Impact is the Key

[Michael]

If anyone wants to steal the credit for my ideas of the Beta- Gamma- etc. atmospheres, they are very welcome. Mind you, I don't think they would possibly get away with it cos the ideas are all over the Internet in one form or another - and in various publications.

Steal in what way?

[Michael]

Grimer do you thing the Sjack Pm is a runner?

[Grimer]

Do you?

[Grimer]

Another application of the 'impact' theory:
The explanation of the 'buzzsaw' wheel by Hans von Lieven
http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/perpetual.html

I had to stop half way through to get my thoughts down on paper.

The key is to realise that Force is an alias for strain and that though the forces are equal and opposite strains generally are not and neither are energies (epsilon squared).

Early in my career I had to map out the full stress strain relations for a range of different concrete types. This could not be carried out on the conventional testing machine available at the time (B.I. before the Inston) so we had to stiffen up the 1000 ton Amsler with a couple of very large blocks between the wall platens and thereby turn it into a source of controlled strain rather than controlled stress. It was while carrying out those tests using a steel prism as the load cell that I came to recognise that force was just an alias for an unacknowleged strain.

The release of equal and opposite forces is of course most spectacularly demonstrated in the firing of a gun so Bessler had very probably taken this fact into account intuitively if not formally.

Now I'll go away and think a bit more but I hope I've left people interested in this topic something to chew on

[Michael]

Not based on the information given. Did you read M.T. ?

[Grimer]

Thanks to pathfinder's link I've now realised what the problem is with 1/2 mv^2. Half the momentum has been chucked away. I'm afraid that's what happens when you differentiate things. Once one realises that Force is really an alias for strain it all becomes painfully clear.

What a joke.

What whoever derived the equation for KE forgot was that when the apple falls towards the earth, the earth rises to meet the apple. The moon doesn't revolve around the earth, they both revolve around a common centre.

And the earth doesn't revolve around the sun either.

More later but in the meantime I'll let you chaps have a go to get at the answer.

[Grimer]

Not based on the information given. Did you read M.T. ?

Alright then Michael. I'll bite. What's M.T.?

[Michael]

You'll bite Grimer? Your posting on a Bessler wheel board.
http://www.orffyre.com/mt.html

[Grimer]

You will apologise for that insult on open forum Michael or I will complain to the moderator.

I see you've edited it out. OK. We will forget it.

[Michael]

You have got to be one of the most self righteous posters I've seen on here in a long time.

[Fletcher]

Thanks to pathfinder's link I've now realised what the problem is with 1/2 mv^2. Half the momentum has been chucked away. I'm afraid that's what happens when you differentiate things. Once one realises that Force is really an alias for strain it all becomes painfully clear.

What a joke.

What whoever derived the equation for KE forgot was that when the apple falls towards the earth, the earth rises to meet the apple. The moon doesn't revolve around the earth, they both revolve around a common centre.

And the earth doesn't revolve around the sun either.

More later but in the meantime I'll let you chaps have a go to get at the answer.

They don't need too Grimer - its a relative measure of capacity to do work in a kinetic world so it doesn't matter whether one body is stationary or not - it is relative to the other & only accounts for their final collision velocity translating to useful energy.

Willing to learn something every day though :)

[Grimer]

You have got to be one of the most self righteous posters I've seen on here in a long time.

Having edited out your previous insult I see you have chosen to replace it with another. Be careful Michael. Though you are anonymous I am not.

[Michael]

I have absolutely no idea what your veiled threat means. Care to explain? How about doing it in private, no one is really interested in reading through all of this crap.

[Michael]

They don't need too Grimer - its a relative measure of capacity to do work in a kinetic world so it doesn't matter whether one body is stationary or not - it is relative to the other & only accounts for their final collision velocity translating to useful energy.

Fletcher I think it might also have a bit to do with objectifying CF measurements. I'll try to find the link but I've also read some history on why the equation had stayed like it did, the reason being only incidental or irrelevent.

[Grimer]

Thanks to pathfinder's link I've now realised what the problem is with 1/2 mv^2. Half the momentum has been chucked away. I'm afraid that's what happens when you differentiate things. Once one realises that Force is really an alias for strain it all becomes painfully clear.

What a joke.

What whoever derived the equation for KE forgot was that when the apple falls towards the earth, the earth rises to meet the apple. The moon doesn't revolve around the earth, they both revolve around a common centre.

And the earth doesn't revolve around the sun either.

More later but in the meantime I'll let you chaps have a go to get at the answer.

They don't need too Grimer.

I'm afraid they do Fletcher. And if you go to that reference pathfinder gave you will appreciate why. To understand the energy available you have to look at the whole system from the outside. It's no good standing on the gun and contemplating the energy of the cannon ball. You have to take into account the energy of the gun as well, or rather the momentum since energy is a misleading concept.

Bessler must have recognised this implicitly if not explicitly - and he's not been the only one.
The article strongly suggests that the builder of the "buzzsaw" recognised it too.