jim_mich, first of all I'd like to apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I certainly hope the delay didn't give you the impression that I was through with you.
Anyway, I had finally written most of the following post previously but I was sort of holding off for the holidays, but from seeing other posts in this forum you seem now to be ready to rumble, so let's go...
jim_mich wrote:Mr. Furcurequs wrote:Based upon what I've seen of jim_mich's calculations, though, and what I've seen him mention about radius of gyration, it is my own suspicion that he has simply somehow misused the formulas and gotten excited about bogus results while also somehow tying it in with his CF notions.
You continually
assume things incorrectly. In the past I've only brought up the subject of radius of gyration because so often I've seen people make wrong calculations concerning wheel momentum. Many times they
assume that all of the weight is at the edge of a wheel.
You will note that at the end of the aforementioned calculation I wrote: "Hopefully I've made no mistakes. I make no guarantee. I've checked and double checked and believe this is the correct answer." This was one of the few times I attempted to do a calculation in metric. I normally do all my calculation using English variables. I have a natural 'feel' for them. When working with metric values, they are just numbers in the calculator. But I know instinctively the length of a foot or inch, the volume of a US gallon, the weight of a pint of water, the height of a 6 foot wheel, etc. If I'm doing calculations and I screw something up, I quickly recognize it when working with English values.
But metric values are foreign to me. If I screw up and by mistake divide a number instead of multiplying, then the results are just numbers, and I might not catch the mistake. Which is why I wrote the disclaimer at the end of that posting: "Hopefully I've made no mistakes. I make no guarantee. I've checked and double checked and believe this is the correct answer." The calculations results might not be correct. But the method is correct. I was simply trying to be helpful. I'm done trying to be helpful. I'll never try helping anyone with anything ever again. Screw you guys.
The bottom line is that there is such a thing as Radius of Gyration. To refer to radius of gyration as being "so called" and thus insinuate that it is something I just made up, shows a lack of knowledge. Radius of gyration has been around long before I was born. And I was born a long time ago.
Radius of gyration is simply a mathematical tool to help calculate the rotation or swinging of wheels and pendulums. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you don't know the actual radius of gyration then the results of any calculation concerning swinging or rotating will be only approximate, because you are left with
assuming the radius at which the mass is located rather than knowing it.
jim_mich,
As I've said already, if you don't share any substantial information and yet continue to make vague assertions, you have to learn to just deal with whatever assumptions people will make in regards to your alleged "motion machine" or whatever. ...and after the garbage physics and math I've seen from you where you can't seem to understand and calculate things I might have been able to do over 30 years ago as but a child, I'm afraid I have to just assume the worst about your claims - whether the specific equations you might have used were radius of gyration calculations or not.
If your hopes and beliefs and checks and double checks don't yield a correct answer nor garner any sort of guarantee from you when we can actually see your math, should you really expect then that we would just believe you on things where we can't see nor check your math? ...especially when it comes to something so extraordinary as a claim to a working device design for something that those in mainstream science believe is essentially impossible and others have attempted to invent and have apparently failed to invent for hundreds if not thousands of years (unless Bessler or someone else did actually succeed and just never shared the design, of course).
Now, your last two paragraphs there seem as if you didn't even read my more recent posts. I quite obviously (at least to some of those here other than you) know what a radius of gyration calculation is. I even worked one myself IN one of those posts. I also basically gave the definition of the radius of gyration in the very post from which you pulled the above quote and in which I also posted a link to a youtube video where someone else explains what the radius of gyration is, too.
When I spoke of "his so-called radius of gyration calculations" in reference to your own math, I certainly already new what a radius of gyration calculation was and I had certainly already seen the mistaken math of yours and had even truly intended to talk about it. So, I wasn't doing any backpedaling at all. I was more like struggling to catch up to you in your eagerness to get that conversation going - for I was already aware my words would get your attention.
Since then, though, you either didn't read, didn't understand or you just chose to ignore what I explained about my initial choice of words, so let me try to be a bit more explicit while re-iterating what I said using one of your own words.
What I originally meant to "insinuate" was not that you were speaking of a type of calculation that didn't exist but rather that your own misapplication of the equations and mistaken math probably didn't deserve the moniker. I hope that is more clear to you now.
You have yet to show, by the way, that the method you were attempting to use in the problem I pointed out to you will actually deliver a correct answer. I honestly and sincerely do not believe that that is the case, even if you were to correct whatever issues you had there with your units.
Yes, I had already seen that you might have had some sort of problem with your units TOO. After recently looking over your math more closely, I can see that you apparently divided a number that you had as a distance by 10 and then gave it the unit of grams and later calculated its weight.
