Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[bistander]

Force equation

Hello Bistander,

I believe that Kevin is more likely referring to Centripetal-Centrifugal Forces, rather than Newtonian Forces:

Fc=m*V^2/r

Considering all his mechanical devices are based on rotating wheels, where radius must be scaled up properly as to balance all forces.

Which in the end is the same thing if we know that acceleration (a)= V^2/r , and then substitute (V^2/r) by just (a) then we will have what you are writing, or the known and simplified F=m*a.

However, if you notice on his drawing below, it is clearly defined that Kevin Hay knows that F=m*a as it is written on center-low side of image:

"FORCE IS MASS TIMES ACCELERATION"



And so, on image below he is replacing r by 2 on the left side of image formula F=m*v^2/2:



But what happens to acceleration "a" if the rotating speed v -of the whole System- reaches a steady RPM, which MUST take place when Machine reaches a Steady Normal Operation?

Acceleration becomes exactly zero, correct so far?

And so -and only according to math formula which directly relates v and a, but never in reality- then velocity "v" "should" also become zero...

But my question to you is:

Do you really believe that velocity of a steady spinning wheel is zero?... according to acceleration being zero at constant speed.

Anyways, my post here is not to start another argument about who is right and who isn't...but trying to reach a clear and sane discussion, trying to understand Mr Kevin Hay.

And Bistander...I do have my doubts about the Newtonian 2nd Law...as his "Free Fall" Calculation Method, but that is a topic to another post I will put together for you later...

Oh, and I almost forget...to remind you -btw- that I also came from Face Book...


Kind Regards


Ufopolitics

Thanks Ufo,

That's all I was asking for. But his equation, F = m*v^2 is incorrect as you point out. Maybe he did mean Fc = m*v^2/r.

I guess I did ask another question and I have yet to get a reasonable answer. It appears to be a simple machine, and scalable, so why hasn't anyone built and demonstrated it, even a small version?

Do you really believe that velocity of a steady spinning wheel is zero?... according to acceleration being zero at constant speed.

I never said that. But the velocity of the wheel, as a whole, can be zero if it is spinning and the axis of rotation is not moving. However the points on or parts of the spinning wheel have non zero velocity and experience acceleration even if the RPM is constant.

Is that what you're asking or is it a trick question?

As far as your subsequent post on Newton's gravitational laws, I see nothing inconsistent. I'll read your post again and see if I can figure out what your problem is.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Thanks Ufo,

I never said that.

I did not said that you said it...it is written in all Newtonians and calculations of Centripetal/Centrifugal Forces sites, and it is basic math understanding.

If Speed (v) is constant then acceleration is zero (a=0)

But the velocity of the wheel, as a whole, can be zero if it is spinning and the axis of rotation is not moving. However the points on or parts of the spinning wheel have non zero velocity and experience acceleration even if the RPM is constant.

Is that what you're asking or is it a trick question?

No tricks, and no weird situations where axis is static while wheel spins...

It is exactly based on our mathematical formulas...if acceleration is dependent on velocity, just because acceleration is equal to Change in Velocity over time, and so whenever there is no change in v (steady velocity) over time, then acceleration is zero.

As far as your subsequent post on Newton's gravitational laws, I see nothing inconsistent. I'll read your post again and see if I can figure out what your problem is.

Regards,

bi

Ok


Regards


Ufopolitics

[gsmsslsb]

Hello Bistander,

I believe that Kevin is more likely referring to Centripetal-Centrifugal Forces, rather than Newtonian Forces:

Fc=m*V^2/r

Considering all his mechanical devices are based on rotating wheels, where radius must be scaled up properly as to balance all forces.

Which in the end is the same thing if we know that acceleration (a)= V^2/r , and then substitute (V^2/r) by just (a) then we will have what you are writing, or the known and simplified F=m*a.

However, if you notice on his drawing below, it is clearly defined that Kevin Hay knows that F=m*a as it is written on center-low side of image:

"FORCE IS MASS TIMES ACCELERATION"



And so, on image below he is replacing r by 2 on the left side of image formula F=m*v^2/2:



But what happens to acceleration "a" if the rotating speed v -of the whole System- reaches a steady RPM, which MUST take place when Machine reaches a Steady Normal Operation?

