PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Benches > ltseung888 > Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public
2024-05-18, 20:06:06
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public  (Read 25834 times)
Topic Options img
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #25 on: 2011-03-27, 19:45:26 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-27, 12:20:58
Dear All,

I have now completed the simple computer model that conclusively showed that kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in at resonance.  The random motion of air molecules can be changed into a pulsing order by the vibrating tuning forks to do work.  The energy is mainly from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=771.0
...

Why should there be an effect onto the piston at the moment when the balls meet from each side, with equal mass and speed?
I still don't see your mathematics.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #26 on: 2011-03-27, 20:00:40 »
Group: Guest
Chinese Researcher

The Chinese Researcher has similar ideas  - use two LCR resonance circuits to bring-in electromagnetic energy.

It is a small World. O0
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #27 on: 2011-03-27, 20:19:01 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-03-27, 19:45:26
Why should there be an effect onto the piston at the moment when the balls meet from each side, with equal mass and speed?
I still don't see your mathematics.



If you do not understand the mathematics, you can step back.

Let the two balls hit at slightly different times.  The Piston is moving in the –X direction.
1.   Let the Ball B1 travelling in the +X hit the piston first.  It will bounce back with a higher velocity (1200 compared with 1000).  The piston will be slightly slower (99.9978 compared with 100).
2.   The Ball B2 travelling in the –X direction then hit the piston.  It is not hitting the piston travelling at 100 units but at 99.9978 units.  It will bounce back  with a lower velocity (800 compared with 1000 with the rounding).

As you can see, if you remove the need for the balls to simultaneously hit the piston, the result of the two separate collisions will send Ball B1 at 1200 in the –X direction.  And the Ball B2 will travel at 800 in the +X direction.

Your confusion comes from your mind’s hidden assumption – the two balls with same mass and same speed in opposite directions at the same time will produce the same force.  That is a false assumption.

This false assumption can easily be made as the mathematics also show the effect of a missed collision.  In a missed collision:
Momentum before collision = Momentum after collision
 (must be true if there were none!)
Kinetic energy before collision = Kinetic energy after collision
 (must be true if there were none!)

When you look at Ball B1, it moves in the +X direction with 1000 units.  It does NOT bounce back in the –X direction.  The ball moving in the –X direction is B2!!!

Hope that clears your confusion.

Making hidden assumptions often yield wrong results.
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #28 on: 2011-03-28, 15:06:22 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-27, 20:19:01
If you do not understand the mathematics, you can step back.

Be logical, please. If I didn't understand mathematics, I would not have given you the basis of momentum equations.

Quote
Let the two balls hit at slightly different times.  The Piston is moving in the –X direction.
1.   Let the Ball B1 travelling in the +X hit the piston first.  It will bounce back with a higher velocity (1200 compared with 1000).  The piston will be slightly slower (99.9978 compared with 100).
2.   The Ball B2 travelling in the –X direction then hit the piston.  It is not hitting the piston travelling at 100 units but at 99.9978 units.  It will bounce back  with a lower velocity (800 compared with 1000 with the rounding).

As you can see, if you remove the need for the balls to simultaneously hit the piston, the result of the two separate collisions will send Ball B1 at 1200 in the –X direction.  And the Ball B2 will travel at 800 in the +X direction.
...
Making hidden assumptions often yield wrong results.

Where are your equations? Still no mathematics but words.

In the hypothesis that one ball hit first the piston, then we have twice a two bodies problem: the solution is still conventional and the equations are easy.

Let p1, p2, v1, v2 be the inital momentum and speed of ball1 and ball2, v'1 the ball1 speed after collision, v'2 the ball2 speed after collision, P piston momentum, v piston speed, v' piston speed after first collision, v'' piston speed after second collision.

First collision with ball1
Conservation of momentum:
p1+P = p'1+P'
Conservation of kinetic energy:
p12/v1 + P/v = p'12/v'1 + P'2/v'

Therefore, solving our two equations with two unknowns:

v'1= (m1-M)*v1/(m1+M) + 2*M*v/(m1+M)
v' = 2*m1*v1/(m1+M) + (M-m1)*v/(m1+M)

If we know the mass ratio r=M/m1=M/m2, it is simpler to write:
(1)    v'1= v1*(1-r)/(1+r) + v*2*r/(1+r)
        v' = v1*2/(1+r) + v*(r-1)/(1+r)

