Things of Intrigue

[Gill Simo]

Forgive me do but I'm intrigued......
Someone posts an idea, others respond.
Ideas that are fundamentally flawed are quickly pounced upon...vigorously.
Ideas that warrant some thought are debated...vigorously.
Bar the ideas that I post...these are met, by & large, with stonewalled silence.
I lower myself to actually beg for you's to point out the fundamental flaw, else debate.
Still...nothing.
Why, I wonder, am I afforded so unique a treatment?
When the last idea I posted, for instance, was oh so simple...simple enough surely for any number of you bright sparks to immediately debunk, if nothing else?
I'm obliged to try yet again...& if ignorance is the only effect it has upon you then please ...
might you, at least, muster the respect & decency to state why that is.....for once?.

Construct Fig 1....if you're way too busy chasing yet another obvious waste of time then perhaps there's a 5yr old at hand who'll happily do it for you in next to no time?
It's pretty impossible to hold this thing by placing a finger at both x & y, so grab it here with fingers & thumbs.
If the thing has even the slightest of weight to it then you'll need to grab ahold pretty tightly....because the thing will want to turn/fall in towards the centre.
Turn the thing to any point you wish...at all times it will persist in its desire to turn/fall in towards the centre....at every point you will continue to need to grab ahold tightly at x/y to prevent it.
Imbued with this constant desire, then allowed to turn/fall the thing will also push/pull points x/y further/closer apart as it does so.
Placed between two hexagon rims, then those two rims, if turned against each other, will constantly provide the thing with an x/y, constantly varying in their distance apart...to accommodate the thing, as it constantly turns/falls....constantly push/pulls x/y.
In the thing's perpetual desire to fall, its perpetual push/pull drives the two rims around, in reverse directions.
Debunk or discuss....please.

For those perhaps uninitiated...

The thing video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8IIqxw2IQ0

The thing in more depth http://oneseventhheaven.weebly.com/

Thank you

Gill

[raj]

Gill,
I understand how you feel!

Raj

[Fcdriver]

I am trying to understand the difference between one side attached still, instead of moving opposite?

[John Collins]

I completely understand your frustration and empathise. I always read your posts with great interest and have fond memories of Glastonbury where I once lectured on Bessler's wheel. That is not patronising in any way, I have always felt a connection with the earth mysteries associated with the region, most of which are ignored now, and your posts relate to some posts or publications I made on some of my other websites. I pushed the idea of the vesica Pisces I believed I had found in Bessler's drawings only to have my idea shot down and derided.

Is it better to be criticised or ignored? I guess criticism is better. For me I see no advantage mechanically in your design, but that is because I'm working on an idea which I think is the answer, and which has no relation to your's.

Perhaps the idea that you are relating the solution to an ancient collection of earth mysteries is too much 'outside the box' for many people, but I would encourage you to continue with this train of thought. I myself ventured down that route many years ago in my book by suggesting a link to the yin yang symbol. That link remains at the back of my mind even now, many years after I wrote about it.

Good luck.

JC

[agor95]

I understand this feeling 'Why don't they see?' it is right there, just build it job done.

Also the negative comments etc.

That is why either it is a positive comment or nothing from me.

Also members and guests viewers take in your message using different preferred channels: text, drawings, math proofs, video and builds.

Your youtube example really helps - thank you.

Large blocks of text does not work for international members.

I appreciate your work and others here. Members can not invest time without developing a good understanding of the principle before them.

You are an expert.

[sleepy]

I have not commented on this thing in the past.Not because it's not interesting.It's VERY interesting.Just not an interesting option for PM,in my opinion.The motion is fascinating,the math behind it is wonderful,but I just don't see an application for driving a wheel.It's like asking for pizza and getting a rubics cube.Interesting,yes.But not what I was looking for.I do applaud your creative thinking and your willingness to share openly.So please continue to be a contributing member of this society,as you have been for so many years.

[Gill Simo]

Thank you all of the above for your replies.....& not a bad word, thus far, which is double appreciated. I wonder how many, like myself, confidently post an idea only to then shake with insecurity upon seeing a reply, barely daring to read it?
Perhaps this is particular to myself....most here appear to jump around from one pet idea to another, ideas often unrelated rather than a progression of thought. I however felt confident that the Vesica Piscis held the answer almost from the start & I've pursued it relentlessly ever since...some 13yrs now.
Being here in Glastonbury then yes JC, I kinda cringe at having to speak of the VP...being into PM makes one appear a crank from the start & the Glastonbury/Vesica connection only adds to that impression.
We're both only too aware of the crankiness that abounds in this wee town I'm sure....I well recall feeling for you at your Assembly Room lecture, helping to carry your books in, then back out...and speaking at length about your quest/this town back at dear Lee Allen's flat straight after.

