Priority Claim

[FunWithGravity2]

Kaine,

lets be honest when we say "pet theories" frank never really has any he adopts the one he feels most popular that day, He has been back at the idea of pendulums lately but that is nothing new as he was all aboard back in the middle of the "mt thoughts" thread when i originally admitted that pendulums where my only focus and that it was entirely what my wheel design is based upon.

The videos that were shown were a very begging of a series that were going to show my progression. I stopped because i was not completely satisfied with my explanation of the why and did not want to go any further until i had complete undertanding. The next few videos would have shown actions of forces that i felt were "groundbreaking", of course im probably just as deluded as the next guy.

The videos ironically are all on youtube but are blocked so that noone can see them. FWIW that is also an excellent way to establish priority. Once unlocked they will show an upload date far in the past, seems better for a worlwide audience than just saying "trust me " i knew.

As far as sucess goes you need not worry about me,i do not envision myself running around screaming about by superiority now or in the future. I am also not keeping some long sought secret that will save the world from it.

Everytime i made what i believed to be a cartesian breakthrough in design i would scour the web to see how that had been approached before and what i have seen with each element of my design that not only has the anomoly been experienced but well documented. It will not be the knowledge of the anomolies or the thought that it might be possible but the actual completion of a working wheel using the anomolies correctly that will garner any attention.And then IMHO only if it is given away freely without the want for attention will it be recieved with any acclaim.

But to each there own path.

Kaine, i had meant to step away but did not want to ignore a direct question. That will be all for me now. I did not want to be rude.


Best of luck to whoever and whatever path you chose.


Crazy Dave

[Grimer]

The following YouTube video gives a good qualitative feel for the differential in gravity processing rate between fast and slow pendulums.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PmPp9EZ3gk

A quantitative grasp of the differences of the pendulum actions shown in that video can be obtained by drawing up a table of change in gravitational potential against time.


First consider the 1 second pendulum swinging down and up 5 inches,
----------------------------------------------------------

Code: Select all

seconds            1      2      3      4      5      6     
movement         +5 -5  +5 -5  +5 -5  +5 -5  +5 -5  +5 -5 

Algebraic sum  =  0
Arithmetic sum = 60 

----------------------------------------------------------

next the 2 second pendulum,
----------------------------------------------------------

Code: Select all

seconds            1      2      3      4      5      6     
movement  .....    +5    -5     +5     -5     +5     -5

Algebraic sum  =  0
Arithmetic sum = 40 

----------------------------------------------------------

and last, the 3 second pendulum.
----------------------------------------------------------

Code: Select all

seconds            1      2      3      4      5      6   
movement              +5        -5         +5        -5 

Algebraic sum  =  0
Arithmetic sum = 20

----------------------------------------------------------

The algebraic sum may be thought of as an a.c. gravity current; the arithmetic sum as a d.c. gravity current.

It can be seen that the amount amount of "processing" of the gravitational wind increases with decreasing pendulum length (increasing path curvature).

It is this difference in the rate of processing that one is seeking to harness.

Now in GPM Mark 3 the fast pendulum (simple pendulum) was held at its apogee until the slow pendulum caught up. If one does this with the video stringless pendulums then the the table looks like this.

Fast 1 sec. pendulum
----------------------------------------------------------

Code: Select all

seconds            1      2      3      4      5      6     
movement         +5 -5 ... pause .... +5 -5 ... pause ...     

Algebraic sum  =  0
Arithmetic sum = 20

----------------------------------------------------------

Slow 3 second pendulum
----------------------------------------------------------

Code: Select all

seconds            1      2      3      4      5      6   
movement              +5        -5         +5        -5 

Algebraic sum  =  0
Arithmetic sum = 20 

----------------------------------------------------------

If one pauses the pendulum the amount of gravity processing is the same.


Dropping the simple pendulum from its apogee a second and third time, might sound like Einstein's definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

However, as the above tables illustrate, dropping without pause is not the "same thing" as dropping with pause.

Consider what will happen if one is "insane" and drops the simple pendulum a second time with pause.

The simple pendulum will start from a lower point and provide less energy to the compound pendulum. But the compound pendulum will be at a higher point and not require as much energy to reach the simple pendulum and rebalance the beam.

Constant repetition of dropping with pause will give smaller and smaller pulses, smaller and smaller angular displacements, with the beam coming to rest as the simple pendulum end reaches 6 o'clock and the compound pendulum end reaches 12 o'clock.

No free energy there then. Only Laithwaite's displacement.