Acceleration becomes exactly zero, correct so far?

And so -and only according to math formula which directly relates v and a, but never in reality- then velocity "v" "should" also become zero...

But my question to you is:

Do you really believe that velocity of a steady spinning wheel is zero?... according to acceleration being zero at constant speed.

Anyways, my post here is not to start another argument about who is right and who isn't...but trying to reach a clear and sane discussion, trying to understand Mr Kevin Hay.

And Bistander...I do have my doubts about the Newtonian 2nd Law...as his "Free Fall" Calculation Method, but that is a topic to another post I will put together for you later...

Oh, and I almost forget...to remind you -btw- that I also came from Face Book...


Kind Regards


Ufopolitics

Ufo
Thanks for your insight.
I haven't been able to find Kevins posts on FB.
Only used it for the firs time the other day.
I found lots of photos including the ones on your post above but cant find kevins writing about them.
I will look again when I get the chance.
Could you explain this a bit more
radius must be scaled up properly as to balance all forces.

Thanks again

[bistander]

Speed vs velocity

I did not said that you said it...it is written in all Newtonians and calculations of Centripetal/Centrifugal Forces sites, and it is basic math understanding.

If Speed (v) is constant then acceleration is zero (a=0)




No tricks, and no weird situations where axis is static while wheel spins...

It is exactly based on our mathematical formulas...if acceleration is dependent on velocity, just because acceleration is equal to Change in Velocity over time, and so whenever there is no change in v (steady velocity) over time, then acceleration is zero.



Ok


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

There is a difference between speed and velocity. So speed can be constant while velocity is changing, constituting acceleration. I don't think Sir Newton had a problem with this.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

There is a difference between speed and velocity. So speed can be constant while velocity is changing, constituting acceleration. I don't think Sir Newton had a problem with this.

Regards,

bi

Sorry, my bad, meant velocity (v)

I know v is a vector and speed is a scalar number, no direction...I do not have a problem with this either.

In the case of the rotary wheel (like on topic here) Velocities are angular-tangential vectors to wheel circumference given a displacement over time plus changing directions every displacement... and centripetal acceleration would be following a vector towards center of wheel (could say center axis).


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Ufo
Thanks for your insight.
I haven't been able to find Kevins posts on FB.
Only used it for the firs time the other day.
I found lots of photos including the ones on your post above but cant find kevins writing about them.
I will look again when I get the chance.
Could you explain this a bit more
radius must be scaled up properly as to balance all forces.

Thanks again

Hello,

Well you must be logged in at FB in order to watch his posts and images.

Plus you need to be friends in order to exchange info over either PM or in the open, you could post on his page or wall.

There is no secret about balancing a system when making such arrangement as he has based on spinning wheels counter rotating, levers and fulcrums at different levels.

Just like balancing the crankshaft in an ICE...or the counterweights based on cylinders weight and compression-exhaust forces etc,etc.

Only thing I have noticed about Kevin's place at FB...is that it is not organized by ALBUMS, which is the only way to set orderly all his different set up models, plus articles etc.

That way we do not find a crazy mix of all kind of different things all blend up...unless he wants it like that for other reasons...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Gravity

In

Hello,

If someone have not seen the video below...and had some doubts about the discovery from Italian Scientist Galileo Galilei related to Free Falling Objects of different Mass and Volume...I highly recommend to watch it.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs[/VIDEO]

Now according to the repeatedly mentioned before formula from Newton:

F=m*a

Applied to the two objects on video:

The two objects falling on that video, the heavy steel canon ball and the subtle, almost weightless feathers are BOTH under the ONLY INFLUENCE of Gravity Force ACCELERATION, since chamber is at vacuum levels, so NO OTHER FORCES are acting on any of the two objects.

