John2020

19 minutes ago, exchemist said:

To me, this has the hallmarks of someone with an idée fixe who is trying to preserve it by deliberate misunderstanding, i.e. arguing in bad faith. 

I don't see the point in carrying on with this, now. 

If the mods are planning to close this thread then, please let me know before I start answering the questions of the members placed some hours ago.

@swansont, @Ghideon, @exchemist. I hope the below information will help all of you understand what is wrong with your claims (I would say not yours but established claims, a.k.a misconception in the established physics). So we need an experiment and the maths that describe it. According to my view, what is shared below reveals how the ring's motion is justified on a fundamental level (the main cause behind its motion):

a) Please could you identify the cause of vibration on the following Eccentric mass setup. Does it require gravity as the cause (means the source) of vibration or not? Note: Please do not confuse the response of the system with the underlying cause, because this is what you are doing the whole time:

Eccentric Mass Dynamic Vibrations (watch from 20 sec up to 50 sec -> without the absorber)

b) The (a) is described by the following differential equation and particular solution. Could you please identify where gravity is being involved and whether gravity is the cause of vibration?

The above answers to all your recent false claims that I do not understand physics and about the system (ring) will not accelerate if there is no g. This is the essence of the entire discussion. If you are of a different opinion, first you need to address the above questions, otherwise this discussion does not need to be continued.

c) Assuming you acknowledge the above, there are additional problems to consider: (b) although models the response of the system properly and in absence of gravity, it cannot justify: i) how the momentum is being transferred from the eccentric mass to the rest of the system, ii) violates Newton's 3rd law. 

When we ever pass (c) which I doubt then, I will reveal the complete expression of Newton's 3rd law. Just for the record, according to my view Newton's 3rd law, covers 2 out of 3 cases and these are: 1) rectilinear motion, 2) circular motion. The missing one is the curvilinear motion which is the one that may justify (b), meaning vibration of an isolated system (since no gravity is being involved. See (b) equations) by means of internal forces. 

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

And yet people can jump rope - an analogous cyclical system, so clearly you are wrong. You are arguing that if you go up and then back down you can never jump up, and this is clearly bollocks.

You hit the gas pedal on a car and later the brakes. Over time, the force totals to zero, so you never moved. A conclusion one could draw from your erroneous thinking, and also clearly bollocks.

As I said we should pay attention of what we are referred to. Again you are confusing system responses (as that with the car you mention) with the motion of the ring. For once more we have a cycle of 200 μsec and a mass of 200 grams. Thus, a complete cycle means, the magnetic dipole are aligned leftwards and then rightwards. The net force is then zero that means we shouldn't have acceleration. A partial cycle would justify ring's motion

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

A curious stance, since you’re arguing that there is no explanation (within accepted physics) for its motion. 

As I (and exchemist, I think) have stated, the fact that the ring and table aren’t flat give lateral forces. The ring also has the windings on part of it, so its deviation from flatness is more pronounced. This isn’t an issue when the motion is small, but as it gets more pronounced the normal force decreases for part of the cycle, reducing friction. So the vertical motion is very important.

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

Well, no. Gravity certainly plays a part in the analysis. 

Besides you insist of using Gravity to justify the ring's motion, gravity and the normal force (from the table) cannot be the cause of ring's motion, however the normal force plays only a role regarding the static friction that must be overcome in order to start moving. If you pay attention to all three videos the ring has a tendency to rotate which is a fact that a horizontal force is at play and certainly has nothing to do with the normal force.

If gravity plays a role then, why it is not part in the differential inhomogeneous equation that describes the rotating unbalance? Moreover, as you may see the particular solution has no reference to a gravitational constant. This is something you still avoid to answer by using excuses that is not the subject in this discussion, however it is physics and related to vibrations. My answer to the erroneous claims about gravity being a necessary ingredient for ring's motion is, please check the differential equation of the rotating unbalance.

33 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. So your setup will behave identically in zero g? Both mathematically and experimentally?

