Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Step 1 we have m*V = Po and energy Eo = m*V*V/2

Step 2 mass m is hiting other mass m

Step 3 mass m + M + rope are making very hard
to describe motion

(we can observe many single torque Impulses T1..T2..T3.... (R2 x Fr) ) Fr it is radial force
Energy Eo will be exchange for many torque impulses . Problem that I notice - before test Torque = ZERO
but after step 2 ?



3 mass test Ytube model

http://youtu.be/SKkYSZsQraU

Last edited by newton; 05/09/14 07:13 PM.
.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Pendulum = tool that
was inspiration for above words


http://youtu.be/LZwQC26nrG8


DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT
ARE FUNDAMENTS IN PHYSICS ?
WE LIVE RIGHT NOW IN WORLD
WHERE MATHEMATICA IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OBSERVATION !

TO SPEAK ABOUT PHYSICS WE MUST USE REAL OBJECTS
LIKE ME ... I SHOWED YOU THREE MASS TEST

I DON'T UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WHO CALLING MY OBSERVATION THEORY !
THEORY IT IS GATE TO SPECULATIONS AND MANIPULATIONS
I WROTE MY 4 PRINCIPLES AND I'M SURE THAT THEY ARE REAL AND TRUE
BECAUSE I CHECKED AND CONFIRMED ...

I'm sorry I can not accept symetry , I making test and observations

click > MAROSZ's RADIAL TURBINE / TURBINA ROTACYJNA MAROSZA

Last edited by newton; 05/09/14 07:26 PM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
At no point did I use mathematics to disprove each of your last great engines I simply showed you the obvious fault and I could either improve them using standard Newtonian physics or show they don't work.

Using mathematics with you would be pointless.

Your rubbish theory makes predictions even your example above makes a prediction that is clearly and obviously wrong you just don't apply logic to see the problem. Your problem Marosz is you don't use or even like logic so you don't look at the logical extension of your interpretation so you fail at basic science.

The extensions are obvious if your theory was right gyroscopes would tilt over at around 10-12 degree and if you spun anything on the international space station it will immediately tilt over like a gyrocompass. If your theory was right your last engine would hover or at least weigh less because it predicts antigravity effect (you at least sort of worked that out and then created the most ridiculous test of it).

In all your posts on heaven knows many forums and places you have managed to get one friend a nutcase "Prof Andy" (I wonder what he a prof of smile) and even he doesn't actually believe you .. here is what he says.

http://www.forallkind.com/#!task-force-4/cor

Originally Posted By: Prof Andy
Maciej and Andy met over Area 54 forum and exchanged a lot of personal information on our late fathers whose flags were never white. We had many talks around Maciej's inventions and Prof. Andy had his work reviewed by Margan our CTO & Zeeper our COO, yet we could not find any promissing insights. Prof. Andy however saw a great potential in this young Polish brother who claims to have many great discoveries related to Tesla. His life has treated him hard with living in a ghetto from where he now managed to come to designing an ultra Speed Train within a framework of a German student award. Prof. Andy has urged Maciej many times that sufficient knowledge of English is necessary to engage into a good scientific presentation of ones work so that Andy always stood behind Maciej in many disputes and perilous mockeries imposed on him during science talks on Linkedin. Andy has proven to many that this boy is a prodity boy and was right.

In other words your theory is garbage but you are a good bloke and he sees promise smile

You have been laughed, ridiculed and banned off so many sites and places most normal people would have got the message by now. At some point Marosz the truth has to sink in ... so how many years will it take?

Last edited by Orac; 05/10/14 03:30 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Step 1 we have m*V = Po and energy Eo = m*V*V/2

Step 2 mass m is hiting other mass m

Step 3 mass m + M + rope are making very hard
to describe motion

(we can observe many single torque Impulses T1..T2..T3.... (R2 x Fr) ) Fr it is radial force
Energy Eo will be exchange for many torque impulses . Problem that I notice - before test Torque = ZERO
but after step 2 ?




ORAC DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT m + M + rope
will make rotation
( rope is giving radial force !!! to big mass M )


3 mass test Ytube model
http://youtu.be/SKkYSZsQraU

ORAC YOU NOT SEE PROBLEM or YOU not want to see problem

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
There is a huge problem with that idea think about it carefully ... like it's really really obviously wrong ... lets see if Marosz can think his way thru it without me giving the answer for a change.

