Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: LB7 on 18/09/2015 17:32:45
-
If I do that :
In the blue container there are balls + springs + a part of the cylinder: I reproduce the pressure like the water can do with the gravity. The springs attract. One spring for one ball. Each spring is attached at a green point. The balls are in a random position at start because I need the pressure at left and at right. There are springs for attract the part of the cylinder inside the container like the balls.
The cylinder is attracted by the springs, so it has a torque on it. The arm receives 2 positives torques, one from the force F1 and the other from the force F2 but it receives one negative torque from F3, but only F3y can give a torque and F3y=-F2, so the arms receive a torque from F1.
I accelerate the support more and more, the kinetic energy increases. The device is always like I drawn: for that I accelerate the arms like the cylinder accelerate even the torque from F1 is not enough I need to accelerate to keep constant the springs at their length (each spring keep its length constant).
-
It's not possible to create energy with any device. It can be shown that the sum of all forms of energy that are now known to exist is a constant in time. It's also a law of physics meaning that if a new kind of energy was discovered then it wouldn't change that.
-
What's wrong with my idea ?
As you already know, it violates the law of conservation of energy. But I know you want details so I printed it out and will examine it. If its too difficult to understand I won't post anything after this post and won't give an explanation.
-
People once said it was impossible to go to the moon, build your device on a small scale, that is the only way you will know if it works, I personally can not see what you are trying to do, at a glance I cannot see how it work.
-
I try to have a torque on the black arm from forces of pressure. But I don't want this torque on the red arm.
Do you understand the container with the balls+springs to obtain a pressure like the pressure with a liquid inside a container with gravity ? The only difference is at bottom, like I attract the balls and the part of the sphere inside the container, there is no force at "bottom" because the forces of springs are cancelled by the pressure of balls.
I am sorry, I am failing to understand you, start with what this suppose to mean - ''a pressure like the pressure with a liquid inside a container with gravity ''
The sides of the container hold the pressure of the liquid, the liquids viscosity is natural to want to spread out, and find an even level, (flat), so by containing a liquid we stop the liquid doing the natural to gravity, i.e a puddle, but both the liquid and the container are always falling to the floor under the influence of gravity.
Is this what you mean?
-
People once said it was impossible to go to the moon, ...
When laymen hear physicists state that something is impossible because it violates a law of physics, the layman almost always using that sort of argument. It's always wrong too because the people who made those claims weren't physicists.
-
When laymen hear physicists state that something is impossible because it violates a law of physics, the layman almost always using that sort of argument. It's always wrong too because the people who made those claims weren't physicists.
I understand the Laws of Physics Pete, I know there is no such thing as a frictionless bearing. Personally though I consider the Sun is perpetual energy in a single lifetime, and orbit is perpetual motion in a lifetime, so perpetual energy and motion can not be impossible in a lifetime when we already observe this of space.
Newtons first law Pete, perpetual motion in space.
-
The container has walls to prevent the balls to move outside. With a container full with water on a table on Earth there are pressure from the fluid at left, right, ok ? Like this example:
http://www.savannahstate.edu/cost/eng-tech/faculty/jayjan2010/jay/hehslidec2.htm
It's just an example. But I want the pressure follow the rotation, so I can't use the gravity. What is gravity ? It's a force that attract each molecule with a same force. So I use a lot of springs, one spring for one ball. The balls are not like I drawn but like that:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs5.postimg.org%2F5ut2yjkcz%2Fimage.jpg&hash=145c6ca4f1c27f8a02bca7aa363f062b) (http://postimg.org/image/5ut2yjkcz/)
Each spring is attached from a green point to a ball. There is no friction between balls (theoretical).
At bottom, there is no force if there is only balls (no other object) in the container. Here, I have a part of the sphere inside the container and I attract it with springs (like I attract the same volume of balls) like that there is no force at bottom, are you agree ?
For resume: no force at up, no force at bottom but forces at left and at right
The friction will be on any bearing of the device, friction takes away kinetic energy stopping any device with no applied force.
-
So imagine there is a friction like the friction of molecules of water not more, is it possible ? I want just a pressure like the molecules of water, it's possible because with gravity it's like that. If I said no friction, it's for simplify the study, you can add a small friction between balls, the balls will never move inside the container. But do you understand what I want to do with the container full of balls+springs ?
I add what I called "top" and "bottom":
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs5.postimg.org%2Fxxh25nrgz%2Fimage.jpg&hash=1a6219ed744bd309e309cf86ff278cbe) (http://postimg.org/image/xxh25nrgz/)
Any friction would cause a device to fail, to get a model to work you would have to develop and mimic space itself and mimic orbits, this is only sort of ''perpetual'' we evidentially observe, this is why we know we will not get anything to work because we can not mimic this space or process here on earth.
To be honest you would be far better spending your time if this is a subject you are interesting in , designing an isotropic mag-lev, a centripetal force flotation of a mass that could be manipulated by polarity creating movement, i.e two suspended positives will never touch but neither will they reach the sides of the containment has the containment is a negative polarity centripetal magnetic force.
>=velocity
<=velocity
><><
the only action is to rotate :>
draw this design and post here and we have a winner. I have no idea how to post a picture or I would of done it ages ago.
-
You can add friction between balls, it's not a problem, add the friction you want just add a little oil between balls ok ? Do you understand what I want to do with the container ?
To put an image use this site:
http://postimg.org/
And take the link "URL forum"
Oil wears off, no I can not see what you are doing with the box, this is what you would need to aim for. Arr it look slike I can upload pics now, now we are talking now I can provide models.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
This model would actually work ....I see no reason it would not, can you explain what your device suppose to do compared to this?
-
I don't see the relation between your image and my device, could you explain more ?
I'm agree oil wears off, there is friction, there is a lost by heating, I'm ok. But the energy of the device comes not from this. With the container there is a torque on the black arm that I resumed by the force F1. On the red arm there is no torque because the sphere put all the force on the ball link so the forces F3x and F3z can't give a torque.
Could you ask me some questions about what you don't understand please, like that I can explain.
Well from what I have understood you are trying to make this ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
If you look at my diagram there is no friction of the two central masses, there is nothing to make friction, both masses are of equal polarity so their naturalism is to repel each other, the isotropic centripetal force of the containment is also of the same polarity as the central masses, so although the central masses want to travel in a straight line they cant because of the isotropic centripetal force being of the same polarity and repelling them back, an equal and opposing force that will create kinetic energy with no were to go except by rotating the central masses around each other.
Has you like springs, place a spring between the two masses, then you will understand the spring is compressed by the external force but at the same time is trying to decompress by the force of the spring. Bare in mind the spring is virtual and represents the repelling force of the masses.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
No, my device is not like the Cavendish experiment.
There is only springs between the bottom (green points) and a ball and between the bottom (green points) and the sphere. Before to say if my device is in relation with yours I would like you understand what I try to explain:
1/ Do you understand the container has no force at top, no force at bottom but forces at left and at right due to the pressure of balls ?
Your container is all under the force of gravity, top , bottom, middle , sides is all being pulled down to the floor.
The balls the water are all being to the floor. The bearing that holds the container is under friction from the force, the lever arm transmits the force to your main ''trunk'' bearings, anything tha moves as a mechanical device has to have bearings, it does not matter what you do, the mechanic device will always lose the kinetic energy to the bearings and friction.
From further thought I think you are trying to do like an oil pump design, expecting the box to move up and down by using springs on your main ''trunk'' to pull the box back up, by using motion of the balls in the box to sustain the movement, but the movement in the container will settle has the kinetic loss to the bearings happens.
-
There is NO gravity !
And where exactly in the universe are you going to find a place with no gravity influence?
What use is your design for of earth use?
-
Hey guy, before to understand my device with the gravity, try to understand without it. After, if you want your gravity add it, and you will understand the gravity change nothing. And it's possible to find a gravity = 0.001 in the Universe, no ? Ok, so first, try to understand what I want to do with the balls and the springs.
It is impossible to imagine your device with no gravity, without gravity there is nothing to make it move it the first instance when you are trying to design a counter balance system, there has to be something to make the balance in the first instant, and if it is not going to work on earth, there is no point to your device and no way to test it in a gravitational free place. Gravity does weaken the further away you move away from a mass of the mass, but then as you move away from that mass you nearing another mass so the magnitude increases again, your invention would have to be floating in space, on a gravity ''event horizon'' and there would be no initial force to make it work and it would be of no use to us all the way out there.
-
Do you understand my container with balls and springs ?
If you put balls and springs in a container it has no effect on the external of the container.
Please explain what you think the action of the device will be?
-
Sure, but the walls of the container have forces from pressure, ok ?
and the walls contain that pressure with an equal and opposing force, no force leaves the box,
please explain what you think the action of the device will do?
-
The container is not a rectangle parallelepiped. The container has walls except on the part where there is the sphere. The sphere closes the volume. The volume of balls is closed by the container and the sphere. The container has a part of forces from pressure. The sphere has the other part of forces from pressure, ok ?
I want a torque (I resumed it with the force F1) on the container and don't on the sphere.
I have no idea of what that suppose to mean , is your native language English?
I asked you , what do you think the actions of your design will be?
are you expecting the box/sphere to move up and down on your pivot arm?
If so , what force are you using to pivot as anything inside the ''box'' has no effect on the pivot of the device?
