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

[rlortie]

"Empirical"

A. Based on observation or experiment.
B. Guided by practical experience and not theory

True, it does not require my personal belief, only if observation gained through practical experience and not theory can prove otherwise.

So the pursuit moves forward, gaining the empirical experience, leading to objective observation.

Personal belief may be what you are taught or coursed to believe through a body of prescribed studies constituting a curriculum. Something I believe requires restitution vindicating Johan Bessler.

What I seek is found in nature, and once found, others will say; "Now I understand"

Ralph

[ovyyus]

No, it's a matter of perspective.

Really? How does your personal perspective effect empirical evidence?

...only if observation gained through practical experience, and not theory, can prove otherwise.

But you can't seem to prove otherwise now. Not that there's anything especially wrong with believing that, given enough time, you might in the future.

[primemignonite]

(This discussion has taken a definite upward turn! I cannot express how pleased I am.)

Bill, you advised in-part as follows: "The permanently overbalanced wheel IS the long sought perpetual motion machine. Speaking from experience (both personal and observational) those who pursue PM have at least a couple of things in common: a) they have persistently creative mind and hand. b) they do not accept and/or understand the physics of gravity/inertia. Both seem required (with few exceptions) for the PM enthusiast to remain enthusiastic."

As relating to the part where I've emphasized and speaking from personal experience, I can say that I have learned (and am still) more about physics than I ever thought I would or could.

Although, admittedly, it is only learning of the amateur, still it is real and useful. I've brushed-up on my algebra and am looking forward to getting more of the extended like under my belt. (Although I remain cross with him for that naughty article he did, The Professor's site has very many good lessons there for the learning.)

Even if no P-M ever issues-forth from my hands and creativity, still, much will have been gained by myself personally. I presume this same applies also, to other searchers here as well?

James

[rlortie]

Bill,

But you can't seem to prove otherwise now

True, no more than the bashers that claim it is impossible, relying only the basic knowledge that it has yet to be discovered.

i do not consider the term "impossible" as an objective empirical statement. Just because it has been tried and not found does not imply or prove that it is not there. The double edged sword strikes again.

Right or wrong, I shall continue my present build, modifying and improving upon it daily.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

Ralph, you proved that a) is true.

James, I presume so too.

Good on you James and good on you Ralph. For entirely different reasons, of course.

[Ed]

No, it's a matter of perspective.

Really? How does your personal perspective effect empirical evidence?

Because my empirical evidence indicates otherwise. I would have thought that was ovyyus.


Empirical evidence indicates that alcohol combustion is not an energy source (beyond its capacity to store energy first put into it).

[ovyyus]

Because my empirical evidence indicates otherwise. I would have thought that was ovyyus.

Ovyyus to you perhaps. When two people measure the same quantity differently then there is a mystery worth pursuing. Having a common measurement language is a good start before trying to figure out which one is wrong or why both might be right.

Next time you buy a double of scotch (or whatever your favorite alcohol) and you get a single, I wonder how you might react when the bar tender claims that quantity is a matter of his personal perspective :D

I guess reputations and associations are ever changing quantities measured by personal perspective and meaning.

[jim_mich]

My fifth of vodka is no longer a fifth of a gallon, it's now 750 ML, which is 0.19813 gallon.

[ovyyus]

Jim, your personal perspective is exactly .00187 gallon :D

[Ed]

Bill, I forgot you were the keystone cop for this lot.

When I said it was ovyyus, I thought the bazinga was implied.

In any case, it's square root of 2 over 2 gallons. :-)

[Grimer]

Oops! doubled post.

[ovyyus]

Ed, you forgot what? So much for discussion :D

[Grimer]

Yes - sailplane distance records have been set along the Appalachian mountains for decades.

But this is simple Pelton wheel dynamics. Air molecules flowing up the ridge exactly balance the descent rate of the glider. Nice steady state process. This is simple ridge lift used by soaring birds since the dawn of time. Nothing new here whatsoever.

But dynamic soaring is an impact/implulse phenomena (hmm, where have we seen that before?). Here we have the aircraft receiving a massive impact upward each time around from slower moving air molecules that continues to accelerate the aircraft far beyond the wind speed. This is not possible with simple Pelton wheel dynamics.

This is a true Maxwell's demon operating. This is how we power our wheel.

...

It would be helpful if you could give some links on this subject. Perhaps one describing flight over the oceon where there are no significant updrafts compared with those that take place in mountainous regions.

DYOR, Grimer, you lazy dog.

Fair enough.

Well I have and come up with the following link.

http://douglasturner.tripod.com/id27.htm

"So what is dynamic soaring (DS)? DS differs from conventional soaring in that it doesn't use rising air to sustain flight. Energy is extracted from the air by flying in and out of airmasses moving at different speeds. DS is not new by any means as the Royal Albatross uses dynamic soaring as it flies over the ocean. It is done using the different wind speeds that occur as a result of the wind gradient that occurs over the ocean. See http://www.wfu.edu/albatross/atwork/dynamic_soaring.htm for a nice detailed example."


Case closed?

[cloud camper]

So we see with Dynamic soaring we have eliminated the reference to ground. Our gain in speed is not related to the distance to ground but the fixed potential between air masses in shear.

This is a binary system. If it was not a binary system, our aircraft would only have the reference to ground to work with and would steadily descend.
Or possibly use simple Pelton wheel dynamics to maintain altitude in steady state ridge lift but not gain the amazing speed as in our binary system.

We only "use" gravity in this system to get from one energy state to the other. This is the same dynamics at work in the child's swing set. Gravity is only borrowed then returned and is employed strictly as a vehicle or catalyst to facilitate the mechanism.

The trick we want to use with the wheel then is to maintain this binary system so our wheel never uses actual ground as it's working reference.

By creating and maintaining this "pseudo" ground, we can maintain rotation as the mechanism seeks
this ground but never finds it. This is an "engineered" ground that behaves the way we want
and does not operate like actual ground which demands forfeiture of vertical PE before it will cooperate.

Our swing set operates in the same manner as we only use gravity to get from the lower energy state to the higher and return. No actual work is input yet
the swinger goes higher and higher. As soon as the swinger stops switching or commutating mass from the lower energy state to the higher, we lose our "engineered" lower reference potential and actual ground takes over bringing our swinger quickly to a halt.

[eccentrically1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVN-oF6tPLc

Remember Furcurequs' link?