Quadrature

[MrTim]

Though this article deals with electronics, it is something to take into account when trying to figure out PM:

https://tinaja.com/glib/muse122.pdf

The bicycle wheel in the illustration is 'in phase'. What you need to make a PM wheel turn is to have part of it be 'out' of phase to create imbalance. (I've found a quadrature "on/off switch", but it's not powerful enough to turn a wheel.)
Something for you to play with... ;-)

[eccentrically1]

I don't about the 'out of phase' creating imbalance.
It like it's the electronic version of frame of reference.

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .
The bicycle wheel in the illustration is 'in phase'. What you need to make a PM wheel turn is to have part of it be 'out' of phase to create imbalance.
. .. .. .

I've thought the same for some time, Mr Tim.

viewtopic.php?p=185964#p185964.

I think it goes back to needing energy to shift the phase.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Waltcy, There is a way to trisect an angle. It's true you can't divide by three but, you can multiply by three. The idea is to construct and angle close to the size of the angle to be trisected. Then transfer it to the other angle. It's a bit involved but, works for all angles, except for very acute angels where it becomes difficult; difficult to work with-------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

Hi Waltcy, There is a way to trisect an angle. It's true you can't divide by three but, you can multiply by three. The idea is to construct and angle close to the size of the angle to be trisected. Then transfer it to the other angle. It's a bit involved but, works for all angles, except for very acute angels where it becomes difficult; difficult to work with-------------------------Sam

I agree so far, Sam.

• This is where our opinions diverge.
  I submitted that idea to Ruthie Armstrong when I was 15 years old. She set me straight.
  
  Your idea is an approximation.
  

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy, No, it's not an approximation. You sort of superimpose, if that's the right word, or perhaps I should say compare the known angle / constructed angle, to the angle to be trisected; then perform a transfer function using; the very accurate segments, of the one to the other. Again the method is a bit lengthy but, repeatable and quite accurate, except like I said, for very acute angles------------------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

Waltcy, No, it's not an approximation. You sort of superimpose, if that's the right word, or perhaps I should say compare the known angle / constructed angle, to the angle to be trisected; then perform a transfer function using; the very accurate segments, of the one to the other. Again the method is a bit lengthy but, repeatable and quite accurate, except like I said, for very acute angles------------------------------------Sam

The way Archimedes constructed a trisection was to make a mark on the straight edge, which violates the rules of construction.

I suppose I'd haçe to look at your method and see the proof.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy, Sure. Have to dig up my notes. Probably 40 years since I've worked on it. But, would need a snail mail address for you. if that would be OK. Please give me some time to find where I put my notes-----------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy, I found it! I have a neighbor that I think could send it to an e-mail address. The proof is on one page with 10 steps. Also it will work for more than three, say four or five or more. I'll try and send it if you want------------------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

well Sam neither options are too likely.

I don't think you understand the exact meaning of geometric construction.

i stumbled upon a variation of Archimedes method by David Alan Brooks which is incredibly clever yet lacking a geometric proof doesent met the standard. None the less it's amazing.

https://www.geogebra.org/m/XdF3Dr86

You can move the slider around to change the angle.

I've been thinking along much different lines although it probably doesn't meet the criteria either.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy, as you wish------------------------------------------Sam

PS Is there an e-mail address for the forum? That he could send it to?

[WaltzCee]

Waltcy, as you wish------------------------------------------Sam

PS Is there an e-mail address for the forum? That he could send it to?

Sam,

If you click on the attachment tab below the box you use to post a reply, you can publish the idea here.

If it's a valid proof, you'll be famous!

Better hurry though. I'm about to publish the real deal.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy, I hate to admit it but I don't know what a file is, or where to get one, or even if I did have one, I wouldn't know what to do with it. All I have is a godam piece of paper, that I have no clue, what to do with. And besides Waltcy, if you aren't interested in it, no one else will be either. I just wish you could see it-------------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

What I'm not interested in Sam is giving out my email or address.

If you take a pic of the drawing then click on the pic it will give you the name of it.

Maybe someone local you trust could help you.
David Alan Brooks trisection uses the straight edge as a tool, which is not permissible. My method uses just the straight of the straight edge and compass.

[Soon]

Though this article deals with electronics, it is something to take into account when trying to figure out PM:

https://tinaja.com/glib/muse122.pdf

The bicycle wheel in the illustration is 'in phase'. What you need to make a PM wheel turn is to have part of it be 'out' of phase to create imbalance. (I've found a quadrature "on/off switch", but it's not powerful enough to turn a wheel.)
Something for you to play with... ;-)

I disagree. It is your opinion yet seems to be the law. That'd be like saying y = asin (bx + c) - d.
Your ignoring f(x) = (a)dy/dx - (b)dy/dx where a and b have two different values if you consider
f(a) = x + 1 and f(b) = x(1 - 0.09) as an example.
Why do you choose to ignore math? What if some of us prefer that to words? Then you could
have each quadrant of the unit circle in phase with the other 3 quadrants. And if one is out of phase,
how does that affect the balance? You can't know. If the builds I am pursuing work, it is because my
work always included math.

p.s., I also saved the post where you had to defend your kill effect. Just as a weight rotates upward it will
rotate back down again. I mean you're claiming you discovered why a pendulum swings one way and then
another. It's keel effect and you discovered it. That ignores conservation of momentum because a
pendulum can't generate any momentum when it's swinging upwards. It is using the momentum it
conserved on its downward swing.
And when Bessler said his weights (plural) got their force from swinging, that's because it wasn't the same
weight. Your lack of knowledge when it comes to physics handicaps this forum. I could've been years
ahead if not for people promoting your work which was limited to words and didn't allow for conservation
of momentum. That's a law in physics while your keel effect isn't.

This Newton's cradle; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LnbyjOyEQ8
The force of the downward swinging weight is transferred to a weight that is swinging upward. Conservation of
momentum. Now how can the upward swinging weight have its radius reduced so it can conserve more
momentum? What your keel effect kept from being considered, actual science.