you only have to pump up water one foot at any hight. if it is dropped at hight it would give you speed weight that more then its took pump it up. if you had a tower with two pockets a full one and an empty one the impacted could be hit a lever at the bottom that spins a generator to pump water to the top of the tower.
Quote from: frii143 on May 20, 2023, 04:51:09 AM
you only have to pump up water one foot at any hight. if it is dropped at hight it would give you speed weight that more then its took pump it up...
I think you'll find that the energies involved are the same, less the losses.
Quote from: Paul-R on May 20, 2023, 06:17:28 AM
I think you'll find that the energies involved are the same, less the losses.
not necessarily
Gravity is an acceleration
whereas a pump moves a mass of water at a constant rate
when we think about the deceleration of the water caused by gravity,
working against our pump:
Let us suppose we move the water up 30 meters in one second
gravity works against us for one second.
m / s / s
on the free-fall gravity is working for 3 seconds
we can calculate the math and see that the final velocities are the same
(30 m/s)
the kinetic energies are drastically different
if we move the same volume of water in 3 seconds:
the energy required to do so is closer to the final energy of free-fall
This is why a rocket burns more fuel the longer it takes to leave earth
at higher velocities, it requires less energy to overcome gravitational acceleration
In a situation where the mass is falling for longer than it took to raise it up:
The energies are not inherently the same.
A slower pump uses more energy
in a general sense, most configurations place us on the losing side of that equation,
But assuming that the energies are "the same" is a mistake.
This is not always mathematically evident,
because when we break the system into parts, our equations add up
and we don't notice the problem
if we wanted to point a finger at it:
It is the second "s" in m / s / s
To clarify:
Pump moves water at m/s (constant rate)
If i wanted to perfectly balance gravity:
I would need a rocket (with infinite fuel)
that accelerated at (9.8 ) m/s/s
something to think about:
Why doesnt the current draw on a vertical pump increase with time?
.................................
Thought about it?
It actually DOES! The time is the time for a volume of water to get from point A to point B within the gravitational field.
To test this run the pump horizontally, then again vertically.
If the time is 1 second or less, current draw is consistent.
If the time is greater than 1 second, current draw is scalar
For this reason, a pressure system is preferred for greater heights than 10m
As less energy is required to pressurize the system than to pump at those heights mechanically.
The pressure system (assuming above the ambient) does not experience gravitational acceleration in the way a free falling object does. A column of water will hang in the air expending no additional energy, so long as the pressure in the column is maintained.
This is akin to an object sitting on the ground.
In this manner, pressure and height are proportional.
Like plumbing in the top floor of a skyscraper.
So:
The losses in a pump system are scalar
While the losses in a pressure system are static
(when height is constant)
This difference in energy is the difference between what the water company uses
to fill the tower
Vs
What we get out of it at ground level.
Hydrodynamics, like a Dam.
Remember gravitational acceleration is independent from mass.
Pressure systems, pumps, ballistics, or virtually (almost) any other method
of us moving the water is absolutely dependent upon mass.
more specifically, the density of that mass.
while under pressure, aerated water is far less dense.
Even though the air is compressed and the "amount" of water moved over time hasn't changed significantly, the density of that water has.
Falling momentum, on the other hand, let's say the water were contained in a (massless) vessel
doesn't care about the air
here again we can draw inequality.
Let's think about the momentum itself
as well as the kinetic energy:
in one condition we have a mass in constant motion
On the other we have an accelerating mass
What is different about these two conditions?
Greatings
frii143
Physics, which Smoky2 and some other users are aware of but.....
It requires the same amount of energy to lift an object against gravity's force
(a same amount of height),
1. When it is lifted rapidly.
as
2. When it is lifted slowly.
This does not mean that the mechanism or the method to cause the lifting is as energy
efficient in both circumstances.
The same amount of energy is present in an object's falling due to gravity's force,
(a same amount of height),
1. When it falls rapidly.
as
2. When it falls slowly.
It SEEMS as if an object that has fallen rapidly had more energy, than the
same object had, in its being lowered gradually (a same amount of distance).
