How to interpret these curious REAL experimental results?

Dear colleagues,

I would like to ask you to consider carefully and thoroughly the link below.

I am not pressing anybody to accept anything before carrying out the simple experiments, described in the link below.

And here is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&ab_channel=PeterAxe

You can easily carry out the above mentioned simple experiments (described clearly and in detail in the link above) even in your garage.

Looking forward to your answer.

Regards,

 

Hmmm. I watched. I believe a lot of details have been left out.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities.

The term lends a scientific name and explanation to a problem that many people immediately recognize—that fools are blind to their own foolishness. As Charles Darwin wrote in his book The Descent of Man, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”

An Overview of the Dunning-Kruger Effect …

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740

To @citizenschallengev3

<hr />

But what are you talking about? The post you have sent has nothing to do with our concept! You are simply a payed agent of the official science mafia, who tries to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and unskillful manner! How much do they pay you? Shame on you!

No. I’m not a paid agent of anything.

I shared that link because it explains how easily people fool themselves.

I’m simply suggesting that from what I saw in that video, a lot of details were left out.

Also this is a physical experiment. No? Why was it conducted on a piece of paper by drawing a bunch of line.

Show me the video with a real model in action, before fantasizing that I’m some agent, of some secret force, specifically planted here to stop profundities from taking root.

 

That video is about the same thing as calling a “Necker cube” a “cube”, when it is actually a series of artfully arranged lines on a 2D surface, intended to fool your optical processing system.

To @citizenschallengev3.

<hr />

I see. You are not an expert in theoretical and applied mechanics for sure. Whatever video to sent to you you will not understand anything. So in order to solve the problem I would like to ask you firstly to show the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY to an expert (Ph. D.) in theoretical and applied mechanics and consult him/her about the essence of our basic concept. (At the same time you could study carefully and thoroughly some beginner’s guide in theoretical and applied mechanics. (Not pressing, only suggesting.)) And just after that we could talk again. Otherwise we are simply wasting our time.

@will34ab

What, you think repeating the same video will change anything.

Saying I’m not an expert, isn’t saying much.

You aren’t looking for a real expert anyways, or you wouldn’t waste your time over here to begin with.

 

Back to what you call “REAL experimental results” -

Oh wait a minute, you’ve never build a physical model of your REAL experiment.

But, you want me to be impressed with the idea.

I suspect you aren’t much of an expert yourself.

 

 

As for REAL world results,

I’m in a situation where I have to water a nifty little 250 square feet of lawn, and a handful of plants with water that’s collected in a stock tank. My little pump pushes too much volume too fast, so most the time I simply allow it to gravity feed through a hose and hand water. This has allowed me to tell the difference between water flowing though straight hose with few curves in it, as opposed being in a spaghetti mess of curves and loops. It’s significant. I don’t know the math, but I know creeks and rivers and have watched water flow and meander. Ever watched sand waves on the bottom being slowly transported down stream. It’s sort of hypnotic watching the loose grains bouncing up the slope and then dropping down the back of the crest and nestling in. So you might say I have a visceral understanding of water and what happens when flowing water hit’s bends and such.

I admit I understand almost nothing of your experiment or all those words you're too lazy to narrate on that video - except, the one glaring point that slaps me in the face - you are trying to tell me there's no difference between hydraulic dynamics, and resultant output pressure of liquid flowing through a straight pipe vs. liquid being forced through a pipe with many bends. That's simply wrong.
If I'm misunderstanding you, I'd be happy to read your correction/explanation of what you are trying to explain, but please not another link to the same silly (not scientific) video.
@will34ab. You can easily carry out the above mentioned simple experiments (described clearly and in detail in the link above) even in your garage.
You say this is easy to build. Have you built one? Can you show us a video of that?

To @citizenschallengev3.

<hr />

You are talking too much. You are generating too many words thus trying to hide your ignorance and lack of knowledge and skill in the field of theoretical and applied mechanics. Whatever additional video and whatever experimental results to send to you you will declare them false because of your ignorance and your lack of understanding of the basic axioms of theoretical and applied mechanics. Do you know for example the three Newton’s laws? Can you formulate them for all of us here in this forum?

Let me try again.

Have you ever created a working model?

@will34ab. Do you know for example the three Newton’s laws? Can you formulate them for all of us here in this forum?
What's that got to do with veracity of what you are claiming?

 

Every object moves in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.

The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force exerted and inversely proportional to the object’s mass.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 


Okay, your turn: What do you know about fluid dynamics?
 

To @citizenschallengev3


Thank you for your reply.
Good, very good! Perfect!
So let us proceed further by using a step-by-step question/answer method.

Please have a look again at our first post video.