Now, if we say that the steel ball mass=weight=80 Lbs (Pounds)

And feathers, all together are 0.05 Pounds (and that's heavy for the actual weight of those feathers)

Now, find the Force on the Steel Ball, let's take 80 pounds to kilograms= 36.28= 36.28X9.8=355.544 N

Force on Ball is 355.5 Newtons

And so those subtle feathers Newtonian's Forces calculations are:

0.022679Kg X 9.8= 0.2222542 N

Newtonian Force acting on the feathers are:

0.22679 Newtons

Obviously, according to that formula we could throw ONE THOUSAND STEEL BALLS and still the feathers would be floating in the air...

But that is NOT REAL, both objects fall at exactly same speed, just like if they both would have IDENTICAL MASSES or Weight (same deal different names) and so, what does Sir Isaac Newton "PATCH" to "JUSTIFY MATHEMATICALLY" the Galilean proof where MASS IS NOT INCLUDED ON FREE FALLS?



In other words...on the Second Newtonian Law, the Free Fall Calculations completely EXCLUDE Weight-Mass Parameters.

How did he figured that out?...simple, no matter how much the falling object weight would be, IF DIVIDED by its own mass, which would ALWAYS BE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBERS...THEN, the result ALWAYS comes out to a nice number "1", no matter if they are feathers or canon balls...

Then the Formula to find the Force on Fall objects only considers Gravity Acceleration constant...multiplied by another constant which is the number 1?...Nope, actually we do not even need to show it.



Do you all agree with that?...and so can we all apply it to reality?...I do not think so!!!

And so, Bistander, if you agree with "Sir Isaac Newton" Free Fall Formula above, then please agree to stand under the Steel Ball falling down...and so I will choose to let the feathers fall on my face...

After all their weight divided by its mass has been "magically diminished" to exactly just a number one to both...so both would be exactly the same impacting force...correct?

Whenever You are ready let me know and I will contact Brian Cox in London... to repeat that experiment with you under the ball...

EDIT NOTE: You can NOT wear any special impact suits, nor helmets as I would not wear nothing to let feathers hit me...


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

You can stick your face wherever you want. I'll keep mine right here. The acceleration due to gravity is constant on or near the surface of the Earth because the mass of the Earth is so much greater than the mass of the subject object on its surface and the center to center distance between the two masses is essentially constant. The true gravitational force equation is a the product of the two masses divided by the centers distance squared times a constant. The equation you used is just a convenient simplification.

The acceleration of the ball and feather are equal but the forces are not. So regardless of the acceleration or speed of the two objects, the more massive one will have greater force. Obviously a greater force will cause more damage to a face on impact. Newton never said otherwise.

Again maybe it's the language, but I don't understand what you disagree with.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

In

Hi Ufo,

The acceleration due to gravity is constant on or near the surface of the Earth because the mass of the Earth is so much greater than the mass of the subject object on its surface and the center to center distance between the two masses is essentially constant.

Hi Bistander,

So according to you and basically the underlined statement above...due to Earth Mass being so much greater than any other falling object towards it, or essentially a FREE FALL, We all should "neglect" the moving and falling object's mass?

The true gravitational force equation is a the product of the two masses divided by the centers distance squared times a constant. The equation you used is just a convenient simplification.

The Equation I have used is exactly the one that has been spread and taught all along, and the one you have given here as well...or:

F= m*a

Where we can see that mass(m) and acceleration(a) are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL between each others, which simply means that the greater ANY ONE of them both, will increase the total resulting Force (F) on the other side of the equation.

The acceleration of the ball and feather are equal but the forces are not.

Exactly!...but then why, if they posses so HUGE different forces while falling down...WHY they both reach their traveling down path equally?

And the point here is that I do not believe that we can just "neglect" or assume both body masses or weights are equal to "1"...in order that Math finds a "satisfying" answer/result to justify this radical experiment effected by Galileo Galilei way back in time?

Remember that at that time, Aristotle's Theory included mass on a free fall equation...and after Galileo's experiment Aristotle's theories became non trusted any more...

Newtonian Laws came after this has occur...so, IMO, He created this "patch" on the free fall calculations just to come up with a satisfying mathematical result...