This is because we witness that energy of the rapid fall, all at once.
For example... upon it having a sudden impact.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
It requires the same amount of energy to accelerate an object of a given
mass, to some given speed, against the reactive force of its tendency to remain
at rest (its own inertia).....
1. When we accelerate that object suddenly to that given speed.
as
2. When we gradually accelerate that object to that same given speed.
and also note that
The object when rapidly accelerated reaches that given speed sooner.
The object when gradually accelerated reaches that given speed in longer period of time.
The object when rapidly accelerated reaches that given speed in a shorter distance of
travel.
The object when gradually accelerated reaches that given speed in a longer distance
of travel..
I agree, there is no difference in energy, only in force and duration required to perform the lifting.
The one interesting thing with lifting a static object, is that if you allow it to fall along a gradual ramp to horizontal, your slow lifting can result in a rather rapid horizontal displacement.
Lift a cannonball (slowly) up a good 5 meter tall quarter pipe such as use for extreme sports, let go, and a good second later you have a cannonball traveling horizontally at 10 m/s. Friction and the next quarter pipe decide how far it will travel.
To push a static cannonball up to 10 m/s is quite a feet, it takes signficant equipment and/or force. Forcing the cannonball against the slow force of gravity and releasing it in a controlled way along the quarter pipe, tranfers all its potential energy (the 5 meters) into horizontal velocity.
At the time when we were teased by the Abeling gravity wheel, I was pondering (kinda still am) how we could use horizontal and radial advancement of weights on a wheel into persistent acceleration. A "simple" manner of saving time on the way up and starting to impart force on the downward side of the wheel ahead of schedule causing it to be unbalanced and accelerate. So far, no solution that I foresee working.
pumping water up one foot raises the water above it this is a proved water storage technique. they uses it today commonly for energy storage. when the water is released it turns a generator dropping the water a hundred feet. it doesn't drop the water free fall but turns a pump.
Don't blindly believe what you have been told
The truth is we do not fully understand gravity
1) how much energy is required to lift an object through gravity?
A) if the object is motionless
B) if the object first falls, then rises using gravitational momentum?
How much energy is consumed by a plane to raise its altitude?
How much energy does a flying squirrel use by jumping down then flying up to a higher branch?
An Eagle or condor can slow itself down, causing lift, then soar back down to the original altitude
resulting in a higher velocity
A spacecraft can enter gravity at one angle, and leave at another at a faster speed
Momentum can exceed the potential energy of a gravitational system under the right conditions
the kinetic energy of the rise and fall are not equivalent,
Rising incurs an inverse acceleration, over time
Falling incurs an increasing acceleration, over time
Take the energy in 12 grains of black powder
And use that to slowly lift a mass of lead
And compare that to the height of a fired bullet straight up
Then compare both of those to the instantaneous force of impact when the bullet lands
in one condition the bullet falls from a great height and impacts at one velocity
In the other condition the bullet is moving much faster (often inhibited by terminal velocity)
lets take a 100 lb man with 100lbs of weights in his pockets
and also a 200lb man with no additional weight
Who has more stored energy available?
Who can jump higher?
Why are those two things not in agreement?
Newtonian Theory works, exactly as prescribed, in most circumstances
But it is not absolute, and conservation within the field is bound by certain presumptions
Go outside of these, and things change
There are the extreme examples of magnetism and buoyancy
but even two different uses of gravity alone can result in
differences between two sides of a system
Don't forget what we learned from William Skinner
Consider the Boyle's Flask (which is pretty close to unity)
and use the kinetic energy of the falling fluid to close the loop
this is a mathematical overunity (never been accomplished that i know of)
the plank gravity engine works according to currently accepted scientific theory.
Our difficulties are in the engineering
There are many others, Chas Campbell comes to mind, though there was much controversy during his time, it has since been shown to have more merit than we gave him credit for.
Aspects of the system that were not, at the time, realized.
The book of baskara is theoretically sound, were we to accomplish the feat of designing "ideal systems", but alas the losses are what make his work underunity, not his designs themselves.