Second collision with ball2: we do the same, the initial piston speed being now v'.
(2)    v'2= v2*(1-r)/(1+r) + v'*2*r/(1+r)
        v'' = v2*2/(1+r) + v'*(r-1)/(1+r)

Replacing v' with its solution from (1), we get:
       v'2= v2*(1-r)/(1+r) + [v1*2/(1+r) + v*(r-1)/(1+r)]*2*r/(1+r)
        v'' = v2*2/(1+r) + [v1*2/(1+r) + v*(r-1)/(1+r)]*(r-1)/(1+r)

(3)   v'2= v2*(1-r)/(1+r) + v1*4*r/(1+r)2 + v*2*r*(r-1)/(1+r)2
        v'' = 2*v2/(1+r) + 2*v1*(r-1)/(1+r)2 + v*(r-1)2/(1+r)2

From equation (3) we obviously see that you neglected second order terms and it is the reason why your point 2 and conclusion is false.

You can't get right results by using only layman terms and approximate numerical values instead of equations, it's not enough rigor. For correct resuls, do the math!
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #29 on: 2011-03-28, 19:14:10 »
Group: Guest
Quote

In the hypothesis that one ball hit first the piston, then we have twice a two bodies problem: the solution is still conventional and the equations are easy.

Let p1, p2, v1, v2 be the initial momentum and speed of ball1 and ball2, v'1 the ball1 speed after collision, v'2 the ball2 speed after collision, P piston momentum, v piston speed, v' piston speed after first collision, v'' piston speed after second collision.

First collision with ball1
Conservation of momentum:
p1+P = p'1+P'

(*** Momentum is a vector quantity.  The +ve or -ve signs are important as they indicate direction.  The Ball B1 bounces in the opposite direction.  That is not reflected in your equation.  Also the directions of p1 and P are different.  Please check.)

Conservation of kinetic energy:
p12/v1 + P/v = p'12/v'1 + P'2/v'

(*** the kinetic energy is expressed as 0.5*m*v*v in my notation as I do not know how to express it as 0.5m*v2.  It is NOT the square of the momentum divided by velocity.  Please recheck your calculation. If this is wrong, the rest of the mathematics will be wrong.  LT)

Therefore, solving our two equations with two unknowns……. :-[

 
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #30 on: 2011-03-29, 20:32:09 »
Group: Guest

It is the second time that you mix your text and mine. I'm afraid that mine to be confused with yours. You should learn how to quote fairly.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-28, 19:14:10
Momentum is a vector quantity.  The  ve or -ve signs are important as they indicate direction.  The Ball B1 bounces in the opposite direction.  That is not reflected in your equation.  Also the directions of p1 and P are different.  Please check.
 

Of course momenta are vectors. It was implicit, as text mode prevents from clearly representing vectors. I don't feel to precise what is completely obvious for skilled people (because of only one axis, the vector orientation reducing to the sign, and this can be done while solving the equations).

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-28, 19:14:10

the kinetic energy is expressed as 0.5*m*v*v in my notation as I do not know how to express it as 0.5m*v2.  It is NOT the square of the momentum divided by velocity.
 

You're wrong. It IS 0.5 times the square of the momentum divided by velocity.
Ek=0.5*m*v*v   p=m*v    p2=m2*v2   therefore Ek=0.5*p2/m  which is what I wrote, eliminating 0.5 on each side of the equation, which is also obvious. Undergraduate students understand that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy or courses, my formula is used, it is used everywhere in mechanics.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-28, 19:14:10
Therefore, solving our two equations with two unknowns……

Still problems for you to solve two equations with two unknowns?!

ltseung888, you criticize well known and correct mathematics but we didn't yet see mathematics from you. Your equations remain to be given. You will not be able to understand your mistake without math. Check.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #31 on: 2011-03-30, 00:52:06 »
Group: Guest
@exnihiloest

In reply 28:  Did you state that:

Quote
Conservation of kinetic energy:
p12/v1 + P/v = p'12/v'1 + P'2/v'

Was that a mistake?  Was the v, v1 etc equal to mass or velocity?  Please check.

The correct equations start in reply 2 of the main debate thread and continue in the following replies.  I deliberately separated the two cases of Ball B1 and Ball B2 to simplify the mathematics and physics.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=771.0

You can double-check the mathematics carefully and refer to the spreadsheets if needed.
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #32 on: 2011-03-30, 01:08:50 »
Group: Guest
I think I know what principle the TPU works under.

