PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-03-01, 18:45:05
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: Constant Shifting center of mass motor  (Read 43055 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2504
Everyman decries immorality
Well some say my scale's were reading wrong,but it just made sense to me. We are transforming a (heavier than air)liquid into a (lighter than air)gas,so why wouldnt it get lighter?. I mean if we take a sphere(say 2 meters in diameter),and it is rigid enough that we can pull a decent vacuum in the sphere,and we then fill that with 2 parts hydrogen,and 1 part oxygen-->the sphere would weigh less than if it was full of just oxygen-right?. We then ignite the HHO inside that sphere,and the HHO then turns to water,and we once again have a vacuum in that sphere-right?. Now in sted of having a gas in there that is lighter than air,we have no gas,but we have a small amount of water. So would not the sphere now weigh more than it did at the start when it had only HHO gas in it?-and we have not changed the amount of mass in the sphere.

In the same frame of reference the conversion of liquid to gas creates a marginal change in weight on the system (the sealed hho vessel) due to a small specific gravitational acceleration differential between hho and air.

In a different frame of reference, 100 meters below sea level the complete conversion of water to gas (or gas pressure displacement of water in the vessel ;)) creates a large change in relative weight due to the effects of buoyancy. Gravitational acceleration pulls the liquid water down harder around the outside of the vessel and therefore displaces the (vessel) gas upwards with significant force.. the entire ocean is forcing the vessel upwards.. fast..

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-gravities-gases-d_334.html

Air = 1

Hydrogen = 0.0696

Nitrogen 0.97

Oxygen = 1.1044

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind

"Wind is the flow of gases on a large scale. On the surface of the Earth, wind consists of the bulk movement of air. In outer space, solar wind is the movement of gases or charged particles from the sun through space, while planetary wind is the outgassing of light chemical elements from a planet's atmosphere into space. Winds are commonly classified by their spatial scale, their speed, the types of forces that cause them, the regions in which they occur, and their effect. The strongest observed winds on a planet in our solar system occur on Neptune and Saturn. Winds have various aspects, an important one being its velocity; another the density of the gas involved; another is the energy content or wind energy of a wind."

Wind stirs air.. no wind in a hho vessel. Therefore the gas mixture will separate into specific gravities and not mix them up.

Oxygen is the heaviest and naturally wants to be at the bottom, Nitrogen next and Hydrogen wants to sit on top.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/explosive-concentration-limits-d_423.html

Hydrogen LFL = 4

Hydrogen UFL = 75

Therefore only a 4% concentration of Hydrogen present in the heavy Oxygen sitting at the bottom is necessary for combustion to occur. Fresh Hydrogen continues to be produced for a significant period even "after" a cell stops being provided with electricity to stimulate the phase change reaction.. In other words due to buoyancy within the specific gravity field fresh Hydrogen is constantly moving upwards and crossing the liquid / gas boundary where the heavy Oxygen is sitting on top of the water. You are not within the detonation limits but you are within the flammability limits so combustion can take place.  O0


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2504
Everyman decries immorality
See, that's the part that I don't get. If you haven't changed the _mass_, and the sphere is rigid so that the _volume_ doesn't change, then the weight can't be changing either, since the weight is a measure of the force of gravity acting on the mass of the sphere+contents. There doesn't seem to be anywhere where the weight could change, since all the factors that determine weight have not changed. Neither the gravity, nor the mass, nor the volume are changing during the process of making the gas or burning it back to water.

The air outside the sphere doesn't know what's going on inside, whether there is gas, or water+vacuum "filling" the sphere. The gravity doesn't know either. As long as the number of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen don't change, the gravity pulls down on the masses of the atoms just the same whether they are in gas or liquid form, so the sphere as a whole weighs the same.
18 grams of water (one mole) when electrolyzed yields a large volume of oxygen and hydrogen gas at standard pressure and temperature ... but that great volume of gas still weighs 18 grams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

"Gravity (or gravitation) is a natural phenomenon by which all things attract one another including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles. Gravity is responsible for the formation of the universe (e.g. creating spheres of hydrogen, igniting them under pressure to form stars and grouping them in to galaxies). Gravity is a cause of time dilation (time lapses more slowly in strong gravitation). Without gravity, the universe would be without thermal energy and composed only of equally spaced particles. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the tides. Gravity has an infinite range, and it cannot be absorbed, transformed, or shielded against."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration

"In physics, gravitational acceleration is the acceleration on an object caused by force of gravitation. Neglecting friction such as air resistance, all small bodies accelerate in a gravitational field at the same rate relative to the center of mass.[1] This equality is true regardless of the masses or compositions of the bodies.