Exactly as it is the case with the rotating unbalance. See the differential inhomogeneous equation and its particular solution. No g (like zero g)  is used, however the equation and the particular solution, describe and conclude the system vibrates.

33 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

A curious person or someone working scientifically would probably ask something like "What is the link? How does the it affect my idea and experiment?" 

What do you mean, I do not understand? 

33 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

A curious person or someone working scientifically would probably ask something like "What is the link? How does the it affect my idea and experiment?" 

If you mean what is the key of this supposed contradiction between the acknowledge motion and Newton's laws of motion then, the answer is that Newton's 3rd law is incomplete according to my point of view and I can prove it mathematically using a very simple classical mechanics setup.

Conclusively, below I have a sequence of statements that may justify ring's motion according to my view:

1) The magnetic field lines running through the ring are in parallel with the table
2) Due to (1) the magnetic dipoles align in the horizontal plane
3) Due to (1) and (2) the forces like gravity and normal force (from the table) in the vertical plane cannot be the cause of its motion (I speak about the cause and not the resulting trajectory (we will speak about this later))
4) Due to (2) a complete cycle (leftwards and then rightwards alignment) results in no ring's acceleration
5) Due to (4) a partial cycle e.g. π/2, might result in ring's initial acceleration. Important Note: How could that happen? IF we ever continue this discussion, I will explain it.
6) Due to (1) to (5), the acceleration can be attributed only to internal forces (the forced alignment of the magnetic dipoles in the horizontal plane) being responsible for the momentum transfer from the magnetic dipoles to the rest of the system (ring)
7) Due to (6), Newton's laws cannot justify ring's motion from the moment it is not attributed to external forces
8) The reason behind (7) is Newton's 3rd law. Motion by means of internal forces is forbidden because of Newton's 3rd law (as applies for internal forces) therefore, it must be incomplete.

Just now, Ghideon said:

Are you confusing a mathematical analysis of an ideal setup with an experimental setup?

No, because gravity is not part of the solution and this is evident by the horizontal motion in all three videos. 

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

Circular isn’t the issue. It’s primarily the vertical motion at issue, which isn’t why “jumping in the air” was brought up.

The ring jumps in the air, but the ring isn’t flat, nor is the table, so there are lateral forces. This can manifest as circular motion, too.

Besides you use the vertical vibration to explain ring's motion that does not make sense, you ignore the fact that within a cycle, the net force is zero that means it should never accelerate. IF and only IF the vibration was developed in just one direction (half-cycle and I speak now for the horizontal plane) then, it would be possible to justify ring's motion in principle. I do not see why the vibration in the vertical plane is a pre-requisite for ring's motion. Note: The magnetic field is in parallel with table surface and the magnetic dipoles align in the horizontal plane. Consequently, ring's motion does not require the "jumping" effect in order to justify its motion.

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Well, still a bit wrong, but you seem at least to be accepting that internal forces within the body (of the muscles acting on the bones of the skeleton) cause the centre of gravity of the body to move up and down, in reaction to contact with the floor. 

Do we agree on that? 

Yes, in the case of a body but that doesn't mean it has to apply everywhere therefore, I would recommend caution. I suppose, you read my posts above regarding the ring. Let us continue.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is based on no physics at all. 

I suppose you follow this discussion. So, fast circular change of center of gravity (zero net change in center of gravity) associated with ring's large inertia (200 grams) should result in no motion. It means, besides the net change in center of gravity is zero (after a complete cycle which is relative short, approx. 200 μsec), the ring would be so slow in response that wouldn't even move a millimeter.

11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I am still waiting for your inout regarding the more fundamental principles that Newton is based on; physics has continued ot evolve after Newton was active. If you believe space to be inhomogeneous or anisotropic at small scales please provide evidence. 

I have no evidence about that. If you are associating a probable proof about space anisotropy at small scales with Newton's 3rd law violation, besides I do not see the link between them, it is not required. The proof of Newton's 3rd law incompleteness can be demonstrated and mathematically proven in classical mechanics based on momentum conservation, again and always according to my view. But this is not the current issue in our discussion. We are looking to explain how those experiments comply with Newton's laws of motion.

