Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-Set!!!

[cloud camper]

Yes Frank, exactly! I haven't even studied your post yet but I think we're on the same track!

Vertical PE is always going to offset so no potential gain there but a differential in rotational PE can be engineered by an abrupt transfer (commutation) of vertical PE from one system of higher rotational PE (descent) to a separate system of lower rotational PE (lift) and then back again. We could call this a binary system - thanks Alex!

In this way we only "borrow" against gravity then must pay back in full to restore vertical PE but the inertia created by the differential in rotational PE has been trapped, driving the wheel forward. This differential can be considerable.

This differential in rotational PE cannot be engineered into a single inertial system as all operating stresses are self contained in the single system and seek equalization. Thousands of cart before the horse designs have proven this convincingly!

Emmy's law is not violated in our binary system since the abrupt transfer of vertical PE occurs at the boundaries of two closed systems that are mechanically interfaced together thru active commutation. These closed systems are then open at the boundaries.

This is the source of all the clattering in the BW and the jackhammer din in the Keenie. This prompted JB to respond to Wagner that “The clattering noise is a phenomenon caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else." This after Wagner accused JB of installing diversionary noisemakers in the wheel.

I believe this is the same mechanism that occurs in the child's swing. In this case the child performs the active commutation occurring at each swing boundary, alternately raising then lowering the vertical CoM, instantly transferring vertical PE at the boundaries between two closed systems.

This is what my WM2D studies are showing anyway.

Back to studying your post!

[Grimer]

@ cc

I think there are many different ways of tackling the problem - just as there were many ways of harnessing the power of steam.

The first thing needed is the realisation and the logical proof that it is possible. I now have that. This gives one the confidence to overcome the inevitable hurdles which will be encountered in developing the experimental proof. Once one has the experimental proof further development can be handed over to the engineers.

[daxwc]

Sometimes a neighbor whom we have disliked a lifetime for his arrogance and conceit lets fall a single commonplace remark that shows us another side, another man, really; a man uncertain, and puzzled, and in the dark like ourselves.
-Willa Cather

[cloud camper]

What is this nerfball referring to anyway? Have you ever been exposed to a scientific hypothesis?

Dax if you cannot come up with any cogent arguments based on even vague physical principles, I would suggest you stick to your standard skill set, which appears to be nothing more than googling useless historical trivia off the world wide web.

[justsomeone]

Careful Cloudcamper, Daxwc is one of my favorite posters!!!

[daxwc]

Lol, knew that would get someone lathered up, but it is a jab at Grimer.

What is this nerfball referring to anyway?

Heh, I like nerfball; ever notice it is real solid object.
I am referring to Grimer’s flavour of the week; every week a different concept that for sure he has got it; perpetual BS. Now that he has figured this out we will just leave it to the engineers…. Blah, blah, blah

Have you ever been exposed to a scientific hypothesis?

I am not against the hypothesis given; I am on the record for years that Bessler wheel might have been powered by the earth.

Dax if you cannot come up with any arguments based on even vague physical principles,

Vague physical principles are not my strong point as real life physics and builds get in my way. If you wish to really talk about something then discuss how to detatch a mass from earth's frame of reference, all the rest has already been covered by prior art BS.

I would suggest you
stick to your standard skill set, which appears to be nothing more than googling useless historical trivia off
the world wide web.

Noted; next time I will give you book references. Just thought I would make it easier for all interested and those too pompous, delusional and unattached to reality, that maybe don’t have the attention span to read a book ;)))

(you never know who will have their head too high in the clouds) 8P

[Grimer]

I am not against the hypothesis given; I am on the record for years that Bessler wheel might have been powered by the earth.

The hypothesis is not about a wheel powered by the earth.

The hypothesis is about a wheel powered by gravity.

The earth merely acts as a sink to enable half the angular momentum to be removed and leave gravity acting asymmetrically on the wheel.

[daxwc]

Grimer:

By virtue of the free wheel the outer wheel is disconnected from the earth which leaves the earth with some of the negative angular momentum.
Sounds the same to me.

No, the apple wasn’t sitting on the orange. The orange was in fact under the apple.

Even if you are not talking about stealing the earths rotational energy, then your argument comes down to the one every “out of balance� wheel inventor has had, that being an exchange of vertical PE for horizontal movement. Why all the fluff and hype you still need to get rid of the earth’s frame of reference? Talk about the elephant in the room or you going to leave that to the engineers’ too?