In a frictionless, lossless, gravitational field these systems would be perpetual and provide excess. As would many standard devices we use today, though thermodynamics includes system losses as input, on the basis that they theoretically must be overcome. Myself, I see this as a scapegoat to avoid discrepancies in the theory. How can losses be part of the input that is then lost?
If you added it as input, the input value would have to change! But no they want to add it in to balance their equations, not something that is physically added into the system.
Take the BTU equation for example:
Energy to boil a gallon of water
What about to boil 10 gallons?
Is that E * 10?
Are you sure? (Archer Quinn proved this to be false in a replicable experiment)
So, returning to declaration as posited by user frii143
Quote from: frii143 on May 20, 2023, 04:51:09 AM
you only have to pump up water one foot at any hight. if it is dropped at hight it would give you speed weight that more then its took pump it up. if you had a tower with two pockets a full one and an empty one the impacted could be hit a lever at the bottom that spins a generator to pump water to the top of the tower.
Greatings
frii143
It requires the same amount of energy to lift an object against gravity's force
(a same amount of height),
1. When it is lifted rapidly.
as
2. When it is lifted slowly.
This does not mean that the mechanism or the method to cause the lifting is as energy
efficient in both circumstances.
The same amount of energy is present in an object's falling due to gravity's force,
(a same amount of height),
1. When it falls rapidly.
as
2. When it falls slowly.
It SEEMS as if an object that has fallen rapidly had more energy, than the
same object had, in its being lowered gradually (a same amount of distance).
This is because we witness that energy of the rapid fall, all at once.
For example... upon it having a sudden impact.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
It requires the same amount of energy to accelerate an object of a given
mass, to some given speed, against the reactive force of its tendency to remain
at rest (its own inertia).....
1. When we accelerate that object suddenly to that given speed.
as
2. When we gradually accelerate that object to that same given speed.
and also note that
The object when rapidly accelerated reaches that given speed sooner.
The object when gradually accelerated reaches that given speed in longer period of time.
The object when rapidly accelerated reaches that given speed in a shorter distance of
travel.
The object when gradually accelerated reaches that given speed in a longer distance
of travel..
what I want to know would free fall weight acted like a combustion if dropped from more than a 130 feet. like 12 gallons of water about 100 pounds. I think free fall a human reaches about a 120 mph dropping a 120 feet. I think it would need a flywheel to capture the impacted.
Interesting paradox.
In practice, try to move 200 kg. barrel on a flat, smooth, hard surface, for example, 10 meters.
How much energy do you spend on this. And now tilt the barrel on the edge of its bottom.
And roll the barrel on the edge of the bottom to a new place.This is much more easily.
:)
Quote from: kolbacict on May 21, 2023, 03:38:48 AM
Interesting paradox.
In practice, try to move 200 kg. barrel on a flat, smooth, hard surface, for example, 10 meters.
How much energy do you spend on this. And now tilt the barrel on the edge of its bottom.
And roll the barrel on the edge of the bottom to a new place.This is much more easily.
:)
Its not a paradox.
In practice...
The same amount of energy is used TO MOVE A BARREL on wheels
as is used to slide the barrel.
In the case of sliding the barrel, a greater amount of additional energy is used
TO OVERCOME FRICTION
than
the is amount of additional energy used to overcome friction when instead, a
barrel is rolled.
The PORTION of the energy that goes into MOVING THE BARREL is the same, in
both cases.
Quote from: frii143 on May 21, 2023, 01:18:58 AM
what I want to know would free fall weight acted like a combustion if dropped from more than a 130 feet. like 12 gallons of water about 100 pounds. I think free fall a human reaches about a 120 mph dropping a 120 feet. I think it would need a flywheel to capture the impacted.
You know the answer.
Quote from: kolbacict on May 21, 2023, 03:38:48 AM
Interesting paradox.
In practice, try to move 200 kg. barrel on a flat, smooth, hard surface, for example, 10 meters.
How much energy do you spend on this. And now tilt the barrel on the edge of its bottom.