22 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Regarding internal forces, an electric car has an engine where there are internal electromagnetic forces. Can an electrical car accelerate along the ground? Yes it can.

Yes, it can because it has wheels that touch the ground, The wheels act like an action "bridge" between the internal and the external forces. The ring does not have wheels to push the ground although it touches it. In other words, the ring does not expose any moving parts.

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. If a person jumps into the air and returns, (at a lower frequency, of course), doesn’t that result in a zero net change in center of gravity? Also yes. 

IOW, your observation is irrelevant to the issue. There is motion. The person (and ring) can jump in the air. Looking at the average or cyclic nature misses the issue.

We are speaking about an oscillation period of 1/5000 Hz = 200 μsec. Due to ring's large inertia, the ring should never move in any direction in any of those three experiments.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Ring undergoing magnetostriction changes the center of gravity. Lather, rinse, repeat.

And to head off one possible response: you can jump in a direction other than straight up, because you can exert a transverse force on the floor. This general argument applies to any body that can deform.

Somehow I was expecting such a response after explaining how a person may jump off the ground. It is how things are seen by an external observer, however according to my view, something does not fit the bill. 

Fig. Magnetostriction

As you may see the above .gif animation shows in a way how magnetostriction strain looks like. I am going to develop a couple of arguments but one at a time. Please could you explain:

Since the ring is driven by a 5KHz sinus signal and the field changes direction from left to right and vice versa (oscillating) then, after a complete cycle of period T = 1/5KHz wouldn't the contraction/expansion result in a zero net change in the center of gravity?

On 5/25/2021 at 7:42 PM, exchemist said:

So can we please sort out what happens when you jump in the air, then we can apply that to the vibrating ring and then we can see what is making it move on the table? In that order. Otherwise, I'll assume you are not interested in analysing your experiments properly.   

@exchemistI think I have already addressed how the jump in the air works. OK, let's go one more time step by step:

(1) A person contacts its body towards the floor
(2) The contraction results in the change of its center of gravity 
(3) The change (accelerating) of its center of gravity creates a force upon the floor
(4) Then the person starts to expands back its body
(5) While expanding his body, the center of gravity (accelerating) moves upwards
(6) The impulse time (expansion point - contraction point) multiplied by the Force (Action) exerted upon the floor, results in the impulse (divided by the impulse time gives the reaction force from the floor) exerted upon person's body.
(7) If this impulse divided by the impulse time is larger than the force of gravity (m*g) then the person will jump off the ground   

On 5/25/2021 at 7:21 PM, swansont said:

I asked “Why do you think a coil of wire exerting a magnetic force on the ferrite ring is an internal force in the ring?”

@swansontBecause the windings of the coil (ferrite ring + coil windings = system) is part of the system windings + ring that travel together as a whole. If the winding wasn't wound around the ferrite ring then the magnetic force would be external to the ring.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

No, I will not examine the complicated system when you will not acknowledge the analysis of the simpler system. This is a version of the Gish gallop, and is a bad faith argument, which we won’t tolerate. Deal with the simple system, or we close the thread.

Again it is not a complicated system in terms of demonstrating the effects. You haven't answered my question regarding the force that comes from inside the ring is internal and then I put another argument that the ring shouldn't vibrate according to Newton's 3rd law and nobody said anything about. Something else is happening or something else obscures the effect according to my view. Therefore, I suggest you to watch the example with the LEGO car, it is clearer (no table vibrations, no gravity influence etc).

So, who is in bad faith? In front of experimental evidences that need serious discussion, your only interest is to close the thread because someone presented some logical arguments that do not comply with what you serve (physics). Do whatever you like. 

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

And you are wrong.

It’s not an isolated system

I have explained myself how I put it. If I am wrong, tell me how the LEGO car is moving and what Newton's 3rd law says about it? Gravity and table vibrations have nothing to do with the LEGO car therefore, those claims cannot hold as main cause of motion.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because making the system more complicated will not clear up your misconceptions 

You took it wrong. The simplest system is that with the LEGO car since it does not touch the table and just pushing the car. So, how something may push the car while being inside? What Newton's laws of motion say about it?

