Re: [Vo]:Pendulum with a spinning bob
On Sep 1, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: PART II --- In the interest of making my replies in this thread as totally absurd and over the top as possible, I'm sorry, Stephen, I missed a lot of this thread. Is it better to spin alas than to spin a Bob? Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Pendulum with a spinning bob
PART II
---
In the interest of making my replies in this thread as totally absurd
and over the top as possible, here's the "rest of it" where we match
the solutions for brake-off and brake-on and see where we end up.
(See previous post for the definitions and the derivation up to this
point.)
Given a differential equation
a = - k * theta {again, I'm using "a" for d^2(theta)/dt^2}
the solution will take the form
theta = A sin(sqrt(k) * t) + B cos(sqrt(k) * t)
If we fix the starting position as theta_0 at time 0, and set the
velocity to /zero/ at time zero, then the solution takes the form
theta = theta_0 * cos(sqrt(k) * t)
The angle "theta_0" is the angle at which we start the pendulum --
it's the "top" of the first arc.
For the case where the brake is LOCKED, if the bob starts at angle
theta_0, with initial swing velocity zero, the solution must be
(referring back to previous message to find the value for "k"):
theta = theta_0 * Cos(sqrt((g/l)(1 - (1/2)(R/l)^2)) * t)
The velocity will be the time derivative of that, which is:
theta_dot =
-theta_0
* sqrt((g/l)(1-(1/2)(R/l)^2))
* Sin(sqrt((g/l)(1 - (1/2)(R/l)^2)) * t)
(and I hope that's reasonably clear and doesn't get mangled when I
send it).
At the bottom of the arc, we have theta = 0, so the cos(...) term in
the equation for theta must be 0, and we must have
sqrt((g/l)(1 - (1/2)(R/l)^2)) * t = pi/2
and so, plugging that into the velocity formula, we see that at the
bottom of the arc, the velocity becomes:
theta_dot_1 = - theta_0 * sqrt((g/l)(1-(1/2)(R/l)^2))
Now, we'll do the same thing for the brake UNLOCKED. Since we change
state at the bottom of the arc (by releasing the brake), the
brake-locked velocity at the bottom of the arc will be the same as the
brake-unlocked value. By matching the velocities, we'll be able to
derive the maximum swing for the brake-unlocked solution, which will
tell us how high the bob will rise again after the brake is released.
(Note that I'm changing time origin here in order to keep the solution
simple-looking -- but we don't care about an offset in the time, all
we care about is matching the velocity at the bottom of the arc in the
two solutions.)
The solution, with the brake UNLOCKED (and a newly chosen convenient
origin for the time axis), is:
theta = theta_1 * cos(sqrt(g/l) * t)
The velocity with the brake unlocked is:
theta_dot = - theta_1 * sqrt(g/l) * sin(sqrt(g/l) * t)
At the bottom of the arc, we'll have theta=0, sqrt(g/l)*t = pi/2, and
the velocity will be:
theta_dot_1 = - theta_1 * sqrt(g/l)
Now we equate our two values for theta_dot_1, to obtain
- theta_0 * sqrt((g/l)(1-(1/2)(R/l)^2)) = - theta_1 * sqrt(g/l)
Solving for theta_1, we find
theta_1 = theta_0 * sqrt(1 - (1/2)(R/l)^2)
But theta_1 is the angle to which the pendulum will RISE _after_ the
brake is released. It is smaller than theta_0 -- the angle at which
the pendulum was initially released -- by the difference
theta_0 * [1 - sqrt(1 - (1/2)(R/l)^2)]
and for small values of R/l, this is approximately
theta_0 * (1/4)(R/l)^2
That is the distance by which the pendulum will "miss" rising back to
its starting angle after the brake is released.
Q.E.D.
(Note that if the radius of the bob is reduced to zero -- so it
becomes a point mass -- then the difference disappears, as we would
expect.)
Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
The following is all much ado about nothing. No matter how you cut it, you have to overcome the interface potential drop. Capacitive coupling is probably useful for water decontamination schemes and other things, but the scheme below just does not seem to do anything useful. The problem is much the useful current goes through the power supply, and thus the current is supplied at the full electrolysis voltage. There is no free lunch there. The trick is to do electrolysis while the interface is disrupted, i.e. continually disrupt it, or to use solar energy efficiently to help out in a direct and efficient way. - - - - Figure 3 is a simplified circuit diagram of both the tetrode and the dual triode electrolysis cells. The elements Xi are electrolyte- electrode interfaces, exploded in Figure 4. Z1 and Z2 are zenier diodes with approximately a 0.7 V breakdown potential. The elements Ei are electrolyte conduction paths, exploded in Figure 5. C1 and C2 are the capacitances due to the external conductive plate interfaces to the electrolyte. The electrolyte paths E1 and E3 are through the metal screen cathode plate(s). The paths E5 and E6 are high resistance low capacitance paths through the electrolyte are not present in the dual triode cells. The arrows indicate the direction of positive ion flow in the electrolyte, showing electrolysis is consistently driven by the AC. The positive ions diffuse through the screen before being driven through the screen interface by the AC on the external plate side of the screen. It is also notable the AC signal is partially shunted through the DC power supply. --HF AC-- | | ---O---LL--O-- || C1 C2 || -O - - - - E5 - - - - O- |||| E1 X1 X3 E3 || V2 V2 V2 || |O-O--O| ^| | (-) |^ |X2DC X4 | || | (+) || OO | OO | | | E2| E4 | | | ^ | ^ | | | O---X5-<--O-->-X6O | V1 | || -- - - - E6 - - - - -- Fig. 3 - Simplified circuit diagram of Tetrode or dual triode cells Z1 Z2 O---|>|O---|<|-O | | | O---R---O---O | | O---O-CO Fig. 4 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolysis interface Xi OR-O | | O---O OO | | OC-O Fig. 5 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolyte conduction path Ei Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
Once again with feeling... Figure 3 is a simplified circuit diagram of both the tetrode and the dual triode electrolysis cells. The elements Xi are electrolyte- electrode interfaces, exploded in Figure 4. Z1 and Z2 are zenier diodes with approximately a 0.7 V breakdown potential. The elements Ei are electrolyte conduction paths, exploded in Figure 5. C1 and C2 are the capacitances due to the external conductive plate interfaces to the electrolyte. The electrolyte paths E1 and E3 are through the metal screen cathode plate(s). The paths E5 and E6 are high resistance low capacitance paths through the electrolyte are not present in the dual triode cells. The arrows indicate the direction of positive ion flow in the electrolyte, showing electrolysis is consistently driven by the AC. The positive ions diffuse through the screen before being driven through the screen interface by the AC on the external plate side of the screen. It is also notable the AC signal is partially shunted through the DC power supply. --HF AC-- | | ---O---LL--O-- || C1 C2 || -O - - - - E5 - - - - O- |||| E1 X1 X3 E3 || V2 V2 V2 || |O-O--O| ^| | (-) |^ |X2DC X4 | || | (+) || OO | OO | | | E2| E4 | | | ^ | ^ | | | O---X5-<--O-->-X6O | V1 | || -- - - - E6 - - - - -- Fig. 3 - Simplified circuit diagram of Tetrode or dual triode cells Z1 Z2 O---|>|O---|<|-O | | | O---R---O---O | | O---O-CO Fig. 4 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolysis interface Xi OR-O | | O---O OO | | OC-O Fig. 5 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolyte conduction path Ei Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Novel uses of resonant electrolytic cells (RECs).
On Jun 30, 1999, at 12:17 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: The use of an AC electrolytic cell in a resonant circuit, primarily as the capacitance, be it in series or parallel resonance, achieves an efficient high energy flux through the cell, especially when operated at a high Q. For convenience, let's call such a cell a resonant electrolytic cell (REC). RECs have a myriad of potential uses. Foremost is the achievement of efficient electrolysis, especially for evolving the soichiometric hydrogen and oxygen gas mixture evolved from AC electrolysis, called Brown's gas, attributed by some as having special atomic/molecular and engergetic properties. Second, the prospect of high electrolytic efficiency raises the frequently discussed possibility of further attack on the Second Law of Thermodynamics by using ambient heat to add to electrolysis efficiency, and thus produce a COP over 1. It is well known that energy from ambient heat contributes to electroylsis and use of this fact is made by modern electrolysis units by operating at a high temperature. The heat energy is contributed at the electrodes in the form of vibration of the (H+)-H20 bond in the H3O+ molecules in close proximity to the cathode. A high temperature REC, operated in a closed highly insulated environment, with the electrolyte acting as a heat dump for a heat engine, might close the energy loop. Third, the fact that capacitive linkage with the high dielectric constant water or other high dielectric constant fluids completely bypasses the two atom thick layer at electrodes, called the interface, also bypasses the majority of potential drop in the cell. Capacitive linkage is thus a higly efficient means of deploying energy flux in the water. This high energy flux has various potential (wild and not so wild idea) applications: 1. Driving cold fusion. This might be especially facilitated by using a DC current flow normal to the AC energy flow, made possible by the insulation and isolation provided by the capacitive linkage for the AC component, and by inclusion of the standard CF genre of nickel coated plastic beads, Pd catalyst on carbon substrate in heavy water, etc. 2. Stimulation of cavitation 3. A aid to sonoluminescence, an added "hammer" 4. Cleaning 5. Sterilization 6. Catalysis of chemical reactions 7. An aid to crystal formation, production of rubies, etc. 8. Stimulation of fluorescing materials for production of light 9. Emulsification and homogenization 10. Hydrogenation 11. Polymerization Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Sample numbers for resonant AC electrolysis