[Fletcher]

Frank .. my observation is that from the video we see that the stringless pendulums follow a circle arc - from that arc can be extrapolated the pendulum shaft length - so far so good.

The speed that the ball reaches at the bottom of the dip is entirely based on the height of release - so if it falls 5 inches vertically from top of arc to bottom of arc then if we know the ball mass we can calculate the PE lost - all else being equal i.e. no frictional losses considered, then the ball will have KE equal to PE lost at bottom of arc - so far so good.

For any of the three variations of arc 'shallowness' the speed the respective ball reaches at bottom of arc is entirely dictated by the vertical height lost from release point - if all three fall 5 inches then all three balls will have lost the same PE & gained the same KE - so far so good.

What is different is that the steepness (shallowness) of the arc dictates the amount of time it takes to complete a period, & this translates directly to the pendulum with shaft comparison.

So, I'm not seeing where pausing the simple pendulum in GPM3 is giving an advantage - that's because in sim world (that I did before) the simple pendulum impacts the compound pendulum shaft & momentum is exchanged - not pausing the simple pendulum simply means that it impacts again the compound shaft but the shaft is returning to its original position - so we get a rebound effect on both components but no energy gain.

Even if you have a one-way clutch device to stop the compound pendulum reverse swing there will still be no greater momentum & energy transfer IMO - IOW's no energy gain because the same PE has been lost - at least that's the standard physics model or more correctly my understanding of it.

[Grimer]

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply, Fletcher.

I'm glad it's "so far so good" up to a point. A bit like the Curate's egg in fact. Good in parts. :-)

You are correct in recognising that a one-way-clutch is involved although not in the way you might imagine.

I will explain exactly how with diagrams, hopefully later today.

It is amazing how one can have this kind of co-operation from one side of the earth to the other.
I wish it had been possible in my younger days.

[Grimer]

One thing I should add.

Do you agree that my explanation of what would happen with the repeated impacts with pause is correct?

If you do then it would seem surprising to me it repeated impacts without out pause will give the same result.

But then with physics one is constantly being surprised.

[Grimer]

It may help if I try to outline the strategic aim of the GPM.

As pointed out at the start of this thread the GPM is based on the action of the Keenie. It is an attempt to fillet out the essential unit of Keenie action in order to show that rotary motion can be obtained from the interaction of Ersatz and Newtonian gravity.

In essence it involves a progressive widening of the dynamic frames of reference between that of repeated falling weights and the the compound pendulum / balanced wheel. This progressive widening is obtained by repeatedly reacting/pushing against the earth. The earth reaction is an essential component and is what balances the angular motion of the wheel. In this way angular momentum is conserved.

I have given an illustration of change in a rotational frame of reference that results from impact between a smaller and larger mass earlier in this thread.

I'll try to find the link.

No - I misremembered - it's not on this thread but another thread - the

Flight of the Phoenix thread.

Here is the link....
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 271#129271
....and here are the two diagrams....



[/quote]


By progessively widening the rotation of the earth and the rotation of the wheel by banging the simple pendulum back and forth between the "hard" inertial resistance of the compound pendulum and the soft "inertial" resistance of Newtonian Gravity we obtain something which is useful to us as a by-product.

It's useful because our frame of reference for rotation is the same as that of the earth and therefore we see the wheel as rotating relative to us.

If we are tied to the wheel we see the earth rotating relative to us - just as we see the sun rotating relative to us because we are tied to the earth.

My first attempt at this only achieved mass displacement because the simple pendulum clock and the compound pendulum clock were running at the same rate. This was because the simple pendulum clock had a long pause where its time had stopped. By eliminating that pause I hope to move on from mass displacement to continuous motion.

[triplock]

Grimer
I'm sorry but I cannot allow the above post to pass without comment.
It is by far the most contrived pile of garbage I have ever read.

You do have some serious competition on the pseudo-scientific front with Fletcher, Ovvyus and Daxwc's contributions of late, but that is way up there .

It is great having an inquisitive mind but this armchair theorizing is pointless as The Conservation of Energy Laws will just slap you around the face each and every time.

Stop trying to remould a turd. No remodeling changes what it is. If there was a 'load of old bollocks' filter on this forum, nearly all the topics would be erased.

The only legacy on this and similar posts of late is that of man's stupidity. Intelligence without an ounce of common sense.

You all have got to start looking outside the box to find the solution , but , without realising it, you are constrained by your 'intellelect'.

Chris

Wait for it .....

[Dunesbury]

Conservation of energy law also slap around Bessler's face. Only topic not erased would be first in Ovyyus' forum!

