dijinj Posted May 5, 2014 Author Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) what you are forgetting is stress is a force. A force can change momentum without violating any of the conservation laws In continuum mechanics, stress is a physical quantity that expresses the internal forces that neighbouring particles of a continuous material exert on each other. a stress(A Force) can reduce both balls momentum, since stress force act against velocity or direction of motion. so in action and reaction the stress or friction reduce both balls velocity. Action and reaction of an accelerating force will be both accelerating in opposite direction. action and reaction of a retarding force will be both retarding in opposite directions. Edited May 5, 2014 by dijinj
swansont Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 what you are forgetting is stress is a force. A force can change conservation of momentum without violating any of the conservation laws In continuum mechanics, stress is a physical quantity that expresses the internal forces that neighbouring particles of a continuous material exert on each other. While a force can change momentum, forces always come in action/reaction pairs. If the force is internal, momentum is conserved. If it's external each system changes momentum by equal and opposite amounts. This latter part is missing from your simulation. We aren't forgetting anything. There is no valid way around conservation of momentum.
Orodruin Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 We are not forgetting anything. The statement A force can change conservation of momentum without violating any of the conservation laws is in itself a contradiction since you cannot break conservation of momentum without breaking the law of momentum conservation. In order to change the momentum of a system, you need external forces - which are missing from your setup. Furthermore, an external force would simply transfer the momentum to whatever object was exerting the force due to the action/reaction counterpart acting on that object. When talking about stresses in continuum mechanics, you will often be studying a small part of the full continuum. This part may very well see a change in momentum, but this change will be compensated by a change in the momentum of the surrounding continuum.
John Cuthber Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) Djinj, Please highlight the error in this brilliant piece of mathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Example_2:_Conservation_of_center_of_momentum or stfu Edited May 5, 2014 by John Cuthber -1
Phi for All Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 ! Moderator Note Deep breaths, EVERYONE. CaptainPanic has already posted a note here about addressing the points made in replies so it doesn't seem like they're being ignored. Please consider this carefully. It's not advice, it's the rules. It might help keep this thread open. And I encourage EVERYONE to rephrase your points instead of repeating them the same way. It's obvious that they aren't coming across effectively. If we can fix the way concepts are considered, it also makes sense to make them as understandable as possible. I see far too much intractable behavior in this thread. Since we seem to be stuck on a point that argues against mainstream theory, we'll need to move this to Speculations if it doesn't resolve itself soon.
swansont Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 we'll need to move this to Speculations if it doesn't resolve itself soon. Too late. I moved it earlier this morning; the OP is repeatedly insisting on violating physical law, so it should have been moved several dozen posts ago.
Phi for All Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 or stfu ! Moderator Note This is over the top and most likely reduces the effectiveness of your more civil posts. 1
dijinj Posted May 6, 2014 Author Posted May 6, 2014 if inventors were not to breach physical laws or use clever use of those laws; there would only be just another different products. let us come to my second question. can you suggest a good dynamic simulation software that uses line integrals or vector calculus; so that I can test this device in that software for all possible permutations and combinations to get a positive result before start building a actual prototype. only after I made a successful prototype; I will post it in main forums of science forums.
John Cuthber Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 if inventors were not to breach physical laws or use clever use of those laws; there would only be just another different products. let us come to my second question. can you suggest a good dynamic simulation software that uses line integrals or vector calculus; so that I can test this device in that software for all possible permutations and combinations to get a positive result before start building a actual prototype. only after I made a successful prototype; I will post it in main forums of science forums. Inventors can't break physical laws. That's the point of recognising those laws. They tell you what is impossible. We don't need to use software to test your idea. It has been shown to be mathematically impossible (the maths I cited earlier). Don't waste your time trying to build a prototype; it will never work.
swansont Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 The math is internally consistent. There is NO WAY to use it to show that momentum is not conserved, unless you simply do the math wrong. Like forget half of an action/reaction force pair. I repeat: there is no way to validly show this mathematically. If you do the math correctly, there will be no thrust.
dijinj Posted May 6, 2014 Author Posted May 6, 2014 why cant you just tell me if any CAE application that uses Line integrals for calculating friction. if you dont know say no. what i will do with that software is all up to me
swansont Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 I don't know such an application. The reason is that you posted this to a science board, and willful ignorance is an affront to the idea of science.
