Experimental Proof That Energy Is Not A Conserved Quantity.

[DelburtPhend]

You have five rocket engines that have a thrust of 10 newtons. The rocket engines can fire for one sec. The propellent weight is 8 gram for each of the five engines. Under ideal conditions each of the five rockets is attached to different masses; some of the masses are already in motion.

 

The rocket engine is attached to a 1 kilogram mass at rest. After the engine is fired the mass has 50 joules of energy: and 10 units of momentum.

 

The second rocket engine is attached to a 10 kilogram mass at rest. After the engine is fired the mass has 5 joules of energy: and 10 units of momentum.

 

The third rocket engine is attached to a 100 kilogram mass at rest. After the engine is fired the mass has .5 joules of energy: and 10 units of momentum.

 

The rocket engine is attached to a 1 kilogram mass moving ten meter per second. After the engine is fired (in the same direction as the previous motion of the mass) the mass has an energy increase (200J – 50J) of 150 joule : and an increase of 10 units of momentum.

 

The rocket engine is attached to a 10 kilogram mass moving one meter per second. After the engine is fired (in the same direction as the previous motion of the mass) the mass has an energy increase (20J – 5J) of 15 joule : and an increase of 10 units of momentum.

 

The 8 grams of chemical energy has no relationship to the kinetic energy produced. But there is a one to one relationship between the 8 grams and the Linear Newtonian momentum produced.

 

When a certain quantity of Force is applied to a freely movable mass for a certain quantity of time: there will be a certain quantity of motion expressed by a specific unchangeable number. Newtonian Momentum gives this certain unique unchangeable number, mv.

 

Angular momentum takes this unique Newtonian number and multiplies it by a radius; but there are an infinite number of radii than may be used. The Newtonian number is no longer unique when it can be multiplied by an infinite range of numbers. There is no relationship between this angular momentum number and the original application of Force.

 

This above mass that has a unique unchangeable Newtonian number may strike and combine with another mass and the Newtonian number will not change; But the number that represent the quantity of energy can go to a half; a fourth or almost disappear.

 

Two formulas (L = rmv; 1/2mv²) are worthless in predicting the interaction of objects in a closed system.

 

Linear Newtonian Momentum is the only formula that can explain the motion of the cylinder and spheres.

[DelburtPhend]

The 8 grams of chemical energy in the rocket engine can produce 50 joules of energy when it accelerates a one kilogram mass from 0 m/sec to 10 m/sec, but when the same rocket engine accelerates a 100 kilogram mass it produces only .5 joules.

 

An event from The Law of Conservation of Momentum can change the .5 joules into 50 joules.

 

A rim mass wheel moving at .1 m/sec around the arc of the circle can transfer all of the motion to one kilogram. The Dawn Mission de-spin is an example.

 

The 10 units (100 kg * .1 m/sec) of momentum contained in the 100 kilogram rim moving .1 m/sec can be transferred to one kilogram of mass (two 500 gram spheres moving 10 m/sec). So you have changed .5 joules of energy into 50 joules of energy.

 

If you use Momentum Conservation as an intermediate operation then you can recover the 50 joules that was 99% lost when the rocket was used to accelerate the more massive 100 kilograms.

 

Is it time to state that E = mv. If energy has to be conserved then why not just call it mv. Newtonian momentum (mv) is always conserved, but excessive amounts can be produced (F =ma) from gravitation. So the scientific establishment doesn't like calling it energy because massive amounts of mv can be easily produced from gravity. So scientists have picked a quantity that is not produced in excess from gravity: and then they pretend that E =1/2mv² is conserved.

[DelburtPhend]

When a 132 gram mass moving 10 m/sec collides with a 1188 gram mass, at rest, the combination moves away at 1 m/sec. This is the Law of Conservation of Momentum and this is what the spheres are doing when they interact (collide) with the cylinder. The spheres can only interact with the momentum they have; and linear Newtonian momentum is the only kind of motion that is conserved when a small mass interacts with a larger mass.

 

The kinetic energy formula would only have the spheres moving 3.16 times as fast as the cylinder and spheres. This would leave the spheres with too little (31.6%) momentum to restore the original motion.

 

This cylinder and spheres arrangement produces a 1000% energy increase.

 

[exchemist]

When a 132 gram mass moving 10 m/sec collides with a 1188 gram mass, at rest, the combination moves away at 1 m/sec. This is the Law of Conservation of Momentum and this is what the spheres are doing when they interact (collide) with the cylinder. The spheres can only interact with the momentum they have; and linear Newtonian momentum is the only kind of motion that is conserved when a small mass interacts with a larger mass.

 

The kinetic energy formula would only have the spheres moving 3.16 times as fast as the cylinder and spheres. This would leave the spheres with too little (31.6%) momentum to restore the original motion.

