View Full Version : i think this an undiscusible example that proves cons of momentum is wrong

raaaid

02-18-2008, 07:34 AM

i have a 2 m radius spining wheel that in the edge has attached spinning arms of 1 m with 1 kg weights in the end

so initially the wheel is spinning with the arms looking inside then a triger unlocks the arms and centrifugal force spin the arms so the 1 kg weights, supposing the rest of the wheel weightless go from 1 m radius to 3 m radius

so if when theres 1 m radius the weights had a linear speed of 1 m/s whats the speed when the trigger unlocks and it goes to 3 m radius?

the momentum has tripled without aplying any force since linear speed must be the same since no energy has been transformed

this example is different that if you hold spinning weights and let them go from a radius of 1 m to a radius of 3 m because then the lost energy is transformed into heat via friction

but with the example of the spinning arm in the edge of a wheel it makes the weight go from a radius of 1 m to a radius of 3 m with no lost of energy

dont you think its unfair i cant sahre this with engineers almost as i am just because its against mainstream?

Jambock_Dolfo

02-18-2008, 07:48 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by raaaid:

...

the momentum has tripled without aplying any force since linear speed must be the same ...

QUOTE]

No.

-dolfo

raaaid

02-18-2008, 08:02 AM

then its kinetic energy whats been lost

where have it gone if theres no friction

Outlaw---

02-18-2008, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by raaaid:

then its kinetic energy whats been lost

No it hasn't. Assuming no friction losses, the total rotational energy of the system remains the same.

E=(1/2)Iw^2

No conspiracies, no censorship, and no "...against mainstream...". You are simply wrong. End of story.

--Outlaw.

raaaid

02-18-2008, 08:17 AM

why to complicate it with dificult momentums when you can take into account the linear kinetik energy, much easier

thats why i made the wheel massless

lets suppose there are 2 weights of 1 kg each with an initial linear speed of 1 m/s each

since there are no loses of energy the kinetik energy must be the same so the linear speed of the weights must remain with 1 m radius or with 3

but this implies angular momentum has tripled

could it be im wrong because im aplying linear equation for kinetic energy and angualar equations for momentum?

Capt.LoneRanger

02-18-2008, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by raaaid:

why to complicate it with dificult momentums when you can take into account the linear kinetik energy, much easier

thats why i made the wheel massless

lets suppose there are 2 weights of 1 kg each with an initial linear speed of 1 m/s each

since there are no loses of energy the kinetik energy must be the same so the linear speed of the weights must remain with 1 m radius or with 3

but this implies angular momentum has tripled

could it be im wrong because im aplying linear equation for kinetic energy and angualar equations for momentum?

Yeah, odd.

You set some values to "0" and suddenly you gain free energy.

If I set my monthly costs to "0" and disregard the time-continuum, I can become a millionaire in a split-second.

Jambock_Dolfo

02-18-2008, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by raaaid:

... so the linear speed of the weights must remain with 1 m radius or with 3...

No.

-dolfo

Outlaw---

02-18-2008, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by raaaid:

could it be im wrong because im aplying linear equation for kinetic energy and angualar equations for momentum?

Do ya think?

--Outlaw.

raaaid

02-18-2008, 08:54 AM

the mecahnism i propose can be frictionless and has no impacts so i understand if the weights have a speed of 1 m/s in the beggining thats the speed they must have in the end but the radius has triple what implies triple angular momentum

if you make the equation supposing both angular momentum and linear kinetik energy are conserved youll find out the linear speed of the weights have reduced

but how can this be posible if theres no friction nor impacts?

so as i see it either energy dissapears or angular momentum appears

whats wrong about this idea?

wow thanks outlaw you hinted me right so here a free body diagram:

E1 when radius is 1 m must be equal to E2 when radius is 3 m

so lets make the equations supposing an initial angular speed of 3 rad/s:

E1=1/2*1kg*1m*3*3rad/s

E2=1/2*1kg*3m*x*x

E1=E2; x=1.73rad/seg

but what are the linear speeds then?

v1=3rad/s*1m=3m/s

v2=1.73rad/s*3m= 5.1 m/s

so linear speed has gone from 3 m/s to 5.1 m/s without applying any force

could this be the reason why they built catapults this way?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Trebuchet2.png

hehe even the ancients knew of free energy and tell me theres no supression

im gonna build a free energy device similar to that picture

Outlaw---

02-18-2008, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by raaaid:

hehe even the ancients knew of free energy and tell me theres no supression

im gonna build a free energy device similar to that picture

Since there is no free energy in a catapult, by definition, there is no suppression.

--Outlaw.

SeaFireLIV

02-18-2008, 11:17 AM

oh man. This is priceless.

bun-bun195333

02-18-2008, 02:55 PM

If I had a machine shop close to Raaaid I would make a fortune. Cash in advance, you understand...

bun-bun195333

02-18-2008, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by raaaid:

im gonna build a free energy device similar to that picture

So there's money to be made bashing down castle walls?

Tater-SW-

02-18-2008, 03:01 PM

You might want to consider a psych consult instead of an IP masking service.