John Cuthber Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 why cant you just tell me if any CAE application that uses Line integrals for calculating friction. Because you didn't just ask that. You also said " so that I can test this device in that software for all possible permutations and combinations to get a positive result before start building a actual prototype." It's not unreasonable for us to point out that no software will let you design such a prototype. I wish I knew of such software (perhaps others will- it's really not my field). With such software you might convince yourself of the truth- that you are on a wild goose chase- and stop wasting your time.
dijinj Posted May 7, 2014 Author Posted May 7, 2014 Thanks. however. Line integral of Non conservative Vector field is the loop hole I am looking for. I think inclusion of friction in CFD software may be useful since CFD is primarily a vector calculus since in CFD Curl etc has to be calculated. -1
swansont Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 <sigh> There is no path integral for momentum. Conservative vs non-conservative never enters the discussion for momentum conservation.
dijinj Posted May 7, 2014 Author Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) I will illustrate an example of how physical laws are connected W=F.s Power is = W/t that is power= F.s/t you know, s/t=v so power is = F.v ( force X Velocity) in 1970s Honda used this principle to squeeze more power out of 'limited volume' racing engines. ie they increased rpm of engine there by increasing velocity of piston thus getting more power out of their engines( I agree there are some overheads). they slaughtered competition and came into lime light Edited May 7, 2014 by dijinj -1
Bignose Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) So, it appears you're at a crossroads. I'd suggest before you irritate more members, that you take what (if anything) you've learned from here and reflect on it yourself. What I mean by this is, if you are convinced you are right, then you probably ought to start building a prototype and testing it. I don't think any software is really going to help you today, as per the many replies you've gotten, no code based on the currently accepted mathematics will give you the answer you want, and frankly, given your stated position about the mathematics, even if you write your own code, it won't be accepted because it will be suspected that you didn't code the mathematics correctly. (I can write you a code to 'predict' anything you want, doesn't mean it will be right.) So, I think you're at the point where if you believe in it, you need to be making a physical prototype and testing it. That would probably be your best use of your time, because you really aren't going to gain any more traction here. It is obvious you aren't going to change your mind, and it is also obvious that you aren't going to change the many forum members' mind. I just hope that you will come back and show us what happens when you build it. I am on the side of sticking with the tried and accepted physics, but I still encourage you to build your prototype and learn from it. I think in all likelihood you're going to get the result that most everyone who has written to you here has said, but then hopefully that will still foster some learning. Edited May 7, 2014 by Bignose 1
swansont Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I will illustrate an example of how physical laws are connected W=F.s Power is = W/t that is power= F.s/t you know, s/t=v so power is = F.v ( force X Velocity) in 1970s Honda used this principle to squeeze more power out of 'limited volume' racing engines. ie they increased rpm of engine there by increasing velocity of piston thus getting more power out of their engines( I agree there are some overheads). they slaughtered competition and came into lime light The connectedness of physical law isn't at issue here. There is no conservation of momentum in your example, nor was it violated. Honda did not create extra "thrust" for their cars by finding any sort of loophole in Newton's laws. They found a more efficient way of doing things, completely within the laws of physics. There is no line integral for conservation of momentum. It depends on time. If you try and parameterize the formula to get it to depend on displacement, whatever path dependence you manage to introduce will be canceled by some other term, even if it isn't obvious.
John Cuthber Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I will illustrate an example of how physical laws are connected The problem which you have been ignoring all along is that your ideas are not connected to the physical laws. It's not just a "matter of opinion", or "hoping to find a trick nobody else thought of". They have been mathematically proven; so, the same maths proves beyond any sensible debate that you are wrong. You may, or may not, choose to reply to this. It won't matter. You will still be wrong.
imatfaal Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 ... in 1970s Honda used this principle to squeeze more power out of 'limited volume' racing engines. ie they increased rpm of engine there by increasing velocity of piston thus getting more power out of their engines( I agree there are some overheads). they slaughtered competition and came into lime light Honda didn't win any Formula One Manufacturers Championships till 86 nor Drivers till 87, in MotoGp on two wheels you are again talking about mid 80's before Honda won anything, not sure they ever won a Sports Car/FIA Endurance trophy, pretty sure they have never won in WRC, and if memory serves correctly only American Manufacturers have ever won in Nascar. So where exactly did they slaughter their opposition?
