[geocentrism] Re: Flywheel experiment. urgent for ALL.

Philip M

Concerning the energy of the blue disks in the unlocked condition. Their energy will be proportional to mv^2. It doesn't matter whether they are going round and round tethered by the disk to which they are attached or going in a straight line (as would happen if their axles were to break). This example can legitimately assume that the mass of the blue disk is a dimensionless point. Your term 'peripheral speed' is fine with me -- and it will simply be measured in m/s.

 

If locked axles were to be released at full speed and the yellow disk braked, the energy due to mv^2 would be dissipated as heat in the break mechanism but the energy due to rotation in the blue disks would remain in the blue disks until friction absorbed it. And this is heart of the matter. The blue disks have energy due both to their centre of gravity linear velocity (your peripheral speed) and energy due to their radial velocity, if -- and only if -- they are rotating at ANY velocity from zero through the radial velocity of the disk to which they are attached up to any limit which you mechanism can sustain. Additionally, it doesn't matter in which direction they are rotating.

 

Truth is this. You can get all carried away with analysing ever smaller portions of the yellow disk -- first four blue disks, ultimately squillions of atoms but this is unnecessary. Empirically derived formulae exist for energy of rotation in spheres, disks and hoops where the objects are solid. Galileo was famous for determining these matters. Because he had no decent means of measuring small intervals of time, he devised a method of slowing the action so that he could measure the phenomenon with the tools available to him and he showed that objects rolling down an incline accelerated the fastest if they were spheres, middling if they were disks and slowest if they were hoops regardless of their dimensions or their mass. The mass didn't matter because the attraction of gravity is proportional to mass but if you have to accelerate it by application of energy then of course it will matter.

 

If I were doing this experiment, I think I would go about it this way. Take the lightest beam you can find -- aluminium tube, a piece of pine timber -- of significant length say three metres. On each end place a bicycle wheel horizontally attached by its axle. It would help if you could tie chain or other heavy material around the rim. Half way between the axles, place a bearing to suspend the apparatus and around this place a small diameter pulley wheel attached to the beam. Wind some cord around the pulley and place a weight on the end then run it over another pulley so that if allowed to fall, it will radially accelerate the apparatus. Conduct tests to see just how long it takes for the weight to fall a fixed distance with the wheels tied to the beam with string and again with the wheels free to rotate.

 

PS A quick note in response to your 'Axis' post. I can't argue with anything you said but I would add that a rotating body will always do its damnedest to rotate about its centre of gravity. Just think of an unbalanced spin dryer.

 

---

From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 6 December, 2008 9:08:56 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flywheel experiment. urgent for ALL.



----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Deema

To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:37 PM

Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flywheel experiment. urgent for ALL.

Philip M

It's obvious. I don't need maths. It takes energy to bring a disk up to some radial velocity. It also takes energy to bring a mass up to some  linear velocity. If you only have to bring some part of the disk to a given radial velocity -- the yellow bit -- with the rest -- the blue bits -- only being brought up to a linear velocity (doesn't matter that it's on a circular path) then it's obvious that more energy will be required if your bearings are seized up.

 

Take the case where the blue weights are mounted, not on the periphery, but on the central shaft. If the bearings are free, then they will be still but if they are seized up, then they would require energy to spin them up.

 

In each case the linear velocity is a constant but the angular velocity differs.

 

Paul D

---

From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Robert Bennett <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 5 December, 2008 12:56:52 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. 

---

Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter now.