From post http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 2461#42461ovyyus wrote:One thing is clear from this discussion, a great many don't understand basic physics. It would appear that centuries of observations and careful definitions and measurements of the natural world amount to nothing in the face of "I believe". Is it any wonder we're called cranks :D
I guess none here understand physic enough to see the error in Ralph's statement that I quoted. I gave Ralph the chance to spot and correct his error but instead he goes off in a tangent with pages of waffle words and never addresses the statement that I question. Ralph's statement is rather simple. He says, "If weights were heavier it would take more velocity(RPM) to pull them to the rim and in balance." But the truth is that if the weights were heavier then they would produce more CF at the same velocity. Ralph also states, "in balance" so it is assumed that they are pulling against something that resists the pull such that they become "in balance." If you make the weights heavier as Ralph suggests then in order to balance against the same resistance when using heavier weights, then the velocity(RPM) would be need to be slower.rlortie wrote:OK! Can someone other than Jim please explain to me in physical terms how a fly-ball governor works and what will happen if you change out the weights for heavier ones? Change the length of connecting arms, ETC. The formula presented above looks good for a constant, but where as the R, RPM, or Wt may vary then what?jim_mich wrote:This statement is not true! I'll leave it to Ralph's genius intelligence to figure out why it's not true. I'm not going to get a another pissing match with Ralph. To see what I mean just look at the formula for CF.Ralph wrote:If weights were heavier it would take more velocity(RPM) to pull them to the rim and in balance.
CF = 0.000028403397 x Wt x R x RPM^2 where Wt = pounds and R = inches.
Or others can point out the error to Ralph if he doesn't understand.
I would rather be baffled with Bull than Dazzled by brilliance.
Ralph
My beef with Ralph is that he write volumes of text without first ingaging his brain. In the process he continually puts forth false statements as if they are facts. We all have different ideas as to what will work and what will not work. I have no beef with Ralph concerning what he thinks might work or not work. My beef is when Ralph puts forth false statements concerning HOW things work. Ralph's posting are sprinkled with these false statements from time to time. When I try to point them out Ralph buries me in pages of waffle words about everything under the sun EXCEPT the point(s) that I'm calling him on.
I'm well aware that some forum members have less math and/or technical backgrounds than others. We are a diverse group here. Those members usually know that that they don't know. They don't falsly state things as facts. They state them as opinions or thoughts. I have no quarrel with this. But Ralph puts himself forth as if he is an expert of mechanical things. He constantly makes what looks like factual statements. The problem is that Ralph's statements are wrong from time to time. Ralph's errors always seem to involve false concepts about physics. Ralph admits that he seldom opens his machinery's handbook and that he prefers 'hands on' to math calculations. Math is just a way of representing how things in the real world work. This is the area where Ralph stumbles. He puts himself forward as being a 'hands on' expert on mechanical things and yet from time to time his statements show that his 'hands on' knowledge is lacking in certain areas.
I have no quarrel with Ralph as to his lack of knowledge or his inability to use computers or his aversion to using math formulas. Like I said, "We are a diverse group here." My quarrel is when Ralph states that something will happen in a certain way, when such a statement is obviously false to anyone with a solid backgound and understanding of physics. The above is one example. When discussing different sized wheels Ralph states, as if it were a fact that, "If weights were heavier it would take more velocity(RPM) to pull them to the rim and in balance." The reverse is true. If the weights are heavier then they cause more CF and will pull stronger against whatever it is that they are attempting to balance against. If the wheel is bigger and turning at the same speed then the CF will also be greater due to the larger radius. In fact you could slow down the wheel and have it balance. Ralph then responds with a flurry of words and never discusses the actual quote that I question.
So this thread is my "Beef with Ralph" thread. My biggest camplaint against Ralph is that he makes false statements. I'm not saying that he intentionaly lies, but rather that he has a lack of understanding. When I try to correct Ralph's obviuos false statements Ralph burries me with lots of waffle words and never addresses the actual point of my contention.
Edited: from "The above in one example." to "The above is one example."
