Jim_Mich's beef with Ralph

[rlortie]

If Jim would lay down his machinist hand book and forget the science and math in a calculator maybe he would better understand and would not as he admits make an ass out of himself. After all I was reminded that by his scientific standards a bumblebee cannot fly!

I received many letters of support on my behalf and more than one makes the term "ass" look pleasing. I also noted that my rep bar went back up a notch that I had previously lost! Who ever is responsible for this, I thank you!

So you want a picture that even Jim can understand OK! lets see if this works;

I have a five pound weight tied to a rope and I swing it over my head in hopes of achieving a given radius. Then I try the same trick with a ten pound weight. Am I going to achieve the same radius with the same amount of input/velocity. Believe me I wish I could say yes, IMO if it were true I would have an operating wheel.

I Agree that CF will apply more force on the rope and the Centripetal force of my hand as the radius increases, but it is also going to take more velocity to achieve it, also obtained from my hand pumping.

And if you care to substantiate this, May I suggest you try it.

This whole thread by its title was a personal vendetta, and should have never been posted here. But seeing as how it is here, I hope to end it by stating:

I will never submit or be submissive without proof to a self centered egomaniac who proclaims to be a self taught engineer. There are many types of engineers and I have never heard what category Jim claims to hold . Even a heavy equipment operator is called an operating engineer.

Now as wheelmaster can confirm, I never wish to leave myself or anyone holding a grudge. Jim, put your damn machinist handbook on the shelf and quit trying to be chairman of the "armchair philosophy society" and physically work on that CF prime moving wheel idea of yours. I am sure that every active member here would like to know of your progress.

If you have anymore personal gripes, please feel free to expound on them by private post or at least in "Off Topic"

Ralph E. Lortie B.C.M.E. (Blue Collar structural & Mechanical Engineer with certificates issued by the State of Oregon including teaching Credentials. Also recognized by US Army Corps of Engineers and as Journeyman teacher for veteran affairs.

There I have tooted my own horn for the first and last time on this forum.

[jim_mich]

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.

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

I have a five pound weight tied to a rope and I swing it over my head in hopes of achieving a given radius. Then I try the same trick with a ten pound weight. Am I going to achieve the same radius with the same amount of input/velocity. Believe me I wish I could say yes, IMO if it were true I would have an operating wheel.

I Agree that CF will apply more force on the rope and the Centripetal force of my hand as the radius increases, but it is also going to take more velocity to achieve it, also obtained from my hand pumping.

Ralph's original error concerned RPM's increasing or decreasing.
I get weary of Ralphs waffle phrases. Such as, "... with the same amount of input/velocity." Does he mean input or velocity or RPM's?

Let's look at what really happens...

Centifugal Force Formula...
CF = .000028403397 · Wt_Lbs · Radius_Inches · RPM^2

Ralph's scenario...
CF = .000028403397 · 5 · 39.125 · 30^2
CF = 5.00077308431 Lbs
At 39.125 radius and 30 RPM we get just enough to counter gravity and keep the 5 Lb weight up.
(Ralph would have needed to set up an experiment to measure this if he refuses to use formulas.)

Keeping the radius the same but increasing the weight to 10 Lbs...
CF = .000028403397 · 10 · 39.125 · 30^2
CF = 10.0015461386 Lbs
Just enough to counter gravity and keep the 10 Lb weight up

The RPM's DO NOT need to increase. At 39.125 inch radius the RPM's in both cases need to be 30 RPM to balance.

By this you can see that as the weight goes up the CF goes up by a same rate. No speed change is needed, contrary to what Ralph says.

At 30 RPM with a 39.125 Radius the velocity of weight is 8.194 inches per minute.



Now suppose we double the radius to 78.25 inches...
CF = .000028403397 · 5 · 78.25 · 30^2
CF = 10.0015461386 Lbs
We have twice as much CF to counter the 5 pound weight.