As for the matter at hand, please allow me to attempt an elaboration...

Imagine if you will the said arrangement, the `thing`, set in the open/crossed position between the two jaws of some vice.
It cannot move at all....but as you slowly loosen/widen the jaws, so the discs will turn...the thing wanting to fall & doing so, the discs widening apart along with the jaws.
At the point where the thing becomes fully collapsed the discs reach there max spread apart & immediately switch, still with the same desire to fall, to moving closer together.
At this point the thing will immediately become loose in the jaws & drop out of the vice.....unless one were able to very quickly wind the jaws closer together that is.
If that could be achieved then the thing would, in falling, return back to the open/crossed position, now immediately switching back to discs expanding apart, now, once again, trapped between the two jaws, those jaws, again, needing to be widened to continue/repeat the process.

This analogy is all very well but of course....the thing is constantly falling throughout, so said vice would need to have very deep jaws, as in from top to bottom, to accommodate the thing falling through/between them.

This is where the inventive step (possibly) kicks in...the two hexagon rims.

From the above analogy it can be seen than through one half of the cycle...the collapse....gravity, in attempting to fall the thing, is pushing the discs into/against the jaws. Through the second half of the cycle gravity falls the thing & the jaws need to push back into/against the discs.....imagine perhaps that the jaws were spring loaded....pushed apart by gravity, then snapping back at the point where gravity's push against them is removed.
With the two hexagon rims, then the push on them, from gravity, forces the rims to turn against each other, thus effectively widening the jaws, so to speak...
the turning rims, once this turning force is removed, follow through, decreasing the jaws.

It's kinda like a latter day spinning top with ratchet plunger...push it down to force the thing around, pull it up, as the top still spins, to reset the plunger for another push down.
Or better still perhaps......like a disc that you punch two holes in, one either side of the disc's centre. Where you can then thread a loop of string through....to form, as such, a parallelogram. Twist this parallelogram by turning the disc.
The twist shortens the string, the distance between your fingers...then pull on the string to make it longer.....the disc spins back, string now back to max length...then through, winding the string/parallelogram in the opposite direction, string now shortened again...& one then pulls on it again.....a very similar, if not almost identical, principle to that which I'm attempting to outline.
Regards/Gill

[ME]

Forgive me do but I'm intrigued......
Someone posts an idea, others respond.
Ideas that are fundamentally flawed are quickly pounced upon...vigorously.
Ideas that warrant some thought are debated...vigorously.
Bar the ideas that I post...these are met, by & large, with stonewalled silence.
I lower myself to actually beg for you's to point out the fundamental flaw, else debate.
Still...nothing.

Sometimes we’re just a difficult audience… There could be so many different reasons why people respond the way they do.

When you present an idea it is up to your audience (if they exist) to interpret and transform this into something they actually understand: And once it’s “out there� it’s hard to control.
It seems very rare other people process your ideas and thoughts with the same flavors of understanding as you do – just hope and try it goes around as intended.

That's why Science, Math, Physics and its terminology are so useful and powerful: it should at least make that job of communication a lot easier and faster.
Without these tools the only other option left is your video or an animation. I find those visual aids to be the quickest way to communicate a mechanism without relying too much on Math or terminology (invented or not) – all are having their own communication problems.

For the sake of proof it's most important to identify the likely(!) mathematical/scientific reason why it should not work: one way or the other, sooner or later, if you like it or not (...etc) that’s the actual thing in need of being debunked.
When it remains proven to work despite all such mathematical/scientific reasons you'll automatically find more people start paying attention when many will ask even more annoying questions because it’s now about disproving science. Perhaps the used math was simply wrong, or this thing actually introduces some new Science: that's the thing to find out.

Anyway it's up to you to support and defend your claim because a working principle is probably unknown and improbable to exist.
It is unfortunate that a more optimistic view isn’t making a principle work better or its existence more likely.
Hopefully this view gets better once found. We are more or less all working on it.

[agor95]

Hi All

I am mindful that we are all together on this quest.

The written words we post may, on the surface, look conflicting.