 

This cylinder and spheres arrangement produces a 1000% energy increase.

 

Oh, do **** off, there's a good chap.

[DelburtPhend]

exchemist: there is an unfollow button.

[OceanBreeze]

exchemist: there is an unfollow button.

 

If you can get 1000% increase of free energy, what do you need followers for?

 

You will soon be the richest man on the planet, indeed the richest man in the universe!

 

Why waste your time trying to convince all of us idiots here?

 

Just go out and do it, man! Go talk to Elon Musk and make some machines powered by spinning spheres and Atwood machines and sell the excess free energy.

[exchemist]

exchemist: there is an unfollow button.

Thank you very much! I had never previously found it on this website, but I have now. Problem solved. What's more I can now get rid of various other insane or trollish people as well. You have done me a great service.

 

[click]

[DelburtPhend]

In the last video (132g /1320g) the first transfer of motion to the spheres is very quick, very near the top of the release.  For Newtonian momentum conservation the spheres must be moving 10 times as fast as the original rotational motion of the cylinder. This 10 times as fast occurs when the cylinder is stopped. For energy conservation the sphere speed is only 3.16 times as fast when the cylinder is stopped. 

The rotational motion is slowly restored to the cylinder; and it appears to be at the same rate of rotation as the release rotation. It takes about three frames for the black square to cross from side to side. This return of rotation occurs at about half way to the floor.

There appears to be a second stop (of rotation) just before contact with the floor; and the bounce.

After the bounce the spheres seems to restart the motion of the cylinder.  This second restart is exactly what Newtonian physics would predict.

Now let’s look at the energy conservation theory; only 31.6% (1/2mv²; 3.16 satisfies the equation) of the momentum remains in the spheres (at extension). This is the only motion available to restart the rotation of the cylinder from the first stop. The restart for energy conservation would be moving 9.5 frames to cross the black square.   And for the second restart it would be 31.6% (of 9.5 frames) of 31.6%; or only 9.98% (1/10) of the original motion. 9.5 / .316 = 30 frames

If it took 3 frames (of the video) to cross the black square at the start; then it would take 30 frames to cross the square after the bounce. There would be almost no rotational motion after the bounce.

Do you see no rotational motion after the bounce? Or do you see rotational motion after the bounce that is nearly equal to the original rotational motion?  The close proximity of it being three frames to cross the square (after the bounce) eliminates energy conservation as a possible speed for the extended spheres. This means that the energy increase in the system is about 1000%,  just a few moments after release. 

Ballistic pendulums prove that only Newtonian momentum can be transferred from small masses to large masses. Rotational restoration proves that the spheres are moving 10 times as fast.

[DelburtPhend]

Someone requested a 300 character intro letter: so what do you think of this one.

One hundred 1 kg masses evenly stacked 100 m high will have a momentum of 442.9 units; after it has dropped 1 m. Only one kg needs to rise 100 m to reconfigure the stack. A 1 kg mass with 44.29 units of momentum will rise 100 m. The excess motion is free energy. Experiments prove that large masses can give their momentum to small masses.  

The cylinder and spheres (out before experiments) 299 characters

[DelburtPhend]

One kilogram dropped 2 meters will have a final velocity of 6.264 m/sec. It will have 6.264 units of momentum; and 19.62 joules of energy.     The formulas used were: square root of (d * 2 * a) = v:  mv; ½ mv².

Twenty, one kilogram masses could be stacked on top of each other two meters high and .1 meter apart. This stack of twenty 1 kilogram masses dropped .1 meters will have a final velocity of 1.4007 m/sec. The stack will then have 28.014 units of momentum; and 19.62 joules of energy.  

A one kilogram mass with 28.014 units of momentum will rise 40 meters; it only needs to rise two meters to be at the top of the stack of 20 one kilogram masses.  This means that the one kilogram is 38 meters higher than the original configuration of the stack: this is 38 meters of free energy.   9.81 N/kg * 40 m = 392.4 J:  for an energy increase to 2000%.

You could place the stack of 20 one kilogram masses on an Atwood’s with ten kilograms already suspended from each side of the pulley; and then drop the stack .1 meter (F = ma). This would give you 40 kilograms moving .990 m/sec. For a momentum of 39.618 units; and 19.62 joules of energy. But when this 39.618 units of momentum is placed in one kilogram it will rise of 80 meters.  78 meters of free energy: for an energy increase to 4000%

So (in a cylinder and spheres) you could use a rim mass wheel twenty to forty times more massive than the spheres. And an arc speed range of .99 m/sec to 1.4 m/sec. And you would get significant energy production. 

