Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: So, sails don't work in this universe?

Expand Messages
  • UbaVonTuba
    Phil, Here s an answer to a query I had regarding my last post. I thought of a very simple reply that explains it pretty well. I hope it helps. Eric wrote:
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 31, 2004
      Phil,
       
      Here's an answer to a query I had regarding my last post.  I thought of a very simple reply that explains it pretty well.  I hope it helps.
       
      Eric wrote:
       
      What the heck are you talking about here?  I never said it would go anywhere.  I said it would stop rotating.  It's not a motive device.  It's just designed to be a way to dump momentum in a closed system (actually, cancel out angular momentum by converting first to linear momentum).
       
      If the angle of attack to the wheel is trying to push it around clockwise, but the angle of attack to the vanes is trying to push it around counter-clockwise, then logically, it cannot move.
       
      That would be like telling Siamese twins, "You go that way (--->)  and you go that way
      (<---)."  Which way would they go?  Here is a diagram. (imagine the "O's" are attached Siamese twins):  <---OO--->
       
      Eric


      Do you Yahoo!?
      New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
    • Phil Karn
      ... Sorry, but you can no more destroy angular momentum in a closed system than you can create linear momentum in a closed system. For the last time, the only,
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 1, 2004
        UbaVonTuba wrote:

        > Phil,
        >
        > Here's an answer to a query I had regarding my last post. I thought of
        > a very simple reply that explains it pretty well. I hope it helps.
        >
        > Eric wrote:
        >
        > What the heck are you talking about here? I never said it would go
        > anywhere. I said it would stop rotating. It's not a motive device.
        > It's just designed to be a way to dump momentum in a closed system
        > (actually, cancel out angular momentum by converting first to linear
        > momentum).

        Sorry, but you can no more destroy angular momentum in a closed system
        than you can create linear momentum in a closed system.

        For the last time, the only, repeat ONLY way you can get rid of unwanted
        angular momentum in a structure like a spacecraft is to transfer it to
        something else. You can then jettison it if you want. Examples include
        ordinary spacecraft thrusters (which dump the unwanted momentum into the
        rocket exhaust), the Delta launcher trick of reeling out lead weights
        and cutting them free, and solar sails.

        If you think you might want the momentum back, you can transfer it into
        a mass and retain it. That's what a momentum wheel does. If you can make
        efficient bearings that don't require a lot of power to sustain a
        constant speed, this is a good way to go.

        The one thing you simply *can't* do is to make that unwanted momentum
        disappear. You can waste the rest of your life trying if you want.

        --Phil
      • UbaVonTuba
        Phil, You are always accusing me of hand-waving away things I don t want to consider. Well, I m accusing you of hand-waving this time. You are quoting the
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 1, 2004

          Phil,

          You are always accusing me of "hand-waving" away things I don't want to consider.  Well, I'm accusing you of hand-waving this time.

          You are quoting the "law" as if it was a legal defense.  You aren't using your own intellect to examine cause and effect.  If the laws can be bent to our will as I claim, then a new examination of the laws is required.  Using the laws blindly in this circumstance will only blind you to the possibility of a new paradigm.

          Instead, why don't you do your "examination of all the little forces" and tell me where I'm wrong?  Or, model it as I suggested.  Repeat my experiments.  See for your own eyes if what I say is true or not.

          Anyway, let me try a different tack (pardon the pun).

          Linear momentum can be split and be caused to turn.  For instance, placing a wedge on a wall and spraying water at it will cause the water to split and go in two opposing directions.

          If you made that wall into a square room, mounted it on bearings, and sprayed that same wedge, the force is still split and the room won't rotate.  Other than various motion and collisions within the room, exactly nothing will happen except vibrations and such (to an outside observer's standpoint).  That's because the pressure on either side of the wedge is equal and opposite.

          If you sprayed only one side of the wedge, the force is still split, only between the room and the water.  The water is turned in one direction, the room is turned with an equal and opposite force in the other direction.

          Basically, that's all I'm doing.  I'm splitting the force.  The liquid wants to go forward and is turned by my vanes.  The sphere, via pressure from the vanes, wants to turn counter revolutionary to the liquid flow and moves oppositely to the direction the water has been turned to.  The force is evenly split and therefore you have no net force.

          Don't look to the laws for an answer if the laws are incomplete.  Instead, make your examinations and understand just how incomplete the laws are.  Only then can new knowledge be gained.

          It is a common assumption in physics that our knowledge is incomplete.  In fact, new discoveries happen all the time that drive learned men back to their drawing boards.

          For instance, Dark Energy.  It didn't make any sense as we knew the law before its effects were discovered.  Even now, we don't understand it but rather merely accept it is some strange anti-gravity type of force possibly caused by the vacuum of space itself.  Conservation of Energy says it shouldn't occur.  Does that mean that the space-vacuum is misbehaving, or that the laws are incomplete?