And roll the barrel on the edge of the bottom to a new place.This is much more easily.
:)
After the rolling, you still need to raise it back up.
If the barrel is on perfectly slippery ice, rolling doesn't help anymore any, because you are first lifting the barrel to its tipping point to tilt and then losing a lot of nergy in the fall that needs to all be returned by you to put it back up straight.
QuoteIts not a paradox.
I as generally am understanding it.
Moving along horizontal surface in ideal don't need of energy at all.Isn't it ?
Without change height. If it wasn't for the damn friction.
The fact is that adherents of free energy saw in their time a source of OU in this.
The allegedly tilted barrel falls all the time, and we only need to shift the fulcrum so that it does not fall at all. Allegedly, gravity moves the barrel itself. But I doubt it myself.It Related to this product below. But this is not on the topic of the branch, okay, I'm finishing.
the water(antifreeze) is pumped from a catch pool. when the water crashes into the bottom it dumps its water into the pool to be pumped back up. the generator is turn by crashing into a lever that pulls a lawn mower pull cord that turns flywheels that hit by the water pocket that lifts the empty second pocket.
Quote from: Willy on May 21, 2023, 06:19:34 AM
Its not a paradox.
In practice...
The same amount of energy is used TO MOVE A BARREL on wheels
as is used to slide the barrel.
In the case of sliding the barrel, a greater amount of additional energy is used
TO OVERCOME FRICTION
than
the is amount of additional energy used to overcome friction when instead, a
barrel is rolled.
The PORTION of the energy that goes into MOVING THE BARREL is the same, in
both cases.
Coincidentally, if you tilt the barrel at a slight angle and roll it around on its' lower rim
You can move it anywhere you want even uphill
Expending only a fraction of the normal energy required to do so
Concerning the energy spent tilting the barrel:
There is initial input to tilt the barrel from vertical to an angle
If you mark the horizontal line at the top of the barrel,
You see that a fraction of the barrel is moved to a higher point
the lifting of this portion as well as energy spent in shifting the center of balance
However, after having relocated your barrel this energy is still stored as potential energy
by slightly nudging the barrel towards falling straight up again, you could theoretically recover this
The energy required to move the barrel is LESS for several reasons, i will mention some:
Friction is one: the surface area of a point along the lower rim can be negligible
Moment of Inertia: this is assisted by Gravity, along a curved surface
Similar to how a Rocking Chair functions
Angular Momentum: the rolling mass of the barrel carries itself along
A small child can easily move a barrel weighing several hundred pounds
all around the ranch.....
Probably ,theme related,of interest !
Hypothesis/Thesis : the studies in the 80's in Sweden and Germany Universities could be important,to understand when physical laws becoming out of order !
'Eigen'-Sin(n)
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.grueneperlen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Aquadea-Viktor-Schauberger-Die_unendliche_Kraft_im_Wasser.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiw5qDBxYb_AhWFC-wKHYzWCysQFnoECAIQAg&usg=AOvVaw38MiL7_9dZVNQ2rQzGYN-Z
wmbr
OCWL
Quote from: sm0ky2 on May 21, 2023, 09:57:53 AM
Coincidentally, if you tilt the barrel at a slight angle and roll it around on its' lower rim
You can move it anywhere you want even uphill
Expending only a fraction of the normal energy required to do so
smoky2
1. Your comments are off topic.
2. Your statement above is utterly unclear.
i.e. What does the phrase "the normal energy required to do so" mean ?
and
3. what it implies is utterly untrue.
Quote from: frii143 on May 21, 2023, 09:44:52 AM
the water(antifreeze) is pumped from a catch pool. when the water crashes into the bottom it dumps its water into the pool to be pumped back up. the generator is turn by crashing into a lever that pulls a lawn mower pull cord that turns flywheels that hit by the water pocket that lifts the empty second pocket.
To frii143
Your ideas and questions are valid and good ones.
To get the answers from someone else means the you would have to just
take their answers for true.
I think that it is better in this case, that you know the answers because you have
acquired knowledge of how and why the things your are questioning do what they do.