Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

MarsDog · 2004-11-19 09:45:51

Not Capillary

http://www.vacets.org/tc/tc44.html]The primary action that carries the water up the trees is due to the cohesion forces between water molecules. In fact, the attractive forces are so strong that if there were a way to pull one end of a freestanding water column, it could be pulled up to a height of 2.8 km before the column would break due to its weight.

In addition, gravitational force decreases and cancels out at geosynchronous.

------------------------------------

Ant should try to indentify a fluctuation, or difference in potentials. E=MC^2 applies to any transition between states, and does not exclude any process.

Austin Stanley · 2004-11-20 21:01:39

Hmm... I'm not exatly sure what you are trying to say, the cohesive forces bettwen water molecules and the forces bettwen them and the walls of the tube are EXACTLY what capillary action is. The website you use assumes a figure of 5nm for a minimum size to get that figure of 2.8km, which is not a bad assumtion for a minimum tube diameter. But in any case this figure is far, far short of the some 300km you need just to achive low-obit, much less the 35,785km you need for geosynchronous orbit. Even for the low-orbit tube your tube would have to be an impossible 50pm in diameter, this is smaller than most atoms, and much smaller than a water molecules, clearly not possible.

MarsDog · 2004-11-20 23:16:21

The website you use assumes a figure of 5nm for a minimum size to get that figure of 2.8km

I think that breaking strength was calculated from bond length and energy.

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/t … .html#top] (It takes 464 kJ/mol to break the H--O bonds within a water molecule
and only 19 kJ/mol to break the bonds between water molecules.)

------------------------------------------------------

Have not been able to figure out the http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MN … /]breaking strenght of carbon nanotubes.

Integrate Force X Distance from infinity to bond length,
and solve for the unknown Force at the bond lenght ?

ERRORIST · 2004-11-22 19:40:44

So how high up the Nano tube will water go with just capillary action?

Austin Stanley · 2004-11-22 20:22:08

It all depends upon the size and nature of the tube. You've got the formula there, look up some of the constants and do the math yourself, it's not realy hard.

ERRORIST · 2004-11-22 20:37:42

Will water molecules fit in a Nano tube?

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-22 21:38:21

You can make different sizes of carbon nanotubes, so its a question of the diameter. The answer is yes, but not very well. The spacing is so small, that it capillary forces probobly won't work because the water molecules don't have enough room to orient.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-11-22 22:51:35

What if the thing was made from carbon nanotube material?

Do you have shares in a nanotube company?

ERRORIST · 2004-11-22 22:55:34

Not yet. Imagine the telescope mirror it would make once the surface was aluminized?

Stargrail · 2004-11-30 14:22:08

Ant,
What if the thing was made from carbon nanotube material?

If you mean to reduce the friction, good idea but the concept has now developed in an unexpected way.

Ant

Stargrail · 2004-11-30 15:00:43

Hi back again...

The size of the square mechanism is now too long to be safely managed. It turned out the best movement was with the smallest oscillation.

After drilling all those holes I discovered that what I was doing was making a elongated triangle. The measurements of the triangle made from the 'square wave' was replicated in MDF.

Placing this triangle on an axle and allowing a little oscilation had the same effect as the metal mechanism but not as pronounced.

I played about with 15 arms in total. Each had a length of 1 meter the wide end was 30cm wide and the short end 6cm wide.

The optimum movement was when 8 arms were joined behind each other - seperated by washers at their corners.

It did not work as I expected as I do not think it is long enough. (may be 111cm+)

However I am in the process of puchasing more 6mm MFD and extending the arms to their rotation point to find minimum energy weather permitting.

I have not rewritten the minimum energy page, as I have not found it, but the rest of the site hopefully a little more understandable.

At the wheels optimum rotation, with a single arm, it looks like a small scale Cleopatra's needle on an axle!!!

Have you seen the http://www.thefinaltheory.com]final theory site yet?

ERRORIST · 2004-12-06 23:27:04

If you mean to reduce the friction, good idea but the concept has now developed in an unexpected way.

Friction and tensile strength.

Stargrail · 2004-12-18 17:00:46

I have taken a while off. Back working at it again tomorrow.

I think the solution will be 3 arms made of 6 mm MDF, that are 100 cm long
(10 in a square, Square=4 lines=1+2+3+4=10. 10x10=100cm) copying the correct closed square wave mechanism shape . And 8 thick. The 3 arms balanced equally round an axle thin end above axle, pointing 90 degrees clockwise or anticlockwise.

Will be building this new best guess next week.

Speed of light nearly =3x10^8

Proposed rotational energy from oscillation =3x10 squared (or 100cm long) by a thickness of 8.

I am using 100cm but knowning my luck the length may be 3 foot 6 inches. 3 6 0.

