My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing experiments" thread

[Ed]

His forum name was jim_mich.

I find your comment offensive!



:-)

Sorry, man! ;)

Don't be, Dwayne. It was a joke. I agree with you about Jim. My statement was a joke because that is what Jim says at the slightest resistance to things going his way... that he finds something someone says offensive. He plays the outrage card and makes the other person into a bad guy, even though he becomes the aggressor. He's said it so often to so many people, I just assumed everyone would get it. :-)

[johannesbender]

as far as discussion goes on the subject
of bessler and the "what if's" i miss jim mich , i think every forum needs a jim mich !

he certainly made use of the forum for what it were intended as a subject matter on bessler , i do not see so many discussions on the topic any-more as though most have decided that it is of better value to explore their own concepts ,wich is not to say that i have something against it but jim mich did keep the bessler topic alive and full of thought provocing ideas.

as for the disagreements as to whos correct/wrong or whats possible/inpossible i cannot share my views on because i cannot agree to everything being impossible to be such .
.....

i think everyone more or less have the same motives here , it is just a matter of how excitement is dealt with that produces claims in the usual fasion of what we witness here from time to time , i even fell into this pit myself and i came to realize that the grown up part in me should prevail against the child like "eureka" (non ill intended moments) excitement moments , we all crave to some degree such a glorious moment and jump to it too hastfully .

thats how i see it , its a common human condition and i do not blame people for sincerely believing but we must excercise more controll over publicly displaying this human weakness , the best is to make a rule for yourself "stay quiet untill you can proof it as fact to your utmost ability" , i learned from such human behaviour myself as i am no exception too .

[Furcurequs]

I find your comment offensive!



:-)

Sorry, man! ;)

Don't be, Dwayne. It was a joke. I agree with you about Jim. My statement was a joke because that is what Jim says at the slightest resistance to things going his way... that he finds something someone says offensive. He plays the outrage card and makes the other person into a bad guy, even though he becomes the aggressor. He's said it so often to so many people, I just assumed everyone would get it. :-)

Don't worry. I got you. Notice the winky face.

I thought that maybe I should at least explain myself for the benefit of others, however.

What you just said there seems to be a nice summary. Thanks.

Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

I have not seen a conclusive mechanical proof that CF is energy conservative. I have a plan for one, but it remains on my ever growing to-do list. Kaine

It is impossible to do a proof that CF is conservative as it is a fictitious force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

It only appears to exist because a rotating environment is inside an accelerated reference frame. From an external observers viewpoint viewing from a non-accelerated frame, there is no CF, only a property of mass resisting change in direction.

For the external observer the magnitude of the CF "force" is always zero no matter what the mass or rpm.

Therefore CF=0=0=0=0.

See how easy that was! Absolutely conservative since there is nothing here to conserve.

Too bad in ten years Jim never bothered to learn this in spite of being a claimed CF expert.

You may now cross this off your to-do list.

If we were in a non-inertial reference frame in which we had to actually consider "fictitious" forces, then I believe those forces actually can do work, but I'm not so sure it would necessarily be apparent, though, as to just where the energy was coming from in those situations. Those forces, without knowing what was accelerating the frame of reference, might be as mysterious as gravity itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious ... s_and_work

Anyway, I wanted to discuss fictitious forces and what we should see if we were to try to obtain energy from attempting to put centrifugal force to work - and as seen from an inertial reference frame.

I'm going to try to be pedantically detailed, or in other words, I'm going to try to be as descriptive as possible.

First, I would like to discuss "fictitious" forces.

I believe considering fictitious forces in a linearly accelerated reference frame might most easily convey the concept, so I'll start with that.

Let's say, then, we are sitting in the front seat of a forward accelerating car. If the interior of the accelerating car is our reference frame then we would "feel" a force seemingly pressing us backward into our seats. Also, if we were to drop ping pong balls in front of us, we would see them accelerating both downward toward the floorboard of the car (due to gravity) and backward toward ourselves.

Well, what are the strange forces we feel pushing us backward into our seats and that are apparently accelerating the ping pong balls backward toward us? Those are fictitious forces.

Why are they fictitious? ...because they wouldn't be seen in an inertial reference frame in which Newton's laws apply but have to be accounted for in an accelerated one.

So, let's look at what is happening from an inertial frame of reference outside of the car, then.