All I will tell you there is a device that uses that principle and it fully complies to Newtonian physics like it must because of how we use it ... so I know you are wrong smile

I will give you a hint there has to be torque on that centre shaft its only a question of if it is positive or negative and that forms part of the answer smile

I will give you 3 hints:

1.) If there really was zero torque on the shaft on earth here the mass m would simply fall down ... TRY IT Marosz laugh

2.) Now extend the thought I want you to think what would happen in space and why?

3.) For the final hint if this was actually done in space would rotation be the only motion to occur.

Now lets see if Marosz is actually clever and can work it out .. show me you can think Marosz.

Last edited by Orac; 05/10/14 07:46 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
ORAC CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT EXIST MORE INTELIGENT PEOPLE THAN YOU
AND YOUR POST LEVEL ! BELOW SMALL HELP (TRUE /FALSE) QUESTION + PERCEPTION PROBLEM


Q I : Mass m will hit mass m and stop ? ( TRUE / FALSE )
Q II : Exist radial force F1=mV*V/R ( R1 rope long ) ( TRUE / FALSE )
Q III : Angular momentum before we start is ZERO. ( TRUE / FALSE )
Q IV : Agular momentum ? short time after mass m give radial force to rope exist Torque T1 impulse . ( R2 arm ) ( TRUE / FALSE )



ZERO angular momentum at start must give always Zero Angular momentum ( this You have in book right now )


can You imagine M---m motion in space far far away from the Earth
when M---m will stop ? ( Me Marosz M---m will never stop )


QI , QII , QIII ,QIV - ( classical mechanic is very old I'm sure that You can solve problem smile )


PERIODICAL PERCEPTION !!! I marked green alpha angle.

Period's time and R1 rope's long is important !
amplitude will go down .. down .. WHY ???!!!


to speak about universe we must use
obserwations not theory

sport for example 100 meters run ( sprint )

Why very Important is START ? You can ask sportsman ... person who first started run need use lower energy for better "time".

sport = real live not theory
( First half circle in above picture is very important for m---M motion. Next half mass m will have lower energy ! )


to write above word I joust made animation in my imagination. You need my words ( explanation )
You see picture and example from real live and ....


Aikido - better is push mass m perpendicular to motion never opposite to motion

m ---->

Why Marosz speak here about AIKIDO
Marosz it is very inteligent sport
HOW TO REDIRECT ENERGY and not use many energy ?


at start mass m want to propel big mass M
next half rope will try slown down mass M


TRUE it is not theory but many facts that cooperate

... physics and books ... sometimes important is author smile

***three stars problem ( homework for ORAC )

Pendulum must step by step slown down even if we eliminate friction ( rope and air )
each step Earth recive new torque impulse and radial force Impulse ( pendulum is making work )

http://youtu.be/LZwQC26nrG8

Maciej Marosz
Engineer & Very Good Inventor
http://tesla4.blogspot.com

Last edited by newton; 05/10/14 08:50 PM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Still haven't worked it out hey .. come on you think you are smart but sorry you really aren't smile

Hint:
Originally Posted By: newton
Q II : Exist radial force F1=mV*V/R


Tell me what happens if there is no radial force .. two case it's easy think Marosz

1.) On earth (a gravity frame of reference)
2.) In space

As I have repeated I am not wasting my time on this garbage because the answers are all obvious you don't even need mathematics, did you see me use any mathematics in my answer? Perhaps ask you new admirer Prof Andy to explain it to you smile

Anyhow I am busy I have some more hover products to design .. now lets see a hover boat laugh

But seriously I have given you enough hints and since you won't even bother to try and until you do I am exiting this discussion ...... bye bye bye see in you a couple of years smile


Last edited by Orac; 05/11/14 02:51 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
ORAC
Tell me what happens if there is no radial force .. two case it's easy think Marosz

1.) On earth (a gravity frame of reference)
2.) In space


MAROSZ




My oryginal question To Orac

Q II : Exist radial force F1=mV*V/R1 ( R1 rope long ) ( true / false )


ORAC TRUE /FALSE ?

please not write what will be if ... I not ask how to mix information in my Post.

