Priority Claim

[daxwc]

Triplock:

I won't discuss his design further but I have to say that it is well considered and cannot be discounted- I've tried !

Well as long as the big headed Triplock has tried it is a done deal then; Ralph has a runner.


Triplock:

There will be a time in the near future when you stand back from your design and go 'oh shit, that twat Triplock was right. Crap '

Maybe, but we will all find solace that you had no idea the true reason of why it wouldn’t work.

[daxwc]

Triplock:

The reason why I decided to place a verbal defibrillator on the chest of the forum was because it was flat lining.

No, the real reason is you have a vested interest in a fluid design so that has to be the only way forward, any other research evokes the mantra of the Conservation of Energy law.

[triplock]

Daxwc wrote;

'Maybe, but we will all find solace that you had no idea the true reason of why it wouldn’t work.'

That is a crumb of solace indeed as you lift your skirt hem out of the mud of indignation. Energy cannot be created. If you insist on working within the constraints of a closed system, then you are doomed to failure; you have to open a door to an external energy source. That's a very simple observation.

Anyway, who is 'we' in any event Daxwc. Who are you the spokesman for ?

Again, I can't comment on Ralph's design other than to say that, on the balance of probability, it has the potential to act in an unusual manner. That is my hope and wish for Ralph.


Chris

[triplock]

Grimer,

Setting aside the last off-topic posts by everyone, I am still quite prepared to go through with you your latest variant.

I'll make a comment, and you defend your viewpoint in regards to the matter raised.

Up to you.

Chris

[daxwc]

Triplock:

That is a crumb of solace indeed as you lift your skirt hem out of the mud of indignation.

What indignation would that be as I am wrong most of the time? Usually people prove I am wrong not just tell me I am although they don’t understand the mechanics/physics of the concept or do a test/experiment, but they just know it will not work.

Energy cannot be created. If you insist on working within the constraints of a closed system, then you are doomed to failure; you have to open a door to an external energy source. That's a very simple observation.

Although probably true it is also the simplest mantra to spout. You don’t see Bill continually interjecting that line of reasoning into every thread although he holds the same view. People need their concepts and principles heard out. Is it any coincidence you started this mantra after you realised Fletcher’s concept was over your head? I can’t say I fully understand Fletchers concept, but I am trying to catch up. Everyone didn’t understand special relativity by Albert Einstein when first released either it took the other scientists months to catch up.

Anyway, who is 'we' in any event Daxwc. Who are you the spokesman for ?

I will be spokesman for all contributors who got glossed over in the mantra and the quick common sense paint brush.


.

[triplock]

Daxwc,

Firstly, apologies for using common sense. That won't happen again.

I perfectly understand Fletcher's post as I have several patents in the field of PE neutral structures that have been assessed by Professors who, themselves hold patents within the field of Gravity Equilibrium. Did I mention that :)

The Roberval Balance is a simple mass to mass balanced beam that is PE inert that allows for radial displacement in the x axis but this feature is offset by the fact that Y axis elevation is iaw with Lever laws relative to the masses displaced centre of rotation.

It is true that a sliding mass will not impact on the equalised state of the RB, but that is not something new.

Attaching a rack, pinion and flail is a nice novel twist. Its job is to translate Centripetal force of the sliding mass to the revolute rim.

It is envisaged that an initial push will get things going. Ok that bit I accept because it is not a gravity wheel, rather one reliant on motion.

Now encase that whole system within a theoretical impermeable sphere. That represents the closed system.

right, so we impart energy into the system at start up. The RB will turn 'freely' as it is PE neutral. Fine. Some energy will be lost through air friction and pivot point friction. So we're down already.

The rotation of the RB will cause CF to act on the sliding masses. That CF is proportionate to the initial input energy, which is already going down. Not to worry.

The flail gets up to speed, firstly overcoming frictional loses. Ok.

When up to speed? The flail imparts its rotational energy to the rim stops. This imparted energy is already less than initial input energy. I presume Fletcher wants this energy transfer to happen without loss or reactive force acting in opposition, but that wont happen. Therefore this transfer of CF cannot ever be 100%. Therefore, further loses have occurred and incurred.

The rotation of the rim must then back feed the RBGS. This torque transfer cannot be 100%, so the energy levels go down again.

The masses have to slide back, the Flail has to get up to speed again.

No matter how you look at matters, the available energy is going down, down and down. You can rephrase it how you want so that it is palatable to your sensitive digestion. It makes no difference. Nothing within Fletchers set up generates energy. It cant even maintain what it was given initially. It would be far more efficient just to spin up a blank Roberval Balance !

Because its a closed system, you're screwed. Don't blame me, blame CofE

Chris

[Dunesbury]

Chris has played the roll of pessimist very well. He has seen all the pictures under construction and understands the concept an theory, he is bewildered at the size and scope of the machine. He has not invoked the laws of conservation as a whole, because of one little glitch. Newtonian fluid (water) seeks it own level. It does not matter if it is poured on a level waxed floor or saturated in a deep pile carpet.
Does a liquid that seeks to displace itself into a common head meet with laws of conservation?

Why wouldn't it? Because Chris didn't invoke law to assess your design?

The phrase 'water seeks its own level' doesn't mean there is glitch in law. All mass, in any phase of matter, seeks its own level in force field, the center of mass. Fluids aren't different in this respect. Their center of mass is defined by their container.
But I look forward to your fluid wheel design when you are ready to show it, either way.

[triplock]

Dunesbury,

There's a slight twist in the tail that prevents Ralph's design being discounted in the normal manner.

Nah it's a clever concept and big up to him for it tbh.

Chris

[Grimer]

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.

Thanks for the "so far so good" comments, Fletcher . I'm pleased I at least managed to get those bits across. :-)

Thanks also to Kaine for the very detailed sim gpm.wm2d. which I have found invaluable. Fortunately GPM.WM2D gives us multiple impacts so we have a good visual representation to think about.


Right. Let's get down to the details of the section in red.
First, we need to stop the compound pendulum (CP) falling back after the first impact. We have to give it the same condition as it started with, i.e. an quasi-earth reaction provided by a one way clutch at the axle. To allow it to fall back is to allow an analogous situation to the first diagram shown here:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 271#129271

I could have used a one way clutch from the start. I didn't because it's easier for people to understand what's going on if there's a visible representation. This is where sims are so useful. You can see what's happening and can analyse stuff in great detail.

We also need a second one way clutch operating in the other direction, a clutch for the arm which takes the impact and allows the arm to fall back to 6 o'clock. This has two beneficial effects for the second fall of the simple pendulum (SP).

1. It saves the SP from going past the 6 o'clock position and wasting gravitational potential energy by starting to climb

2. By shortening the path of the SP it speeds up the transfer of energy.

(I'm now going to make a diversion because in working through this problem I've realised something of great theoretical significance. I apologise to anyone who won't understand what the hell I'm on about. ;-)

In freeing the impact arm we have created a 3rd pendulum, an intermediate pendulum (IP) between the SP and the CP. We no longer have a 2 pendulum system. We have a 3 pendulum system. This IP pendulum has the same function in this system as the Pressure variable has in the Carnot. There, Pressure carries the rotation energy represented by the Temperature variable up to the the rotation energy represented by the Volume variable, i.e. the rotation of the flywheel. My confidence this is going to work has gone up several notches.

I can now see why my Vesica Pisces Gravity Motor worked - confirmed by the maths analysis of someone on Not the Steorn Forum. He said I was correct in suggesting there was an energy gain albeit very small. However, a gain is a gain. It may not be of commercial significance but it demolishes a principle. You can't be a little bit pregnant).

As regards rebound, when after a second meeting of the CP and the SP, a meeting where the speeding CP meets a stationary SP there is no question of any bounce since the CP has a one way clutch. The CP simply absorbs the SP to form a balanced beam which rotates indefinitely until its energy has been drawn off.

[ovyyus]

Does a liquid that seeks to displace itself into a common head meet with laws of conservation?

Ralph, until someone can prove otherwise, yes.

