[geocentrism] Re: Flywheel experiment. urgent for ALL.
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:23:03 +1000
So the math is not all that tough.. I will give it a try. But this formula
does not include the possibility of the rim rotating lol. Ill use the thick
walled formula.. and average the weight of the four discs over 360 degrees of
rim. Phil.
Energy is stored in the rotor as kinetic energy, or more specifically,
rotational energy:
where
ω is the angular velocity, and
I is the moment of inertia of the mass about the center of rotation.
a.. The moment of inertia for a solid-cylinder is ,
b.. for a thin-walled cylinder is ,
c.. and for a thick-walled cylinder is .
where m denotes mass, and r denotes a radius. More information can be found at
list of moments of inertia
When calculating with SI units, the standards would be for mass, kilograms; for
radius, meters; and for angular velocity, radians per second. The resulting
answer would be in Joules
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism list
Cc: Robert Bennett
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 10:56 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Flywheel experiment. urgent for ALL.
This may be an amazing revelation.. I want some PH D math experts to solve
it.. My experiment is based on a real test.. It does what I say it does. No
illusions. Please notice also for the conservative types... A new rule of
presenting text... two or more full stops like this....replaces the need for a
capital beginning the next phrase or sentence. Good idea HUH? and
efficient...COZ MY SHIFT KEY IS FALTERING
Perhaps it is the electrical training/education/asimov scienc fiction/ I
received, but when I see the universe, I can see it as it really is, rather
than to what my eyes limit me. There is no such thing as a solid.. It is all
space... the only difference between space as in "outer space", and a solid,
is that in the world, space is a bit more crowded. Molecules are galaxies.
and they are in space. It all may come down to electrical charges.. spaced
around . (pun intended)
Therefore, when the world rotates, (should I say when an object like a plate
rotates, because this world is unique) I see this molecule on the edge turning
with it, and presenting the same face to the centre. Some cohesive force not
gravity is causing this.. but the atoms have their own separate rotations
within this structure. This cohesive force is/maybe included in what loads up
the flywheel energy inherent to a spinning body of mass.
If this cohesion was non existent then the flywheel theory would collapse or
alter.. Thanks to Allens obstropolism, I have an idea....And while I am here,
Allen, an axis like a line or a point has no dimension. It is a geometrical
tool. at least when I ever refer to the term.... different entirely to an axel
which has dimension.
Can we model this as an experimental proof? I tried this experiment in simple
form..it works. The wheel below in the diagram, or attached if not in view, we
have all the grey circles as axels . The yellow circle represents a large disc
or flywheel. On the rim of this flywheel are shown in blue four heavy 5kg discs
..centered 1 meter out . But keep in mind that we would consider an even
amount of weights all around the rim for balance. In this diagram the weights
are locked to their shafts and cannot turn independently hence the black bars
show the constant positions as the blue wheels are forced to rotate with the
main wheel...always facing the centre. .
The problem is an easy mathmatical question for a phd math man. grin! Ive
seen the pages of solutions to the flywheel. We are considering two sets of
conditions.
1. Spinning the wheel at 3000rpm with all the blue weights/wheels locked
to their shafts. and again ,
2. Spinning the wheel at 3000rpm with all the blue wheels free to rotate
on negligible/frictionless shafts.
Will there be any difference in the amount of energy needed to bring the
wheel up to its set speed of 3000 rpm in each case, and what will be the
difference?
It is my contention/guess and indicated under test, that in the second test
the blue wheels will not alter their orientation, that their inertia will keep
them always facing the same direction... these weights will have no spin. but
they will "experience" a shaft that is spinning at 3000rpm on their bearing
points. That latter is definite and true. easily proven by any on this list .
My conclusion, but needs demonstrating by measured evidence, The first test,
No 1. will take more power to reach full speed, than does test 2. This is
because the first test requires all the weights to spin on their own centres at
the periphery at 3000rpm. The energy dynamics are different. What is the
recoverable energy from each test?
If both tests reveal the same input and output power, for the flywheel
theory, as it is identical mass in orbital motion/rotation, we have a mystery.
If both tests reveal the same input power, we have a mystery, then Paul and I
have a problem with our rotation philosophy...
If so, then we have a delemma.. well we have a delemma either way! this is
the same flywheel doing identical speeds with identical peripheral mass.. But
the dynamics of experiment 1. involve additional energy stored in the mass of
the blue wheels, which are physically rotating in their own space, whilst the
blue wheels in experiment 2 are not so rotating.
We have the further proof of the extra loading, by considering the
implication of gumming up the bearings and so loading them with controllable
torque.
The math experts can have fun with this.. Ok I send a pic for the other
position No 2 in the attachment as well..
Philip. 
Other related posts:
