Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #890464

Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 1:36:32 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:49:50 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
>
>> On 12/8/24 21:50, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:03:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/6/24 19:12, Bertietaylor wrote:
>>>>> Lousy research skills by Einsteinians on display!
>>>>
>>>> For some reason, you edited out everything I said, so it is not on
>>>> display.  Maybe you don't really want it to be on display, hmm?
>>>
>>> It is not necessary to repost what has already been posted. Anyone can
>>> follow a thread to see what was written earlier.
>>
>> It's easier for readers to judge the quality of your response if your
>> response and what it is a response to are both on-screen at the same
>> time.
>
> Since the only reader worthy of notice is just you in these ggexit days
> that is not much of an issue. We did not think you had written anything
> for specific attention.
>>
>>>>> True that Arindam's 2013 conference paper was rejected by Europeans but
>>>>> was accepted by the Chinese, Koreans and the Japanese reviewers. In 2016
>>>>> Arindam did realise the experiment he had described in the 2013 paper.
>>>>> However the faculty at RMIT stabbed him in the back. They denied that
>>>>> Arindam had made a working model of a new design rail gun, and failed
>>>>> Arindam at his final PhD viva. Arindam then continued entirely on his
>>>>> own and in 2017 posted online a full set of YouTube videos with complete
>>>>> details. In later years he made more powerful guns and developed the new
>>>>> theory, got more powerful capacitors to show inertia violation very
>>>>> clearly. This proving his new physics started back in 1998.
>>
>> So did he get to present his paper at the conference?
>
> Yes.
>
>  Did his paper
>> ever get published in a journal?
>
> It was published online and we have given the link in this thread.
>
>  >>
>>Did he ever get his PhD?
>
> No.
>
>  You say he
>> was stabbed in the back.  I say he was treated like a flat-Earther
>> trying to get a PhD in geology, and that treatment was probably
>> appropriate.
>
>
> Actually he is the Galileo of our time getting persecuted by the church
> that believed most strongly strongly that the Earth is still; the Sun
> and the stars go around the Earth in moving crystal spheres - where the
> stars are not suns but holes in the spheres that let in the light from
> Heaven.
>
> His inertia violation experiment with his new design rail gun makes all
> the physicists look like flat earthers.
>
> Woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
> Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/100000534193755/videos/350814810783223
>>
>> The two-second video you posted a link to shows a railgun with flexible
>> rails.  At one point the rocking of the tower of batteries flexes the
>> rails so they lose contact with one of the rollers used to support the
>> rails.  The projectile is a cylindrical roller that hits stops at the
>> end of the rails, and knocks some kind of bumper over the stops and onto
>> the floor.  The railgun first moves rightward while the projectile is
>> being propelled leftward.  After the projectile hits the stops at the
>> end of the rails, the railgun moves leftward, colliding with the
>> dislodged bumper, which could affect the end result.
>>
>> If the tower of batteries is half-way between two of the rollers that
>> support the rails, and something moves the tower closer to one of those
>> rollers than the other, on flexible rails there is a restoring force
>> that tends to move the tower back to half-way between the rollers.
>>
>> If I wanted to test conservation of momentum with this kind of
>> apparatus, I would use rigid rails.  I would not build a shaky tower
>> of 12 upright batteries, 3 layers high, narrow at the bottom and wide
>> at the top.  They can be laid on their sides, 6 per rail, so that the
>> height of the pile is much lower, and widest at the bottom.
>>
>> I would not accept the outcome of an experiment in which a piece of
>> the apparatus falls off.
>>
>> The apparatus in the video doesn't look like it was designed to
>> detect a breakage of the conservation of momentum.  It looks
>> like the product of prolonged tinkering, making the apparatus
>> more and more complicated until, finally, it produced a result
>> that could be interpreted as a breakage of conservation of
>> by somebody who doesn't think about it deeply enough.
>>
>>>> I was responding to the claim that rail guns don't recoil.
>>>
>>> That is not entirely correct. The claim is that the electromagnetic
>>> force accelerating the armature - under certain conditions - does NOT
>>> have an equal and opposite reaction.
>>
>> Your direct quote from the 2013 paper described a lack of recoil.
>> I interpreted that as no recoil, and I expect that most native
>> English speakers would interpret it that way.

