Roll on the 20th June

[purepower]

Yup, I never said that the energy amount was different, only the outcome.

Fine the energy balance stays the same, but the "work" is now able to accomplish a lot more towards perpetual motion (movement) vs. a dropped ball bearing (impact).

I'll take the motion, thank you.

Ya know.....we're back to the concepts proposed at the very beginning of this thread now.



Ain't that a pip?
All this time and semantics got in the way.

Anyway, I'll take more work out of the same amount of energy, whether reclaimed or converted into potetial energy any day.

If you never said the energy would be different, then we have no arguement! The Wizzard of Auz was claiming the energy would be different, that's what we were debating!

Energy start to finish is always the same. The outcome is how you choose to define what is "useful" work. To a carpenter, hitting a nail with a hammer to cause wood deformation is "useful." To a clocksmith, a swinging pendulem is useful work.  But neither is PM because the total energy of the system, with all variables accounted for, will always remain constant.

I'm glad we are in accord, and both understand conservation of energy.

The rocket vs plane example has many other contributing variables. But what is true for both of them is the require the same amount of potential energy for the same change in altitude (assuming mass is the same, which they are not; one of the factors that causes the rocket to require much more fuel). The only advantage "piggybacking" gives us is less fuel required to be carried by the spaceship. The plane carries additional fuel to bring itself AND the ship to launching altitude for a total requirement of additional energy.

-Pure

[exxcomm0n]

Yup, I never said that the energy amount was different, only the outcome.

Fine the energy balance stays the same, but the "work" is now able to accomplish a lot more towards perpetual motion (movement) vs. a dropped ball bearing (impact).

I'll take the motion, thank you.

Ya know.....we're back to the concepts proposed at the very beginning of this thread now.



Ain't that a pip?
All this time and semantics got in the way.

Anyway, I'll take more work out of the same amount of energy, whether reclaimed or converted into potetial energy any day.

Errrrr.....ummmmmmm.

Sorry Pure.

That post was 180 degrees from what started this (never post while under the influence of cold medicine). I also was trying to use the argument of attraction to gravity to propose the effect of the defiance of gravity.

Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

The point I was trying to make was that the energy is used in 2 different ways.

The ball bearing being launched up vertical is applying force vertically.

The ball bearing tied to a string is using force applied horizontally to attain vertical motion.

I'll do a real world test with a marble, clothspin (the one with the spring), a piece of string, and a nail.

But really this all started with the notion that it's easier for a moving object (already having energy) to utilize a ramp to achieve further "forward" motion than it is to do the same with a wall as evidenced here:

Actually AQ, newt is right. This is basic physics. Its called "potential energy."

Imagine a wall you want to climb over. You can either walk right ip to it and climb strait up and over, or you can build a ramp (or stairs). Either way you go, you still travel the same distance (total height) against the force of gravity. Therefor, total energy is the same.

What is different is power (energy per unit time). Since the ramp allows you to do the same work, just at a slower pace, the power is lower than climbing all at once. This is why it seems "easier," not because the energy changes.

Im not trying to start a fight, just thought you should know...

A wall allows no "potential energy" conversion/realization, where the ramp does......

......and it costs energy to build the ramp up the wall to conquer its height, but once it's done, it makes the goal of getting to the top of the wall much easier and the "banked" energy of the ramp makes the goal possible.

EDIT

You walk up to a wall, stop, and then climb.

You just keep walking up a ramp and not loose the forward momentum.


You can't discount the energy needed to build the ramp. Perhaps this is where we are having the misunderstanding. You can't discount that as it is energy cost, right?

I mean, you have to figure the energy used to build the ramp is equivalent to the amount of energy used to launch "so far" vertically, but every time a vertical launch is tried it uses the same amount of energy (input AND ramp building cost) to achieve the same goal.

The energy used to build the ramp only has to be realized once, and then it's "banked" and can be used multiple times, each time subtracting from the amount of energy used to build it.

Vertical launch needs all that energy every time.

Once the ramp is built it uses less energy to achieve the same goal every time after that.

I see that as less energy OVER TIME (only needing 1 repetition to realize that).

This is what I said what I did about about NASA and launches.
They finally did it 1/2 way with the shuttle vs. a rocket for conservation of the energy used to build a space craft.
Before it was "use and throw away" (rocket), and now it's "use and reclaim" (shuttle).

EDIT 2

Ya looked at the shuttle on the launch pad?
Ya see that big middle tank attached to it?

That thing is jettisoned before leaving the atmosphere, I think the 2 ancillary tanks to either side do too, but not really sure if that happens while still under the inflence of gravity or not.

I'd say their mass (being completely filled with liquid hydrogen and oxygen) is greater than a 747 (and that aircraft, to my incomplete knowledge, can skirt the atmosphere) which is a traveling gas tank AND can piggy back the shuttle (less tanks) to that atmosphere boundary.

I see that as less fuel (energy) used to achieve the same goal.

Kosher dude?