At different points on Earth, objects fall with an acceleration between 9.78 and 9.83 m/s2 depending on altitude and latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s2 (approx. 32.174 ft/s2). Objects with low densities do not accelerate as rapidly due to buoyancy and air resistance."


Gravity and gravitational acceleration are not the same due to the effects of buoyancy and air resistance (ignore air resistance for the purpose of this discussion although fluid resistance is still in play (liquid)). The specific gravity fluid field governs all matter (fluids, solids are a fluid ;)) as it seeks to order itself within a gravitational field and when it moves it is subject to gravitational acceleration which is dependent on density.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2504
Everyman decries immorality
So when hhop reaches 100 meters depth and pumps (displaces) the water within the vessel out, it will begin to rise. As it rises towards the surface for every 10 meters upwards it travels external pressure reduces by approximately 15 psi reducing the rate of gas production required to maintain stable internal gas pressure. If you really want to have fun you can surround the exterior of the vessel with a hho bubble.. then you have a supercavitating hhop..  O0

http://www.gizmag.com/mitsubishi-air-lubrication-system/21196/

"Mitsubishi reduces friction on ship hulls by blowing bubbles"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation

"Supercavitation is the use of cavitation effects to create a bubble of gas inside a liquid large enough to encompass an object travelling through the liquid, greatly reducing the skin friction drag on the object and enabling achievement of very high speeds. Current applications are mainly limited to projectiles or very fast torpedoes, and some propellers, but in principle the technique could be extended to include entire vehicles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

"The VA-111 Shkval (from Russian: шквал — squall) torpedo and its descendants are supercavitating torpedoes developed by the Soviet Union. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h).[1]"

You would expect the loss of hho outside the vessel providing the supercavitating bubble to impact efficiency negatively.. but I have another trick up my sleeve to make that concern irrelevant..


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3951


Buy me some coffee
Oh come on Tinman. Certainly you can choose a frame of reference where it looks like there is a helical path being traced out in space... but that does NOT mean that there are no orbits! There are literally thousands of artificial satellites that are  _in orbit_ around the Earth, around the Sun, and even around planets and tiny asteroids. Every one of those things is where it is because it was _put there_ by scientists who understand orbital dynamics in the conventional sense. Even astronomers hundreds of years ago understood orbits and were able to calculate accurate positions of things like the moon and planets far in advance. A couple of planets were even _discovered_ because irregularities in the measured and calculated orbital positions of other planets predicted that they had to be there, and when astronomers looked, sure enough there they were.
Do you think it's some kind of magic that keeps the satellites of Jupiter moving in totally predictable courses around that planet, even though Jupiter itself is moving around the sun? Sure it is.... the magic of Gravity, as expressed in the solid science of Orbital Mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

Im not sure how all this got changed around,but i did say that slingshotting around a planet will NOT change it's rotational speed,and agree that it will change it's helicle path a small amount.So you just wait half a year(in the case of earth),and slingshot around it again,and put it back in it;s original path O0.

When dealing with objects in space,then space it self has to be your point of reference.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
Im not sure how all this got changed around,but i did say that slingshotting around a planet will NOT change it's rotational speed,and agree that it will change it's helicle path a small amount.So you just wait half a year(in the case of earth),and slingshot around it again,and put it back in it;s original path O0.

When dealing with objects in space,then space it self has to be your point of reference.

I never said anything about changing rotational speed, the Cassini gained forward velocity around Venus, then on to the Cassini Grand Finale around Saturns moon hyperion, it is a gravity "sling shot" assist in which it's forward velocity increased, don't tell me to not be petty, help me build this then.  I will help fund it. I will pay what I can.  It was gravity being used to produce useful work, not burning fuel.  All any must do is admit that energy was gained by the Cassini spacecraft, the same effect of burning a fuel. 

http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2009/werner/4-gravity-assist/index.html

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/newsrelease19980403/
« Last Edit: 2015-06-01, 17:22:37 by Overboard »
   
Group: Guest
So when hhop reaches 100 meters depth and pumps (displaces) the water within the vessel out, it will begin to rise. As it rises towards the surface for every 10 meters upwards it travels external pressure reduces by approximately 15 psi reducing the rate of gas production required to maintain stable internal gas pressure. If you really want to have fun you can surround the exterior of the vessel with a hho bubble.. then you have a supercavitating hhop..  O0

http://www.gizmag.com/mitsubishi-air-lubrication-system/21196/

"Mitsubishi reduces friction on ship hulls by blowing bubbles"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation

"Supercavitation is the use of cavitation effects to create a bubble of gas inside a liquid large enough to encompass an object travelling through the liquid, greatly reducing the skin friction drag on the object and enabling achievement of very high speeds. Current applications are mainly limited to projectiles or very fast torpedoes, and some propellers, but in principle the technique could be extended to include entire vehicles."