On Jun 29, 1999, at 11:42 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Reviewing the resonant circuit proposed for use with an AC electrolysis cell: I1 --- V1 | | | - | | | | | C1 AC L1 | I2 | | | | | I3R1 | | | | - | | --- Ground AC - AC source L1 - Inductor C1 - The cell capacitance R1 - The net cell resistance I1 - Input current (rms) I2 - Cell current (rms) I3 - Inductor current (rms) V1 - supply voltage = cell voltage Xl - Reactance of L1 Xc - Reactance of C2 Fig. 1 - Resonant circuit for AC electrolysis cell When the operating frequency is at the resonant frequency for the tank circuit L1, C1, R1, the net impedence of the tank circuitis maximum to the AC source, thus the current through the cell I2 is at a maximum with respect to the input current I1. In fact, I2 = Q * I1 = I3 Where Q is given by: Q = Xl/R1 and is a measure of the sharpness of the resonance peak. Since values of Q over 100 are not uncommon in ordinary resonance circuits, this is fascinating, and hints at ou behaviour all by itself, assuming the cell can be made efficient enough that heat from ambient becomes a large contributor to the splitting reaction. The cell is portrayed as a capacitor C1, though it is known that its makeup is really more in the form of a lattice where elements connecting nodal points consist of a resistor and capacitor in parallel. In addition, the cell is capacitively linked, so there is a set of capacitances around the electrolyte as well. A simplified model of the cell might look like the following: | | C2 | - | | | | C4 R2 | | | | - | | C3 | Fig. 2 - Simplified circuit for capacitively linked cell Here C2 and C3 are the capacitive interface to the electrolyte, either an insulator around the electordes, the tank walls, or a combination. The elecrolyte, or slurry, is represented by C4 and R2 in parallel. For purposes of simplifying the analysis, the electrolyte resistance R2 can be rolled into the tank resistance R1, and we also have for the series capacitances: 1/C1 = 1/(C2 + C3 + C4) In other words, if R2 is large, if the cell walls and electrolyte all have the same dielectric constant, then the cell is equivalent to a capacitor the width of the cell, including electrolyte and plate insulators. If R2 is very small, then: 1/C1 = 1/(C2 + C3) and we can treat the two insulators as an equivalent insulator as thick as the sum of the two. It is especially of interest that, as the cell area gets bigger, R2 drops, yet the capacitance C1 increases, thus Q increases. This has the appearance of some kind of economy of scale. Now for some sample design numbers. ASSUMPTIONS 10 cm x 10 cm plates (plate size) V1 = 20 kV (resonant operating voltage) Ke = 50 (dielectric constant of ceramic) Ks = 1000 V/mil = 3.94 x 10^5 V/cm (dielectric strength) F0 = 16,000 Hz (resonant frequency) R1 = cell resistance = 1 ohm CALCULATIONS Total plate thickness D1 = V1/Ks = (2x10^5 V)/(3.94 x 10^5 V/cm) = 0.508 cm Using 50 percent margin, D1 = .762 cm Area A = 100 cm^2 The ratio A/d1 = (100 cm^2)/(0.762 cm) = 131 Capacitance C1 = Ke (A/d1) (8.85 x 10^-12 F) = 5.80x10^-8 F Impedence of capacitor Xc = 1/(2 Pi F0 C1) = 1/(2 Pi (16,000) (5.80x10^-8 F)) Xc = 172 ohms Current through cell I2 = V1/Xc = (20,000 V)/(172 ohms) = 116 amps Knowing energy of inducatance is equal to energy of capacitance we have: L1/C1 = (V1/Ic)^2 = (2/116)^2 ohms^2, so we have inductance L1 = (2.97x10^4)(C1) H = (2.97x10^4)(5.80x10^-8) H L1 = 1.72 mH Inductive reactance Xl = 2 Pi F0 L1 = 2 Pi (16000) (1.72x10^-3) ohms Xl = 173 ohms Q = Xl/R1 = 173/1 = 173 Thus we have the driving current: I1 = I2/Q = (116 A)/173 = 0.67 A And driving power: Pd = I1 * V1 = (0.67 A) (20,000 V) = 13.4 kW Apparent power: Pa = I2 * V1 = (116 A) (20,000 V) = 2.32 MW Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Pendulum with a spinning bob
OK, haven't touched any physics in a few months; this is a good excuse
to do some equation hacking. This is all straight Newtonian
mechanics, which has been pretty well tested during the last several
centuries, so I think we can probably expect the standard Newtonian
model to correctly describe the behavior of a system like this. So,
here's an analysis using simple mechanics.
Given a pendulum with:
l = rod length (That's a lowercase "ell" there, in case it's not
clear)
theta = angle of the rod from a vertical line
M = mass of the bob
R = radius of the bob, which is assumed to be a uniform disk
phi = angle of rotation of the bob about its axis
g = acceleration of gravity
h = height of the bob's center above its "low point" on the arc
For convenience in writing this out with flat Ascii we'll also define
a few shortcuts:
theta_dot = d(theta)/dt = time derivative of theta
a = d^2(theta)/dt^2 = angular acceleration
phi_dot = time derivative of phi
The moment of inertia of a uniform disk is:
I = (1/2)MR^2 (I'm leaving out the integration that shows this)
Kinetic energy of rotation of a uniform disk is
T(disk) = (1/2)I*omega^2 = (1/4)MR^2 * omega^2
where I've used "omega" for its rotational velocity about its axis.
Potential energy for the system is
V = M*g*h = Mg*(l - l*cos(theta)) = Mgl*(1 - cos(theta))
We have
cos(theta) = 1 - (1/2)theta^2 + Order(theta^4)
so for small angles, where theta^4 is very small, we can assume
cos(theta) = 1 - (1/2)theta^2
which gives us a simpler formula for the potential energy,
V = (1/2) M*g*l*theta^2
Note that this simplification is necessary for the resulting
differential equations to be solvable in closed form. For the large
angle solution, as I already mentioned in a previous note, it's
probably simplest to do a numerical simulation.
