tq x opm x 2 x pi divided by 33000

Cam

[jeffc]

It has always bothered me that the attraction of every object in the universe to the others is dependant on mass, and yet when we drop objects on Earth mass is not supposed to impact speed. 

If the attractive force between objects increases (via increased mass), wouldn?t also their acceleration toward each other and final velocity?

It has always been my suspicion that in practical terms Galileo was correct ? but only because the objects we can test with are so small relative to the mass of the Earth as to make them almost inconsequential.  But what if we used a huge mass, the size of a mountain?
 
This is probably just an academic discussion because I doubt we could ever be working with large enough objects on Earth to make any difference.

But, what if a ramp (hill) somehow amplifies the mass difference in force applied by gravity?  Maybe a kind of lever. 


Regards,
jeffc