Revamped website renaming etc removed New frame try a refresh. Not so mad sounding now... so I've been told.

http://www.stargrail.co.uk]www.stargrail.co.uk

Ant

ERRORIST · 2004-12-18 18:44:46

Ant,
Why does a 200 lb man at the north pole weigh only 199.5 lbs at the equator?

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-19 04:46:48

Speed of light nearly =3x10^8

3x10^8 What? Camels? Litres. You should always specify units when you are trying to show calculations.

Graeme

Stargrail · 2004-12-19 05:10:51

Ant,
Why does a 200 lb man at the north pole weigh only 199.5 lbs at the equator?

Dunno, I havent been exposed to that snippet of information.

At a guess, earth looks fatter round the equator than at the poles no doubt due to some rotational dynamic.

What's the south pole measurement and do you have incremented values for the other lattitudes?

I can see patterns looking at raw data. I have not seen the raw data for this scenario. Obviously someone has checked the raw data and drawn conclusions.

I think the rotational dynamics of a sphere are more complex than the rotational dynamics of a square and so far I have not studied them.

Stargrail · 2004-12-19 07:17:09

Hi graeme
An earlier quote from Jim.

It is a CONSTANT, which is BY DEFINITION 299,792,458 meters/sec. That is the ONLY value it CAN EVER have. Period. To talk of minimum and maximum values for c is just nonsense. Learn to live with it.

Speed of light.

Nearly 3x10^8 meters per second

The square mechanism scale I am copying was 1= 1/8 inch or 1.5 mm.

The square wave mechanism has fully closed (triangle), normal close (string of diamond shapes, getting 1 bigger than the next), opening (from diamond to square to diamond) to a bumpy straight line positions.

When fully open and raised at the middle, the fully open square wave looks like an arc - like a rainbow.

This week the triangle will be copied in MDF the tip of the triangle cut off and made 15 cm wide. 40cm wide the long end. The rectangle is 100cm long. Each rectangle will be 8 thick.

There will be 3 of these 8 thick rectangles arranged equally so that all the 15cm ends are positioned above the axle and point out 90 degrees relative to the axle line. And will be allowed a small oscillation.

When it's made, working or not, I'll publish the results and pictures.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-19 07:20:06

Yes, I knew what the speed of light was, but just wished to point out you should not give figures without a unit in this context.

Graeme

Stargrail · 2004-12-19 08:03:13

Yes, I knew what the speed of light was, but just wished to point out you should not give figures without a unit in this context.

Ok, thanks, I'll try to be more careful in what I say next time. I am glad you picked it up.

Ta

SpaceNut · 2020-11-25 17:52:45

bump to find so it can be fixed

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-05-27 11:24:36

The Exotic Physics stuff might be one for the Cosmologists or guys at Fermilab and Cern

I'm not sure if we will ever use 'Gravity Waves' or Gravitons but ...

It Could be Possible to see Gravitational Wave Lenses
https://www.universetoday.com/151263/it … ve-lenses/

Old thread Gravity missions and on cancelled science missions
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=3212
LIGO, LISA and Gravity Probe B - Gravity Wave Studies

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-05-27 11:37:14)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-04-17 10:31:00

Australian company Fortescue Future another scam?
https://anonw.com/2022/03/17/express-on … y-gravity/

Perpetual motion - Infinity train (Australia)
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/pe … ia.228864/

Gravity-Powered Generator: Real Or Fake?
https://hackaday.com/2013/11/30/gravity … l-or-fake/
Unfortunately, there aren’t any videos demonstrating motion or any explanation for how the system works other than vagaries about perpetual energy. So, does this thing exist—and did this company really build two of them? Does it work…or, well, somehow do something?

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-04-17 10:37:16)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2004-11-19 09:45:51

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#127 2004-11-20 21:01:39

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#128 2004-11-20 23:16:21

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#129 2004-11-22 19:40:44

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#130 2004-11-22 20:22:08

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#131 2004-11-22 20:37:42

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#132 2004-11-22 21:38:21

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#133 2004-11-22 22:51:35

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#134 2004-11-22 22:55:34

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#135 2004-11-30 14:22:08

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#136 2004-11-30 15:00:43

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#137 2004-12-06 23:27:04

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#138 2004-12-18 17:00:46

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#139 2004-12-18 18:44:46

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#140 2004-12-19 04:46:48

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#141 2004-12-19 05:10:51

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#142 2004-12-19 07:17:09

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#143 2004-12-19 07:20:06

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#144 2004-12-19 08:03:13

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#145 2020-11-25 17:52:45

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#146 2021-05-27 11:24:36

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#147 2022-04-17 10:31:00

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

Board footer