MAROSZ's LOGICA
Exist Radial Force ====> Exist torque ( R2 arm ) and peridical percetion ( in space M---m will never stop )

Exist torque ===> ...Orac and his Quantum theories = ....

ORAC's LOGICA
I will mix information ===> Marosz = Idiot

Orac below definition books :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

Above post ? at start ( before colision ) angular momentum = zero ( we have only one mass m and constant velocity V ) After colision we mave m---M body that is making rotation ( we can observe perception - there where is mass m and rope Mass M will have some angle to vertical position )


Last edited by newton; 05/11/14 11:44 AM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209




ORAC ? what if my model works ?
rope = gravitation
small m = water
big M = Earth

Last edited by newton; 05/11/14 06:42 PM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
OK last hint from me here is the result of your experiment ... try and work out why because I can't justify wasting more time on this.

I think you are expecting R2 to rotate but it will only get a very small rotation ending in a weird horizontal position .... this it what it will end up looking like.



The end weird new format will rotate like this along the direction of the original path at a distance of the rope length + R2 length



R2 will get a very minor rotation probably swivelling it and the rope and mass m. It's not hard to test this sort of thing on the ISS and they have done hundreds of them.


That is definitely the final result of your experiment ... now you challenge is to work where your theory went wrong ..... I will leave you to it.

Last edited by Orac; 05/11/14 06:53 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
YOUR ANIMATION IS ABOUT BEAM

.........................^
.........................^
M-------BEAM ---------m ----> Fr = m*V*V / R1



rope is elastic it is not BEAM !!!

rope can't push
rope can only pull





Eo - kinetic energy at start

E1- kinetic energy T1 torque
E2 - kinetic Energy mass M own axis
E3 - kinetic energy M---m ---> V1 line motion


Before colission

M-----rope R1-------m


........................^
........................^
.......................m


Mass m hit mass m and stop
after collision

........................^
........................^
M----- rope R1 ------m ----> Fr = m*V*V / R1
.......................m

WHY FIRST HALF ( m around M is more important than next )



please study 100 meters spriter physis
person who first started can use lower energy and have better time


>>> link to above dokument


Last edited by newton; 05/11/14 09:35 PM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
I don't think gravity is an elastic force. And 20 pages of how sprinters train has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Please keep to the topic or start a new thread. I do not have infinite patience.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I cant make out exactly what your talking about here but
I have noticed a few things that you might need to consider.



from what I can tell so far is

1) you have a large mass (M)
2) a rod that extends from the bottom of mass (M)
3) a rope that extends from the bottom of the rod to mass (m2)
and
4) another mass (m1) that will collide with mass (m2)

I can go ahead and tell you what will happen when
mass (m1) collides with mass (m2)

1) mass (m1) will give energy to (m2)

2) mass (m2) will try to move in the same direction of the
energy or force that (m1) gave to it.

3) mass (m2) is bound to the rod by the rope so it cannot
travel in that direction so it begins to rotate around
the rod and wraps the rope around the rod as it spirals
inward toward the rod.

the torque placed on the rope by (m2) will slightly
twist the rod causing (M) to wobble as (m2) spirals inwards
toward the rod.

you can think of the bottom of the rod moving like the
small mass in the below image and the mass (M) moving
in the same fashion as below also , except there will
most likely also be a rotation of the entire system
that changes with the ever changing direction of forces.


that is what will actually happen if you ever experiment
with it , because that is what physics predicts will happen.

the good part about physics is that the above can be calculated
using a computer program and actual math.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Physics of running
To understand the basic physics of running, you can think of your limbs as pendulums.




If You and me RUN 100 m distance

If I will start first to win with me (or have the same time what I ) You have to use more ENERGY !!!

start is very importnat it give domination ( I can win and use lower energy than You )

sorry my link about Run was not the best.

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Paul

Lets back to my picture



My question

below we have ZERO angular momentum ?

V1<---Mx
......i
......i
......i
......o
......i
......i
......i
......Mx---->V1

No - please use right hand rule

below we have ZERO angular momentum ?

V1<---Mx
......i
......i
......i
......o
......i
......3*Mx ---->V1

No - please use right hand rule


below we have ZERO angular momentum ?