But in reality, I believe IMHO this issue has not been deeply solved in either way, mathematically Nor physically...and so, I am pretty sure there must be "another component" missing here...which is NOT Density of the environment, Nor Air Resistance...but other hidden but actively acting "element" which makes this "magical" GRAVITATIONAL COMPENSATION, which obviously have absolutely nothing to do with Objects Physical Mass or Weights.

So regardless of the acceleration or speed of the two objects, the more massive one will have greater force. Obviously a greater force will cause more damage to a face on impact. Newton never said otherwise.

Again maybe it's the language, but I don't understand what you disagree with.

Regards,

bi

Bistander, with all due respect to you and all your knowledge...what you have written above...makes absolutely NO sense at all.

How can you admit one heavier object posses much stronger force than a lighter -in weight and volume- one...and still "makes it" in exact timing on their way down?

How can we all, deliberately take off the Huge Force difference between the two objects from the mathematical equation?

Only way that Sir Newton did this "miracle"...was by deliberately "converting" both objects massive weight/mass differential to a very simple "number one"...or in other words, getting rid of mass-weight so that force would be identical, since both are NOW under the same Gravitational Acceleration Force.

To me, that is called "A Forced Change in the Equation" to "make it fit or work out" giving a -momentary- satisfactory solution to the still unsolved dilemma between a feather and steel ball experiment...or simply "a patch" in History.

And please, do not take me wrong, I know this is the way we all have been "forced" or "patched" to understand this phenomena over all our generations, to the point it seems ridiculous trying to bring it up...like just starting questioning historical facts on the Bible with a Religious Person or Multitude...so, do not take it as just my personal opinion towards yours...but a critic in general to the way we have learned about it.


Kind Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Gravity

Hi Ufo,

Perhaps it will help hearing it from someone else.

Physics I For Dummies, 2nd Edition
By Steven Holzner

Starting with the physics equation for the force of gravity, you can plug in the mass and radius of the Earth to calculate the force of gravity near the surface of the Earth.

The equation for the force of gravity is

image0.png
and it holds true no matter how far apart two masses are.

The gravitational force between a mass and the Earth is the object’s weight. Mass is considered a measure of an object’s inertia, and its weight is the force exerted on the object in a gravitational field. On the surface of the Earth, the two forces are related by the acceleration due to gravity: Fg = mg. Kilograms and slugs are units of mass; newtons and pounds are units of weight.

You can use Newton’s law of gravitation to get the acceleration due to gravity, g, on the surface of the Earth just by knowing the gravitational constant G, the radius of the Earth, and the mass of the Earth. The force on an object of mass m1 near the surface of the Earth is

F = m1g

This force is provided by gravity between the object and the Earth, according to Newton’s gravity formula, and so you can write

image1.png
The radius of the Earth, re, is about 6.38 × 10^6 meters, and the mass of the Earth is 5.98 × 10^24 kilograms. Putting in the numbers, you have

image2.png
Dividing both sides by m1 gives you the acceleration due to gravity:

image3.png
Newton’s law of gravitation gives you the acceleration due to gravity near the surface of the Earth: 9.8 meters/second^2.

Of course, you can measure g by letting an apple drop and timing it, but what fun is that when you can calculate it in a roundabout way that requires you to first measure the mass of the Earth?

Of course the images didn't copy and paste, so go here: How to Calculate the Force of Gravity on the Earth’s Surface - dummies

Compare the mass of the Earth to the mass of the ball. The ball is like 10 with 24 zeros following it times smaller. That is the magnitude of error introduced by using a constant acceleration for objects nears the Earth's surface. So it isn't 100.00000000...000% correct, but pretty darn close. So in free fall near Earth's surface, the 'a' in your F=m*a equation can't change. 'a' is constant. So F is only dependent on m, Force depends on mass.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

The difference between Weight and Mass (On Earth)

Hello again,

I would like to expand a bit about previous post, but here, in order not to make it too long...then this important comment would be missed.

We all know that Mass and Weight of any object are "different" when existing under the influence of Earth Gravitational Field...and so, depending on the spatial distance of an object to Earth Center, the object's weight would vary, while mass remains constant no matter the distance.