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

"The VA-111 Shkval (from Russian: шквал — squall) torpedo and its descendants are supercavitating torpedoes developed by the Soviet Union. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h).[1]"



You would expect the loss of hho outside the vessel providing the supercavitating bubble to impact efficiency negatively.. but I have another trick up my sleeve to make that concern irrelevant..

Why ?
« Last Edit: 2015-06-01, 16:54:11 by Overboard »
   
Group: Guest
I never said anything about changing rotational speed, the Cassini spacecraft gained forward velocity around Venus, then on to the Cassini Grand Finale around Saturns moon hyperion, it is a gravity "sling shot" assist in which it's forward velocity increased, don't tell me to not be petty, help me build this then.  I will help fund it. I will pay what I can.  It was gravity being used to produce useful work, not burning fuel.  All any must do is admit that energy was gained by the Cassini spacecraft, the same effect of burning a fuel.  

http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2009/werner/4-gravity-assist/index.html

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/newsrelease19980403/
« Last Edit: 2015-06-01, 23:36:24 by Overboard »
   
Group: Guest
Will you admit it already?  That energy was gained from the force of a gravity slingshot? Otherwise it would require the burning of fuel. Duh.
   
Group: Guest
Forgotten what you actually said already? Here it is for you to refresh your memory.

Just ask Cassini if it is burning fuel or if it is using the slingshot effect of gravity of the moon, of Venus, of Jupiter? It actually increased velocity, sounds like moving a mass a distance to me, with gravity? Isn't the Cassini spacecraft getting more out, than what was put in? Ask Bill Nye the science guy, even the Juno spacecraft is gleaning energy from the Earth's gravity to sling-shot out to Jupiter. Gravity, being used to accomplish work.  Doesn't that usually require burning a fuel?  So just admit it, we can obtain energy from the force of gravity already.  It meas that yes, we can produce energy from forces.

Note that you said : "...even the Juno spacecraft is gleaning energy from the Earth's gravity .... We can obtain energy from the force of gravity already." 

But as you now know, the energy _does not come from gravity_.   The energy comes from the momentum of the large mass. The spacecraft is accelerated and the large planet mass is _decelerated_ proportionally. Momentum is conserved. No, it is not "getting more out than what was put in" at all; some of the input comes from the momentum of the planet, and that seems to be what you are missing or trying to deny.
   
Group: Guest
Forgotten what you actually said already? Here it is for you to refresh your memory.

Note that you said : "...even the Juno spacecraft is gleaning energy from the Earth's gravity .... We can obtain energy from the force of gravity already."  

But as you now know, the energy _does not come from gravity_.   The energy comes from the momentum of the large mass. The spacecraft is accelerated and the large planet mass is _decelerated_ proportionally. Momentum is conserved. No, it is not "getting more out than what was put in" at all; some of the input comes from the momentum of the planet, and that seems to be what you are missing or trying to deny.

Energy does not usually come from gravity but when it does, the spacecraft's forward velocity increases and it received it from a gravity slingshot.  That of which...you are too blind to admit or understand, it came from the force of gravity because it would not be present unless the force of gravity existed (but you gave it that energy somehow?).  Without the presence of the force, there is no need need to overcome that force.  I have said this all along. Momentum is conserved because the force was present.  I am not missing nor trying to deny anything.
« Last Edit: 2015-06-03, 12:15:02 by Overboard »
   
Group: Guest


I've reported you to the moderators, Overboard. You clearly do not know, or care, about proper scientific discourse, or the etiquette of this forum. If you think I'm wrong about something, provide some checkable outside reference, or a demonstration of your own, or even a well reasoned argument, that supports your viewpoint. But it appears that you cannot. So you fall back on your tried and true tactic of the pottymouth insult.

   
Group: Guest
"proper scientific discourse"  This is a forum to discuss OVER UNITY DEVICES and alternative energy and alternative Science.  You will not admit to yourself that it was gained because of the force of gravity.  If it was not present, there would be no conservation of momentum and no direction nor velocity change.  That is a  a well reasoned argument, that supports my viewpoint.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3951


Buy me some coffee
What is interesting is that all the satellites orbiting the earth have no impact on the earths motion at all.
A continual force being applied to the satellites to keep them from flying of into space,and no reaction imposed upon the planet,as  all the satellites are orbiting in all different directions. O0


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2910
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
overboard, looks like you edited your post before I could see what insults you were throwing around this time.

