DESTROYING Energy

[gravityblock]

I'd bet that the readers here are not as easily misled as you seem to think.

So, you have no scientific or mathematical rebuttal of my reply to support the four false assertions you made in your post?  If not, then this is evidence of you intentionally misleading the reader with false assertions and is proof of you being wrong!

Gravock 

[EHT]

Have you built the testbed?
So to make sure I am understanding you correctly your assumption is that the input force for the second axis of rotation will be high, relatively speaking, due to the rotation of the flywheel AND that when you stop the input for the second axis of rotation the system will stop rotating in that second axis, correct?
My assumption would be that it would take as much input to stop the second axis of rotation as what was put in to create it.

Thank you for your interest, Webby.
I am in the process of building it. Rather than trying to use a manually spun-up flywheel, I intent to add a small motor and battery to maintain the flywheel at constant RPM. That way, I can run the unit continuously for a long period knowing that the flywheel inertia is constant.
Yes you understand correctly.
I know from previous experiments that rotation in the second axis ceases instantly upon removal of the actuating force. This is what got me interested in the idea in the first place;
The flywheels inertia acts like a brake on the second axis - a perfectly resistive load - but one that does NOT dissipate heat in the process of its braking.
This is the curious bit - there does not appear to be ANY reaction or transformation that could account for the expenditure of the energy.
I believe that complete proof would best be made by having a large motor doing the work of rotating the second axis and showing the power used to do so.
If, say, 500W were being used by the motor, and the motor was 90% efficient, then the only "output" from the device will be the 50W worth of heat resulting from the motors losses.
Of course, it would be better if we could make 450W APPEAR rather than disappear, but either event suffices to show contravention of the conservation law.

[gravityblock]

I'd bet that the readers here are not as easily misled as you seem to think.

I couldn't have said it any better myself!  However, as can be seen from the comment to my post below by gsmsslsb, along with silence from the other readers, and your lack of scientific or mathematical rebuttal to my post, it's not in your favor!

Where did I transfer momentum and received the same energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?  Where did I use the same equation for both the momentum and energy in my example as you have falsely asserted?  I used mass x velocity for momentum and 0.5 * mv2 for the kinetic energy!

5 kg mass moving 1 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity).  <-------  KE = 2.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2)
1 kg mass moving 5 m/s = 5 units of momentum (mass x velocity)   <-.------  KE = 12.5J (KE = 0.5 * mv2) 

As you can clearly see, momentum is a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted was not a conserved quantity in my example!  Also, energy is not a conserved quantity in my example, which you falsely asserted that it is a conserved quantity in my example.

2.5J is not the same energy as 12.5J!  I never transferred momentum and expected the same energy in my example because I used different equations for the momentum and energy.

You're clearly trying to mislead the reader!

Gravock

Thanks Gravlok
the above is good
Love it

[gravityblock]

So if energy can be "destroyed" ie made to disappear without leaving a trace, then we can say for sure that we have a violation of the energy conservation law - at least one half of it. And if THAT is the case, then the other part of that law about "creating" energy is liable to be also just as breakable.

I have already shown mathematically how the "other part of that law about creating energy" in which you speak of isn't valid, and you throw one false assertion after another at it without any scientific or mathematical rebuttals!  If the COE (Conservation Of Energy) doesn't hold for creating energy as I have shown mathematically, then this gives support to your claims that the COE doesn't hold for destroying energy.  In addition to this, I have mathematically shown how transferring momentum from a lighter mass to a heavier mass will destroy energy.  The funny thing is, you are rejecting the very thing that gives support to your own claims!  ROFLMAO!!!

Gravock

[sm0ky2]

D) 30 / .1225 = 244.897959
   (sqrt)244.897959 = 22.1313 rad/s -> 211.3383 RPM
     FAIL