It was understood among the persons in the field that recoil in the rail
gun context meant the quality of reaction to the accelerating
electromagnetic force called the Lorenz force in the literature.
Practical rail guns use certain non em means to place the projectile on
the rails, hence one may find videos of military railguns showing some
recoil. Given the very high momentum of the projectile it was expected
that the recoil should be larger. So that subjective feeling led Lt
Schroeder of the US Navy in 2007 to conduct detailed experiments to see
what reaction there was on the rails. He found very little reaction so
the conclusion was that if there was recoil it had to be taken up by the
heavy batteries on the ground.
>>
>> If you want to test conservation of momentum with this railgun
>> apparatus, use rigid rails, a compact arrangement of the batteries,
>> and a firmly attached bumper.

Already done. The rails are rigid. The capacitors are mounted on the
gun, and moving with it. Not kept on the ground. The bumper is okay,
served its purpose to catch the backwards motion and push the whole
thing forward till it fell off and stopped the gun from moving another
few millimetres.

Of course there will be no end to improving this experiment. Arindam
would like to make the projectile slide rather than roll. Much less
recoil then from rolling friction. Then he would like to make it cyclic
like a two stroke motor.

Well that would be nice but beyond Arindam's scope at present.

Would be good if Trump had the balls to ask his minions to repeat this
experiment, confirm the online published results and declare Arindam as
the worthy successor of Sir Isaac Newton.

Then work could progress really well.

Take video starting from the
>> moment power is applied to the rails and ending when the projectile
>> comes into contact with the bumper.

Done that. Frame by frame the positions of the armature, gun and then
after collision the armature-gun assembly have been measured by a scale
on the ground using position of armature and pointer on gun. The
necessary graphs for momentum have been plotted and published. There is
net momentum after the collision and the data value has been found.




 If the distance the projectile
>> has moved multiplied by the projectile's mass is very different
>> from the distance the railgun has moved multiplied by the mass of
>> the railgun, then momentum was not conserved.



Gibberish. Momentum is not conserved when a body acquired a speed from
rest without external force. This is just what is shown in the video.

In every railgun- motor experiment Arindam has done the centre of mass
has shifted although the gun moved back. In this case the gun kept
moving forward and the centre of mass moved forward by quite a lot even
with the blocking.
>>
>> Conservation of momentum is very simple.  You don't need an elaborate
>> and flimsy apparatus that wobbles and rocks to test it.
>>
>>   Now mechanical force is needed to
>>> launch the projectile upon the rails. That force has a reaction of
>>> course. The recoil seen on videos is the reaction from the mechanical
>>> component.
>>
>> I saw no mechanical device pushing the projectile to start
>> it moving.  I saw a motion blur of a hand dipping down to
>> do something and then moving up again quickly.

It was Arindam's hand lifting a spring latch that pushed the heavy
projectile onto the rails with some velocity that kept it rolling and so
not getting stuck to the rails with the high current.



  If I can't
>> see clearly what is happening, I have no reason to believe
>> that what is happening is what you say is happening.


You have correctly said from what you saw that the projectile
accelerated down the rails, the gun went backwards and then after the
collision at the muzzle end the backwards motion was arrested and the
whole thing kept going forward till it was stopped by the projectile
jumping off and blocking the gun.

Very good.
>>
>> Use a higher frame rate.  Nowadays bits are cheap.

The frame rate was adequate to provide the net momentum value, which was
what the experiment was partly about. More obviously it is a working
model of a new design rail gun of very high power and efficiency.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2024-12-06 14:35 -0500
  Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-06 14:07 -0800
    Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-12-07 05:00 +0000
      Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-07 07:54 -0800
  Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-07 00:12 +0000
    Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-06 17:05 -0800
    Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2024-12-08 14:03 -0500
      Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-09 02:50 +0000
        Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-08 19:43 -0800
          Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-12-09 09:16 +0000
            Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-09 06:58 -0800
              Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-10 05:12 +0000
                Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-10 06:30 -0800
        Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2024-12-11 18:49 -0500
          Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-12 01:36 +0000
            Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-12 11:14 +0000
            Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-12 12:18 +0000
      Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-12-09 15:59 +0000
    Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-12-09 10:28 +0000
      Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-09 07:03 -0800
        Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-10 05:03 +0000
          Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-10 06:34 -0800
            Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-11 05:36 +0000
              Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-11 07:51 -0800
  Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-07 03:05 +0000
    Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-06 20:27 -0800
      Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-07 08:40 +0000
        Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-07 07:55 -0800
  Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-12-07 05:04 +0000
    Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-07 07:57 -0800
      Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-07 17:23 +0000
        Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-12-07 09:33 -0800
  Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-09 05:22 +0000
  Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-12-14 10:19 +0000
    Re: Arindam Banerjee's peer-reviewed 2013 paper bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-18 06:53 +0000

csiph-web