[Grimer]

Grimer
I'm sorry but I cannot allow the above post to pass without comment.
It is by far the most contrived pile of garbage I have ever read.

You do have some serious competition on the pseudo-scientific front with Fletcher, Ovvyus and Daxwc's contributions of late, but that is way up there .

It is great having an inquisitive mind but this armchair theorizing is pointless as The Conservation of Energy Laws will just slap you around the face each and every time.

Stop trying to remould a turd. No remodeling changes what it is. If there was a 'load of old bollocks' filter on this forum, nearly all the topics would be erased.

The only legacy on this and similar posts of late is that of man's stupidity. Intelligence without an ounce of common sense.

You all have got to start looking outside the box to find the solution , but , without realising it, you are constrained by your 'intellelect'(sp).

Chris

Wait for it .....

LOL ... I love it. Keep it up, Chris.

I'm glad to see I've Fletcher, Ovvyus and Daxwc for company. ;-)

[triplock]

Grimer,

I'm glad that you didn't get all prissy on me like others tend to do.

The point that I'm trying to make is this. Within a closed loop the Laws of Conservation of Energy are absolute. You must agree that you cannot get out more than you put in.

A rotating circle, which is an extrapolation of a single pendulum, is the purest example of a mechanism that abides by these Laws. Unfortunately, for PM seekers it is the very back drop they try to utilise by attaching levers, flails, weights, pendulums, gears, pulleys etc. This table dressing, no matter the originality or configuration, will make not one iota of difference to the outcome. If anything, it will create an energy exchange less efficient than if the wheel was left blank.

It can be dressed and covered in scientific sounding icing, but no matter the candles on top, the cake will still be stale. Put it another way, imagine wrapping your hands around these revolute variants; as you can see no external energy can get through the fingers. Therefore, you will never have more energy than what was started with.
Immediately upon release, whether from a point of raised Potential or an external starting impulse, there is no where else for the energy to go, except down, down and down.

To create extended motion, you have to work with the physical laws and to turn their predictability of outcome to your advantage. You have to create an environmental circumstance and relationship whereby the Conservation Laws actually create the motion. For that to happen though you have to open the loop, end of story.

Remember , just cup your hands around a system. If energy has no external way of getting into that system, then forget it.

No amount of reference to Newtonian, Eratz , cheese and onion gravity, Inertia, CF, Pendulum action or Roberval Balance will alter that fact. That is absolute.

Don't discount the message because some don't like the messenger.
Chris

[Grimer]

Grimer,

I'm glad that you didn't get all prissy on me like others tend to do.

Don't worry. I'm used to it.

As a matter of fact it rather reminded me of an incident where I was publically heckled earlier in my career. I wrote it up somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it out.

Ah yes! Here it is:

"Shortly after we obtained stress strain curves for a range of concretes and realised that they were accurate power laws, there was an opportunity to present the results at a university symposium in London. This led to an amusing incident.

Te’Eni, a researcher from Southampton Uni., had also been researching into the mathematical form of concrete stress strain curves and had gone to great lengths to produce some complicated mathematical formulae to express
these.

When our turn came, we showed how the curves could be recognised as simple power laws when looked at from the right origin, i.e. from the point of maximum stress. I didn't bother to refer to Te’Eni’s previous contribution. I couldn't make any constructive comment so I thought it best to say nothing. His approach was just a curve fitting exercise with no attempt at any explanation of any underlying mechanism. We knew these power laws were not an isolated example but part of a vastly wider spectrum of results covering the whole field of hierarchically simple materials, materials that might nowadays be described as fractal materials although the word fractal was unknown at that time.

I'm afraid our lack of comment did not go down too well. Te’Eni got up and launched into an impassioned attack on our results. I didn't really mind. At least it showed that he was someone who cared about his research enough to defend it vigorously. I think he realised that he had gone over the top since
afterwards he came up to me privately and apologised for his outburst saying,

'I’m afraid I spent 3 months working out all the canonical equations and I had to defend them.'

I felt sorry for him. It must be very disheartening to build a vast theoretical edifice only to realise that it is founded on sand. It’s something I've yet to experience."

but have experienced many times since in the Steorn and Bessler forums, :-(

The same experimental results that we submitted to the symposium were later submitted in a much more controversial form to an international symposium organised by Te’Eni at Southampton University. In view of his attack at the London symposium I wondered if he would veto it. To his great credit, he didn't.

That's rather a long screed so I'll answer the rest of your contribution in my next post.