The spin rate of the cylinder and spheres is in this 1 m/sec to 1.4 m/sec arc velocity range; and I have lots of wheels in the 20 to 40 mass difference range. These wheel throw to the tops of trees; the challenge is finding the sphere.  Now remember: if energy is conserved all these wheels cannot throw over 2 meters high. In the 40 to one mass difference in the cylinder and spheres; the kinetic energy formula is satisfied with a velocity increase of only 6.32 times; for a rise of only 2 meters.

I use 66 gram one inch steel spheres. Two spheres have a mass of 132 grams. Thirty nine times that is a rim mass wheel; with a mass of 5.148 kg.  Youtube has many cylinder and spheres experiments.

[marcospolo]

I think there is room to entertain the notion that some of or even all our so called LAWS of physics could be imperfect to varying degrees. sometime just plain incorrect.

Conservation of energy is one such LAW.

Trouble with these LAWS, are than many are not much more that assumptions.

With every experiment comes an interpretation, and that interpretation seems to also have as prerequisites, a bunch of beliefs and assumption as to how things work.

 

Although I suspect the LAW of conservation of Energy, I dont have any way to prove that its not quite 100%.

The main reason why its suspect, are the logical conclusion one comes to IF conservation of Energy is correct.

The conclusions begin to sound irrational and nonsensical.

 

Thats why we have such nonsense as Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, Parallel Universes, Worm holes, Spacetime fabric, flat universe, mathematical universe, time dilation, Quantum theory, and Particle Physics.  All of which exhibit a healthy dose of nonsense.

 

I know, someone is now going to say, "Its only nonsense because you don't understand it". "If you learned what I learned, you would believe it too!"   stuff like that.

Well, I am just a capable of grasping a concept as the rest of you. I just don't buy some ideas because they are not rational ideas.

 

Next comment is going to be, " But what makes you think that the universe is supposed to be rational?"

 

My reply is that if its irrational, then why do you bother to try to explain it?  If its irrational, it MUST therefore defy all rational analysis.  What you have to accept then is that all Scientists will have to be irrational like the universe.

[DelburtPhend]

Almost everyone would like the Law of Conservation of Energy to be true; but the lack of experimental proof is evident. When the Law of Conservation of Energy fails the experimenters pretend that there is a second unmeasurable form of energy that saves the experiment. Unfindable unmeasurable heat in the ballistic pendulum is a prime example.  Eighty%; 90%; 95% (in different experiments) energy loss to unfindable heat doesn’t seem to bother them.

If you have a 90% energy loss to heat then the motion will not come back: so all you need to do to disprove the Law of Conservation of Energy is to have a ballistic pendulum that can go backwards and forwards.

The cylinder and spheres, at one point, takes the motion of a very small object and gives that motion to a larger object; and then the large object gives the motion right back to the small object.

There are several other Laws or Rules that people think are being broken; some are inappropriate application of the rules; but whatever the reason the experiment (cylinder and spheres) produces massive amounts of energy.

It would be most helpful if people would repeat the cylinder and spheres experiments and post them on the internet. You could use; a disk, a rims or a wheel and the spheres are available.

[DelburtPhend]

http://showtodaytv.com/play-clip-yoyo-despinner-side_tveO4ZMGOyeqs

 

If the center piece is mounted and the weighted strings are dropping; you need to spin at a higher rate so that the motion transfer to the spheres and then back again can occur before the spheres can drop too far down.

 

It appears that the cubes drops about 4 cm before release. That would mean that it takes .090 seconds to transfer the motion to the cubes.

 

If the strings were left attached it would take the same amount of time to return the motion back to the cylinder (and; in this case the frame underneath it). D = 1/2at² This would be .18 second and the total drop would be 16 cm.

 

In this period of time the cubes would drop too far and would probably strike the frame.

 

To prevent this problem you could increase the rate of rotation by four.

 

http://showtodaytv.com/play-clip-yoyodespin-test2_tvuTosipnNslM

 

Or you could drop both the cylinder and the spheres.

[DelburtPhend]

When force is applied to a mass for a continuing period of time you get a consistently increasing quantities of momentum.  F = ma

When force is applied for a distinct period of time you get a distinct quantity of momentum.  Ft = mv; this formula is derived by multiplying both sides of F = ma by t. Because a =v/t.

The force applied has to be in the same direction as the previously existing linear momentum. The linear momentum of a particle moving in a circle is the quantity of arc distance traveled in the circle of rotation times the mass of that particle; and in the direction of the spin. The linear momentum of each particle add together for a total momentum of the spinning mass.

A tangent force applied in the direction of the spinning mass gives an F = ma increase in the preexisting linear momentum of all the particles. The same force that accelerates a rim would equally accelerate a block on a frictionless plane. Ten newtons of force applied for one second would accelerate a ten kilogram rim to an arc speed of one meter per second.

