Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #05933
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Senior kyled@scruznet.com
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 22:56:51 -0700
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: hUFO goes online!
Well thank you for the argument! I was hoping not everybody would
just say "Wow" or something similar.
Benjamin Edward Hitchcock wrote:
>
> In the explanation of how this one works, it is stated that:
> "... Every movement will be countered as the pole goes to the other side,
> and the thing will sort of wobble around in a circle. What if we were to
> isolate one part of the cycle, and push the weight out twice as far as it
> allready is? The larger diameter will make for a larger force, and the
> whole thing will tend towards that direction. ..."
>
> Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like that engine that was brought onto the list
> a few months ago, with a mixed reaction.
I don't recall... The one in the box?
> I still can't see how it would work. My year 11 physics, my year 12
> Engineering science, and four years at uni say that there's no way on
> earth you can manufacture a net force internally to a system. In other
> words, if there's nothing to push against, you ain't going anywhere. This
> doesn't stop a new invention from working, of course, but when all the
> evidence points otherwise...
Well you've got quite an arguement! Let me tell you though, it works.
I'm not
an Engineer yet (On my way...) but tell me then where the force felt
from a
gyroscope comes? What is it pushing on?
> The thing I have a problem with is the statement that when you push teh
> weight out, you will get a larger force. Hang on! When you push the
> weight out, you rotate in a larger diameter circle, right? So the radius
> is LARGER for a LARGER force. Right? According to your logic.
>
> So according to this logic, when you want to take a corner really fast in
> your car, you shouldn't start wide, hit the apex, then exit wide as all
> the formula 1 drivers do, you should in fact turn as tightly as possible,
> because this makes for less of a radius, so that means less lateral force.
> Race drivers get coached to make the radius of the turn as large as
> possible (well, that's mostly what goes on, if you have a powerful engine
> then a different strategy
> applies, but all the race books I have read teach the maximising of the
> radius as the first lesson) so that the lateral force on the tyres is
> minimised.
I understand you completely - I enjoy racing, and know the logics of it.
The
reason you feel a large force on a tight turn is because you are
traveling the
same speed linearly as in a wide turn, but much faster circularly (Lack
of a better
word) than in a wide turn. Think about it. Your 11 years os physics
should help.
> I guess I must just be dumb. When I turn a corner in my car, the more I
> turn the steering wheel, the more force I feel pushing me to the outside
> of the corner. Maybe smarter people feel the opposite effect - the more
> they turn the wheel, the less force they feel.
I never said you're dumb. Refer to my above paragraph.
> I wonder how much force they feel when the wheel is straight? An infinite
> amount? In both directions? Can someone enlighten me? ;)
Well then it would be cancelled and not force would be felt. Who's to
say those
forces aren't present then, eh? :)
Kyle
5934 Thu, 2 Sep 1999 01:53:13 EDT [alt-beam] tech am beam@corp.sgi.com Bumper314@aol.com Did you all hear that radio shack is now being stocked by Tech america, so
now hopefully they will have good parts =)
steve
5935 Wed, 01 Sep 1999 23:01:15 -0700 [alt-beam] Re: hUFO goes online! beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Senior Richard Caudle wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Ben H. (et al),
>
> I think that you're falling into the current science paradigm. What I
> mean by that is this: Some old fart said that these things work a
> certian way and we accept that as the only 'truth'. This ancient bit
> of flatulence most likely had all the diagrams and all the figures to
> prove his premise. After all, he has to keep the funding coming in,
> dosen't he? Didn't someone on the list make the comment that everyone
> fudges his results? We have been eating fudge for all these years and
> didn't realize you could add nuts to it and still have fudge.
Eh heheh hey guys I'm 15. The name Senior just popped into my head one
lonely day many years ago. Please read my reply to Ben. Linear and
Radial
motion differ greatly.
> IMHO, science as we know it is an utter failure. We are taught to
> accept what the establishment tells us, not to question the validity
> of their precepts, and to completely accept the exclusivity of their
> claims. Some things we are not able to explain, at least yet. That
> by no means makes them any less real.
Rely on God.
> Keep an open mind and try building the thing yourself. There are
> several people who have made such devices and even a couple on this
> list.
Thank you :)
> Richard Caudle
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> p.s. Hey Kyle, got any drawings? I can't find the article on Ian's
> site.
Yes, actually. I have my two original designs. I will scan them tommorow
after school.
