# Delburt Phend

Members

16

-1 Poor

• Rank
Quark
1. ## Conservation of Angular Momentum

If you apply 5 newtons of force to 2 kilograms of mass for 4 seconds you get a velocity of 10 m/sec. So the formula works as printed. Ft = mv Quote: Who said it was Zero? Bender
2. ## Conservation of Angular Momentum

Wow: F = ma is no longer mainstream physics.
3. ## Conservation of Angular Momentum

The only thing that makes motion is Force: F. Newtons explanation for the quantity of motion was F = ma Acceleration is velocity over time: so, F = mv/t Multiplying both side by t we get Ft = mv; Newton's explanation of motion was Ft or mv; Now the professors of the world of physics say that mv can't be used to evaluate motion. That is identical to saying motion can't be used to evaluate motion. Instead the inappropriate use of two other formulas have taken momentum's place. In an absolute sense Newtonian Physics has been thrown out. If the motion of a balanced flywheel is caused by 20 newtons applied for 20 seconds; then that is the quantity of motion that the flywheel has. It is wacky to say that it is zero. High school students on spinning chairs and ice skaters are not experiments. To qualify as an experiment you would have to know the radius and mass and the rate of spin. These events are innuendo and I think they are the only things ever cited for angular momentum conservation. There are no angular momentum conservation experiments done in the lab. Linear Newtonian momentum conservation will also increase rotation rates for students on chairs and ice skaters; so nothing is proven by these events. So you are pitting zero experiments against a plethora of experiments for linear Newtonian momentum conservation. Energy conservation acknowledges losing heat; so that leaves that out.
4. ## Is this contraption theoretically possible?

This is of course a copy of a yo-yo despin device; I commonly cite the Dawn Mission yo-yo de-spin. For the math I use F = ma: when a small object gives its motion to a larger object only linear Newtonian momentum is conserved. The sphere's mass is 1 / 4.5 the total mass. The total motion is conserved and only linear Newtonian momentum can do this back and forth restoration of motion. Energy conservation would predict large losses; but there are no losses of motion.
5. ## Is this contraption theoretically possible?

https://youtu.be/YaUmzekdxTQ Of the three theories of motion only Linear (arc speed) Newtonian Momentum predicts that the spheres will have enough motion to restore all of the rotational speed back to the cylinder. What you see in the video is the full restoration of motion to the cylinder: twice.
6. ## Is this contraption theoretically possible?

If the weighted tethers are left attached; the original rate of spin is restored to the massive center of the yo-yo de-spin device. This means that the extended weights have linear Newtonian momentum. The energy increase, when the small extended masses have all the motion, is very large. The arc velocity determines the quantity of Linear Newtonian momentum. This has been closely measured and had been confirmed.
7. ## Is this contraption theoretically possible?

Fix a point horizontally and set up a Galileo pendulum like interaction on both sides simultaneous to eliminate earth motion (does it now do the twist) and you will get the same results. The real motion of the objects remains present: how can the earth absorb motion when the real motion remains. Why is it that F = ma does not need these far fetched excuses. You protect this flawed application of angular momentum; and the error is obvious; there is no gravitational acceleration, which is needed for angular momentum conservation. There are merely two numbers needed to determine angular momentum: you only need linear momentum and radius. In Galileo’s pendulum: The linear velocity of the bob will be the same one millisecond before and one millisecond after the point when the pendulum string comes in contact with the lower pin. For example: both the before and after velocities could be rounded to 2.00 m/sec. For a one kilogram bob; the before and after linear momentum would be 2.00 units. The length of the radius just before the pendulum string contacts the lower pin might be twenty meters; and then the radius might be only one meter after the string is in contact with the pin. So: angular momentum = linear momentum * radius: L = mvr: or 1 kg * 2 m/sec * 20 m = 1 kg * 2 m/sec * 1 m. This is not a conserved quantity: the statement is false. Angular momentum works in space for satellites where gravity changes the linear momentum. Angular momentum conservation does not work in the lab. No they have not found the heat; they do not look for the heat; they don’t even expect to find it. You have too high a view of your people in the world of physics. They can fumble because they have consensus. They require no experiments to support their own concepts. In events like the Dawn Mission despin; the motion of the tethered mass can be returned to the satellite. This is proof that energy is not conserved by the masses on the end of the tether. This is the argument in the site mentioned; but they need to let you view it.
8. ## Is this contraption theoretically possible?

F = ma is used to determine how much heat (for energy conservation) is lost. Think about that for a minute; One formula gets it correct and then you add a magic amount of heat to get the other one to be "correct"??? Galileo's pendulum proves that angular momentum can't be conserved for one mass on the end of one string.
9. ## Is this contraption theoretically possible?

You added the conspiracy theory. The evidence is a de-spin that returns to the original spin. Only linear momentum is conserved in collisions from small to large objects.
10. ## Is this contraption theoretically possible?

I don't think it can be referred to as a conspiracy because it has no single point of organization; it is just a huge mind block; of which your “I will pass” is a prime example. You don't even bother to look at the evidence; you just close your mind to it. These experiments are absolute proof and no one is listening; yet.
11. ## Is this contraption theoretically possible?

It is probably being blocked; I have an experiment that clearly makes energy and that does not make people happy. They even refuse to receive free videos of it.
12. ## Is this contraption theoretically possible?

This guy enjoys making fraudulent machines; but some experiments really do work. See:Hypography “ http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/29662
13. ## Help in explaining formula of Kinetic Energy

I can’t think of anything more consistent with the concept of vectors than the distance formula (d = 1/2 v²/a). The ‘a’ in the distance formula is typically gravitational acceleration; and this direction of acceleration is always down. So the ‘a’ in the distance formula has one and only one direction; down. When G is used as the force this force is always down; and the d in the distance formula is always the length down. So the direction of travel: has one and only one direction; down. Newton said that the direction of Force in F = ma is in the same direction as the motion caused; so by definition F = ma is under the concept of a vector. So we have a substitution from a vector ‘formula’ into a vector ‘formula’. This doesn’t seem like any sort of violation. What might be a violation of logic is that, after the substitution from a vector ‘formula’ into a vector ‘formula’, we get a scalar. Why is KE = ½ mv² scalar?
14. ## Help in explaining formula of Kinetic Energy

Where; exactly, do I violate vector / scalar rules?
15. ## Help in explaining formula of Kinetic Energy

You should read the whole sentence. “Distance is a form of energy (PE) if you apply a force over that distance.​” Nm; A (Newton * meter) is a joule of energy. We call it algebra.