Kinetic energy for the system with the brake UNLOCKED is:
T = (1/2)l^2 * theta_dot^2 * M + (1/2) I * phi_dot^2
Note that the last term -- (I/2)I*phi_dot^2 -- doesn't depend on the
angle of the rod or velocity of the pendulum, so it's not going to
enter into the equations of motion.
With the brake LOCKED, theta_dot = phi_dot, so that reduces to:
T = (1/2) (l^2 * M + I) * theta_dot^2
The Lagrangian is
L = T - V
With the brake LOCKED, that's
(1/2) [(l^2 * M + I)*theta_dot^2 - Mgl*theta^2]
With the brake UNLOCKED, it's
(1/2) [l^2 * M*theta_dot^2 + I*phi_dot^2 - Mgl*theta^2]
where, again, since phi isn't a function of theta, the term in phi_dot
will not appear in the equations of motion.
The equation of motion for this (1-dimensional) system is found by
evaluating
@L/@theta = d/dt (@L/@theta_dot)
where I've used "@" as the partial derivative symbol. We'll now find
each of the parts. (Recall I'm using "a" for d^2(theta)/dt^2.)
@L/@theta = -Mgl*theta
@L/@theta_dot = (l^2 * M + I) * theta_dot {Brake LOCKED}
d/dt(@L/@theta_dot) = (l^2 * M + I) * a{Brake LOCKED}
@L/@theta_dot = l^2 * M * theta_dot{Brake UNLOCKED}
d/dt(@L/@theta_dot) = l^2 * Ma {Brake UNLOCKED}
The equation of motion then becomes:
a = - (g/l) theta-- brake UNLOCKED
a = - (g /(l + (I/lM))) theta -- brake LOCKED
We can simplify the equation for the brake locked. First let's factor
out (g/l):
a = -(g/l) (1 / (1 + (I/(l^2 * M * theta
Now we note that the moment of inertia of the disk, I, is (1/2)MR^2,
so we have:
I/(l^2 * M) = (1/2) (R/l)^2
If we assume (as I think you originally intended, Harry) that the
radius of the disk be small compared to the length of the pendulum,
then (R/l)^2 will be very small, and we can further simplify the
result, by using the approximation
1 / (1 + ((1/2) (R/l)^2)) =(approx) 1 - (1/2) (R/l)^2
With this change, for the brake-LOCKED case we then obtain
a = -(g/l) [1 - (1/2)(R/l)^2] * theta
Now let's step back for a moment. Both for the brake locked case and
for the brake unlocked case, we've found that the equation of motion
is that of a simple harmonic oscillator. But in the case where the
brake is LOCKED, the "spring constant", and hence the resulting
acceleration, will be reduced by the term
- (1/2) (R/l)^2
So, with the brake LOCKED, the pendulum will fall _more_ _slowly_, and
will be going slower at the bottom of the arc. If we UNLOCK the
brake at that point, we change the equation of motion back to
a = - (g/l) theta
and, since the "spring constant" (and consequently the acceleration)
is now larger, the pendulum won't go as far up the arc before it stops
and reverses.
Make sense?
The solutions to the equations of motion are simple functions of
sines and cosines; we can actually guess them and fit them together
with particular starting states to get exact results out but I'm not
going to carry this quite that far -- at least, not this afternoon.
Cheers...
Re: [Vo]:Life on Mars
More detail here: http://astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2442&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 http://snipurl.com/1q7fl On 8/28/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At last an explanation for the enigmatic "Third Experiment"! > > Some of us have been waiting a long, long time for the other shoe to > drop on this one -- in fact I'd given up, assuming that if there ever > had been anything there we'd probably have contaminated it out of all > detectability already. But if it's as weird as this, it may not be easy > to confuse with contamination. > > Next on the agenda: Find the local tap into the Ophiuchi Hotline... I'm > sure it's out there, if we just knew where to look... > > > Terry Blanton wrote: > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/23/scimars123.xml > > > > Scientists found life on Mars back in the 70s > > > > By Roger Highfield, Science Editor > > Last Updated: 6:01pm BST 23/08/2007 > > > > The soil on Mars may indeed be teeming with microbes, according to a > > new interpretation of data first collected more than 30 years ago. > > > > Scientists found life on Mars back in the 70s > > > > The search for life on Mars appeared to hit a dead end in 1976 when > > Viking landers touched down on the red planet and failed to detect > > biological activity. > > > > There was another flurry of excitement a decade later, when Nasa > > thought it had found evidence of life in a Mars meteorite but doubts > > have since been cast on that finding. > > > > Today, Joop Houtkooper from Justus-Liebig-University in Giessen, > > Germany, will claim the Viking spacecraft may in fact have encountered > > signs of a weird life form based on hydrogen peroxide on the > > subfreezing, arid Martian surface. > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
On Sep 1, 2007, at 8:06 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Horace Two antiparallel zener diodes (not zenier) behave just like two antiparallel normal diodes: whatever the current direction one of the diodes is forward biased, so the voltage drop is the forward voltage drop rather than the 0.7V zener breakdown voltage you specified. Thanks much for the two corrections. I am just too rushed now to do things right. I probably shouldn't be posting at all. The zeners should be in series, not parallel. Here's a corrected Figure 4. Z1 Z2 O---|>|O---|<|-O | | | O---R---O---O | | O---O-CO Fig. 4 - Simplified circuit diagram of electrolysis interface Xi Talking about which, how did you determine the 0.7V common value, and shouldn't it be different for Z1 and Z2??? Figures 4 and 5 were provided to aid cell understanding from a circuit analysis perspective and are highly simplified. The 0.7 V was approximate, and from memory of something I did a long time ago, where electrolysis began at about 1.4 V. The interface potential drop for the anode and cathode interfaces are typically roughly the same. They can vary due to the fact a some anions don't carry a hydration sheath, and other things, but identical zeners are good enough for my intended purpose here, which is to roughly describe an interface where current might reverse. A true model will consider electronegativities of the electrodes, electrolyte characteristics, and electrode surface passification or other surface conditions. I suppose varying the breakdown potentials of Z1 and Z2 might be one way to account for electrode electronegativity, though a "virtual battery" might be another. The zener breakdown voltage was really intended by me to model the tunneling onset voltage through the interface. This of course is not a fixed voltage, but rather the result of potential being in the exponential portion of the barrier tunneling equation, and thus having a very fast ramp up - but the zener works similarly. I don't know how old you are, but if you're an old guy like me you might remember when electrolytic cells in series were used as DC voltage regulators, and they did a very good job of that. I felt Fig. 4 to be good enough to be instructive for the principles I was trying to get across. Too bad I muffed up the diagram - twice! I guess I seldom get things right the first time through anyway. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Pendulum with a spinning bob
Hi Harry, Unfortunately, it would appear that my previous comments weren't sufficiently clear. I'll continue with this discussion a tad longer. ... > > Due to the significantly increased radius size of the spin-bob wheel > > it should now be much easier to visualize the speed of the swinging > > pendulum when the spin-bob wheel is physically attached, as well as > > when the spin-bob wheel isn't attached. You should be able to more > > easily visualize the fact that the pendulum arm will swing > > back-and-forth much more slowly when the spin-bob wheel is attached > > than when the spin-bob wheel is NOT physically attached (with the > > breaks applied). This is due to the fact that the physically-attached > > spin-bob wheel is behaving like a huge flywheel where you have to > > exert some physical effort at its central core to spin it up, as well > > as exerting the same amount of effort in reverse to bring the wheel > > back to a standstill. This is due to the inherent inertia of the mass > > of the spin-bob. The longer the radius, (bigger diameter) the more > > inherent inertia will be introduced into the system. OTOH, if the > > spin-bob is not physically attached (and can spin freely > > independently), then the pendulum arm is free to swing back and forth > > much more quickly because it is no longer hampered by the additional > > torque coming from the spin-bob wheel. > > I don't know if you saw it but I added this explanation to the page as > to why the bob will start to spin when the brake is released: At the > bottom of the swing the velocity of the bottom of the bob is greater > than the velocity of the top of the bob with respect to the pivot at > the top of the arm. Releasing the brake at the bottom of the swing > allows the different velocities to torque the bob around the bob's > centre. I've reviewed the revised images. We agree on the point that once the break is released at the bottom of the swing the bob will proceed to spin independently of the pendulum arm's swing due to the explanation you've given. But of more interest to the resolution of this discussion: WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SPIN OF THE PENDULUM ARM AT PRECISELY THE MOMENT THE BREAK IS RELEASED? WHAT DO YOU ENVISION HAPPENS? > It also worthwhile to note that there is a theorem which states that the > period of a pendulum depends on the distance from the centre of mass of > the bob to the pivot point and is independent of the total mass of the > bob. I think you need to consider this in your analysis. The theorem you state is precisely what I was trying to explain as well. See my previous comment; "The longer the radius, (bigger diameter) the more inherent inertia will be introduced into the system. " My statement is another (perhaps less technical) way of saying that the "period of the pendulum depends on the distance from the centre of mass...". > > If you can visual this, then take the thought experiment to the next > > logical step and visualize what happens if you have the spin-bob > > wheel's breaks on during the time the pendulum arm is swinging down to > > the bottom of the curve. Then, release the breaks on the spin-bob > > wheel at the bottom of the swing, (which is also where I believe your > > thought processes may need to be revised!), which is also the maximum > > speed of the pendulum arm. What happens next is that the pendulum arm > > will continue swinging forward but it will NOT SWING BACK ANYWHERE > > NEAR to the same height as where the pendulum arm had originally > > started when it had been attached to the spin-bob wheel. This is due > > to the fact that the pendulum arm is not spinning at the required > > speed to get it back to the same height, specifically the required > > speed we had previously measured when the spin-bob wheel was never > > attached. The pendulum arm has to be spinning much faster. > > Consequently, the pendulum arm no longer has the added stored energy > > (or inertia assist) from the spin-bob wheel to "assist" the pendulum > > arm back up to the same height. > > Based on my own qualitative analysis, the swing of the bob could > only be reduced by friction. Yes, in a theoretical universe where we do not have to contend with the laws of friction, indeed the spin-bob should continue to spin at the constant released RPM spin speed forever, or at least until some outside influence like the break pad is once again applied. I don't think that's where the issues (or disagreements) reside. > The spin of the bob does not slow the swing of the bob because > both axis of rotation are parallel. It would only slow the swing > if the bob's spin axis were not parallel, e.g. if the bob was turned > 90 degrees so that it was facing into the swing. This is where we disagree. Please correct me if I misunderstood you but I suspect you were actually trying to state: "The spin of the bob does not slow the swing of the [PENDULUM ARM, and NOT the bob] because both axis of rotation are parallel." Other
[Vo]:Electrolysis - some old wishful thinking on vortex