  1. Question 1. Do you accept the validity of the simple experimental fact that the zigzags generate mechanical resistance, (a) which is absolutely identical and equivalent to friction and (b) which does not generate heat? Yes or no? (Your answer must consist of one word only – either “yes” or “no”.)
  2. Question 2. Do you accept the validity of the simple fact that (a) the system of equations (1) and (2) and (b) the system of equations (1) and (3) cannot be true simultaneously? Yes or no? (Your answer must consist of one word only – either “yes” or “no”.)

Note. Please always keep in mind that the masses of the blue rods and the masses of the blue balls are negligible (if compared to Ma), but not equal to zero. (Let me remind only that each couple blue rod-blue ball forms one united whole as shown in the video.)

Looking forward to your two answers. (Only one word – either “yes” or “no”.)

Nope, not until you answer my simple question.

Have you ever created a working model? (Only one word — either “yes” or “no”.)

Here are our last REAL experimental results.

  1. Please look again at the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&t=330s
  2. From 3:45 to 3:48 we have Ma = 1 kg, Mb = 4 kg and V1 = 0.1 m/s. (Please consider only the “upper” zigzag device.)
  3. From 3:59 to 4:01 we have Ma = 1 kg, Mb = 4 kg, V2 = 0.06 m/s and V3 = 0.01 m/s. (Please consider only the “upper” zigzag device.)
  4. (1 kg) x (0.1 m/s) = ((1kg) x (0.06 m/s)) + ((4kg) x (0.01 m/s)). The last equality unambiguously shows the validity of the law of conservation of linear momentum in this particular case.
  5. (0.5) x (1 kg) x (0.1 m/s) x (0.1 m/s) > ((0.5) x (1 kg) x (0.06 m/s) x (0.06 m/s)) + ((0.5) x (4 kg) x (0.01 m/s) x (0.01 m/s)). The last inequality unambiguously shows the invalidity of the law of conservation of mechanical energy in this particular case.
  6. How to reduce friction inside the zigzag channels? The answer is simple – by using permanent magnet slides. (There are literally hundreds of permanent magnet slide designs in YouTube and in Google.) Please look at the links below for example:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQH2UhHss6c
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXQqfIb-NXc
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4VGJCZUYE
  7. The permanent magnet slide design:
    a) reduces friction (and the related generated heat) practically to zero;
    b) reduces the experimental error (due to friction and to the related generated heat) practically to zero.
  8. And if the above mentioned experimental error is practically equal to zero, then this experimental error can be neglected (as it is much smaller than 1 %).
  9. Alternatively you can use electrostatic levitation, rolling friction instead of sliding friction, etc. Besides modern tribology (this is the science, which focuses on sliding/friction phenomena) suggests a great variety of high-tech materials and/or lubricants’ which are also able to reduce sliding friction (and the related generated heat) practically to zero.
  10. In one word, you can carry out easily the above mentioned experiments in your garage or in any standard school laboratory (or by using any other simple DIY (DoItYourself) methods).

Looking forward to your comments.

Have you ever created a working model? (Only one word — either “yes” or “no”.)
Alrightie then,

I take it the answer is: NO


I must be totally misunderstanding you. For instance, now I can’t figure out how we got from pushing stuff through tubes to magnetic levitation?

How do we get from “permanent magnet slide design” to “perpetual motion”?

And if you’re going to use magnets to reduce friction, (such as, in an atom smasher?), how are you going to power the magnets? Weren’t you implying perpetual motion???

Not to mention I don’t see magnets indicated in your experiment model diagrams.

 

Just for the fun of discussion, one more time: Have you ever created a working model?

I had a really good post (at least I thought) about the experiments, then the site crashed before I hit submit.

It started off with Part 1 and Gravity as a Force so your stuff would accelerate and not be at a constant velocity

Then something about Newton and what force diverts the balls into zigzags

Then ended something like I didn’t buy a seat on SpaceX to the ISS, or have an anti-gravity mat in my garage so I can’t do that last part.

 

Ahhh… such is technology …

In the OP illustration the picture show an external water connection. When you introduce an external force, you do not have perpetual motion? It’s just a method of converting energy into motion.

Where does the self-generating mechanism come into the picture?.

I think you guys are getting punked! Possibly by an automated responder or something given that the responses barely make sense. If the OP was at all serious he wouldn’t be posting this in this forum. There are plenty of amateur and professional physics forums available.

Sometimes I think I’m Truman. Because so many people respond to me in a ways that don’t make sense.

But I thought an anti-gravity mat would be really cool. I sure could have used it when I moved my son out of the house yesterday.

 

Sometimes I think I’m Truman. Because so many people respond to me in a ways that don’t make sense.
That would be akin to living in a Trump TV Reality World. Truth is what you say it is!