Crookes radiometer

But let me sleep on this a few nights.
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #33 on: 2011-03-30, 07:47:20 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-30, 00:52:06
@exnihiloest

In reply 28:  Did you state that:

Was that a mistake?  Was the v, v1 etc equal to mass or velocity?  Please check.

The correct equations start in reply 2 of the main debate thread and continue in the following replies.  I deliberately separated the two cases of Ball B1 and Ball B2 to simplify the mathematics and physics.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=771.0

You can double-check the mathematics carefully and refer to the spreadsheets if needed.


You will be able to locate your mistake only with mathematics.

"It will bounce back with a higher velocity (1200 compared with 1000).  The piston will be slightly slower (99.9978 compared with 100)" is not mathematics.

You didn't provide mathematics but only numerical values in layman terms.

Give your mathematics, your equations, and I'll help you.
   
img  Rosphere
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #34 on: 2011-03-30, 11:47:18 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-03-28, 15:06:22
Where are your equations? Still no mathematics but words.
...
You can't get right results by using only layman terms and approximate numerical values instead of equations, it's not enough rigor. For correct results, do the math!

"Who let this guy in here?"

I chased this same squirrel around a similar tree, the pendulum lead out example, a few years ago on OU.

I see that someone else is giving chase to the same critter around a new tree here at OUR.

Oh well, it's fun mental gymnastics until it gets old.  Thanks for playing along.   :D >:(
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #35 on: 2011-03-30, 15:46:59 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-03-30, 07:47:20
You will be able to locate your mistake only with mathematics.

"It will bounce back with a higher velocity (1200 compared with 1000).  The piston will be slightly slower (99.9978 compared with 100)" is not mathematics.

You didn't provide mathematics but only numerical values in layman terms.

Give your mathematics, your equations, and I'll help you.



See the spreadsheet in reply 6 of the main debate thread.
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #36 on: 2011-03-30, 16:37:07 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-30, 15:46:59
See the spreadsheet in reply 6 of the main debate thread.

The spreadsheet has nothing to do with mathematics. It deals with arbitrary numbers, outside of any evidence.

Where are your equations?  I asked them 5 times and you have not yet given them.
If you have no math, I suggest you that you say "I have no math". It is a good method for avoiding out of topic replies and for saving time.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #37 on: 2011-03-30, 17:21:44 »
Group: Guest
@exnihiloest,

Please start reading from the following:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=771.0  Reply 2

Quote
Now I shall address the key substance of our debate – can a vibrating tuning fork change the random motion of the molecules into a pulsing order?  Can that pulsing order do work?  If so, can I conclusively prove mathematically that the energy to do work comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules?

If I start with the trillions of randomly moving molecules in my head, I would be totally confused.  Thus I start with the very simple model (and improve later) with the following assumptions:

1.   Only one ball (representing a molecule) is involved in the collision with the oscillating piston (vibrating tuning fork).

2.   The ball B1 is moving in the +X direction with velocity Ms.  The mass of the ball is Mb.

3.   The piston is moving in the –X direction with velocity Ps.  The mass of the piston is Mp.

4.   The collision is elastic – meaning that no energy is changed into heat, sound or deformation.

5.   The motion is restricted to the X axis only. 

6.   After collision, the ball B1 will move in the –X direction with velocity M1s.  The piston will still move in the –X direction with velocity P1s.

7.   The ratio of mass of piston to ball is Y.

Once I use the above assumptions, the problem is greatly simplified.  There are two Laws that must be obeyed – namely the Law of Conservation of Momentum and the Law of Conservation of Energy.  Momentum is the product of mass time velocity and is a vector quantity (meaning direction must be taken into account).  Energy in this case is the kinetic energy = 0.5*m*v*v.  (I use the symbol * as the multiplication sign and v*v as the square of v).

With the above assumption, the Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the momentum before collision must be equal to the momentum after collision.  Thus we have equation (1)

Mb*Ms – Mp*Ps = -Mb*M1s – Mp*P1s    (the +ve and –ve signs are very important)

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that the kinetic energy before collision must be equal to the kinetic energy after collision.  Thus we have equation (2)

0.5*Mb*Ms*Ms + 0.5*Mp*Ps*Ps = 0.5*Mb*M1s*M1s + 0.5*Mp*P1s*P1s

Please check the physics and mathematics behind equations (1) and (2).
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #38 on: 2011-03-30, 17:32:55 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Rosphere on 2011-03-30, 11:47:18
...
Oh well, it's fun mental gymnastics until it gets old.  Thanks for playing along.   :D >:(

I will do my best until some one else takes over!  ;)

   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #39 on: 2011-03-30, 18:25:39 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-30, 17:21:44
@exnihiloest,

Please start reading from the following:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=771.0  Reply 2

Please check the physics and mathematics behind equations (1) and (2).