dijinj Posted May 9, 2014 Author Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) Honda didn't win any Formula One Manufacturers Championships till 86 nor Drivers till 87, in MotoGp on two wheels you are again talking about mid 80's before Honda won anything, not sure they ever won a Sports Car/FIA Endurance trophy, pretty sure they have never won in WRC, and if memory serves correctly only American Manufacturers have ever won in Nascar. So where exactly did they slaughter their opposition? The victory, 200 Miles s Daytona race, march 1970. There was no faster or better route to that goal than to put one of America's most illustrious racers on the motorcycle and have him ride it for 200 miles at top speed to win America's most prestigious motorcycle race. That's exactly what Honda did. In March of 1970, Dick Mann won the Daytona 200. http://www.daytona70.com/English/history.htm After a break of almost 12 years from racing, Honda rejoined the World Championships in the late 1970s and by 1983 they had changed their philosophy from using 4-stroke machinery to build the V3 500 2-stroke, known as the NS500, on which Freddie Spencer took the 500cc World title – his first championship win and the first for Honda since their return to Grand Prix(MotoGP) http://www.motogp.com/en/MotoGP+Basics/history 2006–2007The eighth generation RR was introduced in 2006 and offered incremental advancements over the earlier model with more power, better handling and less weight. Changes for 2006 included: New intake and exhaust porting (higher flow, reduced chamber volume) Higher compression ratio (from 11.9:1 to 12.2:1) Higher redline (from 11,650 rpm to 12,200 rpm) Edited May 9, 2014 by dijinj
John Cuthber Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Thanks for illustrating how Honda did so well by accepting the laws of physics and seeing what those laws suggested (that higher RPM means a higher power output). I suggest you do the same. Stop pretending that you can ignore the conservation of momentum.
CaptainPanic Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 ! Moderator Note John Cuthber, Please observe our forum rules, especially section 2.8, regarding soapboxing and preaching: Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them. Your last post does not add any useful information to this thread, and it seems was written only to put down dijinj. Especially the last sentence, while generally a good idea, doesn't have to be repeated over and over again. dijinj, You have been arguing with a number of physics experts for a long time. It might be that you are lacking some other higher math. It might be that you haven't understood what others tried to tell you. But it surely comes across as if you are ignoring them, and that has annoyed a lot of people. So, stop ignoring people, and engage in a discussion. Don't just stubbornly defend some ideas that all the others say don't work. Try to learn. Do not reply to this mod note in the thread. If you have any problems with it, use the report button at the bottom of this post.
dijinj Posted May 9, 2014 Author Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) if you agree with how laws of physics are connected and you can make use of them for good; then you must explain the following since s( displacement) does not change. and work is non conserved then momentum must be non-conserved. correct me if I am wrong with a good illustration if possible. don't just stick to conservation of momentum I know that law. The fundamental law to be breached if this concept has to work is: "center of of gravity of a system of objects will not change its initial velocity or position(if stationary) if external force is not applied" a part of conservation of momentum Edited May 9, 2014 by dijinj
dijinj Posted May 10, 2014 Author Posted May 10, 2014 We know the below relation between work and momentum p=(W/s)t There are 3 stages of momentum one is initial momentum (p1) which is zero. Second is just after initial path independent force (p2) and third is after path dependent force (p3). p1 - p2 - p3 = 0 if momentum is conserved Assume path independent force is applied in both stages then from the line integral and regular work example done above; we know that work is 4 and -4 for each case respectively. And s is 2 and assume time is equal to 1 then inserting values into (W/s)*t. we get 0 - 4/2 - (-4/2)=0-2+2=0 So momentum is conserved if both forces are path independent. Now take the case with one path independent and one path dependent. From the path integral example done above we know that work of path independent force is 4 and work of path dependent force through arc is -6.28. Inserting these values in equation, 0 - 4/2 - (-6.28/2) = 0 – 2 + 3.14 = 1.14 So momentum is not conserved. So there could be thrust.
Recommended Posts