However just take some time and look in the mirror; all

You will see these conflicts in yourself either to other ideas or in
your own investigations.

I for one will look anywhere; even to the beginning of time and beyond :-)

The area I am looking at is quantum inertia and gravity/inertia are quantum effects in wave interactions; Much to do about nothing. :-)

However that is off topic. I would be happy just to simulate a variable length pendulum for now.

[Gill Simo]

Thank you ME....I understand & appreciate all your points, well expressed.

The point I'm at is that whereby I kinda desperately need someone to understand so that they're in a fair position to debunk...because, try as I may, I can't!

The wee contraption in the video shows me, being able to actually handle it, that held at the two discs, points x/y, the thing most definitely wants to fall in & collapse...and likewise fall in & expand. It wants to do so (fall) constantly, throughout the cycle.
The maths are fairly simple...by adhering to the double square, then this twisted will, having proved it to myself by way of that shown in the video, fit perfectly between the two opposite, flat sides of a hexagon when open/crossed...& likewise, fit perfectly between the two opposite `points` of a hexagon when closed/flattened.
So....I know, for sure, that the thing desires to fall in, constantly & that it fits perfectly in a hexagon rim...fully collapsed, fully open.

There only remains therefore, for me at least, the thing that I feel inclined to have to refer to as the `inventive step`....the turning of two hexagons, one against the other & I imagine that it's here that I am convinced, yet without actually, physically, having proved it...doubting...& others perhaps remain confused & thus unable to put me out of my misery one way or the other.

I'm sure I don't need to point out that, unlike a circular rim, a hexagon rim does not remain at a set/constant distance from the axle...in that the centre point of its six sides is closest to the axle, the six points where those sides meet the furthest from the axle....& at all other points around somewhere in between.

What I must point out however, is that by setting the arrangement so as to have one disc in one hex rim, the other disc in another...& turning those rims against each other...then at any point, across any diameter, one creates a situation whereby this differential in a hexagon rim's distance from the axle becomes a constantly fluctuating distance, as those rims turn....measured across, from one rim (front) to one rim (rear)

This constant fluctuation concurs with the constantly changing spread of the two discs of the thing, constantly turning as the thing constantly falls....?

[Tarsier79]

Gill. I'm not sure what you are excited about. As it is falling, you are constantly lifting the other side. Where is the imbalance? There needs to be some sort of imbalance.... force, torque, length, speed, weight, energy....

[Gill Simo]

Hi Tarsier......there is no falling (as you mean it I suspect) or lifting of other sides, or imbalance.....all things that have made all attempts futile over millennia no doubt.
I've exhausted every simple as possible explanation of this most simple of principle that I can think of.....
I'm therefore feel stumped & unable to assist further unfortunately.....

[Tarsier79]

Well, I don't even know why you used the word " Intrigue". You have just made something sort of the equivalent of two meshing gears.

[agor95]

Hi Gill

My partial understanding of your concept is a dynamic balanced cycle.

This then can be used to exploit inertia and structural latching within this cycle.

Regards

[Gill Simo]

Tarsier....I'm gracious enough to accept that your inability to grasp this simple concept is most probably down to my inability to relay it well enough...but it appears, from your last aside, as though you feel your lack of ability to grasp this is in fact a perfectly fine ability to grasp that you're simply dealing with a fool?
Please...do forgive me if I get the wrong impression but if not then feel free to go bother some other thread with worthless contributions.

For those with, perhaps, a more considered attitude.....this simple arrangement of two discs connected by two x-bars provides the following points worthy of that consideration;

1...restrained at points x/y then the arrangement desires to collapse, under gravity.
2...restrained at points x/y then the arrangement desires to open up, under gravity.
3....gravity, in pushing straight down, pushes straight left/right, as the arrangement collapses.
4...gravity, in pushing straight down, pulls straight left/right, as the arrangement opens up.
5...both x-bars, falling under the influence of gravity, fall in such a way as to force the two discs to turn.
6...the push/pull & turn induced by gravity, applied to two hex rims will cause those two rims to give way...turn...& in doing so accommodate the pushed/pulled, expanding/contracting distance, between the turning discs.
7...no different then than two meshing gears...lol

Agor...thank you for attempting some input, unlike some.
Sadly I'm too simple a soul to have any idea as to what a dynamic balanced cycle is...or structural latching....& barely inertia!
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to take the time to elaborate?