-
I'm French
Ok, I understand now what you are trying to achieve and I can confirm it will not work, you are trying to create torque inside you container that will transfer to create a linear twist on the lever arm, this will not happen, the torque inside the box is cancelled out by the containment, an equal and opposing force creating a net force of 0,(Fn=0), an equilibrium state between the meeting of forces.
''Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.''
If you want to consider energy , this is what science looks for ,
''Energy conservation refers to reducing energy consumption through using less of an energy service. Energy conservation differs from efficient energy use, which refers to using less energy for a constant service''
If you can find something that puts less in and gains more out , then science would be more than happy to hear this.
-
It's false, there is a torque on the container from the pressure of balls. It's logical.
I am sorry but logical is not really a part of Physics, that would be Philosophy and psuedo science, science already knows there is no net force, no torque exists, you are mistaking torque for pressure.
Wind applies force on a windmill, the windmill is pressured to move, so moves creating a torque, the walls of the container are not free to move, they contain, no torque is generated. The action creates pressure of the walls of the containment, the walls are solid and resist the pressure making no movement, it is cancelled out by the walls. You are mistaking what torque is.
-
There is net forces on the container:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs5.postimg.org%2Fb6ckwzvtf%2Fsw4.jpg&hash=ca4642886739bc721f5a148b7e52ffde) (http://postimg.org/image/b6ckwzvtf/)
And these forces are not at the same value because the pressure increases more and more to the bottom, so there is a torque.
No the pressure at the bottom of the containment is not an inequality to the top of the containment, pressure is isotropic, i.e air expands isotropically to fill an hot air balloon, the pressure you would need would have to defy the Laws of physics, the containment would breach before you created negligible torque.
Torque is movement based, if there is no movement there is no torque. A force that tends to cause rotation, you have no force.
-
It's false, the pressure come from the springs not the air. Each spring attract a ball to the bottom (like gravity can do with a molecule of water).
No , all you are saying is take a container and place some springs and balls in it, that create a pressure on the container walls, by the springs actions, this action has no movement of the springs, kinetic energy can not be gained without movement, your springs and balls are stationary, your device has no mechanism to produce torque or kinetic energy.
You are mistaking that the only thing your containment walls are doing is supporting you springs.
-
There are movements: the arms turns at w.
The arms do not turn, what makes the arm turn? alls I see is that you have suspended a useless box on a crane design,
-
I turn the arms before to apply the forces of springs (imagine the springs can be set ON/OFF when I want).
so you are trying to re-invent a wind up watch and are asking if this will work?
-
I'm not sure you understood the device
I think you might be correct, I have no idea of how you intend to make the sphere rotate by using the force of springs and to continue the rotation of the sphere over coming the problem of inertia. You say that the pressure of the springs on the surface of the sphere? will create a torque, that in turn will some how turn the sphere over coming the spheres inertia?
The Fn will always remain at 0 from the springs pressure, any more than 0 and the pressure will buckle the containment of the springs breaking the device, the density of the containment is pretty useless if it is not equal to containing the springs and keeping the Fn at 0.
-
your diagrams make no sense, you explanation of the process makes no sense, your box with springs will not transfer a torque to the center mass. if you want to be taken seriously you would need to create mechanical design blueprints of each component/part of the device. With attached maths.
A rough idea is not an idea. anyone can just sketch an outline to an idea.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
you can easily see how this works
-
The first image is a cutting view and the second the top view.
And if I want only one torque on the gyroscope I need to have 4 containers. 2 containers give a torque to the sphere only. I add stems (didn't draw) that can cancel forces on the from the surfaces of the containers:
you are obviously fixated with your idea and are not hearing anything but yourself. Your balls and springs will not do anything but sit there. please provide a diagram of your spring layout.
-
The first image is a cutting view and the second the top view.
And if I want only one torque on the gyroscope I need to have 4 containers. 2 containers give a torque to the sphere only. I add stems (didn't draw) that can cancel forces on the from the surfaces of the containers:
you are obviously fixated with your idea and are not hearing anything but yourself. Your balls and springs will not do anything but sit there. please provide a diagram of your spring layout.
It's not easy to explain, and before draw a complex diagram try to understand the container can have a torque from the pressure of balls:
1/ At top, you're agree that there is no force ?
2/ At bottom, you're agree that there is no force because balls give forces from pressure and the springs cancel these forces, sure there is more surface at bottom than the volume of balls I attract so I attract the sphere too, and I attract the sphere to cancel all the force at bottom
3/ At left there are the forces from pressure, I didn't draw all forces but only three, Fex1, Fex2, Fex3 and sure at right there are -Fex1, -Fex2, -Fex3 these forces cancel themselves but like there is the sphere there are more forces at left than at right. So there is a torque on the container, do you agree with that ?
are you trying to put some ''beads'' on a shaft with a spring separating them, forcing the ''beads'' to push against the containment wall? and the shaft runs through the container into a sphere?