Strange as it may seem, any activation force or torque is going to result in a reaction that keeps the total momentum in balance. When a bullet is fired from a gun momentum is conserved since the gun is driven backwards with an amount of momentum equal to that carried away by the bullet. The gun is much heavier than the bullet so it recoils at a far lower velocity. In this case the energy imparted upon the bullet is much greater than that delivered to the gun since energy is proportional to velocity squared. That is a good reason to have a heavy weapon. :-)
Angular momentum works in a similar manner. The key thing to remember is that both linear and angular momentums are conserved. Any force you generate is matched by a reaction force of equal and opposite magnitude. Dave -----Original Message----- From: H Veeder <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 5:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine The initial momentum of the pendulum does not have to come from the rotation of the earth. It could come from some chemical energy such as a muscle or a bomb. Harry On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: You need to be thinking of momentum instead of energy Harry. The two are not interchangeable. Dave -----Original Message----- From: H Veeder <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine Oh, now I get the point. You can't build a mechanism which extracts more energy from the rotation of the earth then you put into the mechanism. On the other hand, if the goal is to lengthen the day rather than generate useful energy, then such a mechanism would be considered useful. :- / harry On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:09 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: ...and the rotational speed of the earth will descrease as a consequence. harry On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: Focault's pendulum could be used to extract energy from the rotation of the earth. harry On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: You're undoubtedly right. It makes me wonder if these simple newtonian problems from dynamics 101 can be so mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds of problems. Hoyt From: Nigel Dyer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this, whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy from the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body. You can come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more difficult (our gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole and the equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse. I'm not sure that 15 years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do it), and that is what may have happened with the RAR machine. Its complexity hides a mistake in the analysis of the forces and moments which made it appear that it was possible to extract energy from the earths magnetic field. Nigel