Cloudcamper:

In this way we only "borrow" against gravity then must pay back in full to restore vertical PE but the inertia created by the differential in rotational PE has been trapped, driving the wheel forward. This differential can be considerable.

How?

Vertical PE is always going to offset so no potential gain there but a differential in rotational PE can be engineered by an abrupt transfer (commutation) of vertical PE from one system of higher rotational PE (descent) to a separate system of lower rotational PE (lift) and then back again

.
You don’t think the rotational needs energy to sustain itself too? Transferring, sound and inertia never take energy out of the system?



Grimer:

The earth merely acts as a sink to enable half the angular momentum to be removed and leave gravity acting asymmetrically on the wheel.

So your telling us, you are going to take one vertical PE of gravity of a mass, split it in half and use it then take that half and get one unit back. There is not going to be any counter torque, which will leave the wheel and system in balance? Spinning a mass does not make it lighter. Can half a cycle of a pendulum?

The earth merely acts as a sink to enable half the angular momentum to be removed and leave gravity acting asymmetrically on the wheel.

Counter torque, counter torque and more counter torque

[cloud camper]

This is good Frank as I can't buy a static imbalance resisted by the earth causing a continuous dynamic response without some sort of continuous relative displacement.

No relative displacement=no work produced

This is not any sort of a recognized physics principle that I am aware of.

This was one of DannO's ideas I tried that would in theory cause a continuous imbalance in the wheel by hanging a static center weight that then pulled all the wheel weights off center. Cool idea but it doesn't work.

A static imbalance creates a one time static response, a dynamic imbalance creates a continuous dynamic response.

Still analyzing your post!

[Grimer]

A static imbalance creates a one time static response, a dynamic imbalance creates a continuous dynamic response.

Exactly so.

The trouble is, one is up against the same problems of scale and imagination that Leeuwenhoek faced when he tried to persuade people that pond water was not inert, static, but filled with tiny creatures.

"Despite the initial success of Van Leeuwenhoek's relationship with the Royal Society, this relationship was soon severely strained. In 1676, his credibility was questioned when he sent the Royal Society a copy of his first observations of microscopic single-celled organisms. Previously, the existence of single-celled organisms was entirely unknown. Thus, even with his established reputation with the Royal Society as a reliable observer, his observations of microscopic life were initially met with skepticism."

[cloud camper]

OK Frank, I've been through your ratchet wheel scenario several times except I'm still not seeing exactly how the reset occurs.

The 3:00 weight on the outer wheel transfers to the inner wheel accelerating the inner wheel CW. But the ratchet prevents the outer wheel from accelerating CCW, creating a static balance at the ratchet. The outer wheel pushes up against the ratchet, the ratchet pushes back against the wheel, and the outer wheel remains static but loaded as it is trying to rotate against the ratchet.

Then after the inner wheel accelerates for a distance, the original 3:00 weight is transferred abruptly at speed to the outer wheel, transferring all momentum of the weight back to the outer wheel, jerking the outer wheel off the ratchet so it is temporarily unrestrained. But the 3:00 weight has not returned to the empty 3:00 position, it is now down around 5:00-6:00 I would guess.

The outer wheel is no longer evenly balanced as the original 3:00 weight has not returned to the original position and has lost vertical PE. We have now bottom loaded the outer wheel so it tends to keel to the lowest PE position.

Actually it would overshoot the keeling position then get stopped by the ratchet at the point of maximum overshoot. So how does it return to the start position with a balanced outer wheel?

If that original 3:00 weight ended up anywhere past 9:00 then we would have an obvious gain of course.

[cloud camper]

OK Dax I started writing a response to your questions but then I realized I would be giving tacit approval to your abrasive and boorish behavior on the forum.

I have never observed any actual interest in deciphering the wheel, only in playing infantile "gotcha" games with others who do have this interest. Frank may feel he has the answers, so what? So do 99% of the forum members. You continually display your ignorance by attacking these individuals.

The typical question asked by anyone uneducated in the history of modern physics is of course is the "Where does the energy come from" mantra.

The real question you should be asking is does the ether contain energy or does it not? This is the raging debate that has gone on for centuries. Currently ether theory is out of fashion due to the Michelson-Morley experiments but is coming back.