          Recently, there has been evidence that neutrinos have mass and behave differently than the Standard Model dictates.  Does that mean that the neutrinos are misbehaving, or that the Standard Model is incomplete?

          A new paradigm requires a new examination.

          Eric

           


          Do you Yahoo!?
          Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
        • jkolling
          let s hope the controversy is a sign of the kettle brewing
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 1, 2004
            let's hope the controversy is a sign of the kettle brewing

            UbaVonTuba wrote:

            Phil,

            You are always accusing me of "hand-waving" away things I don't want to consider.  Well, I'm accusing you of hand-waving this time.

            You are quoting the "law" as if it was a legal defense.  You aren't using your own intellect to examine cause and effect.  If the laws can be bent to our will as I claim, then a new examination of the laws is required.  Using the laws blindly in this circumstance will only blind you to the possibility of a new paradigm.

            Instead, why don't you do your "examination of all the little forces" and tell me where I'm wrong?  Or, model it as I suggested.  Repeat my experiments.  See for your own eyes if what I say is true or not.

            Anyway, let me try a different tack (pardon the pun).

            Linear momentum can be split and be caused to turn.  For instance, placing a wedge on a wall and spraying water at it will cause the water to split and go in two opposing directions.

            If you made that wall into a square room, mounted it on bearings, and sprayed that same wedge, the force is still split and the room won't rotate.  Other than various motion and collisions within the room, exactly nothing will happen except vibrations and such (to an outside observer's standpoint).  That's because the pressure on either side of the wedge is equal and opposite.

            If you sprayed only one side of the wedge, the force is still split, only between the room and the water.  The water is turned in one direction, the room is turned with an equal and opposite force in the other direction.

            Basically, that's all I'm doing.  I'm splitting the force.  The liquid wants to go forward and is turned by my vanes.  The sphere, via pressure from the vanes, wants to turn counter revolutionary to the liquid flow and moves oppositely to the direction the water has been turned to.  The force is evenly split and therefore you have no net force.

            Don't look to the laws for an answer if the laws are incomplete.  Instead, make your examinations and understand just how incomplete the laws are.  Only then can new knowledge be gained.

            It is a common assumption in physics that our knowledge is incomplete.  In fact, new discoveries happen all the time that drive learned men back to their drawing boards.

            For instance, Dark Energy.  It didn't make any sense as we knew the law before its effects were discovered.  Even now, we don't understand it but rather merely accept it is some strange anti-gravity type of force possibly caused by the vacuum of space itself.  Conservation of Energy says it shouldn't occur.  Does that mean that the space-vacuum is misbehaving, or that the laws are incomplete?

            Recently, there has been evidence that neutrinos have mass and behave differently than the Standard Model dictates.  Does that mean that the neutrinos are misbehaving, or that the Standard Model is incomplete?

            A new paradigm requires a new examination.

            Eric

             


            Do you Yahoo!?
            Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

            To drop of the list, send email to:
            free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          • Phil Karn
            ... I m quoting something far more powerful than a mere legal defense . I m quoting a fundamental law of nature. I am using my own intellectual understanding
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 2, 2004
              UbaVonTuba wrote:

              > You are quoting the "law" as if it was a legal defense. You aren't
              > using your own intellect to examine cause and effect.

              I'm quoting something far more powerful than a mere "legal defense". I'm
              quoting a fundamental law of nature. I am using my own intellectual
              understanding of that fundamental principle to draw conclusions about
              each of your proposals.

              > If the laws can
              > be bent to our will as I claim, then a new examination of the laws is
              > required. Using the laws blindly in this circumstance will only blind
              > you to the possibility of a new paradigm.

              And exactly what evidence do you have for your claim that these
              fundamental laws can be "bent"? Your desire to bend it?

              > Instead, why don't you do your "examination of all the little forces"
              > and tell me where I'm wrong? Or, model it as I suggested. Repeat my
              > experiments. See for your own eyes if what I say is true or not.

              I fully admit to not modeling all the forces in your design and summing
              them up. That was an exercise for you, not for me.

              I don't *have* to sum up those forces to know what their sum will be:
              exactly zero. That's the power of a fundamental physical law like the
              conservation of momentum: to make general conclusions without having to
              go through the specific details in each and every case.

              You see, physics is not based only on observations. It is also based on
              mathematics and logic. And the power of mathematics lies in its ability
              to make general conclusions from specific pieces of information.

              For example, I don't have to try every possible value of X in the equation

              3*X - 3*X = 0

              to know that it is indeed true for any X. But while you admit that the
              equation is true for all the values of X you have tried so far, you keep
              coming up with new values of X for which the equation *surely* must be
              false! And you tell me that I have to try every value of X, which is of
              course impossible since there are an infinite number of them.