1 minute ago, DanMP said:

In this case the vibration is less important (the car has wheels) and it hints that magnetic forces (from the metal items around) are more probably involved.

The third experiment also suggests that the magnetic forces are responsible for the slide and not (or much less) the gravitational force.

About the LEGO car: If you watch closely, you may identify the ring attempts to rotate and while doing that it is blocked by a LEGO piece in front of it. What happens at that moment, the ring seems to push the LEGO piece (being a part of the entire car) that leads to entire LEGO car motion. How Newton's laws may explain this? I cannot find an explanation according to Newton's laws. The only thing I may confirm is the ring attempts to rotate that means a tangential force is at play originated from inside the ring. This can be proven by the Exp #3 with the controllable rotation of the ring.

In Exp #3 we may clearly identify the tangential force created by the ring, otherwise the ring wouldn't rotate. Again, there is no interaction with nearby metals or table feet. Note: We speak about a 200 grams ring with high a magnetic permeability (almost all magnetic lines are found inside the ring). See datasheet in my initial posts.

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

OK, so does that mean you recognise your body, when you jump into the air, is not an isolated system? And that, when a system is not isolated, internal forces can cause it to move? 

I just make a parallelism regarding the cause of motion. According to Newton's laws of motion, a body or a system may move by means of external forces. According to my understanding regarding the experiments and what we have agreed so far my personal conclusion is that the system moves by means of internal forces as being an isolated system. That is all!

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No dice. I am still trying to get you to be clear about what happens when you jump in the air. So far, you are not managing even that. 

This is your point of view and it seems you don't like to confront the issues because you are focused of what I cannot manage, so you think let us take advantage of it and nail him down, right? I don't care. I am not a physicist and I do not claim physics is wrong. On the contrary, I put the material on YouTube and open a thread here in order to discuss it. Each one of us besides knowledge and expertise in our fields, we have some brain and can think in our feet by presenting logical arguments.

Just now, exchemist said:

Because, unlike you, we like to get one thing at a time straight, instead of continually lobbing in yet more complicating factors in order to obscure the analysis of the problem.  

The most complicating factors exist on the ring moving across the table which brings much controversy. This is the reason I suggest to check the other two which are clearer as set up and observed effects.

Just now, DanMP said:

The system is not isolated. As I wrote earlier you have metal items around and the table may not be perfectly horizontal, so the magnetic and/or gravitational forces may be responsible for the slide/momentum.

This is out of question because I did the experiment (see first posts). As a direct proof of not being the case you have to watch besides the LEGO car experiment, the rotating ring which its rotation is absolutely controllable (increasing frequency -> clockwise rotation, decreasing frequency -> counterclockwise rotation). Consequently, it has nothing to do with your claims. 

Why nobody says anything about the LEGO car experiment? I am curious.

12 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But it's not an isolated system, that's the point.

In terms of what force is being exerted on the ring, we agree that is internal (magnetostrictive strain). Consequently, the cause of ring's motion is essentially internal that means its motion can be justified as being an isolated system although is found inside a gravitational field and upon a table that both does not make sense of being the cause of system's motion (from the moment the cause is internal), as I described above. 

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

How can the centre of gravity of your body move, just by the action  of internal forces? Haven't you spent the last fortnight telling us Newton's laws say that can't happen? 

Yes, I did when I was speaking about motion of an isolated system powered by internal forces. The body of a person can never propel itself e.g. if being suspended by a thread or in absence of gravity or by not touching a surface (in order to take advantage the reaction force from the surface).

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

When you jump in the air, you use your muscles. There are connected only to your bones, i.e. they act purely internally.

How do you account for your ability to jump in the air? 

By contracting and expanding your body that means by redeploying the center of gravity of your body which creates a force that is in essence external to the body.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Action and reaction forces act on different bodies, so it’s nonsensical to do this math.

It’s like saying energy is conserved, so nothing can move.