It was no problem for Tesla, who actually conceived and constructed working devices as opposed to Einstein, who never built anything.

This article explains the conflict: http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles ... ew-physics

In the future, please limit your postings to the popular trivial pursuit threads where you have established some minor credibility and stay out of actual physics discussions. You look better that way!

[daxwc]

I have never observed any actual interest in deciphering the wheel, only in playing infantile "gotcha" games with others who do have this interest. Frank may feel he has the answers, so what? So do 99% of the forum members. You continually display your ignorance by attacking these individuals.

Actually Grimer is the only one I have a running feud with. I should probably give up and forgive him as it would seem like he holds no animosity towards me, but he does what he does on purpose. I am not the only one who has asked him to stop.

The typical question asked by anyone uneducated in the history of modern physics is of course is the "Where does the energy come from" mantra.

Yes, only “us� uneducated have this mantra. The truth is you should be able to tell anyone who asks, no use living in a fantasy. I was not attacking anybody when I asked where the rotational energy comes from and what sustains it.

The real question you should be asking is does the ether contain energy or does it not?

Really?

In the future, please limit your postings to the popular trivial pursuit threads where you have established some minor credibility

Thanks I was worried I had no credibility 8P

and stay out of actual physics discussions.

That was physics? Philosophy maybe.

You look better that way!

I always look good there Cloud ;)

[Grimer]

...
The 3:00 weight on the outer wheel transfers to the inner wheel accelerating the inner wheel CW. But the ratchet prevents the outer wheel from accelerating CCW, creating a static balance at the ratchet. The outer wheel pushes up against the ratchet, the ratchet pushes back against the wheel, and the outer wheel remains static but loaded as it is trying to rotate against the ratchet.
...

I think I can see your problem and I hope I can resolve it to your satisfaction.

1. With the ratchet in place and all the weights on the outer wheel the 9 o'ck weight is not exerting any rotational force at the axle. It is just resting in its slot on the outer wheel.

2. When the 3 o'ck weight is transferred to the to the inner wheel it immediately moves down CW. At the point of transfer the 9 o'ck weight starts to move down CCW dragging the rest of the weight with it. If the ratchet wasn't there this movement would be obvious. It would also be obvious that the 9 o'ck weight wasn't moving down as fast as the 3 o'ck weight but only at a fifth of the rate. The 9 o'ck weight is like a horse pulling a cart with the bodies of four dead horses on it. It's not going to move as fast as a horse free of any harness. Try it out for yourself if you don't believe me.

So there is a dynamic angular momentum balance between the 9 o'ck weight and the 3 o'ck weight. They are both moving down, one CW, the other CCW.

3. Suppose we now have weights, not at all the odd hours but at all the even seconds. Moving the weight at 3.00.00 o'ck into the inner wheel means that that weight will move down at the same rate as the 3 o'ck weight in the original case. Agreed?

But the 9.00.00 o'ck weight is now going to move down much, much slower than it did before because the cart it is pulling now has seventeen hundred and ninety eight dead horses on it. In fact it will be moving down so slowly that you might make the mistake of thinking it isn't moving at all. You might make the mistake of thinking it was in static equilibrium with the outer wheel.

4. Now when the 9 o'clock weight is rigidly connected to the tower by its one way clutch it is moving uncountable billions of horses on the earth cart. But it is moving them, albeit very, very, very slowly. And it is in dynamic equilibrium with the 3 o'ck weight.

If we sat the tower on an artificial earth, a large log floating in the water, say, you would soon accept that gravity acting on a weight on a long arm sticking out from a central mast would rotate the "earth". It is because our earth is so big that cognitive dissonance kicks in and smothers our ability to think straight. Our emotions overcome our reason.

I'll stop there because there's no point in going further until this stumbling block is removed.

[cloud camper]

Actually Grimer is the only one I have a running feud with. I should probably give up and forgive him as it would seem like he holds no animosity towards me, but he does what he does on purpose. I am not the only one who has asked him to stop.

I think that's a great idea Dax. Frank has no animosity towards you because his religion trains him to not react that way. Isn't that admirable?
Frank's a great guy really. Please forgive him his small foibles. Don't you have any?

As for me, I am a filthy Jew and have been trained to pluck an eye out for each eye extracted (plus a little extra). So we can play a game if you like. For each time you slam Frank, I slam you harder. Isn't that a nice game? I think so.