The length of the string that is applying the tangent force has nothing to do with the quantity of force applied. Example: if the force in a one meter string is two newtons then it is still just two newtons if the string becomes 10 meters long. The mass on the end of a string that is unwrapping from a cylinder does not apply more tangent force to the cylinder simply because the string is becoming long. A 2.88 kilogram mass moving 16 meters per second has the ability to apply 46 newtons of force for one second: the length of the string does not matter.

NASA predicts (Dawn Mission) that a 2.88 kilogram mass moving about 16 m/sec (at full extension) can apply about 1200 newtons of force for one second. This is a false statement; that reveals a false concept.

At 16 m/sec the 2.88 kilograms can apply only 46 newtons of force for one second; because that is all the motion it has, radius has no affect.

But an object; that is stopped under ideal conditions; cannot deliver less than its quantity of momentum. A 2.88 kilogram mass moving 400 m/sec can deliver 1152 units of momentum and restore the original spin of the satellite; but it will not deliver less. When you leave the tether attached the satellite will have its original spin restored because the momentum never leaves the system. The 2.88 kilograms at full extension is moving about 400 m/sec because only momentum can restore the motion. The 2.88 kilograms cannot be moving only 16 or 20 m/sec, because energy is never given from a small object to a large object.

The spinning energy increase in the Dawn Mission is the energy of the 2.88 kilograms at full extension divided by the original spinning energy of the satellite; which is about: 1/2 * 2.88 kg *400 m/sec*400 m/sec   = 230,400 J   /   ½ * 1420 kg * 1 m/sec * 1 m/sec = 710 J;    230,400 J / 710 J = 32,450%

[DelburtPhend]

The Dawn Mission yo-yo despin device proves that energy is not a conserved quantity. If people would build some similar experiments we could debunk a false theory; and we could make all the carbon free energy the world would ever need.

 

The Dawn Mission proves that 2.88 kilograms can contain all the spinning motion of 1420 kilograms. There is a lot we do not know about the shape and mass distribution of the satellite; but this is about a 400 to one mass difference between the craft and the thrown weights.

 

If the satellites average mass has an arc speed of one meter per second the craft would have 710 joules of spinning energy. For the extended yo weights to have 710 joules of energy they would only be moving 22.2 m/sec.

 

½ 1420 kg * 1 m/sec * 1 m/sec = 710 J

 

½ 2.88 kg * 22.2 m/sec * 22.2 m/sec = 710 J

 

But can the Newtonian momentum (2.88 kg * 22.2 m/sec: = 63.9 unit) of the extended yo weights restore the original spinning motion (1420 kg * 1 m/sec: = 1420 units) if the weights are left attached?

 

Ballistic pendulum prove that only Newtonian momentum is conserved when small masses give there motion to large masses; so 63.9 units can not produce 1420 units.

 

And here is the clincher. The Dawn Mission has a 3 rpm back spin. This is 6.5% of the original 46 rpm. The original arc velocity was 1 m/sec so 6.5% is .065 m/sec; times the original mass of 1420 kg; and we have 92.3 units of momentum, and NASA predicted a total of 63.9 units for the extended yo weights.

 

 

This 6.5% (92.3 units) is greater than the prediction of 63.9 units of momentum which is 4.5%: (63.9 / 1420). This back spin is caused by the cables being a little to long; and the yo weights spin the craft backwards before the masses are released. The vast majority of the motion is released with the masses on the end of the cable. Lets say that about 95% of the motion is taken away by the released masses. This back spin is produced by only about 5% of the original spinning motion. And yet the back spin is greater than NASA's prediction of final total motion of the yo weights.

 

A similar experiment would be a 400 kilogram cylinder throwing 1 kilograms of mass. If the average mass of this cylinder had an arc speed of one meter per second the cylinder would have 200 joules of spinning energy. For the thrown masses to have 200 joules of energy they would only be moving 20 m/sec.

 

½ 400kg * 1 m/sec * 1 m/sec = 200 J

 

½ 1 kg * 20 m/sec * 20 m/sec = 200 J

 

So if energy is conserved the one kilogram has only 20 units of momentum. If Newtonian momentum is conserved the one kilogram has 400 units of momentum. If energy is conserved by the extended masses you have a 95% loss of momentum.

 

The back spin (that is made of only 5% of the motion) has more momentum than NASA's prediction of the total momentum of the yo weights.

 

The back spin alone proves that energy is not conserved; and that Newtonian momentum is conserved.

[GAHD]

The Dawn Mission yo-yo despin device...

Your data source for your numbers?

[DelburtPhend]

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/blog/2007/9/september-12-2007       and wiki