We can now see that, oh, the car is accelerating forward relative to the ground and so the seat is accelerating forward, too, and applying a force to the passengers which is accelerating them forward, and so the seat cushions are depressed because the force from the seats are met with the inertial reactive force of the passengers as they are being pushed forward. There is obviously no force at all, then, pushing the passengers backward. Likewise, the ping pong balls aren't be accelerated horizontally at all. The passengers are just being accelerated forward toward the balls.

Now, centrifugal force is also a fictitious force. Why is that?

Well, it is a mysterious radially outward force one would perceive in a rotating (and thus accelerating) frame of reference - but which also isn't there if one observes what is happening from an inertial frame of reference.

When I was a kid there was this one ride I saw at a carnival in the parking lot of one of the local grocery stores. People got inside this big cylinder and placed their backs against the wall and they rotated the cylinder up to a high speed and then, I believe, they dropped the floor out from under everyone and they stayed "stuck" to the wall of the cylinder. They may have even tilted the cylinder, too, but I'm not sure. (...or did they tilt it without dropping the floor out? ..hmmm...)

Anyway, the riders would perceive a radially outward force - the fictitious centrifugal force - pinning them to the walls.

An outside observer, though, sees something different. He sees that the riders are moving quite fast and that the inside wall of the cylinder is applying a centripetal force to them and thus accelerating them TOWARD THE CENTER of the ride and therefore he sees that the wall is met with their inertial REACTIVE centrifugal force.

He sees no centrifugal force accelerating the riders themselves radially outward at all, though, for they are actually being accelerated radially INWARD. ...yet, again, there is a very real reactive centrifugal force on the walls of the cylinder due to the inertia of the riders resisting the centripetal force of acceleration from the walls, however.

Now, and hopefully with those distinctions a bit more clear, how about we actually try to put a centrifugal force to work? ...well, at least in a thought experiment.

Let's tie a string to a rock and travel up to the International Space Station and climb outside where we don't have to really worry much about gravity or air resistance and then get our rock swinging in a circle at the end of our string. We'll have a nice tight grip on the fairly massive space station and do our best to hold the string firmly in one spot (relative to the space station) once we get the rock circling at whatever speed we want so we won't really have to consider the motion of the pivot point.

Let's also make sure we have some sort of grommet or something at the pivot through which we can pull the string and by so doing vary the radius to the rock as it orbits the pivot.

Now lets conduct our experiments and see if we can get any sort of "free energy" from "centrifugal force".

Again, we now have our rock already traveling in a circle at the end of our string - circling the pivot.

If we know the speed of the rock and the mass of the rock, then we can calculate the kinetic energy of the rock. If we know the speed of the rock and the mass of the rock and the radial distance to the rock, we can calculate the centripetal force the string must apply to the rock to maintain its circular motion which, of course, will also be equal in magnitude to the reactive centrifugal force the rock applies to the string as the rock's inertia resists the centripetal force - providing tension in the string.

If we know the speed of the rock at this one radius, though, and we accept that angular momentum is conserved, we can also then know by using a simple ratio what the speed of the rock will be at any other radius if we were to simply pull in on the string or to let out the string to change the radius - and thus we can know the kinetic energy and reactive centrifugal force at any other radius, too.

We can therefore even write an equation for the reactive centrifugal force on the string as a function of the radius itself, and since work is force applied through a distance, we can integrate this centrifugal force equation with respect to the radius and then evaluate the integral over the change in radius to determine the actual work we need to do to pull the rock in to a smaller radius orbit or, likewise, the work that will be done on us if we allow the rock to move to a larger radius orbit.

We can then, of course, compare the work we put in or take out with the difference in kinetic energies of the rock moving at different radii.

If we actually do the calculations (which I have done to make sure I know what I'm talking about), we find that the work we put in to decrease the radius of orbit actually will equal the kinetic energy increase of the rock itself when it is then circling with a faster speed at the smaller radius and that the work done on us as we let the rock move to a larger radius orbit equals the kinetic energy the rock has given up when it is thereafter moving more slowly at the larger radius.

If one accepts the formula for kinetic energy and accepts that angular momentum is conserved and accepts the formula for the centripetal force and knows his math, then he knows all he needs to know to verify that all the energy is indeed accounted for and so is conserved.