First you should clarify (1):
Mb*Ms – Mp*Ps = -Mb*M1s – Mp*P1s

You forgot what you said before: "*** Momentum is a vector quantity.". The unknowns are not only the absolute value of speeds M1s and P1s, but also their direction. Even if your arbitrary choice of signs is probably right in the present case, it is a guess which could be false (for example the collision with a very very high speed ball can reverse the speed of the piston).
You have not to make unjustified suppositions. The only possible supposition is that the ball and the piston remain on the same axis X, for symmetry reasons.
The sign is given by solving the equations, not before, question of method.

equation (2) : ok

According to these 2 equations, momentum and kinetic energy are conserved.  So what is the matter? A second collision? Or you calculate anomalous numerical values? Until now we have only conventional statements.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #40 on: 2011-03-30, 21:10:09 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-03-30, 18:25:39
First you should clarify (1):
Mb*Ms – Mp*Ps = -Mb*M1s – Mp*P1s

You forgot what you said before: "*** Momentum is a vector quantity.". The unknowns are not only the absolute value of speeds M1s and P1s, but also their direction. Even if your arbitrary choice of signs is probably right in the present case, it is a guess which could be false (for example the collision with a very very high speed ball can reverse the speed of the piston).
You have not to make unjustified suppositions. The only possible supposition is that the ball and the piston remain on the same axis X, for symmetry reasons.
The sign is given by solving the equations, not before, question of method.

equation (2) : ok

According to these 2 equations, momentum and kinetic energy are conserved.  So what is the matter? A second collision? Or you calculate anomalous numerical values? Until now we have only conventional statements.



The assumptions related to the equations are put into spreadsheet for ease of modification and analysis.  The choice of signs is deliberate to fit into the assumed values.  It is easier for clarity of understanding.  If you are familiar with spreadsheets, you will find that we do not need to solve the equations in the conventional way.

The technique I used is to have fixed values for velocity of Ball B1 and Piston before collision; fixed ratio of the mass of the Ball and the Piston.  I then varied the velocity of the Piston (Pv1) after collision in the spreadsheet.

From Equation (1), I can get a value for the velocity of the Ball after collision. (v1)
From Equation (2), I can get another value of the velocity of the Ball after collision (v2)

With the spreadsheet technique, I can keep varying (Pv1) until the two values v1 and v2 are the same.  This simple technique allowed ease of modification of assumed values.

Hope you can understand the equations and the spreadsheets values and techniques now.

If you still have questions, please ask.  We are learning on behalf of the World.  Others may have same doubts but they kept quiet and never learned.  The pulsed pendulum calculations have been out for over 6 years.  Now some members informed me that they never understood the mathematics!
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #41 on: 2011-03-30, 22:03:30 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-30, 21:10:09
The assumptions related to the equations are put into spreadsheet for ease of modification and analysis. 

In the spreadsheet:

F6 Piston velocity before collision:     100
F8 Piston velocity after collision:        F6-F12   (= 99.9978)
F12 For best calculation: difference in Piston velocity:  0.0022

We see that the piston velocity after collision is obtained from the formula F6-F12 where F12 is NOT calculated from the correct mathematic equations.

The equations of momentum and energy conservation assume that momentum and energy conservation are conserved! Do you understand that? it means that from the equations, you cannot get somethnig else than momentum and energy conservation. If you get something else, the reason is your formulae in the sheet are false.

You must express the equations giving the speeds after the collision as a function of the speed before the collision, and only after you can write the right formulae.  You didn't, so you put incorrect formulae and values in the sheet.

   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #42 on: 2011-03-31, 00:47:51 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-03-30, 22:03:30
In the spreadsheet:

F6 Piston velocity before collision:     100
F8 Piston velocity after collision:        F6-F12   (= 99.9978)
F12 For best calculation: difference in Piston velocity:  0.0022

We see that the piston velocity after collision is obtained from the formula F6-F12 where F12 is NOT calculated from the correct mathematic equations.