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi All
One more thing I know Archers smot has been done because years ago I did it and heres the site that proves it on this site you will see pictures, videos and drawings of my gate I called the onewaygate, this was the first gate I put on the net and its going back at least 10 years so yes Archer its nothing new to me and if you look not only does it show your setup but also how to set it up to leave with out using gravity.
http://www.fdp.nu/shared/manager.asp?d=files\Gates%20Smot\
Take Care All
Graham
PS btw I went off this gate because my next one was a true gate and better called the cornergate but then I improved that with my Trigate oh and I have one more improvement on that, again yes this isn't new to me.

[Morgenster]

The energy used to build the ramp only has to be realized once, and then it's "banked" and can be used multiple times, each time subtracting from the amount of energy used to build it.

Vertical launch needs all that energy every time.

Not quite there yet. There is no 'banked' energy in the ramp. It only alters the path of motion. Ultimately, to attain altitude X you need energy Y whether you use the ramp or straight vertical lift. The only differences in amounts of energy used between ramp and vertical lift are attributable to the design of the moving object. It's easy to test and demonstrate: build a ramp of a certain incline, and construct a pulley system for vertical lift, both the same height. When you pull object a up to height X vertically count the amount of energy used in watt/hrs and then do the same thing with object a on the ramp (you can even use the same pulley!). You'll find that (if your ramp is as good as frictionless) both ways to get to altitude X cost the exact same watt/hrs.

[purepower]

Errrrr.....ummmmmmm.

Sorry Pure.

That post was 180 degrees from what started this (never post while under the influence of cold medicine). I also was trying to use the argument of attraction to gravity to propose the effect of the defiance of gravity.

Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

The point I was trying to make was that the energy is used in 2 different ways.

The ball bearing being launched up vertical is applying force vertically.

The ball bearing tied to a string is using force applied horizontally to attain vertical motion.

I'll do a real world test with a marble, clothspin (the one with the spring), a piece of string, and a nail.

But really this all started with the notion that it's easier for a moving object (already having energy) to utilize a ramp to achieve further "forward" motion than it is to do the same with a wall as evidenced here:

A wall allows no "potential energy" conversion/realization, where the ramp does......

......and it costs energy to build the ramp up the wall to conquer its height, but once it's done, it makes the goal of getting to the top of the wall much easier and the "banked" energy of the ramp makes the goal possible.

You can't discount the energy needed to build the ramp. Perhaps this is where we are having the misunderstanding. You can't discount that as it is energy cost, right?

I mean, you have to figure the energy used to build the ramp is equivalent to the amount of energy used to launch "so far" vertically, but every time a vertical launch is tried it uses the same amount of energy (input AND ramp building cost) to achieve the same goal.

The energy used to build the ramp only has to be realized once, and then it's "banked" and can be used multiple times, each time subtracting from the amount of energy used to build it.

Vertical launch needs all that energy every time.

Once the ramp is built it uses less energy to achieve the same goal every time after that.

I see that as less energy OVER TIME (only needing 1 repetition to realize that).

This is what I said what I did about about NASA and launches.
They finally did it 1/2 way with the shuttle vs. a rocket for conservation of the energy used to build a space craft.
Before it was "use and throw away" (rocket), and now it's "use and reclaim" (shuttle).


Kosher dude?

Um, no. You are thinking way to far into this. Its okay, I would overthink things too back in my smoking days. (ya, I blazed, so much I wound up getting a medi card!)

No. We never considder construction energy of the ramp. A ramp made of brick and mortar would require much more energy than wood and nails, bit they do the exact same thing. All they do is ridirect existing energy. A "jump" takes horizontal kenetic energy and diverts (some of) it to vertically kenetic and potential energy. A skateboard halfpipe takes potential energy at the to, converts it to vertical kenetic energy on the way down, the directs the vertical kenetic energy to horizontal energy at the bottom.

You are arguing that mechanics can convert and redirect energy, which I agree with 100%. What is not true is that mechanics lessen the energy to accomplish a task. A lever/pulley/gearing assembly have the capacity to lessen force required, which is why it becomes "easier," but the energy is always the same because the decrease in force is always accompanied by an increase in distance the force must be applied.

If a ramp had the ability to create energy, then FE is no mystery! All we would need to do is roll a ball up a ramp then push it off the back! If it requires less energy to push it up than we get out by pushing it down, FE is solved! Set up a loop that spirals up, has a sudden drop and halfpipe at the bottom that takes you to the spiral back up. It won't work!

Very simple example:

Take two identitical balls, drop them from the same height at the same time. They hit the ground at the same time, right? This is because they start with the same potential energy and end with the same kenetic energy.

Now, do the same thing, but have one roll off the table, dropping the other straight down from the same height just as the other rolls off. Still hit the ground at the same time, right? Again, they start with the same potential and end with the same vertical kenetic energy EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD DIFFERENT PATHS!

My point is, and has been, the change in potential energy to get from point A to point B will always be the same regardless of path!

Mechanics change what happens to the energy, but they do not change the amount of energy.

-PurePower