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BG generator, Q and ou - 6/27/99 In earlier posts a method of generating Brown's gas was described that focused on the value of doing AC electrolysis using insulated plates, i.e. capacitive coupling, to a slurry comprised of metal, semiconductor, and insulator particles in an electrolyte. The main purpose of this post is to look at the value of this approach in creating a high Q tank oscillator circuit. One objective this approach is to make most of the current flow in the cell due to a capacitive transmission, as opposed to resisitive transmission through the electrolyte, between metal particles. For this reason, and to limit conductivity of the electrolyte, the slurry would be expected to benefit from ceramic particles with typically high dielectric constants, i.e. in the range of 80 to 1200. Small ceramic particles should also have the useful effect of often separating conductive particles by small fixed distances. Ceramic also offers high dielectric strength, on the order of 600 - 1250 volts/mil, and some have high abrasion resistance, thus may be a good choice for plate insulators or cell sides as well. There are mixed demands on the conductivity of the electrolyte. One demand is to keep it low between conductive fragments in the slurry, in order to reduce waste heat, and to achieve a high Q for the tank circuit. The other demand is to keep it high across the total cell, so as to keep most of the current out of the electrolyte and in the capacitive coupling mode travelling through the insulator granules. Curent carried capacitively by water, due to the its high dielectric constant, is somewht inefficient due to the water molecule dipoles rotating. The insulating granules in the slurry help meet both goals by increasing the path length through the electrolyte, and by greatly reducing the electrolyte cross sectional area. Here is a simplistic tank circuit: I1 --- V1 | | | - | | | | | C1 AC L1 | I2 | | | | | I3R1 | | | | - | | --- Ground AC - AC source L1 - Inductor C1 - The cell capacitance R1 - The net cell resistance I1 - Input current (rms) I2 - Cell current (rms) I3 - Inductor current (rms) V1 - supply voltage = cell voltage Xl - Reactance of L1 Xc - Reactance of C2 When the operating frequency is at the resonant frequency fo the tank circuit L1, C1, R1, the net impedence of the tank circuit is at maximum is maximum to the AC source, thus the current through the cell I2 is at a maximum with respect to the input current I1. In fact, I2 = Q * I1 = I1 Where Q is given by: Q = Xl/R1 and is a measure of the sharpness of the resonance peak. Since values of Q over 100 are not uncommon in ordinary resonance circuits, this is fascinating, and hints at ou behaviour all by itself. If Xl is fixed, the best way to improve Q is to decrease R1. Looking at only the tank circuit itself: - | | | C1 L1 | I2 | | | I3R1 | | - this is a series resonance. In a series resonance the net impedence of the inductor and capacitor disappears, leaving the total circuit impedence Xt: Xt = R1 For this reason, the more current carried within the cell capacitively, the lower the net R1. The above is a great simplification of the cell, which is a lattice of capacitances and resistances, however, the more current carried capacitively, the lower the net resistance, and the higher the cell's apparent capacitance, thus the more the tank net impedence R1 disappears at resonance, and the higher Q will be. The higher Q is, the more current I2 that goes through the cell for a given stimulating current I1. Note that V1 is both the input voltage and the voltage across the cell, so power follows the current in proportion. It remains to balance the conductor concentration in the slurry so as to get the largest number of "equivalent plates" Ne, and the smallest possible amount of "equivalent plate separation" Se, and to match the operating voltage so that V1 ~= Ne * 2 volts While the tank current is way up compared to the stimulating current, and the voltage is the same, thus the apparent power applied is very high compared to the input power, not all of it is being applied to generating gas bubbles. The conductive particle concentration has to be high in order to assure the current flows through many (Nreuse) conductive particles, on average. If Q and Nreuse can be made large enou
Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen
no...a green world is monotone world. Harry On 1/9/2007 12:39 PM, PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: You're trying to tell me that Winestone becomes monotonous... or winestoneous... P. - Original Message From: Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 11:13:20 AM Subject: Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen Monotone eventually becomes monotonous. Harry On 1/9/2007 8:54 AM, PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: Hmmm... the more I hear "green" the more I turn green when I hear the word "green." P. - Original Message From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 8:42:46 AM Subject: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen Howdy Vorts, As election year approaches we can expect to see new green energy schemes at dime a dozen rates. Speaking of dime, we don't take paper stock for drinks. http://www.finavera.com/ http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/070824/200708240409624001.html?.v=1 It's not the great bouy design, it's not the power derived by wave action. it's the maintenance and harsh weather that eats your lunch in ocean environments. Like keeping a high maintenance woman, shows off well on Wall Street. Well... err... unless.. that is the underlying purpose. The more I hear "green" , the more I suspect it means the color of the money and not the landscape. Richard
Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen
You're trying to tell me that Winestone becomes monotonous... or winestoneous... P. - Original Message From: Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 11:13:20 AM Subject: Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen Monotone eventually becomes monotonous. Harry On 1/9/2007 8:54 AM, PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: Hmmm... the more I hear "green" the more I turn green when I hear the word "green." P. - Original Message From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 8:42:46 AM Subject: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen Howdy Vorts, As election year approaches we can expect to see new green energy schemes at dime a dozen rates. Speaking of dime, we don't take paper stock for drinks. http://www.finavera.com/ http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/070824/200708240409624001.html?.v=1 It's not the great bouy design, it's not the power derived by wave action. it's the maintenance and harsh weather that eats your lunch in ocean environments. Like keeping a high maintenance woman, shows off well on Wall Street. Well... err... unless.. that is the underlying purpose. The more I hear "green" , the more I suspect it means the color of the money and not the landscape. Richard
[Vo]:Kinky hydrogen cell
"Tetrode Kink" is moderately explained about a third of the way down this page. http://www.vacuumtubes.net/How_Vacuum_Tubes_Work.htm It is a problem for radio transmission, but because "negative resistance" has beneficial connotation for free energy, even if it is only "differential negative resistance" then one wonders if this "feature" can be put to use in a multi-electrode electrolysis cell. After all, "extra" electrons should be beneficial to generating hydrogen. Of special interest would be converting a Mizuno type of glow discharge electrolysis cell into a multi-electrode affair, which can benefit from not only LENR (if it is there) but also the output can be enhanced by higher levels of hydrogen generation by the redesign. A marriage made in OU-Heaven? Not quite yet - forgot to add the multipactor part to Horace's tetrode. Since secondary electron emission should be even more beneficial on the *backside* of the anode, then why not go the extra mile and expedite that with a multipactor? (of the original Farnsworth variety, not the more modern usage). The former anode now becomes a neutral plate. In the Mizuno arrangement there is a central cathode surrounded by an anode which can be a tubular wall. Now we add two grids between cathode and anode, and put the whole thing into another cylinder which becomes the real anode. With proper sealing, one could even use two types of electrolytes - for instance, a base like KOH in the tetrode gap (the "front side") and sulfuric acid on the back side. Therefore the anode would be constructed of two layers of differing work function or other emissive property (perhaps by nitriding or anodizing only one side of the (former) anode, which is now a neutral (or nearly neutral) plate. Technically this would now be considered either a pentrode, or else a tetrode in series with a diode. The two grids can be still be heterodyned or linked in some kind of resonant loop. More later, as my laptop is losing charge and this WiFi connection may not reach cyberspace anyway. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Pendulum with a spinning bob
Hi, On 31/8/2007 8:18 PM, OrionWorks wrote: > Hi Harry, and Stephen, > > Regarding your visual diagram: > > http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/spin_bob_pendulum.html > > It took me a spell to comprehend what Stephen was saying since he > occasionally used what I assume are mathematical terms I'm not > familiar with. > > To be honest, Harry, I vacillated a couple of times - thinking for a > brief spell that there actually might be additional energy being > extracted in your setup. I was quite puzzled for a while! ;-) > > However in the end I have to disagree. Perhaps what I say below will swing you back. > Here's a visual experiment I suggest as a way to help explain why I > believe one is not making more energy from this arrangement. > > With your original illustration in mind make the following modifications: > > Increase the circular radius of the spin-bob wheel so that it's... oh, > lets say about three times the radius length of the pendulum arm. Now, > with this new arrangement envision in your head two distinct > scenarios. > > First scenario: The swinging of the pendulum arm where the spin-bob > wheel is physically attached, where the breaks are applied. > > Second scenario: The swinging of the pendulum arm where the spin-bob > is NOT physically attached, where the breaks are not applied. > > Due to the significantly increased radius size of the spin-bob wheel > it should now be much easier to visualize the speed of the swinging > pendulum when the spin-bob wheel is physically attached, as well as > when the spin-bob wheel isn't attached. You should be able to more > easily visualize the fact that the pendulum arm will swing > back-and-forth much more slowly when the spin-bob wheel is attached > than when the spin-bob wheel is NOT physically attached (with the > breaks applied). This is due to the fact that the physically-attached > spin-bob wheel is behaving like a huge flywheel where you have to > exert some physical effort at its central core to spin it up, as well > as exerting the same amount of effort in reverse to bring the wheel > back to a standstill. This is due to the inherent inertia of the mass > of the spin-bob. The longer the radius, (bigger diameter) the more > inherent inertia will be introduced into the system. OTOH, if the > spin-bob is not physically attached (and can spin freely > independently), then the pendulum arm is free to swing back and forth > much more quickly because it is no longer hampered by the additional > torque coming from the spin-bob wheel. I don't know if you saw it but I added this explanation to the page as to why the bob will start to spin when the brake is released: At the bottom of the swing the velocity of the bottom of the bob is greater than the velocity of the top of the bob with respect to the pivot at the top of the arm. Releasing the brake at the bottom of the swing allows the different velocities to torque the bob around the bob's centre. It also worthwhile to note that there is a theorem which states that the period of a pendulum depends on the distance from the centre of mass of the bob to the pivot point and is independent of the total mass of the bob. I think you need to consider this in your analysis. > If you can visual this, then take the thought experiment to the next > logical step and visualize what happens if you have the spin-bob > wheel's breaks on during the time the pendulum arm is swinging