We speak again for an isolated system. An action exerted upon a part will create a reaction upon the rest of the system. Consequently, due to Newton's 3rd law the isolated system cannot acquire a momentum by means of internal forces. 

Just now, swansont said:

No, that’s not correct. You do not understand the 3rd law, and therefore misrepresent it.

I don't understand what you mean here? I consider the ring as an isolated system being influenced only by the internal magnetostrictive strain that means an isolated system powered by internal forces, according to Newton's 3rd law will never acquire a momentum. It is the same when one tries to lift himself by its hair or pushing a car while being inside (see LEGO car with the ring). 

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This is now so garbled as to be impossible to tease apart and correct. Almost every word is wrong or meaningless in the context in which it appears. 

Are you now really now claiming that the ring can't vibrate, in spite of all the previous explanations?

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why do you think a coil of wire exerting a magnetic force on the ferrite ring is an internal force in the ring?

Work and momentum are nit the same thing, and I would be interested to know exactly where you got the “the net work of internal force is zero“ idea?

No, you misunderstood me. I presented a reasoning. When the cause of vibration comes from internal forces then the system (ring) should be able to move or vibrate due to Newton's 3rd law. It is Newton's 3rd law that does not allow motion by means of internal forces, not me. 

Regarding the net work of internal forces, it is clear the net work of internal forces (since it is zero) cannot trigger system's motion. Everybody knows this. It is derived by Newton's 3rd law: ΣW = WA + WR = 0 (work of action pus the work of reaction equals zero).

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

We can get onto that in a minute, but first, do you now understand how a vibrating ring in contact with a table experiences varying forces from it? If you still can't understand this point, we can't move on to the rest of it. 

1 minute ago, swansont said:

The ring exerts a force on the table. The table exerts a force on the ring. As described by the 3rd law.

This is exactly the point for me that is difficult to justify in terms of Newton's laws of motion. Since the force is internal then due to the action-reaction principle the ring shouldn't vibrate at all (the net work of internal force is zero) therefore, it should not transfer momentum to the table, contrary to what we witness. Consequently, does it vibrate because it is within a gravitational field that acts as the external force upon the center of gravity of the system (ring)?

1 minute ago, swansont said:

The (vibrating) table exerts a force on the ring. But you didn’t miss this:

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Not looking for. Found. You keep acting like the table isn’t there, which is ridiculous.

If it was so clear I wouldn't have opened this thread. I think you are confusing the action with the reaction. The reaction comes from the table towards the ring in the case of a action-reaction pair of external forces. In order to have a reaction there has to be an external action. Where is it? It cannot be originated other than the ring itself. So the next logical question is, what is the cause of ring's vibration? Is it caused by an internal or external effect? Is the magnetostrictive strain effect internal to the ring or external? From my understanding the magnetostrictive strain effect is internal therefore, internal forces may not be transferred outside the ring. In other words, internal momentum cannot be transferred outside the ring.

Where am I wrong on the above?

@swansont, @exchemist, @Ghideon, my main problem or lack of understanding is derived from the following reasoning:

(1) From the moment Newton’s laws are correct, could one show me where we may find the external action force being responsible for the horizontal motion of the system (ring)? If one of you has already mentioned this, please repeat it.

(2) According to Newton’s 3^rd law, the action force being exerted upon the table should create a reaction force from the table towards the ring that will push the latter forward.

(3) The external action force we are looking for (or better in order to justify the motion of the system according to Newton’s laws of motion) should be horizontal, otherwise system’s motion cannot be justified (especially the one with the LEGO car and the other with the controllable rotation of the ring).

(4) The LEGO car case has three issues that need to be addressed: a) where we may find the external action force, b) where we may find the external reaction force and c) according to Newton’s 3^rd law the system LEGO car + ring shouldn’t move at all, contrary to what we witness. We know that nobody (e.g. ring) is able to push his own car (e.g. LEGO car) while being inside and this is explained by Newton’s 3^rd law in the context of internal forces (the net work done by internal forces is zero therefore, system motion cannot occur).