I personally have already seen all the demonstrations I need to see to accept these things, too, and even decades ago. If other haven't yet and want to see for themselves, I certainly understand that. ...but these equations are basically empirical, remember. They come from experimental observations to begin with.

What is the actual mechanism by which pulling in on the string speeds up the rock and increases its kinetic energy, then? Well, while the string is being pulled inward, the distance to the rock is decreasing and so the rock is actually "spiraling" inward. That means the force of the string on the rock cannot be at right angles to its velocity but is in a direction that has a component of force which is actually in the same direction as the velocity itself and so this component force of acceleration increases the rock's speed.

What is the mechanism by which letting out on the string slows down the rock and decreases its kinetic energy? Well, when the string is being let out, the distance to the rock is increasing and so the rock is spiraling away from the center. While this is happening, the string (again) cannot be applying a force to the rock at a right angle to its velocity but (this time) is rather applying a force that has a component in a direction opposite to its velocity and so the rock is actually accelerated by this component force to slow its speed.

There we have it. A way to demonstrate energy conservation and an explanation for the mechanisms by which the rock is either accelerated to increase its speed or accelerated to decrease its speed (some would just say "decelerated" - but physicists supposedly don't like using the word "decelerate").

...or to put it simply, the energy one would obtain from trying to put a reactive centrifugal force to work would come from the the once circling mass just giving up kinetic energy that had already been stored in its motion as it thereafter was being slowed down.

I hope this is helpful.

Please ask if you want me to show the math. I just did it on a pizza box or something originally.

Dwayne

[Dunesbury]

Very good!
Also, energy is converted and also lost by the hand pulling and releasing string tension! Less, in space, not much heat!

[Furcurequs]

Thanks, Dunesbury.

Yeah, if we use our muscles to offer resistance to the string as it is being let out, the work done on our muscles is converted to heat.

If we were to replace our muscles with a spring or some other energy storage device, we of course could temporarily store that energy. The ultimate source of the energy, though, would have been whatever we used to get the rock up to speed to begin with.

Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

Cloud Camper,

I was going back to catch up on some of the posts that were made during the time I was absent from the forum, and I found the following post of yours in another thread. I see that in it you were discussing fictitious forces and basically said the same things that I did in my post above about them. It would have saved me some typing had I seen your post first. I might have just linked to it for the first part of mine. Anyway, my post above wasn't really intended for you but rather for those who may be confused and think there is some sort of free energy available in trying to put CF to work.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 082#119082

Take care.

Dwayne

[cloud camper]

Oops, sorry Dwayne.

Oh well, the more agreement there is on issues, the more force it has.
And the more times you explain a subject in different and creative ways, the more folks will understand so no loss.

I'm sure CF will keep coming back as a potential solution so the more references we have for folks to link to the better!

It's unfortunate Jim was so hard headed he could not see the fictitious forest for the fictitious trees. He had just made his mind up that's the way things were and that was it. Everyone that challenged him was a vicious troll that could not see the true genius behind his ideas.

Then when he finally built his wheel and couldn't face the fact that it didn't work as advertised, left the forum instead of just admitting his mistakes and moving on.

Really appreciate the support when Jim was trying to ban me!

And I really enjoy your long posts so please continue!

I do believe we have contributed to making the forum more like a true scientific forum, where no one is afraid to point out issues and science is
king, not personalities.

[Wubbly]

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 755#109755

[cloud camper]

Great experiment Wub!

[Furcurequs]

Hey Wubbly,

Yes, thanks for the link to your post there. We were discussing this stuff in that thread, too, obviously. Unfortunately, though, I began feeling a bit of heat in that thread and had almost forgotten that you and maybe a few others had been trying to explain this stuff before I even entered the fray. Anyway, I hope I didn't steal any of your thunder.

I had intended to mention in my post above that there were other ways we could calculate the work besides just evaluating the definite integral of the centrifugal force equation (as a function of the radius) over the change in radius, but the thing was getting a bit long. Of course, what you've done there with your spread sheet is one of those methods - using a numerical approximation for the integration. Another would be by plotting the centrifugal force (as perhaps measured at different radii) with respect to the radial distance and determining the approximate area under the curve between two radii if we wanted to determine the amount of work graphically.

Obviously by whatever method we use we can see that the work in (or out) equals the gain (or loss) of kinetic energy of the moving mass.

...and, of course, I understand I'm preaching to the choir here, but there may be others who aren't aware of this stuff and who may not have fallen asleep just yet.

After seeing you say in your answer to Honza that the linear momentum was increasing, I would like to elaborate on something, though, to hopefully help some to avoid confusion.

In the case of the two battery experiment, although the speed of both batteries does indeed increase when they are pulled inward, their instantaneous velocities and thus their instantaneous linear momentums are always in opposite directions and so (since the batteries are the same mass and moving at the same speed) the sum of the system-wide linear momentum will remain zero. ...or in other words the center of mass stays put and the linear momentum of the system as a whole is conserved.

In the single orbiting mass situation like in your spreadsheet, it would be understood that whatever the pivot was attached to would change its momentum so that the linear momentum of the total system was conserved, also. With something very massive, of course, the actual change in motion would be immeasurably small and so we typically just ignore it in our calculations.

I don't mean to be nit picky, but I do believe that if we are to see things that others may have overlooked in regards to "the quest," we really do need to pay very close attention to details.

An immeasurably small change in the motion of the earth or other planet, for instance, can provide a huge gain in kinetic energy for a much smaller mass - and relatively speaking, of course. ...like one can see with the gravity slingshot maneuver used with space probes.

Of course, if something like that were possible on the surface of the earth, it might require some unconventional ways of thinking to achieve it - while, of course, working with conventional and accepted physics.


Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

Oops, sorry Dwayne.

Oh well, the more agreement there is on issues, the more force it has.
And the more times you explain a subject in different and creative ways, the more folks will understand so no loss.

I'm sure CF will keep coming back as a potential solution so the more references we have for folks to link to the better!

It's unfortunate Jim was so hard headed he could not see the fictitious forest for the fictitious trees. He had just made his mind up that's the way things were and that was it. Everyone that challenged him was a vicious troll that could not see the true genius behind his ideas.

Then when he finally built his wheel and couldn't face the fact that it didn't work as advertised, left the forum instead of just admitting his mistakes and moving on.

Really appreciate the support when Jim was trying to ban me!

And I really enjoy your long posts so please continue!

I do believe we have contributed to making the forum more like a true scientific forum, where no one is afraid to point out issues and science is
king, not personalities.

No need for you to be sorry, and agreed, as several of us explain the same things in our own words, it can only help.

Eh, and it's good for me personally to try to put my understanding into words, too, I guess. In doing so I sometimes realize I don't understand things quite as well as I maybe thought I did, which of course helps me know where I truly need to brush up.

Trying to explain some of this stuff does give me a new respect for teachers, too, I must say, and thinking about this ordeal with you-know-who has even had me rethinking my stand on a formal education.

I did fairly well in school without having to try very hard and so I had developed the notion that were I not so lazy I could have just learned everything on my own had I wanted. Now, though, I'm realizing the true value of my education. Just having people there who are familiar with the material who can check you and nudge you back on track - even if it is only occasionally - when you make mistakes is invaluable. ...for, wow, if one - anyone - unfamiliar with the material accepts a misconception and then builds upon it for a while... ..well... ..I guess we've seen.

To be honest, it's a fine line we are all walking here, probably. Some would regard all of us as looney tunes for just daring to ask the questions. Of course, though, where we truly go looney tunes is when we refuse to accept the real answers to our questions.

Actually, I was reluctant to even post in this forum to begin with because of what others might think and the social stigma involved (lol), but I do have questions that I've not yet seen the answers to, like "What happens when I do this?" ...lol

Of course, I think to some degree we all identify ourselves with what we do and so we can take criticism of our work and our ideas very personally. I remember that that was especially the case when I first started "writing" my own music - because it, at least for me, is very much an emotional thing. The music is somehow an expression of my emotions, even, and not just some formulaic process. So, I just play and don't even think of what notes I'm playing or the key signature or the time signature or the chord structure or anything like that. It all just flows - it just comes out - during the inspiration. So, at least early on it really did feel for me like it was a part of me.

Now, though, and years later, I find it much easier to divorce myself from the emotional attachment once it's done. Coming up with music is now just something that happens for me on occasion. It's like that breath I took and exhaled a few minutes ago. It's like my belch after last night's dinner, maybe, or even the occasional passing of gas. It's just something that, for better or worse, was there and somehow passed through me, came out of me or whatever - and then it's done.

