• Seeing the difference between kinetic energy and momentum, with wheels.

    From Dave@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 22:03:40 2024
    XPost: sci.physics, uk.politics.misc

    Seeing the difference between kinetic energy and momentum, with wheels.

    Here's a fresh take on the spinning chair experiment, by showing
    conservation of angular momentum, and also how kinetic energy changes.
    Momentum is proportional to velocity, and kinetic energy to velocity
    squared, as per teaching.

    The Physics Textbook, University Physics, Young and Freedman,
    Global Edition, 15th Edition page 348 has the angular momentum conservation,when you hold out dumbbells when spinning, and you bring
    your arms in. You go much faster, as proveable science fact.

    The increase in work is given by the expenditure of muscle energy from
    the arms. It isn't a scientific measurement, just a glib take it
    explanation. Need a quantitative meaurement.

    So I'm suggesting to have a 1m radius wheel with 2x5kg weights at the
    end of spokes, which are also rails. For the work to bring in the
    weights use a dropping a weight or weight in the centre. Easier
    calculations if the dropped weight isn't spinning, but more tricky
    gearing.

    Obviously the only increase in energy should be from the the dropped
    weight and I do believe in mgh for energy for a mass to move things up.
    However there is a lack of hard evidence about kinetic energy being proportional to velocity squared. As the weights are moved inwards by
    the known energy of the dropped weight, if there is an additional
    increase because of the higher velocity, obviously there is a theory
    matter to be resolved, at the school and undergraduate level for what is
    being taught to everyone.

    If you're only interested in hard science fact, you can safely end
    reading here.

    There are fairground caurousel rides with this type of thing,
    which about 1900, was probably a known alegory, but this type of
    knowledge is all lost to history. Education is becoming a hotter topic
    in the UK now. As stated kinetic energy proportional to velocity squared
    is the hardest topic to get children to learn. It's either a problem
    with what is taught or how it's taught.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave@21:1/5 to Dave on Fri Jul 5 22:33:39 2024
    XPost: sci.physics, uk.politics.misc

    On 24 40, Dave wrote:
    Seeing the difference between kinetic energy and momentum, with wheels.

    Here's a fresh take on the spinning chair experiment, by showing
    conservation of angular momentum, and also how kinetic energy changes. Momentum is proportional to velocity, and kinetic energy to velocity
    squared, as per teaching.

    The Physics Textbook, University Physics, Young and Freedman,
    Global Edition, 15th Edition page 348 has the angular momentum conservation,when you hold out dumbbells when spinning, and you bring
    your arms in. You go much faster, as proveable science fact.

    The increase in work is given by the expenditure of muscle energy from
    the arms. It isn't a scientific measurement, just a glib take it
    explanation. Need a quantitative meaurement.

    So I'm suggesting to have a 1m radius wheel with 2x5kg weights at the
    end of spokes, which are also rails.  For the work to bring in the
    weights use a dropping a weight or weight in the centre. Easier
    calculations if the dropped weight isn't spinning, but more tricky
    gearing.

    Obviously the only increase in energy should be from the the dropped
    weight and I do believe in mgh for energy for a mass to move things up.
     However there is a lack of hard evidence about kinetic energy being proportional to velocity squared.  As the weights are moved inwards by
    the known energy of the dropped weight, if there is an additional
    increase because of the higher velocity, obviously there is a theory
    matter to be resolved, at the school and undergraduate level for what is being taught to everyone.

    If you're only interested in hard science fact, you can safely end
    reading here.

    As there are many ways to cook eggs, it may be better to use the angular momentum to move the weights in, and see what happens when you check
    closely, as you do. If you can get the calculated kinetic energy to
    increase there is obviously a problem because free energy devices aren't
    so easily made.

    Wrap a piece of string around the axle, or something similar to move the weights. Then let it out again. There will be some who'll say there's elasticity in the string, and the latch movement is the cause, but then
    repeat several times and see what they say. Govenors from big steam
    engines would be somewhat similar, with an opposite effect.



    There are fairground caurousel rides with this type of thing,
    which about 1900, was probably a known alegory, but this type of
    knowledge is all lost to history. Education is becoming a hotter topic
    in the UK now. As stated kinetic energy proportional to velocity squared
    is the hardest topic to get children to learn. It's either a problem
    with what is taught or how it's taught.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave@21:1/5 to Dave on Sat Jul 6 00:11:19 2024
    XPost: sci.physics, uk.politics.misc

    On 24 39, Dave wrote:
    On 24 40, Dave wrote:
    Seeing the difference between kinetic energy and momentum, with wheels.

    Here's a fresh take on the spinning chair experiment, by showing
    conservation of angular momentum, and also how kinetic energy changes.
    Momentum is proportional to velocity, and kinetic energy to velocity
    squared, as per teaching.

    The Physics Textbook, University Physics, Young and Freedman,
    Global Edition, 15th Edition page 348 has the angular momentum
    conservation,when you hold out dumbbells when spinning, and you bring
    your arms in. You go much faster, as proveable science fact.

    The increase in work is given by the expenditure of muscle energy from
    the arms. It isn't a scientific measurement, just a glib take it
    explanation. Need a quantitative meaurement.

    So I'm suggesting to have a 1m radius wheel with 2x5kg weights at the
    end of spokes, which are also rails.  For the work to bring in the
    weights use a dropping a weight or weight in the centre. Easier
    calculations if the dropped weight isn't spinning, but more tricky
    gearing.