A known Physical example is a hovering Helicopter above the surface of Earth...

When Helicopter takes off, it requires A FULL THROTTLE Acceleration of its Main ICE Shaft which directly (or clutched, to be more specific) effect its Main Rotor Blades, as the blade angles must be at a critical pitch...and so, as it elevates from Earth's surface it no longer requires a full RPM rotation of its main blades...this "Deceleration" continues to apply as it gains altitude...to a point that the ICE is almost "IDLING" while Helicopter is almost "floating" on higher layers of the atmosphere while main blade pitch could be almost at a flat angle...

Above example reminds Us that a body closer to Earth's Surface is heavier (weights more) than the same object set at a higher-elevated point in space, where obviously is "much lighter"...However, its Mass is exactly the same no matter where is its space location.

And so, according to all above facts, mass and weight could be the same for an object set at a relative short distance to Earth's Gravitational Field, however, at "certain" elevation in space both parameters start to become "automatically" different. And here it is completely dependent upon object's weight, where lighter objects would need shorter distances to become "lighter" while heavier objects will need higher distances to be considerably lighter.

Now, applying above facts to the Feather and Canon Ball experiment...where both objects are set exactly at the same distance from Earth surface...and both have no other affecting factors, like Air drag or Spatial Densities...but Vacuum in the whole chamber.

I would just add here...that we can not literally "divide" Weight by Mass of each objects and expect the result to be a "perfect" unity result...since mass would remain the same BUT Weight would be different at every millisecond of the falling time/distance range.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[i_ron]

Hello everyone,

I feel that the math has failed to identify how this works.

I will give some numbers in the next post.

Ron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2th...ature=youtu.be

[i_ron]

Hi again,

Numbers:

The small 12 volt Bosch car fan motor uses 25 watts disconnected from the wheel.

Connected it will spin the out of balance wheel up to 328 RPM for an addition 11 watts, (36 watts total)

Increasing the speed (RPM) requires an additional input, eg; 436 RPM for 48 watts

However when one loads the wheel the input draw goes up such that to output 25 watts requires an input of 75 watts.

Just common sense

I have removed the reference to vectors as i was in error. They occur sequentially so do not apply.


Ron

[i_ron]

Nice long email from Kevin suggesting many things. One was why was it so constrained.

Well a crank shaft is not constraining?

But in operation it is self constraining.

It was just where I had had it set as it it flails about so much with no load. So I backed the springs well off and gave it a run, unconstrained.

It is running quite well now and a couple of changes since the video. I have the flywheel sped up with a 2:1 ratio now and where the small motor was running at 3:1 That has been changed to 6.8: 1

Results of the run:

Input, 10 volts at 12.5 amps = 125 watts

Output 2 ft/lb at 114 RPM (T X N/5252) = .043 horse power, 31 watts

Ron

[bistander]

How this works?

Hello everyone,

I feel that the math has failed to identify how this works.

I will give some numbers in the next post.

Ron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2th...ature=youtu.be

Hi l_Ron,

So is this video made by you and you constructed the machine? If so, nicely done. You say you feel the math fails to identify how it works. Does that imply that you think it does work? In your subsequent post you give some power figures. But I don't see you state a conclusion. What was the purpose of the machine (desired output) and was it a success or not?

It is a well constructed machine but deviates from the diagrams of Kevin Hay. Can you comment about that, like the addition of the one-way clutch?

Thanks,

bi

Edit: I see another post from you came in while I was authoring mine. Thanks. Hopefully another video and further discussion will follow.

[yaro1776]

Results of the run:

Input, 10 volts at 12.5 amps = 125 watts

Output 2 ft/lb at 114 RPM (T X N/5252) = .043 horse power, 31 watts

Ron

Hey Ron,

Nicely done experiment demonstrating the impact of a rotating unbalanced load on a lever arm. The basic principles are fairly straightforward and the documented results present the basic efficiency of the machine in its current form.

Based on the results one can conclude it is not very efficient and may need some liberal application of Newtonian magic.
QED!

Yaro