down to > the bottom of the curve. Then, release the breaks on the spin-bob > wheel at the bottom of the swing, (which is also where I believe your > thought processes may need to be revised!), which is also the maximum > speed of the pendulum arm. What happens next is that the pendulum arm > will continue swinging forward but it will NOT SWING BACK ANYWHERE > NEAR to the same height as where the pendulum arm had originally > started when it had been attached to the spin-bob wheel. This is due > to the fact that the pendulum arm is not spinning at the required > speed to get it back to the same height, specifically the required > speed we had previously measured when the spin-bob wheel was never > attached. The pendulum arm has to be spinning much faster. > Consequently, the pendulum arm no longer has the added stored energy > (or inertia assist) from the spin-bob wheel to "assist" the pendulum > arm back up to the same height. Based on my own qualitative analysis, the swing of the bob could only be reduced by friction. The spin of the bob does not slow the swing of the bob because both axis of rotation are parallel. It would only slow the swing if the bob's spin axis were not parallel, e.g. if the bob was turned 90 degrees so that it was facing into the swing. > Regrettably, there is no additional energy being made here. > > Praise LoTD! > > Well... we'll see about that. ;-) Harry
[Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
Hi Horace Two antiparallel zener diodes (not zenier) behave just like two antiparallel normal diodes: whatever the current direction one of the diodes is forward biased, so the voltage drop is the forward voltage drop rather than the 0.7V zener breakdown voltage you specified. Talking about which, how did you determine the 0.7V common value, and shouldn't it be different for Z1 and Z2??? Michel - Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive > Figure 4 had a slight error, corrected below > > Z1 > O---|>|O > | | > |Z2| > O---|<|O---R---O---O > | | > O---O-CO > > Fig. 4 - Simplified circuit diagram of > electrolysis interface Xi - Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive > Figure 3 is a simplified circuit diagram of both the tetrode and the > dual triode electrolysis cells. The elements Xi are electrolyte- > electrode interfaces, exploded in Figure 4. Z1 and 2 are zenier > diodes with approximately a 0.7 V breakdown potential.
Re: [Vo]:Laddermill Demo Success
The laddermill is a great concept and I'm glad the demo was a great success. However, I find myself often suspecting that the biggest impediment to this kind of technology ever being taken seriously is not that it's been proven feasible, but that it simply looks too weird to be taken seriously, particularly as a viable AE source. One of the biggest lessons I've had to learn in my life this time around is that conformity to a fixed set of ideas has a tendency to dictate society's ability to envision the possibilities of our future far more stringently than what what my own personal predilections would opt for. "A string of kites? Kites are children's toys!" Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen
Monotone eventually becomes monotonous. Harry On 1/9/2007 8:54 AM, PHILIP WINESTONE wrote: Hmmm... the more I hear "green" the more I turn green when I hear the word "green." P. - Original Message From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 8:42:46 AM Subject: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen Howdy Vorts, As election year approaches we can expect to see new green energy schemes at dime a dozen rates. Speaking of dime, we don't take paper stock for drinks. http://www.finavera.com/ http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/070824/200708240409624001.html?.v=1 It's not the great bouy design, it's not the power derived by wave action. it's the maintenance and harsh weather that eats your lunch in ocean environments. Like keeping a high maintenance woman, shows off well on Wall Street. Well... err... unless.. that is the underlying purpose. The more I hear "green" , the more I suspect it means the color of the money and not the landscape. Richard
Re: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen
Hmmm... the more I hear "green" the more I turn green when I hear the word
"green."
P.
- Original Message
From: R.C.Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 8:42:46 AM
Subject: [VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen
Blank
BODY {
MARGIN-TOP:25px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:25px;COLOR:#00;FONT-FAMILY:Arial,
Helvetica;}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
"Times New Roman";}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP:0px;FONT-SIZE:10pt;MARGIN-LEFT:0px;COLOR:#cc;FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica,
"Times New Roman";}
Howdy Vorts,
As election year approaches we can expect to see new green energy schemes
at dime a dozen rates. Speaking of dime, we don't take paper stock for
drinks.
http://www.finavera.com/
http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/070824/200708240409624001.html?.v=1
It's not the great bouy design, it's not the power derived by wave
action. it's the maintenance and harsh weather that eats your lunch in
ocean
environments. Like keeping a high maintenance woman, shows off well on Wall
Street. Well... err... unless.. that is the underlying purpose. The
more I hear "green" , the more I suspect it means the color of the money and
not
the landscape.
Richard
[VO]: Energy schemes,dime a dozen
BlankHowdy Vorts, As election year approaches we can expect to see new green energy schemes at dime a dozen rates. Speaking of dime, we don't take paper stock for drinks. http://www.finavera.com/ http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/070824/200708240409624001.html?.v=1 It's not the great bouy design, it's not the power derived by wave action. it's the maintenance and harsh weather that eats your lunch in ocean environments. Like keeping a high maintenance woman, shows off well on Wall Street. Well... err... unless.. that is the underlying purpose. The more I hear "green" , the more I suspect it means the color of the money and not the landscape. Richard <>