The equations of momentum and energy conservation assume that momentum and energy conservation are conserved! Do you understand that? it means that from the equations, you cannot get somethnig else than momentum and energy conservation. If you get something else, the reason is your formulae in the sheet are false.

You must express the equations giving the speeds after the collision as a function of the speed before the collision, and only after you can write the right formulae.  You didn't, so you put incorrect formulae and values in the sheet.



Now you know that all I need to do is to vary the number in F12.  Once you put in a number, you can compare it with the previous number and see whether the values in F9 and F10 converge or diverge.  You can then put in a new number accordingly.  After a few tries, you will get the values in F9 and F10 to be equal or nearly equal.

F9 represents the velocity of the Ball after collision after applying the condition of Conservation of Momentum. (1200)
F10 represents the velocity of the Ball after collision after applying the condition of Conservation of Energy. (1199.998)
F8 represents the velocity of the Piston after collision as assumed (99.9978)

We can always apply the results of F8 and F9 (or F10) back into the original equations (1) and (2).  The equations will confirm that they are correct.  See reply 10 of:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=771.0


Please check the spreadsheet, the calculations in reply 10 and confirm that the velocity of the Ball B1 is 1200 and the velocity of the Piston is 99.9978 after collision.  Please also check that the +ve and –ve signs for momentum are also correct.  You are getting close to the correct answers.  Feel free to ask more questions.  Let the World learn together.  Amen.
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #43 on: 2011-03-31, 08:57:26 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-31, 00:47:51
...
Please check the spreadsheet, the calculations in reply 10 and confirm that the velocity of the Ball B1 is 1200 and the velocity of the Piston is 99.9978 after collision.  Please also check that the +ve and –ve signs for momentum are also correct.  You are getting close to the correct answers.  Feel free to ask more questions.  Let the World learn together.  Amen.

Not a question of speed but of energy of a whole system.
You have two equations about a system and two unknowns:
P1=P2
Ek1=Ek2
P: momentum, Ek: kinetic energy, 1: before collision (known), 2: after collision (unknown).

Your start point is equation Ek1=Ek2, and your end point and conclusion is: Ek2>Ek1. This is obviously false.

After hitting the piston in +X direction, the ball speed towards -X is higher and the piston speed towards -X is lower. Both have now same direction, one was accelerated, the other one was decelerated, proportionally to their mass ratio. The whole momentum and kinetic energy of the system is conserved.

If another ball towards -X hits the piston later, coming from the other side at same speed as the first one, it bounces back towards +X at lower speed (because the piston was moving in same direction as the ball), and the piston speed towards -X is higher. The whole momentum and kinetic energy of the system is still conserved.

Lack of logic, deny of obviousness, refusal of rational objections, ignorance of basic mathematics, fuzzy and inconsistent math formalism, there is nothing in your method that I can use to show us your fallacies and let you understand and progress. No one is bound to do the impossible. Ask god, amen  :)
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #44 on: 2011-03-31, 13:02:56 »
Group: Guest
@exnihiloest

Please read reply 9 of the main debate thread.  It is reproduced here:

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-22, 17:12:13
Dear MH,

Now, I shall discuss the energy supplied verses the energy bring-in mathematics.

Let us focus on the two ball example again. The increase in kinetic energy of ball B1 = 0.5*Mb*1200*1200 – 0.5*Mb*1000*1000
= 0.5*Mb*1440000 – 0.5*Mb*1000000
= 0.5*Mb*440000

The decrease in kinetic energy of ball B2
= 0.5*Mb*800*800 – 0.5*Mb*1000*1000
= 0.5*Mb*640000 – 0.5*Mb*1000000
= -0.5*Mb*360000

The net energy change in the two balls together is
= 0.5*Mb*440000 – 0.5*Mb*360000
= 0.5*Mb*80000

Since Energy is conserved as a whole, the Piston must have a loss of energy
= - 0.5*Mb*80000

Let us simplify the discussion and drop the 0.5*Mb. The Piston must supply
80,000 units of energy (or energy required to produce pulse order).

Ball B1 gained 440000 units of energy – that gained energy allowed the Ball B1 to move faster and thus do work against another unchanged Ball (at speed 1000 units and kinetic energy at 1000000 units).

Ball B2 lost 360000 units of energy – that lost energy allowed another unchanged Ball (at speed 1000 units and kinetic energy at 100000 units) to do work against it.