5936 Thu, 2 Sep 1999 08:46:48 +0300 [alt-beam] Re: hUFO goes online! alt-beam@egroups.com Anton Eriksson The hUFO-"robot" is not particulary efficient, because a lot of energy is
used just for rotating a weight in the air.
What the machine actually does, is a similar effect anyone can try with his/hers
chair; slowly accelerate your upper body forwards, then rapidly stop and change
the direction. This way your chair will move a bit forwards.
What really happends? When slowly accelerating, the force against your movement
is the frictional force, which keeps your chair from sliding backwards, and
when you rapidly stop and change the direction, the force at that moment
(impulse) overrides the frictional force and the chair will move.
On the "hUFO", the weight works similarly. Just draw a timing chart of one
cycle, with the weight's position marked out...
The machine would probably work much better (with a better efficiency) with an
accelrating linear motor.
Of cource you can always test for yourself by making a vacuum container with
a "hUFO" floating on magnets and seeing if it will move forwards. It won't,
well actually it will but it will also move backwards abaout the same amount.
These things are explained more into detail in very basic physics books, and
you can probably find some online tutorials/books on physics too.
It is always fun to try different things, and building the "hUFO" was
probably an interesting project. Who knows, maybe the mechanics can be
used somewhere else too?
--
Anton Eriksson
5937 Wed, 01 Sep 1999 23:32:51 -0700 [alt-beam] Re: hUFO goes online! beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Senior I'd like to clear things up, I was a bit unorganized in this email.
Ben argues that you feel a larger force when in a car when you make
a tight turn with a short radius than when you make a large, sweeping
turn with a large radius. This is correct. So he says, how does a larger
diameter result in a larger force (The principle of hUFO), when I have
just shown that a smaller diameter results in a larger force when I'm
racing?
My answer:
When you make a tight turn at 120mph, your going to feel a much larger
force than a nice, easy sweeping turn. However, when you're dealing with
rotating circles, it's different. On hUFO, his motor mantains a constant
speed. Therefore, anything attached to that motor with a small radius
will travel slower linearly than something with a larger radius, because
the shorter radius results in less ground to cover. Follow me? The
radial
speed is constant, but the linear speed increases as the radius
increases,
resulting in a larger force. (Taking a wide turn at 10mph is a lot
easier
than at 100mph).
Oh, and I'm not an old guy everyone :) I'm only 15, but I guess 'Senior'
implies differently. I meant it to be the Spanish word, with a mark over
the 'n'.
Hope that clears it up ;)
Happy beaming,
Kyle
Senior wrote:
>
> Well thank you for the argument! I was hoping not everybody would
> just say "Wow" or something similar.
>
> Benjamin Edward Hitchcock wrote:
> >
> > In the explanation of how this one works, it is stated that:
> > "... Every movement will be countered as the pole goes to the other side,
> > and the thing will sort of wobble around in a circle. What if we were to
> > isolate one part of the cycle, and push the weight out twice as far as it
> > allready is? The larger diameter will make for a larger force, and the
> > whole thing will tend towards that direction. ..."
> >
> > Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like that engine that was brought onto the list
> > a few months ago, with a mixed reaction.
>
> I don't recall... The one in the box?
>
> > I still can't see how it would work. My year 11 physics, my year 12
> > Engineering science, and four years at uni say that there's no way on
> > earth you can manufacture a net force internally to a system. In other
> > words, if there's nothing to push against, you ain't going anywhere. This
> > doesn't stop a new invention from working, of course, but when all the
> > evidence points otherwise...
>
> Well you've got quite an arguement! Let me tell you though, it works.
> I'm not
> an Engineer yet (On my way...) but tell me then where the force felt
> from a
> gyroscope comes? What is it pushing on?
>
> > The thing I have a problem with is the statement that when you push teh
> > weight out, you will get a larger force. Hang on! When you push the
> > weight out, you rotate in a larger diameter circle, right? So the radius
> > is LARGER for a LARGER force. Right? According to your logic.
> >
> > So according to this logic, when you want to take a corner really fast in
> > your car, you shouldn't start wide, hit the apex, then exit wide as all
> > the formula 1 drivers do, you should in fact turn as tightly as possible,
> > because this makes for less of a radius, so that means less lateral force.
> > Race drivers get coached to make the radius of the turn as large as
> > possible (well, that's mostly what goes on, if you have a powerful engine
> > then a different strategy
> > applies, but all the race books I have read teach the maximising of the
> > radius as the first lesson) so that the lateral force on the tyres is
> > minimised.
>
> I understand you completely - I enjoy racing, and know the logics of it.