[triplock]

Grimer wrote;
''It must be very disheartening to build a vast theoretical edifice only to realise that it is founded on sand.''

That's the bitterest pill to swallow. Intellectual Ego makes you spit it back out.

Chris

[Fletcher]

Glad to see you aren't letting Triplock under your skin, & neither did I.

But I would point out a few things so that you continue to take his comments with a grain of salt.

He is a member of Arrache, who reviews others submitted designs - some of those submitters might be feeling a little short changed about now, & Ralph a little embarrassed by his behaviour - at the very least he should recuse himself & stop injecting himself in threads uninvited if he is not prepared to disclose his own designs for review so that others here can see his directions & reasoning (right or wrong) for his claims.

Triplock has 5 patents pending, but he won't disclose for another 2 years.

He assumes we don't know or have forgotten about Conservation Laws including energy & momentum - he says his latest design answers all the questions for him - it does not violate the Conservation Laws because it is not a closed system but an open system - but it does not use extraneous environmental energy in any way we would recognize.

He calls it an Extended Motion (EM) machine, so as to not incur the rath of the patent examiners by calling it a PMM - he says it will rotate until the parts wear out - he says it has been examined by two people with degrees.

He has not said whether it can do external work i.e. transmit its energy to another external device - he has not said whether he realizes that overcoming frictional losses is doing work, though I'm sure he knows this.

So in essence he says he has a machine design that can sustain motion & not wind down, whilst overcoming frictional losses (external work capability unknown), which doesn't violate Conservation Laws & can be described with normal physics.

I think I'll just check back in in 2 years & see how that worked out for him.

In the mean time keep exploring concepts that might break symmetry & violate Conservation Laws as we know them - it's just tooooo eeeaasy to sit on the sidelines & parachute in occasionally & throw conservation laws around, tell you they have the answer but they can't show you, ROTFLMAO.

[triplock]

Fletcher,

You certainly filled in some gaps there with made up stuff mate.


Your response has actually validated my position and viewpoint.

At no time have I claimed that any of the 5 patents cover a device that purports to create extended or perpetual motion. I use the term 'extended' because, nothing is perpetual. For it to exist, it must have a boundary - a beginning, middle and end. Nor have I claimed that any of the inventions are capable of work etc etc That claim or goal is an irrelevance.

The first 3 patents are spring to mass equalised systems- the third I cannot disclose as it's pre-publication. These are straight forward, novel PE neutral structures.

The 4th and 5th are early stage, so will not discuss in any regard here. End of story. They have indeed been assessed independently under confidentiality agreements. What else do you want me to say about that ?

I do not need to disclose specific designs to take part in a topical discussion. I, like others, am expressing a viewpoint. That is a forum. It is not supposed to be an old boys network of morphed contributors.

The purpose of Arrache was always to consider submissions and to give an honest appraisal. That report may not have been what the inventor wanted to hear, but such is life. You have to be detached, emotionally inert and pragmatic, else your emotion will skew your judgement.

In the response above Fletcher , you are almost spitting feathers in indignation. That does not change my summary of where I feel the main submitters on this forum are at the present time. It is more a reflection of you and the deflation you feel at the moment.

As for what Ralph may feel about my comments, you'll have to ask him. We are a partnership, but we are individuals also.

Finally, which of my comments directed at Grimer should be treated with a grain of salt ? What have I said that isn't true ?

Grimer's put the design / concept up for review. I've said it wouldn't work. What's the beef ?

I'm sure Grimer's man enough and clever enough to respond to me. Its actually healthy to push discussions to extremes as it benefits all. In defending a design, you understand it more.

By way of a repeated footnote, you cannot break or violate the Conservation Laws Fletcher nor break the symmetry present within a closed system. [b]You have to do something else[/b] Bloody think man !!!

Chris

[triplock]

Sorry Grimer, one more point if I may as this question needs answering.


Fletcher, you clearly want to find the 'solution' and just give it away (which is why you open source). By definition, this is done, in the purest sense, for no reward or self betterment. In that regard, you will be no better or worse off than you are now. Correct ?

I, on the other hand, do it purely for financial gain through the commercialisation of any IP I own.

Therefore, in that regard, I have, potentially more to lose have I not ? So why the indignation when your design is criticised if you have nothing to gain personally from its success ? Or does your ego require validation and applause from the masses ? Are you prone to that human weakness just like the rest of us mortals ?

Why would it matter to you so what I say ? Just a strange contradiction in behaviour and intent, that's all.

It is ok to be selfish you know. Like you, I want to be the first one.

Anyway, I've said my piece.

Chris