Thus the available energy to do work by the two balls together
= 440000 + 360000
= 800,000 units

This means I spent one part energy on the Piston to bring-in ten parts of kinetic energy of the Balls. (Or I spent one part of energy on the tuning fork to bring-in ten parts of kinetic energy of the molecules.) If another tuning fork is placed close by, the reflected (or sympathetic) vibration may act as feedback to the first one. Thus the sound can be much louder and lasts longer.

If there was only one tuning fork, it would slowly use up the striking energy.  If there were two or more tuning forks, the bring-in kinetic energy of the air molecules could be used as feedback to “re-excite” the tuning forks.  This conclusively explains that two or more tuning forks can sound louder and longer than a single tuning fork.

@MH, please raise your questions if you have any doubts on the mathematics and/or the explanations.

@All, please raise your questions and doubts in the thread for the General Public.  Understanding of this first Divine Revelation will help you understand almost all the claimed OU devices.

God provides the Divine Revelation. Physicists and Mathematicians interpret it for the masses. It can be compared to Jesus turned water to wine. The Physicists poured the wine to the masses.  You can be one of those to serve the wine.  Or you can be one to enjoy it.  Knowledge will not diminish with sharing.  Amen.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #45 on: 2011-03-31, 13:41:31 »
Group: Guest
@exnihiloest,

Let me explain the mathematics and physics in layman terms for the benefit of all.

1.   When Ball B1 initially travelling at 1000 units in the +X direction hits a Piston initially travelling at 100 units in the –X direction, the Ball B1 will bounce back at 1200 units in the –X direction.  The Piston will be slowed down to 99.9978 units but still travel in the –X direction.

2.   The momentum and energy of the Ball and the Piston together are conserved as required by the Newtonian Laws of Mechanics.  However, the Ball B1 travels at a higher velocity.  It has gained some energy from the Piston. 

3.   The important point is the Ball B2.  The Ball B2 initially travelling at 1000 units in the –X direction now collides with the Piston travelling at 99.9978 units in the –X direction.  The Ball B2 bounces back in the +X direction with velocity 800 units.   That means it has given some of its energy to the Piston!

4.   However, this energy is less than the energy given by the Piston to Ball B1. (See the mathematics in previous post).

5.   If there were no other pistons (or tuning forks), the energy from the Piston will be slowly transferred to the balls similar to B1.  The energy it receives from balls similar to B2 cannot compensate totally.  It will eventually stop vibrating.

6.   However, if another piston (or tuning fork) is present, that tuning fork will send back a pulsing wave of fast and slow balls.  The balls colliding with the first Piston will no longer be at 1000 units.  It will be a wave of 1200 units and then 800 units.  This pulsing wave will change the mathematics. 

7.   At the right frequency (happens with two or more identical tuning forks), the pulsing waves will help to bring-in more kinetic energy of air molecules and thus the resulting sound will be louder and last longer.

8.   If done right, multiple tuning forks in resonance chambers may produce a louder sound that lasts forever.  This is theoretically possible.  But we are not interested in such tinny energy gains.

9.   The theoretical extension is – can LCR resonance circuits bring-in electron motion energy of the orbiting electrons?  When we look at the Steven Mark Device, it may be a simple case of two LCR circuits in resonance with the toroid.  When we look at the Joule Ringer, it may be a case of two LCR circuits in resonance and can be driven by a capacitor.  When we look at FLEET, it can have Output Power greater than Input Power by 280 times.  FLEET is definitely a two LCR resonance circuit.  When we look at the Rosemary circuit, it is also a resonance circuit.  When we look at the Stan Meyer HHO device, it is two LCR circuits in resonance.

10.    Thus the simple Tuning Fork Model points the way to future research of many devices – multiple LCR circuits in resonance with the physical setup.  A single LCR resonate circuit will not do the job.  Go for multiple LCR circuits in resonance.

The water has been turned into wine.  We need the physicists and mathematicians to taste and serve it.  We need the engineers to build the machines to satisfy the Thirst for Energy of the Masses.  Amen.
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #46 on: 2011-04-01, 08:40:05 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-03-31, 13:41:31
@exnihiloest,

Let me explain the mathematics and physics in layman terms for the benefit of all.
...

As already said, layman terms are not suitable in physics research. In layman terms, there is not rigor enough, you can put overunity everywhere anyhow. The right language for science is mathematics and logic.
When you start from an equation where Ek1=Ek2 to prove the statement Ek2>Ek1, you can be sure you are wrong.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #47 on: 2011-04-01, 10:37:16 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011-04-01, 08:40:05
As already said, layman terms are not suitable in physics research. In layman terms, there is not rigor enough, you can put overunity everywhere anyhow. The right language for science is mathematics and logic.
When you start from an equation where Ek1=Ek2 to prove the statement Ek2>Ek1, you can be sure you are wrong.