> The
> reason you feel a large force on a tight turn is because you are
> traveling the
> same speed linearly as in a wide turn, but much faster circularly (Lack
> of a better
> word) than in a wide turn. Think about it. Your 11 years os physics
> should help.
>
> > I guess I must just be dumb. When I turn a corner in my car, the more I
> > turn the steering wheel, the more force I feel pushing me to the outside
> > of the corner. Maybe smarter people feel the opposite effect - the more
> > they turn the wheel, the less force they feel.
>
> I never said you're dumb. Refer to my above paragraph.
>
> > I wonder how much force they feel when the wheel is straight? An infinite
> > amount? In both directions? Can someone enlighten me? ;)
>
> Well then it would be cancelled and not force would be felt. Who's to
> say those
> forces aren't present then, eh? :)
>
> Kyl
5938 Wed, 01 Sep 1999 23:47:45 -0700 [alt-beam] Re: hUFO goes online! beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Senior Benjamin Edward Hitchcock wrote:
>
> I wonder how much force they feel when the wheel is straight? An infinite
> amount? In both directions? Can someone enlighten me? ;)
Yes! :) Sorry, I didn't catch this part till now. A straight line is a
circle
with an infintely large raduis, and according to my paper would result
in an
infinitely large force. Well I forgot to mention that, obviously, no
force to
the side is felt when traveling in a straight line. As I said, lines and
circles are much different, no? As I understand, cetrifugal force is
felt
because, well let me get into the context of a car:
Your driving in a straight line, at a constant speed. Your momentum is
forwards.
(Don't know the exact terminology). When you turn the car, your
direction of
travel changes, but your momentum wants to still take you in your
original
direction.
Momentum from original direction still wants to pull you north, you feel
an
outward force.
___
<-|car|-------- <-- tight turn to west
|
^ ^
| North
| < West East >
South
v
Therefore! No force is felt when going straight, but when you turn, you
feel it.
From your momentum.
Heh.
Kyle
5939 Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:03:48 +0200 Re: hUFO goes online! beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Darrell Johnson [mailto:wundoba@pacbell.net]
well, to push the race track comparison:
make the race track circular.. like a doughnut.. (draw this on paper
it makes more sense that way) now draw a line that first hugs the
inside lane, then swings out to the outside lane over one lap. Now think
of the forces involved. The car will pull a lot harder away from the
center of the circle when it is in the outside lane, and won't pull
nearly as much when it is in the inside lane. That's where the
directional force come from. I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than
that, but it's the general principal.
Hopefully this is correct and I'm not making a fool out of myself.
Darrell
--
_______________________________
BICOREEOS..they're BEAMtastic!!
http://home.pacbell.net/wundoba
5940 Thu, 02 Sep 1999 21:28:07 +0000 [alt-beam] Re: hUFO goes online! beam@sgiblab.sgi.com "Ben Hitchcock" >From: Senior
>I'd like to clear things up, I was a bit unorganized in this email.
>Ben argues that you feel a larger force when in a car when you make
>a tight turn with a short radius than when you make a large, sweeping
>turn with a large radius. This is correct. So he says, how does a larger
>diameter result in a larger force (The principle of hUFO), when I have
>just shown that a smaller diameter results in a larger force when I'm
>racing?
*chuckle* I KNEW this would set the cat amongst the pigeons. The last time
this topic was aired, it brought such a huge flame war that I dared not
reply after my initial few postings. As the list has been pretty quiet
lately, I thought I might liven things up a little bit ... :-)
>My answer:
>When you make a tight turn at 120mph, your going to feel a much larger
>force than a nice, easy sweeping turn. However, when you're dealing with
>rotating circles, it's different. On hUFO, his motor mantains a constant
>speed. Therefore, anything attached to that motor with a small radius
>will travel slower linearly than something with a larger radius, because
>the shorter radius results in less ground to cover. Follow me? The
>radial
>speed is constant, but the linear speed increases as the radius
>increases,
>resulting in a larger force. (Taking a wide turn at 10mph is a lot
>easier
>than at 100mph).
I'm very glad that your physics is up to the task of describing the motion.
Last time, we tended to go around in circles (excuse me, couldn't help that
one!).
>Hope that clears it up ;)
>Happy beaming,
>Kyle
I really don't want to get into a flame war here. I also don't want to
debate the possibility that newton et. al. were wrong, just because the
person doing the arguing doesn't have enough physics to argue the point
properly. What I would like to see is a lighthearted discussion on why this
particular form of motion will/will not work. It seems that some people
believe this engine will produce a net force - and I am sceptical.
