🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 28, 6:34 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 29, 7:18 am, "dkel...@hotmail.com" <dkel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Hi
> >  A little physics will show how this doesn't work.
> >  First, it would be true that a flywheel with no force on it would
> > continue to point
> > in a constant direction.
> >  The problem is that the gear box does apply a force. This would cause
> > the flywheel
> > to precess to a point that is would no longer apply force to the
> > gearbox( IOW align
> > to the polar axis ).
> >  Another thought experiment would show that such a machine would not
> > work
> > because the earth/flywheel system would have to maintain a constant
> > moment
> > of rotational inertia. To power the gear box would require removing
> > inertia
> > from the rotation of the earth. It would be absorbed into the flywheel
> > system
> > as motion of some sort. Of course that motion would be to precess
> > until it no longer
> > had a force on it.
> >  Oh well, back to the drawing board.
> > Dwight
>
> ...
>
> "Very interesting Little Boy, but it never will work" - is a phrase
> which scientists since the medieval times keep repeating about every
> new idea. It was stated about the "jet engine", about "flying
> machines", "steel boats", etc. - quotes can be multiplied
> infinitively.

Hi
 Such responses are made without actual physical law. Conservation of
momentum
has never been broken by any experiment. Why do you think this
flywheel trick will break it,
since it is only Newtonian mechanics involved.

---snip--
>
> In Frombork (Poland) there is a tower in which the medieval
> astronomer, Mikolaj Kopernik, used to work. In this tower a perpetual
> pendulum does work. Everyone who visits it can see this pendulum
> working. The pendulum is swining, bot also rotating. Although there is
> an energy supply to make it swing, NOT energy is supplied to make it
> rotate. But it rotates perpetually, as the wheel described here, means
> by 15 degrees each hour and by 1 revolution per each day. So this
> pendulum is actually a version of the flywheel described here. And it
> really does works. Thus it also proves that the flywheel described
> here is going to work. Only that someone needs to undertake the effort
> to actually build it. I have no condition to build it, but I hope that
> someone else will. When finally it is build, it will cause a
> revolution in human thinking. It will prove wrong all scientists who
> claimed that the perpetual motion cannot be build, including all these
> "mud throwers" who spit at the idea of the wheel described here.

 Ah, this is not evidence that you can extract any energy. In fact,
the reason
the pendulum rotates is because it is not taking energy from the
earth's
rotation. It is only Conservation of momentum that makes it appear to
be taking
energy from the earth. In fact it is not. It is proof that the earth
is rotating, though.
 They used to have such a pendulum in the Hall of Science at the
Golden
Gate Park in San Francisco. The rotation rate you describe was first
calculated
by Foucault. In fact, his relation to this physical effect got him the
honor of
having it named as the Foucault Pendulum. It along with the math
proves
that the earth is rotating and not the heavens. In swinging, the
pendulum
is trying to not take energy from the earths rotation. In fact it is
doing
just the opposite. It is taking the minimal path of taking energy from
the
earth.
 I regret to say that the new Hall of Science no longer has this
demonstration.
It seems that they claim that they spent too much time trying to
explain
why it does that to the public. I suspect it is more that the
the docents didn't understand it well enough to explain it to the
public.
One interesting thing is that one can calculate the latitude of the
pendulum
by the rotational rate of the free swinging Foucault Pendulum.
 Please, take some time to understand the physics that causes the
rotation
and also the laws of the physical world that will prove to you that
you can not
extract continuous energy from such an effect.



>
> I thinik that it is NO point to write that (and why) the flywheel is
> NOT going to work, because almost all scientists on our planet keep
> yelling this for centuries. Whet we should discuss here, is why YES,
> it it going to work, and how to build one in a simplest and most
> effective manner.

 Yes, please explain why it will violate the laws of momentum. It has
to stay within these rules or it is proof that these rules no longer
apply
to the physical world. Where is the magic little man that will make
it work. Understanding of why the Foucault Pendulum does what it
does, does not violate the laws of momentum. It in fact is one of the
best proof that the laws hold true.
 As for your flywheel, when a force is applied to a flywheel, the
flywheel
doesn't move nicely in the direction of the force. It moves
perpendicular.
No enegy is net gained or lost from such a system since the energy
has to have the two verctor in the same direction, not perpendicular.
 In order to have energy extracted, you'd have to change the direction
of the force over time such that a component of the force would align
with the motion of the flywheel. Such a change over time would
eventually
reorient the flywheel system such that it would align its axis with
the
polar axis. No more energy would be extracted.
 It is kind of like rolling down hill compared with rolling up hill.
If you
roll down hill on the potential energy curve, you can extract energy
to do useful work. Once you reach the bottom of the hill, no more
energy
is extracted. Rolling back uphill would require putting energy into
the system.
 Anyway, play with the vectors of force and movement. It might even
help
you to make a flywheel from a bicycle wheel and get swivel chair
( we used to do this in physics class. I loved it ).
 You can run experiments yourself to prove to yourself that you can't
extract continuous energy form the system. You can only roll down
hill until you reach the minimum energy.
 Prove it to yourself, don't waste time reading some fools web page.
It sounds like you are a thinking person, try a little physical proof
and run the experiments.
Dwight

>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak
>
> P.S. To these who are tirred of spitters who throw mud at good ideas,
> I recommend the old threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f43b...