Jim_Mich's beef with Ralph

[Fletcher]

You see, that's the trouble here sometimes - we end up discussing etherial subjects with no one putting any real proof on the table that can be examined by the opposition camp - if they did then one or other would be forced to concede their argument defeated by experimental evidence presented by the other - I guess some people like a continual melee but I'm not a great fan.

As it is we end up debating the 'supposedly known stuff' & we can't all agree on that either, which is a bit of a surprise to me. Some of this is the basic building blocks.

We all have different perspectives & opinions about where the force came from to power Bessler's wheels but the onus is on us to present the evidence to take it from the realms of opinion into reality.

I for one will continue to experiment in my workshop in the hope of actually producing tangible evidence to prove or disprove my own current theory - I also recognized long ago that it would be futile for me present any anomalous theory without any accompanying proof, because of the high sensitivity of the issue - at some stage some "cages are going to have to be rattled" - don't get me wrong - its perfectly acceptable to have opinions & share them, they just shouldn't be presented as & taken as fact.

[rlortie]

Jim,

If weights on a rotating wheel are heavier, will the wheel need to speed up in order for them to balance in some way or would it need to slow down or maybe stay the same speed?

It will vary with "r" change weight then "r" and RPM values must change

It is obvious to my thinking that you took the formula from a book!

Your formula is not flawed! Apparently you understand the formula but do not know how to utilize it. I am not stating that as fact as you usually do. I am saying that is how I interpret it.

I tried to explain it using a pie formula example. Compare your formula to that of Ohms Law. E/IxR to find a missing component place your finger over it and then multiply or divide the other two. I see no difference in your formula.

I believe that from static rest heavier weights have to have more force/velocity/inertia to achieve a specified point. Why because the "r" value is low. Not unlike your own past example of the ice skater who starts a spin with arms extended, then as velocity increases she pulls her arms in.

The values of your formula are constantly changing, as the distance of weight radius increases, CF is compounding as well as radius so less velocity is required to maintain a set perimeter, or a given rpm. The heavier weight CF value is maintained at a lower radius than required by a lighter weight. Or for a lower/faster rpm the weights must change radius. One value changes the other two.

Now see if you can find a flaw in this thinking to accuse me of waffling. After all I am using your own example.

And I wish you to understand that this is my final answer.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

If someone says that weights fall upward, then it is obviously not true. When Ralph says that heavier weights need faster RPM to balance against a force, during a dicussion about CF, then it is obviously not true. I'm a believer in truth. Somtimes the truth is unknown. But in the case of CF verses wheel size and weight mass, the truth is not in dispute. Ralph's statement was wrong. All I want is an honest admission that he was he was wrong, else prove that his statement is true.

[jim_mich]

Ralph, all I see is a bunch of waffle words.

We have a very simple problem here. The discussion was about the difference in speeds relative to wheel size. You made a very simple statement...

If weights were heavier it would take more velocity(RPM) to pull them to the rim and in balance.

I say this statement is wrong. You, Ralph, keep throwing a lot of waffle words back and don't address whether this statement is true or false.

The setup situation is very simple. You have a rotating wheel. You have weights of two sizes. One weight size is heavier. You have CF that pulls the weights toward the rim. You have some unspecified force that the weights balance against. This force is assumed to be more or less constant such as a spring. The point in question is the RPM needed to make the weights balance. There is only one variable affecting the outcome. In one case we have a lighter weight and in the second case we have a heavier weight. The value desired to be known is the relative (faster or slower) RPM needed to cause the CF of the weight to balance against whatever.

The equation is CF = 0.000028403397 x Wt x R x RPM^2 where Wt = pounds and R = inches

We want the CF to be balanced against the 'whatever' and the 'whatever' is assumed to be constant, so the CF that we desire is also be constant.

Everything in the equation is being multiplied to equal the CF and the CF is a constant. So, there are only three values that can change. They are Weight, Radius and RPM. If one value gets bigger then another must get smaller. So, when we the weight gets heavier (bigger) then the RPM must get smaller. You said that it would take more velocity(RPM) to pull them [the heavier weights] to the rim and in balance.