So to balance we need to reduce the RPM's, contrary to what Ralph says...
CF = .000028403397 · 5 · 78.25 · 21.2132^2
CF = 5.00077146452 Lbs
Just enough to counter gravity and keep the 5 Lb weight up.

When in balance at 78.25 Radius (an increase) and 21.2132 RPM (a decrease) the velocity of the weight is 23.177 inches per minute.

In order to balance, with the weight the same the RPM's have gone down while the velocity has gone up.

Ralph clearly stated in his original posting that he was talking about the need for the RPM's to increase when the weight was increased. This is not correct! In all the above numbers the RPM's NEVER INCREASE!

Ralph continues to slander me as if I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not wrong. Ralph made a mistake. All I've been doing is trying to point out the mistake. Ralph throws a lot of waffle words at me, but refuses to discuss the statement in question.

[rlortie]

Jim,

Do you really understand what you write,

Now suppose we double the radius to 78.25 inches...
CF = .000028403397 · 5 · 78.25 · 30^2
CF = 10.0015461386 Lbs
We have twice as much CF to counter the 5 pound weight.

So to balance we need to reduce the RPM's, contrary to what Ralph says...
CF = .000028403397 · 5 · 78.25 · 21.2132^2
CF = 5.00077146452 Lbs
Just enough to counter gravity and keep the 5 Lb weight up.

I say speed up for heavier and you say slow down for lighter. Now isn't that something to get all ruffled up about. And besides that, your whole mathematical reasoning is based on something that has already achieved the set perimeters. What does it have to do to get there?

You keep saying I use waffle words! I got to thinking about it; You and Ken B., who also claimed to be an educated person are the only members who have complained about my posts being hard to understand.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

No Ralph, your wrong again. The weights are the same in these two examples...

Now suppose we double the radius to 78.25 inches...
CF = .000028403397 · 5 · 78.25 · 30^2
CF = 10.0015461386 Lbs
We have twice as much CF to counter the 5 pound weight.

So to balance we need to reduce the RPM's, contrary to what Ralph says...
CF = .000028403397 · 5 · 78.25 · 21.2132^2
CF = 5.00077146452 Lbs
Just enough to counter gravity and keep the 5 Lb weight up.

Initially I thought that by balance you meant to "balance against a same force." If that were the case then the wheel would need to slow down when heavier weights were used. Later it became apparent that you meant "balance against the weight force of the weight." Your waffle words were hard to understand.

In either case, the wheel's speed never needs to speed up (as you originally stated) in order to balance. Never did I say in the above calculations for any wheel to slow down for lighter. I say that when you double the radius (the bigger wheel that was originally being discussed) while using any weight then the wheel's RPM's needs to slow down from say 30 to 21.2132 in order to just balance. If you leave the speed at the same 30 RPM when you increase the radius, then the CF is too strong and out of balance. If the wheel speeds up (as you say is needed) then the CF becomes even more unbalanced. The wheel needs to slow down in order to balance when the wheel gets bigger. This is what I've been saying all along.

In your original post we were discussing what happens with a bigger wheel with bigger weights. You said the wheel needs to speed up in order to balance. I say a bigger wheel needs to slow down in order to balance, that it never needs to speed up. I say the change of weight has no affect on the balancing. I say a bigger wheel affects the CF needed to balance. A bigger wheel causes more CF. So a bigger wheel needs to slow down in order for the weights (of any size) to balance. Your statement Ralph was that, "... it would take more velocity(RPM) to ... balance." When a wheel gets bigger (which is what was being discussed) it takes less RPM's to balance. If a wheel stays the same size with bigger weights then it takes a same RPM to balance. Never does the wheel need to speed up to balance.

If a wheel never needs to speed up to balance then your statement, "... it would take more velocity(RPM) to ... balance" is clearly wrong. That is all I've been trying to say. You, Ralph refuse to listen to my arguement.

The question is, "Do you (Ralph) really understand what I (Jim) write?"