LEBillfish

02-18-2008, 03:02 PM

deja-vu?......Haven't we been round and round this discuassion since raaaids first post here?

Tater-SW-

02-18-2008, 03:09 PM

Probably most of us were sane enough to ignore them before. Must be the OT nature of this forum.

Cajun76

02-18-2008, 03:16 PM

Governments have been hard at work for billions of years to make sure the Earth produced fossil fuels to keep the majority subservient. Meanwhile, you can see the rich and powerful ride free energy transportation devices called Segways.

bun-bun195333

02-18-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by LEBillfish:

deja-vu?......Haven't we been round and round this discuassion since raaaids first post here?

I'm patiently waiting to see the massless wheels, the frictionless bearings and the neglection of all things inconvenient.

SeaFireLIV

02-18-2008, 04:47 PM

I`m waiting to see the world changed so that we have Medievel catapults on every street corner solving our free-energy problems.

My father, in his own words, would call this "sheer foolishness". And he has a way of saying something that you know he`s right.

How can common sense be so absent?

Tater-SW-

02-18-2008, 04:50 PM

As an astrophysics major they went to great lengths to drill the common sense out of us and get us in line with the conspiracy to hide free energy. That's why all of us are so very filthy rich---payoff money to keep us quiet and ban guys like him from BBs.

Messaschnitzel

02-18-2008, 05:28 PM

Raaid-

You seriously need to enroll in mechanical engineering and design classes. You can only get so far with teaching yourself. Also, any mechanical theory needs to be physically tested to see if the theory is correct or not. What looks workable on the drawing board might not work in a prototype. In other words, after creating the cake recipe you have to bake the cake, otherwise you'll never know what it will taste like.

The siege machine that you show is called a trebuchet.

Here is a way to prove your design:

Do-it-Yourself Siege Weapons (http://www.mangonel.com/92903)

raaaid

02-19-2008, 06:13 AM

im 8 subjects from finishing my naval (3 years at my pace)engineering and i got an 8 out of 10 in advanced mechanics but i disagree with some things

take the trebuchet, basically a gyroscope of varying radius which according people like dr frolov from st pettersburgh university produce reactionless trhust

the stone goes from a raidus of 1m to up to 50 m

according cons of angular momentum that slows down the stone,IT should be a disadvantage

what would be logical taking into account cons of mom would be decrease the radius to make it fastest but its the opposite

just notice how the trick for the trebuchet is that the initial radius is small and then grows a lot

dont you think there must be some reason for this

well i proved that with this mechanism with a change of radius from 1 m to 3 m you end at 5.1 m/s astarting at 3m/s without making any force

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/trebuchet-in-slow-motion/3339294250

Outlaw---

02-19-2008, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by raaaid:

im 8 subjects from finishing my naval (3 years at my pace)engineering and i got an 8 out of 10 in advanced mechanics but i disagree with some things

You haven't passed physics yet you're only 8 classes away from an engineering degree? I don't believe that for a second. 8 out of 10? What university scores on a scale of 1-10? What university would let someone who can't pass the first physics take dynamics? Answer: None.

You have repeatedly mentioned how you do nothing (waking at 1400 hours) yet you can get an engineering degree in 3 years? 3 years for an engineering degree is a phenomenal pace.

Originally posted by raaaid:

well i proved that with this mechanism with a change of radius from 1 m to 3 m you end at 5.1 m/s astarting at 3m/s without making any force

All you proved was that you don't understand rigid body motion. While your equations are correct you are using them incorrectly.

As usual, you are wrong.

[edit]

Why have you not responded in the thread where I posted the free body diagram of the ball rolling down an inclined plane? It explains EXACTLY where you are wrong (for that problem of course) yet you continue to claim that classic physics is incorrect.

[end edit]

--Outlaw.

raaaid

02-19-2008, 09:14 AM

oh i tested similar so long

http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=BMjSQmz1VHM

Cajun76

02-19-2008, 09:26 AM

http://www.algobeautytreb.com/trebmath35.pdf

Perhaps this will help Raaaid. I think your underestimating the huge counterweights' ability to accelerate projectiles even as the effective radius of the arm lengthens. Pure power. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Cajun76

02-19-2008, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by raaaid:

oh i tested similar so long

http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=BMjSQmz1VHM

Uhhh, I can see it slowing down....

Messaschnitzel

02-19-2008, 12:55 PM

Here is a page that might help you. I don't think that it could be written in more simple terms:

The Basics (http://www.uark.edu/depts/aeedhp/agscience/simpmach.htm)

Here is a "Perpetual Motion Device" for you, the so-called "Dippy Bird". This little fella will keep you mesmerized all day. In fact he'll be working his @ss off dipping away while you sleep into the afternoon! You just have to remember to wake up long enough to fill his glass of water so he can keep going.

http://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/blog/uploaded_images/the_bird_red-742324.jpg

raaaid

02-19-2008, 03:15 PM

well i just built the thing and guess what in the video theres a little box in the axsle that has an engine

and they sell the kit for 30 dollars, bloody *******s

LEBillfish

02-19-2008, 03:37 PM

always remember raaaid.....A good fisherman tags then releases. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif