Jim_Mich's beef with Ralph

[Fletcher]

Kevin .. welcome - I for one value your input - it is always better to engage in discussion than lurk in the background so I'm glad you came out - there are many lurkers & I guess they all have there reasons - only by sensible debate can a case be made of arguments beyond a statement of 'belief' - I have trouble doing the high level math especially when relating forces to energy & capacity to do work in the 'greyish' areas which seems to be some of the issue here, so your skills add another dimension to the analysis possibilities - people can then accept or reject findings but it forces them/me to think thru the arguments logically though it may not always be comfortable for those involved.

[ovyyus]

Kevin, please don't think that you might discourage everyone by discussing standard mechanics. It's important to understand how things work and be corrected when that understanding does not reflect actual physical processes.

And aren't we looking for some magical force to appear and power our PM wheels?

Some here aren't looking for PM at all. As Michael pointed out a few posts back, some here are looking for far less exotic reasons for Bessler's success. So the answer to Jim's above question, in terms of a "we", is - NO!

Kevin, considering the impasse reached here, I wonder if you might like to give us any opinions and/or assessments at Jim's "Which is science fiction?" thread here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2335

[AB Hammer]

Welcome to the forum, Kevin

I am the primitive person here. I am a blacksmith/armourer specializing in medieval armour reproduction and sports wear for the combatant who fight in it. I can't always follow what is said, for I follow the old ways when it comes to working ideas. ;)

[primemignonite]

Ralph & Jim-Misch

My thanks to you both for going to the very great trouble of explaining things.

It would seem that you both are locked within a condition of mutual intransigeance, with quite little possibility of achieving an amicable resolution, if ever.

If I were asked, which I have not been, but if I were to be, I would advise thusly:

Simply DEPRESS the other's "Ignore" button, and it will all go away, with an earthly, blessed relief accruing unto you both!

Of course with implementing such a remedy, neither of you will enjoy the satisfaction of seeing the other admit egregious, loathsomely-intended, foul error, and groveling in that other's dust, the one who, admitting wrong finally, begging on-belly for the other's gracious forgiveness, which would have a fair chance of being withheld in a sort of rascally way, sadly, judging by the level and quality of rancor so-far displayed.

Although each of you well might relish to have come-to-pass that tantalizing result, as suggested above, some little things must be sacrificed for the sake of the peace to be attained.

So, as the Austrian Emperor said to Salieri, "Well . . . there 'tiz!"

James

PS Checks in-payment may be sent to the usual address.

[Mak#1]

Hi All; I was attempting to brush up on the true meaning of CF and came across something interesting, I have six physics textbooks open on my desk, and all of them use the same experiment of rock and string spun overhead in the horizontal position, with a few variations,( ball or lead weight instead of stone) so I got to thinking, have teachers been doing this for three hundred years?!! So I found the problem or example with gravity where they say that if you dropped a coin and a feather in a vacuum they would fall at the same rate. And sure enough this experiment was recreated time and again. In the first place if you had a perfect vacuum the objects would not fall would they? And if you if you spin the ball on a string in front of you in a vertical plane instead of horizontal everything changes doesent it? And what I think is really interesting is that most of the time they say neglect friction of the air and gravity!!! I guess we really do live in a vacuum!!!

[jim_mich]

In the first place if you had a perfect vacuum the objects would not fall would they?

They still fall, even in a vacuum. A vacuum makes objects fall faster because it eliminates air friction.

And if you if you spin the ball on a string in front of you in a vertical plane instead of horizontal everything changes doesent it?

Not everything. Only the direction of gravity relative the the axis of rotation and a minimum speed needed to keep the rock from falling on your head.

[FunWithGravity]

this is anti gravity, not a vaccuum, is their still air friction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tEkKhMVoS4

[Mak#1]

Jim Mich; Are you saying that CF would be the same in both cases?

[jim_mich]

CF is the same both vertically and horizontally. It is an equal opportunity force. But when you spin a ball on a string in front of you then gravity pushes the ball inward downward when it is at the top and gravity pushes the ball outward downward when it is at the bottom. Gravity slows the ball when it is rising and speeds the ball when it is falling. There are are only two factors that determine if a weight can swing around in front of you and not hit you on the head. These are RPM and Radius. A third factor is Gravity force but you are not on the Moon so we can ignore it. The weight of the rock does not matter because if a heavier rock is used then you get more CF and the two balance out. This is where Ralph and I got into a quarrel. He said a heavier weight would need a faster speed.

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

[DrWhat]

There must be a simple answer.

When I look at Bessler's MT I don't see anything amazing. I see simple but different designs than even a humble me could have put together. No ethers, magical forces, etc.

Sure he should be congratulated for his ideas, but I still see really simple mechanics.

[Fletcher]

this is anti gravity, not a vaccuum, is their still air friction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tEkKhMVoS4

FWG .. I presume they are in a parabolic aircraft ride - they are inside the aircraft protected from the environment & it is accelerating vertically at the same rate as the force of gravity, so it appears as though there is no gravity force - I wouldn't technically call it anti-gravity, though in the moving reference frame it has the same properties - air friction is still a non-conservative force to deal with inside the planes cabin so the guy doing the spinning has to provide energy to keep the rotation [angular velocity] from diminishing - the aircraft in its dive has tremendous air friction losses, but outside the refence frame, & that air friction causes heat.