              Think this is irrelevant? No, it is *exactly* what you have been trying
              to do. The law of the conservation of momentum follows directly from
              Newton's third law of motion. (It also follows from observed symmetries
              in the universe, as Chaim Pippick observed earlier.) Unless you are
              prepared to argue that Newton's third law is invalid under at least some
              circumstances which you can create in your system, then the conservation
              law follows directly from Newton's third law, and your system is bound
              by it.

              Since Newton's third law applies for any arbitrary pair of objects in
              the universe, it applies to any arbitrary grouping of those objects as
              well. You simply can't keep on coming up with clever new groupings in
              your attempt to circumvent it, although you're certainly free to waste
              the rest of your life trying if you wish.

              --Phil
            • Phil Karn
              ... No dice. In the example you just gave, the room would indeed turn because it is transferring its momentum to the stream of water. The room goes one way and
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 2, 2004
                UbaVonTuba wrote:


                > If you sprayed only one side of the wedge, the force is still split,
                > only between the room and the water. The water is turned in one
                > direction, the room is turned with an equal and opposite force in the
                > other direction.
                >
                > Basically, that's all I'm doing. I'm splitting the force. The liquid
                > wants to go forward and is turned by my vanes. The sphere, via pressure
                > from the vanes, wants to turn counter revolutionary to the liquid flow
                > and moves oppositely to the direction the water has been turned to. The
                > force is evenly split and therefore you have no net force.

                No dice. In the example you just gave, the room would indeed turn
                because it is transferring its momentum to the stream of water. The room
                goes one way and the water stream goes in the other; sum up the two
                momentum vectors and you'll get zero.

                But the deflected stream of water never interacts with the room again.
                That's absolutely critical.

                There is an additional force parallel to the original water stream, but
                I assume you have bearings that prevent the wall from moving in that
                direction. In this case you have equal and opposite forces being
                transmitted through the earth to whoever is holding the hose while
                standing on it.

                Your stream of water serves two purposes: it carries energy to move the
                wall, and it carries away the wall's momentum. This is analogous to the
                two functions of the propellant in a chemical rocket: a source of energy
                and a source of reaction mass to carry momentum. Both are needed to make
                any rocket work, though they do not have to be provided by the same
                material.

                Even a gasoline engine or electric motor needs these two things: a
                source of energy and a mounting platform to which the motor can transfer
                the momentum of the load. Try running a motor into a load without
                bolting it down and you'll see what I mean.

                Your situation with the wedge is also similar to that of a reaching
                sailboat; despite a strong sideways force from the wind on the sail that
                rolls the boat away from it, the underwater keel keeps the boat from
                sliding sideways (much). But because the sail also deflects the wind
                rearward, there's a large forward component to the overall reaction
                force. The keel allows the boat to move in that direction, so it does.

                In your closed spaceship, though, the stream of water will hit the walls
                again and impart its momentum to it, unless you do as I suggest and cut
                a hole so the fluid can escape and carry the unwanted momentum with it.

                > Don't look to the laws for an answer if the laws are incomplete.
                > Instead, make your examinations and understand just how incomplete the
                > laws are. Only then can new knowledge be gained.

                On this particular subject, the existing laws *ARE* complete. I need no
                additional knowledge to know how your system will behave beyond knowing
                that it is a closed system. Because I know that the angular momentum of
                a closed system cannot change, I know that you cannot possibly do
                anything to change it. Internal details are wholly unimportant. Full stop.

                Phil
              • Gary S.
                Look, it s easy. Step by step... 1. You have a spinning hollow sphere with some stuff in it. 2. You spin up a wheel in it with a motor, the bearings of the
                Message 7 of 13 , Aug 2, 2004
                  Look, it's easy. Step by step...

                  1. You have a spinning hollow sphere with some stuff in it.

                  2. You spin up a wheel in it with a motor, the bearings of the motor
                  are mounted along the sphere's spin axis and you stop accelerating the
                  wheel when the sphere stops spinning.

                  3. You disintegrate the wheel (inside the sphere), either as liquid
                  droplets or small pieces.

                  4. Those droplets or pieces, no matter how small, no matter how
                  carefully released, will never fly radially away from the former
                  wheel's shaft, they will be on a tangent.

                  5. If they hit the inside of the sphere, friction will transfer the
                  tangential movement (linear momentum) to the sphere, causing it to
                  start rotating again.

                  5a. If you put vanes inside to have the pieces hit, they can deflect
                  the pieces onto a new path.

                  5a1. What are the vanes mounted on? If the sphere, they will act just
                  like the inside of the sphere itself. In other words, hitting either
                  the inside skin of the sphere or some stuff mounted to it's inside
                  surface is the same thing. You're in effect only changing the surface
                  details, that won't make a difference.

