Kinetic to heat (building a spaceship)
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Big Bang is a amorphous, a nonentity, process whereas Atom Totality is a "something that is building" Chapt 3 #153; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Serpent Mound. Ohio. Part 2.
From: J. Clarke on 22 Jun 2010 19:24 On 6/22/2010 6:54 PM, gb wrote: >> Sorry, but this is a basic problem in freshman physics books. Even >> high school physics books. > > Ok, listen to my logic from the beginning: > > We cannot build perpetual motion machines. > > The spaceship example of throwing a weight from the top of the ship to > the bottom, swings the spaceship up. > > My theory asked: Instead of perpetual motion machines, can we convert > motion into other energy forms (heat, absorbtion, bad friction). > > I began seeing that energy can be lost in the randomly moving heated > particles, such as gas. Absorbing energy takes place everywhere in > physics. In principle you can by the method you propose perhaps move the spaceship some fraction of its own length. However when you then move your mass back to the other end to repeat the process, your spaceship moves back in the opposite direction the same distance so you gain nothing in terms of propulsion. Your method _might_ have utility for fine positioning, for example during a docking procedure, but it won't propel your spaceship to another planet. I think that your major misconception is that you are conflating momentum and energy. They are not the same. When you launch your mass from the front to the back of the ship, you convert a certain amount of some form of energy into kinetic energy of the projectile and kinetic energy of the ship, and impart a certain momentum to the projectile and by reaction an equal but opposite momentum to the ship (momentum is a vector quantity, energy is scalar). When you stop it at the other end you convert its kinetic energy into some other form and at the same time the momentum of the projectile and of the ship are both returned to their initial state. Momentum will be conserved, but kinetic energy not necessarily. If you have access to a university with any kind of decent physics program there should be an air bearing track accessible to students somewhere where you can set up an experiment that shows what happens in the real world. >
From: JT on 3 Jul 2010 09:44 On 22 Juni, 00:15, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 2:58 pm, gb <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 12:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 17, 2:29 pm, gb <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Showing failure of momentum conservation. > > > > > If you have one, we've got a Nobel prize nomination waiting. > > > > > Two balls made of sand after collision on a pool table might not > > > > bounce off as quickly from one another as regular pool table balls. > > > > That in itself is proof. > > > > > Those balls would do the same in space. > > > > > Less speed results from the collision. That means that a lot of > > > > momentum is lost. > > > > No. Momentum is a vector. It is conserved regardless of the > > > "stickiness" of the collision. Ordered kinetic energy may in fact be > > > reduced, but not momentum. Ordered kinetic energy can go into > > > disordered kinetic energy (thermal energy or heat), configuration > > > energy, potential energy, light radiation, or any of a number of other > > > energy buckets. No there is no conservation of momentum, when two embedded particle system smash into eachother, there will be oscillation heat even radiation but no conservation of momentum. You see solidmatter particlsystems is not the bouncing rubberballs that Newtons idealised theory dealt with, there is energy losses heat and radiation. You are an idiot who propose somekind of free energy device by bangin a pot with a stick, and use the heat to light up the house although i recognized there is no body home. JT > > It is not true what you say. > > > Momentum passes through a line of pool table balls. Momentum > > passes through there easily. > > Clearly less momentum passes through sand balls. > > That is not true. The momentum of all the sand is the same as the > momentum of the original ball. > Please note that if the sand is rubbing up against the ground, it's > going to pass some of the momentum to the ground. > > Energy and momentum are not the same thing. > > > Energy is absorbed in such collisions. > > > If I stack up the bottom of a spaceship with sand, and throw > > a ball into the sand from the top of the spaceship, the > > momentum is absorbed by the sand. > > And passed to the spaceship. > > > > > The spaceship moves when throwing down the ball. > > The spaceship does not stop when the ball hits the sand, is still > > moving in the same direction.- Hide quoted text - > > Sorry, but this is a basic problem in freshman physics books. Even > high school physics books. > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Jul 2010 10:31 On 7/3/10 8:44 AM, JT wrote: > No there is no conservation of momentum, when two embedded particle > system smash into eachother, there will be oscillation heat even > radiation but no conservation of momentum. Momentum of closed systems is conserved.
From: JT on 3 Jul 2010 18:36
On 3 Juli, 16:31, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/3/10 8:44 AM, JT wrote: > > > No there is no conservation of momentum, when two embedded particle > > system smash into eachother, there will be oscillation heat even > > radiation but no conservation of momentum. > > Momentum of closed systems is conserved. Come back when you can build something that do not oscillate or radiate at impact. JT |