    Obviously the only increase in energy should be from the the dropped
    weight and I do believe in mgh for energy for a mass to move things
    up.   However there is a lack of hard evidence about kinetic energy
    being proportional to velocity squared.  As the weights are moved
    inwards by the known energy of the dropped weight, if there is an
    additional increase because of the higher velocity, obviously there is
    a theory matter to be resolved, at the school and undergraduate level
    for what is being taught to everyone.

    If you're only interested in hard science fact, you can safely end
    reading here.

    As there are many ways to cook eggs, it may be better to use the angular momentum to move the weights in, and see what happens when you check
    closely, as you do.  If you can get the calculated kinetic energy to increase there is obviously a problem because free energy devices aren't
    so easily made.

    Wrap a piece of string around the axle, or something similar to move the weights.  Then let it out again.  There will be some who'll say there's elasticity in the string, and the latch movement is the cause, but then repeat several times and see what they say. Govenors from big steam
    engines would be somewhat similar, with an opposite effect.

    Here's another way, which might be easier. Have two co-axial wheels.
    Spin up a big heavy slow one, calculate the kinetic energy and angular momentum. Then engage a new lighter wheel, with high gearing to go from
    the slow to the fast. e.g. 8 times the speed, but a lighter weight, so
    the kinetic energy and angular momentum is shared. Calculate and see
    the losses, and start wondering if there is a kinetic energy gain. I
    would expect about a 10% kinetic energy loss from the clutch and gears.
    Need to check these components very carefully to make sure this is the absolute minimum, e.g. use 1:1 weights and gearing to begin with. Not
    so sure about a lossless clutch to engage a set of gears, jolts aren't
    good either.



    There are fairground caurousel rides with this type of thing,
    which about 1900, was probably a known alegory, but this type of
    knowledge is all lost to history. Education is becoming a hotter topic
    in the UK now. As stated kinetic energy proportional to velocity squared
    is the hardest topic to get children to learn. It's either a problem
    with what is taught or how it's taught.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 6 01:17:50 2024
    XPost: sci.physics, uk.politics.misc

    Angular momentum remains tge same but rotational ke changes when a
    rotating body spreads in or out like stretching in or out the arms.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to bertietaylor on Sat Jul 6 04:55:39 2024
    XPost: sci.physics, uk.politics.misc

    bertietaylor wrote:

    Angular momentum remains tge same but rotational ke changes when a
    rotating body spreads in or out like stretching in or out the arms.

    So consider a spinning ballerina (doing that without friction loss) with
    arms in. She has moment of inertia I1 and rotational speed w1. So her
    angular momentum is I1w1.
    Now she stretches her arms out so she has a different moment of inertia
    I2, more than earlier. She slows down to speed w2 and as per the law of conservation of angular momentum, we have
    I1w1=I2w2
    Now her kinetic energies before and after were 0.5I1w1^2 and 0.5I2w2^2.
    By the law of conservation of energy, they should be equal.
    But we will will that will violate the law of conservation of angular
    momentum!
    The law of conservation of angular momentum can be proved by experiment, knowing I1, w1 and I2 and calculating w2 from there and then checking
    whether it matches the measured w2.


    So it is that Arindam is again vindicated. The law of conservation of
    energy is at best a special case. The ballerina violates that easily!
    Energy is created and destroyed endlessly in our infinite universe.

    woof woo

    Bertietaylor (Arindam's ghostly cyberdoggies and his best friends)
    teaching the e=mcc thumper-chanters a basic lesson in Arindamic physics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe@21:1/5 to bertietaylor on Sat Jul 6 10:23:09 2024
    XPost: sci.physics, uk.politics.misc

    On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 04:55:39 +0000
    bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) wrote:

    bertietaylor wrote:

    Angular momentum remains tge same but rotational ke changes when a
    rotating body spreads in or out like stretching in or out the arms.


    So consider a spinning ballerina (doing that without friction loss)
    with arms in. She has moment of inertia I1 and rotational speed w1.
    So her angular momentum is I1w1.
    Now she stretches her arms out so she has a different moment of
    inertia I2, more than earlier. She slows down to speed w2 and as per
    the law of conservation of angular momentum, we have
    I1w1=I2w2
    Now her kinetic energies before and after were 0.5I1w1^2 and
    0.5I2w2^2. By the law of conservation of energy, they should be equal.
    But we will will that will violate the law of conservation of angular momentum!
    The law of conservation of angular momentum can be proved by
    experiment, knowing I1, w1 and I2 and calculating w2 from there and
    then checking whether it matches the measured w2.


    So it is that Arindam is again vindicated. The law of conservation of
    energy is at best a special case. The ballerina violates that easily!
    Energy is created and destroyed endlessly in our infinite universe.

    woof woo

    Bertietaylor (Arindam's ghostly cyberdoggies and his best friends)
    teaching the e=mcc thumper-chanters a basic lesson in Arindamic
    physics.

    Try doing the maths. The various parts of the ballerina will continue
    to move at the same linear speed as they were (assume no friction) so
    the kinetic energy doesn't change either. The rotational speed has
    changed, but this is offset by the change in radius.

    Kinetic energy is calculated from instantaneous linear velocity V not
    omega. Any expression for kinetic energy based on omega must include a
    radius term, in fact, a squared radius term.

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertietaylor@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 6 11:35:25 2024
    XPost: sci.physics, uk.politics.misc

    Yes moment of inertia depends upon the square of the radius so when the spinning ballerina extends her arms her moment of inertia increases.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)