Looks like you still do not get it.  May be many out there do not get it also.  I shall repeat:

1.   The Tuning Fork setup is essentially an OPEN system.  By OPEN system, I mean that energy can flow in and out from the surrounding.  One cannot draw a closed box and claim that all interactions happen within that closed box.  Sound essentially can propagate to long distances.

2.   When we consider the Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy, we need to consider both the Balls and the Piston.  Ball B1 gains velocity from 1000 to 1200.  Hence it gains kinetic energy.  That comes from the slowing down of the Piston.  The above two conservations laws are obeyed.

3.   Ball B1 can be considered as gone from an imaginary box and carries the extra kinetic energy with it.  (Energy flow out from an OPEN system).  This is perfectly acceptable in Physics.

4.   Ball B2 comes from the surrounding.  It collides with the Piston and gives some of its kinetic energy to the Piston (velocity dropped from 1000 to 800).  This represents Energy flow in from an OPEN system.  This is perfectly acceptable in Physics.

5.   If we focus on the Piston carefully, we find that it will give some of its kinetic energy to Balls like B1.  It will receive some kinetic energy back from Balls like B2.  If there were no other Pistons, its energy will slowly drain away.

6.   However, if there is another Piston (tuning fork) nearby and sends back a wave of faster and slower balls at the right time (sympathetic vibration), the B1 type Balls will not travel at 1000.  The B1 type Balls may be travelling at 800 and will bounce back with a lower kinetic energy gain from the Piston.

7.   The B2 type Balls may be travelling at 1200 and will give more kinetic energy to the Piston.  (I shall do the vigorous mathematics in the next post).  This will make the resulting sound louder and last longer.

8.   Thus from the vigorous Newtonian Physics and Mathematics, we can conclude that the tuning fork systems is an OPEN system.  Energy flows out from the Piston to make B1 type Balls faster.  That energy represents a loss of energy from the Piston.  Energy flows in from the B2 type Balls to the Piston.  That energy represents a gain of energy to the Piston.  With one Piston alone, there will be a net loss of energy and the Piston will gradually lose its energy.

9.   However, when there is another Piston (or tuning fork) in sympathetic vibration, the wave of faster and slower balls may impact more energy back to the Pistons.  The net result may even be a gain of energy to the Pistons!  (Mathematics to follow in another post.)

10.   This implies that kinetic energy can be brought-in at resonance with MULTIPLE tuning forks.  The analogy is – can electron motion energy be brought-in via MULTIPLE LCR resonance circuits?  Is the Steven Mark Device a two LCR circuit suitably tuned to resonate with the physical setup?  Is the Joule Ringer a two LCR circuit suitably tuned so that it can be driven by a capacitor?  Should our research be focused on MULTIPLE LCR circuits?

Some seeds fall on rocks.  Some seeds fall on fertile soil.  Sowing Physics and Mathematical concepts via the Internet is similar.  Amen.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #48 on: 2011-04-01, 11:15:32 »
Group: Guest
The result from the attached spreadsheets:

From the first spreadsheet (Simplified Model 1c),

In cell F5, we put in 800.  That represents a lower molecular velocity.  On bounce back, the velocity goes back to 1000 (cell F9). 

The kinetic energy gained by the Ball or lost by the Piston (ignoring the 0.5*Mb terms)
= 1000000 – 640000)
= 360000

From the second spreadsheet (Simplified Model 2c),

In cell F6, we put in 1200.  That represents a higher molecular velocity.  Note that the direction of collision is from behind (both –X direction).  On bounce back, the velocity goes down to 1000 (cell F10)

The kinetic energy lost by the Ball or gained by the Piston (ignoring the 0.5*Mb terms)
= 1440000 – 1000000)
= 440000

Thus there is a net gain of Energy by the Piston on a pulsing wave of molecules. 
   
img  Rosphere
Re: Scientific Debate with MileHigh - for General Public « Reply #49 on: 2011-04-01, 12:21:04 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-04-01, 10:37:16
...
Some seeds fall on rocks.  Some seeds fall on fertile soil.
...

Some seeds are bad.   :'(
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-18, 20:06:06