This is your second warning overboard, there won't be a third.
   
Group: Guest
What is interesting is that all the satellites orbiting the earth have no impact on the earths motion at all.
A continual force being applied to the satellites to keep them from flying of into space,and no reaction imposed upon the planet,as  all the satellites are orbiting in all different directions. O0

They do, it's just way too small to be noticed. And you may be right that the resultant effect of all the satellites could cancel out. But you might enjoy reading about the history of astronomy, and the discovery of the tiny perturbations that happen to the Earth's motion as a result of the Moon and the other planets. Check out the Dover reprint of A. Pannekoek's book "A History of Astronomy", it's a really good read and the account of the amazing precision of measurements, fitting theory to observation, is very interesting indeed.
   
Group: Guest
"proper scientific discourse"  This is a forum to discuss OVER UNITY DEVICES and alternative energy and alternative Science.  You will not admit to yourself that it was gained because of the force of gravity.  If it was not present, there would be no conservation of momentum and no direction nor velocity change.  That is a  a well reasoned argument, that supports my viewpoint.

And if the kid's slingshot didn't have rubber bands, it wouldn't work either. But the rubber bands, or the gravity, are not the source of the energy. There is a transfer of momentum from the massive planet, to the tiny satellite, in a gravitational slingshot. The energy _does not come from gravity_.

Quote
A gravity assist around a planet changes a spacecraft's velocity (relative to the Sun) by entering and leaving the gravitational field of a planet. The spacecraft's speed increases as it approaches the planet and decreases while escaping its gravitational pull (which is approximately the same). Because the planet orbits the sun, the spacecraft is affected by this motion during the maneuver. To increase speed, the spacecraft flies with the movement of the planet (taking a small amount of the planet's orbital energy); to decrease speed, the spacecraft flies against the movement of the planet. The sum of the kinetic energies of both bodies remains constant (see elastic collision). A slingshot maneuver can therefore be used to change the spaceship's trajectory and speed relative to the Sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

Quote
As the spacecraft approaches the planet, its gravity pulls the much lighter spacecraft so that it catches up with the planet in orbit. It’s the orbital momentum from the planet which gives the spacecraft a tremendous speed boost. The closer it can fly, the more momentum it receives, and the faster it flies away from the encounter.
http://www.universetoday.com/113488/how-do-gravitational-slingshots-work/

Quote
A slingshot increases the kinetic energy of the object in question by decreasing the kinetic energy of the planet.
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/05/q-how-does-a-gravitational-sling-shot-actually-speed-things-up/
   
Group: Guest
It got your attention though didn't it?  You are just looking for a reason to throw me off of here aren't you?  Aren't you?  There wont be a third..is right, will you please help me?  I promise not to be a "potty mouth" and not upset "TinselKoala" if you you promise to actually help me.
   
Group: Guest
No orbital energy was was lost was it?  None was lost at all, yet, it's velocity increased.  Didn't it?  Fine...Whatever do not admit that the force of gravity was involved at all.  Fine.
   
Group: Guest
Exactly  Tin Man..objects fly around planet earth every day, and have no impact on the orbital path?  Just as objects can fly around other orbital paths and increase their velocity, but nobody will give credit to the fact that the force of gravity was present.  No, not at all...it was the conservation of energy, it was the the conservation of momentum.  Gravity had nothing to do with it even though it was present and would not happen unless it was present.  Thanks Tin Man.  I do not have much support here, just trying to prove a point, even if it does not conform to current accepted laws of science. I am just asking for someone to help me.
   
Group: Guest
Does the IS slow the rotation or the orbit of the Earth? Nope
   
Group: Guest
It does not take any of the Earth's orbital energy, at all.  Please help me.  I know that Forces an be used to produce FREE energy and that gravity is the most abundant source.  We do not need fuels anymore.
   
Group: Guest
I promise to not drunk text anymore,will you promise to help me?
   
Group: Guest
Energy does comes from forces, gravity is a force...Why do I care, because it is possible.
   
Group: Guest
What is interesting is that all the satellites orbiting the earth have no impact on the earths motion at all.
A continual force being applied to the satellites to keep them from flying of into space,and no reaction imposed upon the planet,as  all the satellites are orbiting in all different directions. O0
Awesome TinMan...
   
Group: Guest
Good point Tinman!
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-03-01, 18:45:05