[rlortie]

Jim,

T

he question is, "Do you (Ralph) really understand what I (Jim) write?"

The answer to your question in layman terms is no! you keep contradicting yourself and then attempt to change the issue from weights to radius. Now your are saying that you did not say it had to slow down for lighter: Then I quote you again,

So to balance we need to reduce the RPM's, contrary to what Ralph says...

Can't we agree to disagree on the whole damn interpretation and move on. I could point out more nit-picky stuff in your response, but of what value would it be to do so.

I have already publicly surrendered once but you would not except it. This is a personal pissing match, by continuing you are doing nothing but hurting both of our standing on this forum. My rep bar has gone up and then back down all within the last 24 hours.

My current design does not have or rely on weights flung around the radius, so all this is irrelevant to me anyway. I do however have a proto-type (facsimile) that belongs to another member that does use CF. But in 180 degrees it requires as much centripetal to cancel it.

Ralph

[wheelrite]

enough

[james kelly]

enough already !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[coylo]

[wheelmaster]

enough!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bluesgtr44]

Coylo....I love that bit! I gotta get me one of those computer monitors!


Steve

[wheelrite]

Its a new 'wide awake' model for those very late nights of essential research ha ha, they do a special chair that goes with it with electrodes... lol
Regards
J

[rlortie]

I reactivate this thread hopefully to bring and end to the personal contamination of other threads one last time.

Golly, Walf so popular, doesn't everyone want to read his jokes and off topic postings???

It was not I that made a joke with a given member as subject. It was I that made comment of it being there. And it is also fact that Jim does as much or not more "Off Topic" posting as I do.

I have had my fill of "the Man" of this forum and his constant attempts to bully or belittle me.

For those that have written me letters of support, I am in gratitude. I sometimes wish it were possible for some of the comments made to go public. This of course I do not expect or ask as it would reflect on those members.

It is obvious that Jim is not going to let his vendetta toward me rest unless he has the last word. I am tired of his misquotes aimed at me fowling up a good thread. IMO in the end it only hurts all of us

I ask myself is this forum worth it, is my input worth it ? Is it time for the forum to decide whether having me around is worth the trouble?



If not then I will step down and communicate with those of interest via private post. In my eyes it would make a bigger man of myself than to continue the squabbling.

My personal view is to consider the source and ignore it, but this leaves me wondering how many members view it the same way.

Give me a vote openly or by private mail.

Thank you and regards,

Ralph Lortie

[DrWhat]

Ralph,

don't give up. I value your inputs. Going soley PM would be unfortunate as your ideas make me think in different directions.

To be honest you'd be best off just ignoring any negative remarks. Current members know you enough to understand if you don't answer back.

The cause here is too great to be affected by personal issues. After all is not our aim to change the world, save Mother Earth? Lets keep the bigger picture in our minds.

[ovyyus]

FWIW Ralph, I think the day you give in to bullying will be the day you die :D

[bluesgtr44]

Not even for a minute, Ralph...You know how I feel. I won't get involved in the other stuff, I've mentioned before...I don't know much about the off-topic stuff....just kind of here for the wheel stuff. I need someone like you here more than someone like you needs me here. Just a fact!

Jim, don't have any problems with you and love your input...one of the best here and you have brought me along in a lot of ways. I just don't care about your dispositions towards Ralph. Not that sometimes you don't have a point...I believe I pointed that out at one time because I knew Ralph had just stated it in a way that was basically wrong....and you did, Ralph! But, I knew what he meant! And no! It wouldn't be fair in ways because others who were not as familiar with Ralph as I am....wouldn't get it. Which makes Jim's point.....

Ralph isn't going to "dazzle you with brilliance"....but you will get the basic idea most of the time. Jim, on the other hand is going to basically..."back it up with some facts and figures..." and is more particular in terminology.

I appreciate them both....I am a "bottom feeder"...see, Ralph does the building and Jim does the math...I just look for that little gap to slime in on and steal it all away! ;-)


Steve