Anyway, one of the first things we were taught in engineering school was to make sure we used all our units in our calculations - often then having to draw lines through and thus cancel out units left and right while leaving but a few behind. It doesn't guarantee a correct answer, of course, but if all the units are accounted for and are consistent, it can certainly help to cut down on careless mistakes. So, I'm not sure you would have gotten a free pass in an engineering class for a problem with your units even IF your attempted method was correct.
...and, of course, when one is on the job, being able to come up with the correct results is what matters - not excuses.
You say your method works. Well, I now say you need to man up and back up your words by actually showing that it works - if, of course, that is even a possibility (which I don't believe).
Seriously, jim_mich, it would most likely be to your OWN benefit to work that problem until you can actually get the correct answer - rather than to just pretend that you can calculate it - even if that means you have to eventually abandon the method you initially attempted.
Now, I don't claim to be perfect nor omniscient nor infallible. So, this could indeed be a golden opportunity for you, right?! ...a chance for you to shine! ...a chance to show others your stuff! ...and maybe even to teach a relative newbie (troll?) a lesson, huh? ...or even a chance to earn back a little bit of the credibility you've been losing lately with your mistakes, and yet more disturbingly, with your stubborn defense of them and/or refusal to acknowledge them in a mature way.
Again, seriously, jim_mich, if you were in a classroom or on a job you would be expected to back up your words with actions or you would get your ass handed to you so quickly that you wouldn't know which end was up. Why should this forum be any different?
Your attempt to weasel or "wriggle" out of any legitimate challenge to your own ignorant claims really is getting annoying to me - while you pretend you are some sort of innocent genius who is just being unfairly persecuted by annoying newbie trolls. To be honest, I'm not sure you could even make it through first year engineering with your lack of understanding and your attitude. At my alma mater they weeded out many people from the engineering program in the first few quarters - and according to some even by design - for some people just aren't cut out for such things, you know.
So, jim_mich, just show me (and others) that I am wrong! Show me that you deserve some of my respect back.
You suggested my words were lies, yet once again my words were the true ones and it is you who have failed to back up yours.
If you are correct, you have nothing to fear from me, for I certainly try to be honest with myself and with others. So, if you can just matter-of-factly show that your method does indeed work as you claim, I will matter-of-factly acknowledge it. Really. I might even say something like, "Wow, I didn't know you could work the problem that way! Thanks for showing me," even.
Of course, though, that's not going to happen, now, is it?
Do you really not have the courage to stand by your words? ...or would you rather just go on pretending you are right rather than risk failure by attempting to show that you are?
As far as I'm concerned your childish behavior in this forum makes you more of a failure than any mere mistake you might make with your physics or your math - if, of course, you were to actually man up about those things.
So, jim_mich, if you are just going to continue in the same old pattern, then you are truly a waste of my time, but sadly you are also a waste of many other people's time in this forum, also. ...including people who may not have the physics, engineering and math background that I do so as to actually see that for themselves.
Now, I don't really like having to appeal to my own educational background or past accomplishments to be taken seriously. I would rather that others would actually do their own legwork and due diligence to investigate and understand the subjects being discussed for themselves instead of just taking my or anyone else's word on such matters on faith, but I did pick up some knowledge along the way - and enough knowledge to see that it is you who would lie to and mislead others because apparently you would even lie to yourself.
So, to everyone else in this forum, if you want to let jim_mich continue to play these games and take advantage of your trust (and in some cases even ignorance and gullibility) as he attempts to get his ego stroked, then that is your choice to make.
I don't like having to deal with this, and at the age of 50 I feel my time is very precious these days. I would think that those of you who may be a bit older than I am might consider your time more precious still. ...though, of course, it is still your own time to waste in whatever ways you choose to do so.
Of course, then, some may be in it mostly for the drama, anyway, as they play into such things and maybe even egg it all on a bit.
Unfortunately, though, I've seen that you, jim_mich, don't seem to know when to stop and that you have been instrumental in getting other people banned from this forum - and thus making sure that others' ideas aren't getting shared - while you repeatedly get away with obnoxious trolling behavior yourself.
I personally find some of the ignorance that you spew here to be just downright annoying, but it is your petty, childish and hypocritical behavior that is what makes me (I believe justifiably) angry.
So, if you started this thread to actually address my questions (rather than to just continue in your campaign to have cloud camper banned - again, you are incredibly predictable), then I have to say that I find your answers to be inadequate, ignorant and self serving.
Oh, btw, did you ever plot that graph of the kinetic energy of rotating masses with the plots of their centrifugal force? You might actually learn something from that. ...or then again, knowing you, maybe not.
Take care.
Dwayne