I'm surprised your pessimistic collaborator hasn't simply invoked conservation as the reason your design cannot work. Perhaps he doesn't understand fluid dynamics? Or perhaps you have satisfied his only condition for success, ie an 'open system'? Assuming for a moment that he's not struggling with the basics (you know what they say about assumptions), can you please comment on what energy input your system might be open to?

As always Ralph, good luck with your build.

[daxwc]

Triplock:

I perfectly understand Fletcher's post as I have several patents in the field of PE neutral structures that have been assessed by Professors who, themselves hold patents within the field of Gravity Equilibrium. Did I mention that :)

Having some patents in pantographs doesn’t make you an expert, fairly obviously since you had to take them to a Professor.

It is true that a sliding mass will not impact on the equalised state of the RB, but that is not something new.

Really, took you half the thread to realise the gears kept level and in face. Anybody who somewhat understands Fletcher’s concept can go back and reread your posts in the thread, your claims of prior knowledge are laughable.

Because its a closed system, you're screwed. Don't blame me, blame CofE

I am blaming you because you haven’t tried to understand the MOI argument or that Fletcher has beaten the mechanical advantage’s disadvantage. In this design might not be the golden goose, but it could be close. Instead when the going got too intellectual you ran away chanting your COE mantra.

[daxwc]

ovyyus:

Perhaps he doesn't understand fluid dynamics?

Well he does have a patent in front of a Professor, so he should be an expert in all fluids very soon. Then skip down to the mall to the bubble gum machine for his ring and ticket. 8P

[rlortie]

Bill,

In order to get my influence off of Grimer's "Priority claim" thread, I have copied and will paste you post on the appropriate thread.

I , Chris and anyone posting material irrelevant to this thread topic should give consideration to Grimer.

Ralph

[triplock]

Ovvyus,

Don't hide behind forum etiquette mate, say what you think instead innuendo and slur you ball-less little shit.

If you're all sooo clever, why have none of you come up with a workable solution. You all can theorise all you wish on this forum and form a reach around circle, but what has it achieved in the 10-12 years you have been members.

The answer is zip, zero, zilch, nothing.

You may take the piss out of the fact that my patented ideas aren't earth shattering, but at least the devices detailed within are new, innovative and capable of industrial application.

So what if they were peer reviewed by outside Professors. It doesn't mean the proposer has a lack of understanding, rather there has to be independent validation. That's part of the fucking process.

At least I had / have the balls to place all my ideas on the desks of Professionals in Universities for scrutiny, rather than relying on the knowledge of embittered 'also-rans' here. I travelled to Zurich, Switzerland recently to discuss commercialisation of my passive orthopaedic partial exo-skeletons. I stood in front of two engineers, a Commercial Director and CEO.


I am not afraid to knock on the doors of top tier establishments in the States, Europe and the far East. I can and do hold my own.

That is the big difference between you and I. You talk, I produce, I act.

What will be your epitaph be 'Oh I pissed about on a forum for a decade and half and came up with absolutely fuck all, but at least I took the piss out of Chris who was actually trying to leave a foot print in the sand .'

Do you have an email on file from a German Professor of Classical Mechanics who states that your idea is a vast improvement over his ?

Do you own the IP to a Virtual Spring Method of Gravity equalisation ?

Do you own the IP to a Method of Carrying out Energy Free, Automatic Adjustment of a Gravity Equalised Structure ?

Do you own the IP to a Slime-line Spring to Mass Gravity Equalised Support Arm that has done away with the need for pantographic geometry ?

Do you own the IP to a whole new type of Lever ?

Do you own the IP to an arrangement which will reset full PE at the point of Keel ?

Do you own the IP to seven Devices that overcome problems arising in the care and man-handling of patients with muscle wasting decease ?

The above list is not exhaustive.

Come on then. Who's going to step up to the line and show the forum what they have their name to. I'll have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you can do that .

I may not understand all the physics terms used on this forum, but if that is how you judge a person's worth then that is a very, very sad day indeed.

Chris

[ovyyus]

Nasty little parasite.