                  5a2. If you want to mount the vanes onto it's own free-to-rotate
                  frame, that's fine, but that frame will rotate once the pieces have
                  hit it. The total momentum of rotating vanes-frame and pieces will
                  still be the same as the original sphere's rotating momentum.


                  --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, UbaVonTuba <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Phil,
                  >
                  > You are always accusing me of "hand-waving" away things I don't want
                  to consider. Well, I'm accusing you of hand-waving this time.
                  >
                  > You are quoting the "law" as if it was a legal defense. You aren't
                  using your own intellect to examine cause and effect. If the laws can
                  be bent to our will as I claim, then a new examination of the laws is
                  required. Using the laws blindly in this circumstance will only blind
                  you to the possibility of a new paradigm.
                  >
                  > Instead, why don't you do your "examination of all the little
                  forces" and tell me where I'm wrong? Or, model it as I suggested.
                  Repeat my experiments. See for your own eyes if what I say is true or
                  not.
                  >
                  > Anyway, let me try a different tack (pardon the pun).
                  >
                  > Linear momentum can be split and be caused to turn. For instance,
                  placing a wedge on a wall and spraying water at it will cause the
                  water to split and go in two opposing directions.
                  >
                  > If you made that wall into a square room, mounted it on bearings,
                  and sprayed that same wedge, the force is still split and the room
                  won't rotate. Other than various motion and collisions within the
                  room, exactly nothing will happen except vibrations and such (to an
                  outside observer's standpoint). That's because the pressure on either
                  side of the wedge is equal and opposite.
                  >
                  > If you sprayed only one side of the wedge, the force is still split,
                  only between the room and the water. The water is turned in one
                  direction, the room is turned with an equal and opposite force in the
                  other direction.
                  >
                  > Basically, that's all I'm doing. I'm splitting the force. The
                  liquid wants to go forward and is turned by my vanes. The sphere, via
                  pressure from the vanes, wants to turn counter revolutionary to the
                  liquid flow and moves oppositely to the direction the water has been
                  turned to. The force is evenly split and therefore you have no net force.
                  >
                  > Don't look to the laws for an answer if the laws are incomplete.
                  Instead, make your examinations and understand just how incomplete the
                  laws are. Only then can new knowledge be gained.
                  >
                  > It is a common assumption in physics that our knowledge is
                  incomplete. In fact, new discoveries happen all the time that drive
                  learned men back to their drawing boards.
                  >
                  > For instance, Dark Energy. It didn't make any sense as we knew the
                  law before its effects were discovered. Even now, we don't understand
                  it but rather merely accept it is some strange anti-gravity type of
                  force possibly caused by the vacuum of space itself. Conservation of
                  Energy says it shouldn't occur. Does that mean that the space-vacuum
                  is misbehaving, or that the laws are incomplete?
                  >
                  > Recently, there has been evidence that neutrinos have mass and
                  behave differently than the Standard Model dictates. Does that mean
                  that the neutrinos are misbehaving, or that the Standard Model is
                  incomplete?
                  >
                  > A new paradigm requires a new examination.
                  >
                  > Eric
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
                • amy littledove
                  BIG, HUGE difference. These were uneducated men who took the time to understand what they were doing. Oh, they had many failures, but they used reason and
                  Message 8 of 13 , Aug 3, 2004
                    BIG, HUGE difference. These were uneducated men who took the time to
                    understand what they were doing. Oh, they had many failures, but they used
                    reason and logic to work towards their goal. They used previously tested
                    laws of mathematics and physics to arrive at their desired solution. Edison
                    didn't use 'wood' conductors just because it flew in the face of convention,
                    and he thought it might be fashionable to be a rebel. The Wright's didn't
                    construct their flying surfaces out of concrete; they used materials that
                    had been proven to provide the greatest lift with the lightest weight. These
                    people broke ground, but they didn't break laws.

                    You on the other hand, are throwing out ill conceived notions without the
                    most basic understanding of physics. You are not providing any information
                    that shows your proposal will work, in fact you are showing a great deal of
                    ignorance. In order break new ground, you must at least have an
                    understanding of the basics, and you don't.


                    >From: UbaVonTuba <ubavontuba@...>
                    >To: Amy <amylittledove@...>
                    >Subject: Re: Un-conserved angular momentum (End game)
                    >Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 23:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
                    >
                    >
                    >Amy,
                    >
                    >Lest you forget, Edison wasn't formally educated and neither were the
                    >Wright brothers.
                    >
                    >Eric
                    >
                    >
                    >---------------------------------
                    >Do you Yahoo!?
                    >Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

                    _________________________________________________________________
                    Overwhelmed by debt? Find out how to �Dig Yourself Out of Debt� from MSN
                    Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0407debt.armx
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.