• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Pendulum Generator

Fictitious force sounds like a misnomer. ... To compress a spring-mass system(accelerometer) under acceleration like in a car is work(force*distance) which takes real energy.
Certainly -- but that doesn't mean there's a force accelerating the spring-mass system into the back of the seat. There's a force accelerating the back of the seat into the spring-mass system. The energy for compression comes from the gasoline, not from the spring.

Who's the Einstein in the patent office who approved that?

As someone who has interacted with patent examiners I can say that among the requirements for a patent -- novelty, utility, non-obviousness, invention, and enablement -- utility is probably of least interest to the examiner. And rightly so, since useless patents are least likely to be litigated.
Under U.S. case-law, violating the laws of physics is grounds for rejecting an application (In re Huping Hu). You'd think it wouldn't be litigated since there's no money to be made by stopping somebody from infringing a patent that doesn't work, but Hu actually litigated it. One has to suspect he intended to use the patent as a way to get people to believe his "invention" worked, for fraudulent purposes.
 
If you go by the BB theory the forces that created solar systems and set planets spinning began with a hot dense plasma that went kaboom. Origin of the initial condition is not defined,.

I think it was Einstein who made the analogy and statement that standing on the Earth at 1g and standing inside a closed box in space accelerating at 1g are equivalent, no way to measure a difference.

The definition of force is mass*acceleration.

Energy is capacity to do work and work = force*distance. Regardless if the force is gravitational, electrical, magnetic, or inertial.

It is what makes thermodynamics and LOT work.

LOT only apples to a bounded system, like the Earth and a pendulum. It may or may not apply at the scale of universe. Nobody knows.
 
As I remember it Holmes was modeled in part on one of Doyle's professors at medical school.

And there is a bit of Doyle in Holmes. Doyle took on cases and in one case rescued an innocent man form hanging.

More useless trivia in my head.
 
I think it was Einstein who made the analogy and statement that standing on the Earth at 1g and standing inside a closed box in space accelerating at 1g are equivalent, no way to measure a difference.
You could drill a hole in the box...

;)
You could even put in a window. At least the view would be different.
 

The equivalence principle is the hypothesis that the observed equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is a consequence of nature. The weak form, known for centuries, relates to masses of any composition in free fall taking the same trajectories and landing at identical times. The extended form by Albert Einstein requires special relativity to also hold in free fall and requires the weak equivalence to be valid everywhere. This form was a critical input for the development of the theory of general relativity. The strong form requires Einstein's form to work for stellar objects. Highly precise experimental tests of the principle limit possible deviations from equivalence to be very small.
 
Actually, as Holmes was fictional, he never did shit.
Yes, off-hand I can't think of a single fictional character who did shit. Michael Corleone went to the bathroom, but while there he only retrieved a gun. Fictional detainees who claim bodily needs are often hoping to escape through a window.

Perhaps this sub-discussion should move to Questions about the Simulation Hypothesis: Do NPCs shit?
 
I think it was Einstein who made the analogy and statement that standing on the Earth at 1g and standing inside a closed box in space accelerating at 1g are equivalent, no way to measure a difference.
Which was always an idealization -- a thought-experiment set in the asymptotic limit as the size of the box goes to zero, with the experimental equipment made of frictionless unobtanium and the experimenter himself assumed to be a spherical cow. Good on Einstein for having the mental discipline to pursue whatever metaphors worked for him to the limit of their effectiveness, but in the real world there's a theoretically straightforward way to measure the difference. Toss a ball from one side of the box to the other, videotaping its trajectory, and measure carefully frame by frame. In an accelerating box in space you see a parabola; in a box standing on the Earth you see an ellipse.
 
Yes, off-hand I can't think of a single fictional character who did...
Here's one...

is-it-true-v0-rqaqrwlmnyke1.jpeg
 
Interesting that on the net 'fake' force' is used.

You are going down the huighway at 60mph and suddenly break without wearing a seat belt. Your head goes into the windshield. You can call call it fake or imaginary force but the impact on your head is real enough.

Which is what I took AE to be saying. Computationally force as defined today in SI is force.

A 1kg ball is attached to a 1meter wire attached to a vertical shaft being turned by a motor. The attachment point on the shaft is 1 meter high above ground.

Assume the wire is low mass, does not stretch, and dies not break.

The motor is spinning at 100*2*pi radian/second. Angular velocity.

The ball is rotating in a plane horizontal to the ground.

What is the down force on the ball and the tension force on the wire?

Imagine are designing a carnival ride that spins and your seat goes hrizintal. What is the minimum angular velocity to raise the ball to a flat horizontal soin pklane at 1 meter high.?

Derivations are in the link. Note there is Coriolis force term. Exasnoes for ;sone on a string; are on te net.



onega = 2*pi*f whwerte f is Hertz and 360 degrees = 2*pi radians one revolution.
 
Last edited:
You are going down the huighway at 60mph and suddenly break without wearing a seat belt. Your head goes into the windshield. You can call call it fake or imaginary force but the impact on your head is real enough.
"Whether the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone, it's going to be bad for the pitcher."

A 1kg ball is attached to a 1meter wire attached to a vertical shaft being turned by a motor. The attachment point on the shaft is 1 meter high above ground.

Assume the wire is low mass, does not stretch, and dies not break.

The motor is spinning at 100*2*pi radian/second. Angular velocity.

The ball is rotating in a plane horizontal to the ground.

What is the down force on the ball and the tension force on the wire?
That's sensitive to initial conditions.

