A flaw in the law of conservation of angular momentum

Abstract

A reductio ad absurdum catastrophe.

Full text

A flaw in the law of conservation of angular momentum.
J.H. Mandlbaur, Baur Research CC, 201 Republic Road, Randburg, South Africa!
Email: john@baur-research.com, Tel: +27(83)400-6096, Fax:+27(11)792-9494!
Abstract!
A reductio ad absurdum catastrophe.!
Introduction!
I am not a scientist. !
I am an inventor. !
An invention I was working on disagreed with my predictions so I dusted off my thirty year old,
first year university, physics text book and re-investigated my formulae.!
All of my relatively simple calculations proved valid and correct.!
The discrepancy when compared to reality is astounding.!

Thought Experiment!
I would say that most professors have, when performing the ball on a string demonstration, spun
their device at about 2 revolutions per second and then reduced the radius to about ten percent
of original. Personally, I have performed it much faster while optimising radius reduction.!
1.
[1]!
2.
!
3.
!
4.
!
5.
!
6.
!
7.
!
8.
!
9.  !
Roughly the engine speed of a formula one racing car on full throttle at 300 km/h. !
The ball would have, every time this was attempted, spun up so fast that the string would have
exceeded tensile breaking strength and the ball become a missile. !
Many students and experimenters would have been hurt. Some would likely be missing eyes.!
Imagine the professors burning their fingers from the frictional heat.!
This prediction is so vastly different from reality that it can only be described as absurd.$
ω2= ( r1
r2
)2ω1
r2=1
10 r1
r1
r2
= 10
(r1
r2
)2= 100
ω2= 100 * ω1
ω1= 2%rps%(revolutions%per%second)
ω2= 200%rps
1%rps = 60%rpm%(revolutions%per%minute)
ω2= 12000%rpm

Proof!
The current kinetic energy prediction for an orbiting object having it’s radius reduced from one
meter to one centimeter:!
10.
[2]
!
11.  !
12.  !
13.  !
14.
[3]!
15. !
16.  !
17.  !
18.  !
19.  !
One million percent!
Start with a kilojoule and end up with ten megajoules from pulling a meter on a string.!
Consider solving the energy crisis by installing a professor with a ball and a string in every village.!
Ekinetic =1
2mv2
m= 1
v1= 2
E1=1
2* 1 * 22= 1
v2=v1(r1
r2
)
r1
r2
=1
0.01 = 100
v2= 100 * 2
v22= 20000
E2=1
2* 1 * 20000 = 10000
E2
E1
=10000
1= 1000000 %

Discussion!
20.  !
If we conserve linear momentum in magnitude,!
21. [4]!
22.  !
23.  !
24. .!
If we conserve angular momentum,!
25. [5]!
26.  !
27. [6]!
28.  !
29. !
30.  !
31.  !
32.  !
33.  !
34.  !
An increase in angular velocity does not indicate that angular momentum is conserved.!
r2<r1
v=ωr
ω=v/r
v2=v1
ω2>ω1
L=r p sin θ
θ=∟
p=mv
m= 1
L=r v
L2=L1
r2v2=r1v1
r2
r1
=v1
v2
v2>v1
ω2>ω1

Conclusion!
The error is without doubt sourced from the referenced equations and the only mathematical
assumption that has been made in formulating these equations is the assumption that angular
momentum is conserved.!
The law of conservation of angular momentum is fallacy.!
References!
1. D. Halliday & R. Resnick. Fundamentals of Physics, 2nd edition, extended version (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 1981) (page 195).
2. D. Halliday & R. Resnick. Fundamentals of Physics, 2nd edition, extended version (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 1981) (page 184).
3. D. Halliday & R. Resnick. Fundamentals of Physics, 2nd edition, extended version (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 1981) (page 195).
4. D. Halliday & R. Resnick. Fundamentals of Physics, 2nd edition, extended version (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 1981) (page 174).
5. D. Halliday & R. Resnick. Fundamentals of Physics, 2nd edition, extended version (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 1981) (page 181).
6. D. Halliday & R. Resnick. Fundamentals of Physics, 2nd edition, extended version (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 1981) (page 180).