This is a false statement. When weights get bigger then the CF will get bigger. To counter this, the velocity must get smaller in order for things to balance.

All I'm asking is that you correct his false statement.

[wheelmaster]

Jim,

I am not sorry to say this but you are acting like a complete ass. Is this the kind of ridicule we can expect from you if we make a mistake in our math. I have certainly seen the sharp edge of your sword in the past.

Awhile back I sent both you and Ralph the same wheel idea by email. Ralph and I poured over it for weeks. You sent a couple of emails putting me off. Never did I hear from you again.

IMO a person that is willing to go the extra mile to help you in private is worth much more than a math wiz that only cares about how he looks in public.

No, we are not all as good at the math as you are but we should be aloud to express our ideas and opinions without fear of public ridicule.

None of us care on bit about what your beef with Ralph is. To make a post to discuss this can only be to cause harm to Ralph`s reputation and feelings. Shame on you Jim.

Oh, one more thing go ahead and click on my rep bar. As I know you will.

[Michael]

Jim why does Machinery's Handbook add this 0.000028403397 to the basic formula?

[rounder]

agreed wheelmaster, the whole premise of the post is a waste of our time, -stop trying to start a pissing contest. - i think the wind is picking up.

[rlortie]

Jim,

This is a false statement. When weights get bigger then the CF will get bigger.

False: I never said that when the weights get bigger the Cf will get bigger.

I said that changing weights will change velocity. But to make you happy I agree that when weights get bigger so will CF but it will cost you more inertial energy to maintain it.

To counter this, the velocity must get smaller in order for things to balance.

Half true but incomplete: Velocity and/or [/b] radius must get smaller to balance. You cannot with paper and pencil change one factor without changing at least one or both the others.

Now are you happy?

Ralph

[arthur]

jim will like ralph's waffles for breakfast when he wakes up because they are something to chew on

[docfeelsgood]

MAN ,,, this is one great rock fight !!! and here i am sidelined because i got no eddycated rocks !!! Ralph , dont you roll over now !! wipe the blood off yer goggles , take a couple hits of nitro , a couple hits off that green tank and git back in there !! a little blood jist looks like a lot & ya aint leakin that bad yet !! if yer gonna do a job ya gotta do it till its done !! on yer feet !!! ole feisty DOC. 8>})

[wheelmaster]

I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again. If we are all going to play in the same sandbox. Please do not throw the sand.

We come here for a common reason. To make the world a better place to live. Clear air and polution free. Working together as one will be the only way this can happen.

Can`t we all just get along. - Rodney King

[fatspidr]

Hey Jim,

Are we talking about a vertical wheel or a horizontal wheel?

[rlortie]

I am not Jim but at the time I made the statement that caused all this. I was thinking horizontal. But to my thinking it would make no difference vertical or horizontal as long as they both are statically balanced.

Received the following quote from one of many members supporting me in this tribulation.

"Jim's mathematical science has proven that Bumblebees can't fly".
Modern science (Jim's Science) still has not solved what Bessler did after 200 years. Maybe there are problems with the equations.

This expresses my opinion very well. Armchair debate over what is known or excepted as fact will never find the solution.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

We were originally discussing what might need to happen when the wheel gets bigger. So in this case, the wheel radius gets bigger and the weights get bigger. In order to balance the velocity must get smaller. If two of the three factors change then the third factor must also change. If two get bigger then the third must get smaller in order to balance. If radius and weight get bigger then velocity must get smaller in order to balance.

Ralph said the opposite in his original statement, "... it would take more velocity(RPM) to ... balance."

Even if the radius stays the same then when the weights get bigger the velocity must get smaller in order to balance.

Ralph says I'm making false statements and stating half truths.
I don't think so.

All I was trying to do was correct a simple error by Ralph. Instead of trying to understand the error Ralph tried to bury me in words. And he accuses me of false statements and half truths. Others accuse me of being an ass. Whether you rely on math or real life models the results are the same. Ralph's statement was wrong. All I wanted was a correction. Instead I get grief.

[Fletcher]

Ralph .. a simple picture would have cleared up this 'inconsistancy of understanding' right at the begining & saved a lot of grief for everyone.