Working with closed systems.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Quantum Quack, Jun 19, 2005.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,508
    jusst to address this issue of wasted potential.

    the system [system A] I described with the ball and conveyor [ no gates ] is a fully conserved system in it's own right. energy is not wasted in that it is always fully conserved.
    <img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagrams/002.gif>

    1] can we agree with the above statement : that all energy is fully conserved?

    Now we place 4 gates into the freefall tube and gain 40 units of energy from our fully conserved system.

    <img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/diagrams/003.gif>

    How do we account for the gain in energy with out diminishing the energy in the conserved system [system A].

    As I said earlier I feel that is is the slowing down of System A that allows us to draw energy from that system without diminishing the total energy in that system.

    An example of this sort of system could be a field magnet. [used in a generator]

    How the system [magnet] allows us the potential to generate electricity with out diminishing the system [magnet]
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,358
    QQ:

    As I said before, you aren't getting something for nothing in your ball apparatus.

    When your ball falls down the tube and hits the ground, it loses energy in the form of heat, sound, deformation of the ball etc. It then rolls down to the conveyor belt, which lifts it up to the top again, providing it with all the energy it lost. The expense is in running the conveyor.

    If you add a flap into the downward tube, you can extract some of the energy which would have been wasted when the ball hit the gorund. The tradeoff is that the ball then hits the ground with a lower speed. In this example, you probably don't care about that.

    The bottom line is that there is the same energy input into the system (to run the conveyor) regardless of how much of the energy you choose to extract by means of flaps. Any energy you don't extract will be lost, mostly as heat. And the laws of thermodynamics also say you can't extract it all (for example, extract enough energy during the ball's fall to run the conveyor to lift it up to the top again, which would constitute a perpetual motion machine).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,508
    james thanks......so do you think the issue of time is a non-issue.....
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,358
    What issue of time?
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,508
    just thinking on the fly,

    lets put it this way:

    with out the gates attached teh system will cycle a given amount of times per hour.

    For sake of example let us say that this is 100 cycles per hour.

    To cycle 100 cycles er hour at 100 units of energy per cycle is

    total consumption is 10,000 units.

    now if we put the gates in the fall tube the total cycles per hour is reduced to let us say 60 cycles per hour.

    so now in the given time period of 1 hour a total of 6,000 units of energy are used. the gates have delivered in this time period 4,000 units.

    so what I am suggesting is that the total energy is conserved by taking time from one system and adding it to another.

    maybe I am in way over my head in this abstraction.....

    to summurise:

    System A
    10000 units per hour consumed

    system A with 4 gates
    6000 units consumed.
    4000 units expended as time

    [delayed gravity free fall]


    maybe you could play with the idea of energy over time and how time plays an important part in the equations.......which is what this thread has developed into.........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,508
    When an object freefalls into our atmosphere it experiences friction with the atmosphere and generates heat but most importantly it is slowed down by that atmosphere.


    the angle I am exploring.
    the free falling object is delivering energy in the form of heat only because it is slowed. Obviously the more it is slowed the more energy it is delivering.

    you may recall in the past I have posed the contention that all energy is in fact a time artifact. that negative charge and positive charge are in fact polarizations of space time or most importantly time itself. [future / past]

    So by slowing an object from it's natural freefall transfers energy from the objects fall to that which is slowing it thus time is transfered. [time being energy] It takes longer for the object to fall a given distance and that delay is the energy it is transfering.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,358
    QQ:

    You're right that your system won't cycle as fast with the gates in place, compared to without them. But time and energy are two completely different things. You can't trade one off against the other in the manner you're imagining.

    I think you need to learn a bit more about energy, starting from the basics. Energy is a very well defined thing in physics, but you're using the term "energy" in a kind of vague way. You need to work out what energy is, and where it appears in your examples, before you can work out whether it is conserved, extracted or whatever.
     
  11. SergejVictorov Registered Member

    Messages:
    6
    Consider first that when the ball is on the top, it has some potential energy, which is converted to kinetic energy of the ball as it's allowed to fall. Without any gates and if all energy were conserved in the ball's frame, the ball would bounce back up to the same height. Considering your animation, you are already assuming an inelastic collision of the ball with the ground, which means that all of the initial potential energy is expended via heat and noise and deformation of the ball and the ground. Adding gates to the system means that you allow the ball to fall for some height, which means that the difference in potential energy between those two heights is first converted into kinetic energy of the ball and later converted to some other form of energy through the lever. While actuating the lever, the ball loses its velocity because it loses kinetic energy. After having actuated the first lever, the ball starts over again, falling for some height and blabla. In the end, you have AT BEST extracted the difference of the potential energy from the top to the bottom.

    When you think about a water turbine, the flow of water downstream of the turbine is indeed greatly influenced by the existence of the turbine itself. The water will have less velocity. Because of that, dams are great means of water regulation.
     
  12. fo3 acdcrocks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Basically you're still talking about kinetic energy, when you say that it takes more time.
    v=s/t, so that when it takes more time to do something, then the speed is smaller. Therefore the kinetic energy is also smaller for any working body you talk about.
    When you take out energy from the system, using flaps in the falling balls way, then you are taking it away from the ball, since the ball is slower, when it hits the ground. When the ball is slower, then it obviously takes more time for it to reach ground.
    You are just looking at the same matter from a different angle.
     
  13. sciguy1945 Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    To put it in a simple manner, here is a comparation. A person from a flat world comes to Earth. They assume that it is flat, and so walk on to find the end. They go around the world, and end up where they started. They are baffled because their brains just aren't wired for this kind of thing. We are 3-dimension people, and the universe as a whole is quite possibly either 4-d or just so complexly shaped we cannot comprehend it. If the definition of the universe is defined as where there is space, then universe is finite, but if you try to go on and on in a straight line to find the end of the universe, you'll come back where you started (provided you live that long). In a way its kind of like the Earth except your on the inside of the object, not the outside.
     

Share This Page