Code:
       Motor
        SSS
        SSS
        SSS
        SSS
         w
         w
         w
         w
         w
         w
gggggggggBggggggg
ggggggggBBBgggggg
gggggggggBggggggg
ggggggggggggggggg
If the ball is frictionless the down force and tension force are 9.8 Newtons. If there's friction the forces depend on the torsional rigidity of the wire.

:tomato:

Imagine are designing a carnival ride that spins and your seat goes hrizintal. What is the minimum angular velocity to raise the ball to a flat horizontal soin pklane at 1 meter high.?
What's the diameter of the ball and what point on the ball is 1 meter high?
 
What's the diameter of the ball and what point on the ball is 1 meter high?
This appears to be a physics problem, so my guess is "zero" and "therefore it doesn't matter".

I will give a more detailed response once I find a hardware store that sells low mass wire that neither stretches nor breaks when put under tension; My local Bunnings doesn't have any in stock. (They don't even stock frictionless point masses, perhaps because of lack of demand - only physics teachers ever buy the things).

Maybe I am looking in the wrong part of the store though. Bunnings can be confusing like that - are spherical cows kept in the 'spheres' aisle, or are they in 'livestock'? Even the guys who work there don't seem to know.
 
Not sensitive to initial conditions. The question is about the steady stage conditions of the spuinning ball in a flat horizontal plane above the ground.


Size of the ball? Ignore size and treat it as a point. Assume the wire has zero mass.

For extra credit if the wire breaks how long does it take for the ball to hit the ground?
 
Last edited:
I think it was Einstein who made the analogy and statement that standing on the Earth at 1g and standing inside a closed box in space accelerating at 1g are equivalent, no way to measure a difference.
Which was always an idealization -- a thought-experiment set in the asymptotic limit as the size of the box goes to zero, with the experimental equipment made of frictionless unobtanium and the experimenter himself assumed to be a spherical cow. Good on Einstein for having the mental discipline to pursue whatever metaphors worked for him to the limit of their effectiveness, but in the real world there's a theoretically straightforward way to measure the difference. Toss a ball from one side of the box to the other, videotaping its trajectory, and measure carefully frame by frame. In an accelerating box in space you see a parabola; in a box standing on the Earth you see an ellipse.
The gravitational field from a planet will have divergence while the acceleration field in the box will not.

That is, with sensitive enough equipment one can measure the force of gravity with height, a variation that will not exist in the accelerating box.
 
I will give a more detailed response once I find a hardware store that sells low mass wire that neither stretches nor breaks when put under tension
Wood is probably a better bet. There is no “resistance profile” in this frictionless atmosphere, so you can use big balsa logs …
 
Not sensitive to initial conditions.
As originally stated, it was. The point of my diagram was to prove that. If the initial conditions were as shown then the system would have stayed in that state.

The question is about the steady stage conditions of the spuinning ball in a flat horizontal plane above the ground.
Ah -- you didn't specify the flat horizontal plane was above the ground. I exhibited the below-the-ground solution.

Size of the ball? Ignore size and treat it as a point. Assume the wire has zero mass.
That changes the system to this:
Code:
       Motor
        SSS
        SSS
        SSS
        SSS
         w
         w
         w
         w
         w
         w
gggggggggBggggggg
ggggggggggggggggg
Both the wire and the ball have zero moment of inertia, so they spin up instantly. The steady state condition is the ball rotates on its axis, (if that is even meaningful for a point ball -- perhaps it has quantum spin like a real point mass: an electron), in a flat horizontal plane exactly at ground level. So why would the steady state condition have the plane of rotation above the ground -- why would the ball ever lift off? The forces on it are balanced.

For extra credit if the wire breaks how long does it take for the ball to hit the ground?
You're introducing self-contradictory conditions: if you let the wire break, the breaking event is evidently not a steady state, which means there is no steady state and the answer will necessarily depend on initial conditions and transients.

Assuming you set the initial conditions in some way that causes the ball to fly in a helix above ground level, accelerating until the wire breaks, how long until the ball hits the ground -- if it ever does -- will depend on the breaking strength of the wire. Weak wire: a little under half a second. Strong wire: a bit longer. (Assuming a spherical Earth. If you do the experiment in a valley it will hit the ground sooner.) Sufficiently* strong wire, and assuming you're raising the angular velocity far above 100*2*pi radian/second in your futile attempt to get the rotation plane up to 1 meter high: the ball reaches orbital velocity and never hits the ground. (There's no atmospheric drag on a point mass.)

(* Back of the envelope, the ball would need to be pulling about 3,000,000 "g"s.)
 
I think it was Einstein who made the analogy and statement that standing on the Earth at 1g and standing inside a closed box in space accelerating at 1g are equivalent, no way to measure a difference.
Which was always an idealization -- a thought-experiment set in the asymptotic limit as the size of the box goes to zero, with the experimental equipment made of frictionless unobtanium and the experimenter himself assumed to be a spherical cow. Good on Einstein for having the mental discipline to pursue whatever metaphors worked for him to the limit of their effectiveness, but in the real world there's a theoretically straightforward way to measure the difference. Toss a ball from one side of the box to the other, videotaping its trajectory, and measure carefully frame by frame. In an accelerating box in space you see a parabola; in a box standing on the Earth you see an ellipse.
The gravitational field from a planet will have divergence while the acceleration field in the box will not.

That is, with sensitive enough equipment one can measure the force of gravity with height, a variation that will not exist in the accelerating box.
It is not about detecting gravity. It is about the equivalence of acceleration by gravity and inertial acceleration. Computationally equivalent.

In the problem 'imaginary' centrifugal force results in a measurable tension on the wire.

Hang a ball from a wire on Berth and there is a mensurable tension on the wire caused by gravity.

It is as simple as that.
 
Back
Top Bottom