Mx ---> V

YES






please imagine below two situations



A)

m ..........<----m
i
i
i rope
i
i
i
i
Earth


B)
m...........<----m



in situation B 100 % energy will be exchange

in situation A XX% wil take mass m
and YY% will take Earth ( radial force )

Last edited by newton; 05/14/14 08:51 PM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209



we have ideal torque F1,-F1
and two pipes with water
if we are pushing pistons ( red ) water is moving and give radial forces and opposite to F1 forces ( F2 )

test we can repeat on table ( Ideal symetry situation because
radial forces can not make job ) and in space ( spring will feel radial forces at the end )


conclusion 1
If we are using spring we can reduce torque F1 >>> F2

conclusion 2
if we will use other pipe's diameter we can give line motion ( momentum ) to spring and pipes

Fradial = mV*V/R

in situation III Radius R is the same
big pipe diameter = D
small pipe diameter = d


D=2d ===> water's mass inside big pipe = 4m

D=2d ===> water speed inside big pipe is 1/4V

V - water's speed inside small pipe

VERY EASY WE CAN PROVE THAT


radial force in small pipe is 4x biger if we compare to big pipe ( V*V) is more stronger in equation.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Im sorry I cant understand or follow what your asking.

and repetition only works when someone understands what is being repeated.

Im sure its important to you but I just cant understand what it
is that your trying to tell us.

Quote:
radial force in small pipe is 4x biger if we compare to big pipe ( V*V) is more stronger in equation.


the radial force of what?

if there are pistons in the pipe and the pistons are pushing water then of course the velocity of the water will be greater
in the small pipe.

but the same amount of mass will be passing any point on
the big pipe side and the small pipe side.

m X v = P

theres no difference in the total energy of either side of the
system.

even the pistons will have the same energy because the small
pistons will move faster than the large pistons.

again

m x v = p

I cant see any gain or loss in this.

















Last edited by paul; 05/15/14 06:08 AM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
newton Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209


the same mass of the oil ( green ) is going left and right

Radial forces
H2o VS Hg


the same speed
the same pipe
not the same mass inide pipe more big mass is going to front and Boat is going to front !!!!


VERY IMPORTANT ARE SPRINGS 1 and 2 ( we can use pneumatic actuator extra precission - air preasure will be simulate different inertia Hg and H2o
or we can use TAP ( Hg open MAX, H2o closed near minimum )
Perpendicular diection is neutral




EN http://youtu.be/iTQweoVZspc
PL http://youtu.be/YI2Vqf9TFi4

WATER vs WATER two different pipe d, 2D





PAUL ??? please evaluate the same problem for electric energy

mv = mv
F1 > F2

EN > http://youtu.be/Aazwjy3n-fg
PL > http://youtu.be/uk9R7EylmQU

RADIAL FORCE = REACTION


http://youtu.be/yI5xD5d0mmw

PAUL we speak about discovery !!! it is NOBEL ( new physics )
but very old equations ( Kirchoff , Bernouli - good confirmed facts about water or electrons)




Last edited by newton; 05/15/14 03:31 PM.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136


ok , in the above picture you posted.

the pump is providing the same force to the green fluid.

so the resultant force will be the same applied to the pistons that push the mercury and the pistons that push the water.

all the pistons are the same size so the mercury will move slower and will have a lower velocity than the water because
the mercury is heavier than the water.

what will happen is the pistons that move the water will stroke
further out than the pistons that move the mercury.

and there will not be any difference in the radial forces
you have depicted in the image.

always remember m X v = p

even when you are using hydraulics and a closed system you
must remember the moment of inertia of the fluids used.

the springs will need to be of different strengths in order
to compensate or to balance the fluid velocities of the
mercury and water.

you may even need to pressurize the area where the spring on
the water side is located.

if you can get it balanced out then you also have found
yet another method of reactionless propulsion.

theres no extra energy involved so its not free energy
and nobody who has previously found a method of reactionless
propulsion has a nobel prize for it or for pointing out
the inaccuracies of current scientific thought patterns
and beliefs because it would be those who hold onto the
inaccuracies and beliefs who would nominate you for the prize.

how many times have you ever experienced a scientist
voluntarily admit that he was in error and give praise
to those who found his error?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5