Ed wrote:Chris, apparently you aren't a "keen mechanician that appreciates the rationale behind it"... but then Frank isn't either, since he won't build his own idea.
Quite right, Ed. I am not a technician. I seem to remember Chris disavowed being one also.
In case anyone is wondering where Ed's quote came from, it's from a post of mine on John's website.
I would appear that I am becoming the latest candidate for Ed's stalking. :-)
Last edited by Grimer on Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Frank, yeah I'm a "stalker". If I'm "harassing" you with "unwanted attention", then why do you keep posting about your "priority claim" all over in public? And wishing you could make and spread videos, also in public?
Frank, since you aren't capable of building your idea and you need someone in the public to "appreciate the rationale" in order to adopt your idea and build you a working model, isn't it your job then to read the audience and give more details where needed? Or don't you have any more details? Maybe it's not the real solution, but just a placebo?
Could it be that we are the ones being victimized by a medicine show?
Dunesbury wrote:I'll build it for you. What are specifications?
I wouldn't presume to give an experienced builder like youself, specifications. My experimental officers would have been very annoyed with me if I had attempted to trespass on their areas of expertise. They would have told me that my job was to sit in my office analyse the results, write up the notes - and keep my nose out of the lab so as not to break anything.
If the builder can't see any obvious flaw in the design proposal then he overcomes the practical difficulties of implementation and gets virtually all the credit as a consequence, as indeed he should.
The technician, Tarsier, for example should get full credit for his two sims which demonstrated the viability of the boundary condition GPM Mark 2, Point of Principle design.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
triplock wrote:Grimer
The fresh patent application is all cool.
You scoffed when I said that you may as well remove 6 weights aside as these are surplus to requirements as they add nothing to system.
What do you suppose their addition brings to the table ?
If your proposal has merit it should work up and down the scale of weight numbers. By removing the common factors from either side of the balance beam, you are left with the essence of what you believe to be the motive power - that being energy transfer from the pendulum to the mass at rest.
There simply isn't enough energy in the tank for it to act the way you propose. Even if you have it a healthy start up spin, when one side is heavier than the other, it will perfectly counter the energy imparted by the pendulum .
Simples :)
Chris
No, I don't believe that. It's not a question of energy. It's a transfer of angular momentum.
The compound pendulum has a very slow period. The simple pendulum has a very fast period. The simple pendulum gives the compound pendulum an impetus and is back in its position balancing the beam before the compound pendulum has used up its angular momentum.
This is confirmed by Tarsier's sims.
If you destroy the compound pendulum by taking away its weights then obviously the motor won't work.
I'm pleased to hear your patent application is going well.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Firstly, I think that you are standing too close to your design to see its failings.
You need to, in the first instant, forget about compound pendulum, single pendulum, angular momentum, gravity impulse , slow and long period strokes, as these names add a credence to the concept it doesn't deserve.
Just look at the energy alone. The falling weight cannot impulse the opposing weight from a position of rest to a state of rotation beyond lifting it to just before the 10 o'clock position.
All that you have designed is a Newton cradle, and as there is no actuation, the whole thing will come to rest almost immediately .
Even if you have 7 weights aside, this makes no difference, except for the overall tonnage !!
This or a variant thereof, will make no difference.