Last time the discussion aired, I offered anyone who could send me a working
prototype the money to buy patents. No-one came forth.
What the list eventually settled at was a form of motion called "scooching"
I think it was called.
Anton Eriksson summed it up nicely today:
---
The hUFO-"robot" is not particulary efficient, because a lot of energy is
used just for rotating a weight in the air.
What the machine actually does, is a similar effect anyone can try with
his/hers
chair; slowly accelerate your upper body forwards, then rapidly stop and
change
the direction. This way your chair will move a bit forwards.
What really happends? When slowly accelerating, the force against your
movement
is the frictional force, which keeps your chair from sliding backwards, and
when you rapidly stop and change the direction, the force at that moment
(impulse) overrides the frictional force and the chair will move.
On the "hUFO", the weight works similarly. Just draw a timing chart of one
cycle, with the weight's position marked out...
The machine would probably work much better (with a better efficiency) with
an
accelrating linear motor.
Of cource you can always test for yourself by making a vacuum container with
a "hUFO" floating on magnets and seeing if it will move forwards. It won't,
well actually it will but it will also move backwards abaout the same
amount.
---
Well put! I imagine that the hUFO works on a similar principle. It is
perfectly valid in the contest, and is certainly an interesting and
innovative form of motion. It is certainly different to your conventional
photopopper. Remember those spiders with long wire legs and a pager motor
in the middle? When you turn the motor on, the whole thing shakes like
crazy and 'jiggles' forwards slowly. There is no trickery involved, just
the tips of the legs are bent backwards so that there is less resistance to
a foot when going forwards than backwards.
Okay, now back to the discussion. I don't intend this as a personal attack
on anyone, I would just like to see this matter resolved one way or the
other. I have $50 US for the first person to prove to my satisfaction that
the net force involved here is real.
Allright, back to the physics:
You say that the motor maintains the weights angular velocity around the
shaft. I can accept that.
You also say that for a given angular velocity, a weight a long way out from
the centre would pull more than a weight a short distance from the center.
I can accept that also.
The problem with this machine, as I see it, is that you have to change the
speed of the weight twice a cycle. Say the weight starts off as being close
to the center. You spin it around a quarter turn, then push it out a bit.
But since the motor maintains its angular velocity, the weight must speed up
to maintain that rotation. If the motor spins at, say 1 revolution per
second, then the weight must go 90 degrees around the shaft for every
quarter second that passes by.
So the weight speeds up. How? It must be pushed faster somehow, but by
what? the motor shaft? Okay, so the weight gets accelerated outwards by
the motor shaft - which PUSHES THE MOTOR IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. So the
motor, while flinging this weight out to the distance, gets itself pushed
backwards. Then the weight completes its distant quarter turn, in which
"the force is larger" and so presumably pulls the motor back towards it.
This is fine. I can accept that. The weight, now at a large velocity, must
be slowed down for its leisurely trip around the back of the shaft at a
close distance. How does it slow down? It pushes the motor in the opposite
direction.
Finally the weight does its slow quarter turn, and pulls the motor back a
bit.
What does all this add up to? Well, the weight must push against something
to change its velocity, that's for certain. Try standing on rollerblades,
with your feet parallel, holding a weight. Move the weight forwards
suddenly, and you will find that you will move backwards. Move the weight
back towards you, and you will move forwards. Note that in both cases, the
centre of mass of the system WILL STAY STILL. This is the crucial point
here. You can't get a net force on an object unless you push on something.
This is because the centre of mass of the system has no force acting apon
it. You can try shaking the weight back and forth, and watching your feet
wiggle in the opposite direction to the weight. Or you can try to become a
human force machine, by swinging the weight around, close to your body
behind you, and out at arms reach in front of you. You will probably start
moving forwards when pulling the weight towards you, and then go backwards
when pushing it away.
So to try out your engine: Place the whole assembly in an upturned
ice-cream container in the bath. Make sure the water is still, and turn the
motor on. Hold the container so that the device can spin up to speed, point
it at the other side, and let it go. Time how long it takes to get to the
other side.
Now do the same, with the device pointed the other way. Time how long it
takes for the machine to go back to the other side of the bath.
The ice cream container must be symmetrical so that the resistance forwards
is the same as the resistance backwards.
Now please let's be rational about this. If it works, then I will gladly
eat my words and send the $50. But judging my the postings last time, I
think my money is safe.
Ben Hitchcock
Home