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: gb on 21 Jun 2010 14:20 > > > 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. That is smart, plus, if such thing would be possible we would know about it. Apparently it was studied. If I line up (order) five pool table balls, they have ordered kinetic energy moving through them, so hitting the first sends the last one moving. Most momentum is transferred. If we line up five mud balls, momentum may not be transferred through them the same way, because they are soft, and lose momentum as they change shape in impact, and energy is lost locally, not transferred to the last ball the same way. I know, in space these five mud balls would maintain an average energy of motion in the same direction that the first ball brought to them, nothing can make momentum in this way vanish, absorbed away.
From: gb on 21 Jun 2010 14:45 On Jun 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 1:17 pm, gb <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Heat is not kinetic energy. > > > > > I looked up kinetic energy, you confused me on that. I defined it > > > > properly originally as I started this thread, kinetic to heat. > > > > What definition did you find that denies that heat is kinetic > > > energy? > > > Wikipedia: > > > "The kinetic energy of an object is the extra energy which it > > possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to > > accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity. > > Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains > > this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. Negative work of the > > same magnitude would be required to return the body to a state of rest > > from that velocity." > > > This example to me refers to as science of objects moving in space. > > > The kinetic energy is the working energy with such objects, rocket > > science, etc. It relates to modulation of speed of an object. > > Wikipedia's article is of limited quality. Kinetic energy comes in two > basic forms: ordered and disordered. The latter is the stochastic > motion that is associated with thermal kinetic energy. What if we hit balls that change shape, but after the collision they self inflate back to the shape of round balls? If a rubber ball has air, and it pumps air out from a collision, but inflates back up afterwards, what happens when a normal ball collides with a ball like that? It looks like your solution proves correct.
From: gb on 21 Jun 2010 15:58 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. 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. 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. 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.
From: PD on 21 Jun 2010 18:15 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. > > 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 -
From: gb on 22 Jun 2010 18:54
> 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. |