You didn't like my last belch?! How dare you!! ...lol

Okay, I didn't really like that one myself. ...though it still sounded kind of like a real song, though, huh? ...and, would you believe it, some people actually say they REALLY LIKE IT - and want to hear it again! I truly don't understand it with that one, I honestly don't like it myself, but who am I to deny them?! ...lol

(Sorry I'm rambling. I've been up awhile.)

Anyway, I guess the point I am trying to make is that practically everything I saw from jim_mich once someone questioned his ideas was an EMOTIONAL reaction!! The one and only thing he could have done to shut me up about his mistaken math was the one and only thing he couldn't do - simply show that his calculations were correct.

So, on a personal level I'm kind of worried about the guy - and I hope he gets things sorted out. As far as the forum goes, though, I saw him do everything he could think of to try to discredit those who challenged him - other than simply backing up his claims, of course, which he quite apparently couldn't do.

The specific problems I was addressing could have been straight out of a college textbook. There was nothing speculative at all about how to solve them. It was fundamental physics, the problems were simple and he was simply confused and refused to admit it. That it took more than a mere few MINUTES (or forum hours) to come to the correct understanding - which is all the time it takes to solve such problems - was because of his own stubborn behavior.

What got to me, though, was him trying to teach others wrong while steamrolling over anyone who got in his way. Oh, and that he seemed to be able to get away with doing that in this forum!

So, Cloud Camper, you are quite welcome for my support when he was trying to ban you, and once again I'd like to say I commend you and applaud you for standing up to someone who as I see it was behaving like a true bully. I think, all in all, you also did pretty well in keeping your cool under the circumstances and that your persistence was warranted.

I will note that I'm not the only one who expressed that jim_mich calling to have you banned was inappropriate, but I am a bit disturbed that his assertions, allegations and insinuations in regards to you actually seemed somewhat effective in turning some forum members against you and that not more people stepped up in your defense or the defense of others he was basically personally attacking.

You know, I had the privilege of working in a truly professional environment at IBM (in my college days), and I honestly can't even imagine anyone there behaving like that. If a mistake was pointed out, you checked it, corrected it and thanked whoever pointed it out to you. If it took some convincing, once that person was convinced, he or she would thank you and have even a greater respect for you, even, in that you knew your stuff.

When I was leaving to go back to school the quarter I worked in the design group of the IBM PC/AT (in the 1980's), the whole group signed a going away card and the two main design engineers - who have since been inducted into the U.S. National Inventors Hall of Fame for what they were doing then - actually thanked me for repairing one of the (only 40 or so) prototype computers. They said they had both spent hours each trying to fix the same one themselves and couldn't find the problem.

Did they cry and run off pouting because I fixed it and they couldn't?! (Okay, when I found the unusual output levels on the defective I/O chip, I did run it by another fellow there before actually pulling it and replacing it, so I refused to take total credit then as now. ...anyway...)

No! No! No!

No, they actually seemed to be truly impressed and offered me some encouraging words.

Of course, maybe I should have reminded them of the time I also put about 6 EPROMs (Erasable Programable Read Only Memory) into a machine backwards and said something like, "Are EPROMs supposed to glow like that?"

...lol

Yep, not only did I repair the broken computer others couldn't fix, I also with the flick of a switch one day fried enough EPROMs to equal in cost my day's wage. The engineers there with me, of course, just laughed at me as soon as we realized what I had done. I, of course, felt very embarrassed and ashamed. ...and then they said not to worry about it and then, of course, we all laughed some more together. ...even as I continued to feel embarrassed and ashamed... ...of course... ...lol

Anyway, we all have our successes and our failures - and they are all fleeting and so maybe we should just aim toward success and, where we can, laugh at our failures along the way as we just get on with things.

So, Cloud Camper, hopefully you are right and we can now move back to being critical of just the ideas rather than the people who have them, for valid notions should withstand scrutiny and experimental testing no matter who has the ideas. ...and, quite obviously, we all make mistakes. There is probably going to be a cooling off period still, however, after the 10 minute math problem turned into the 10 month (okay or whatever length it actually was) standoff, and while bruised egos heal.

I am glad you like my long posts. Writing has not always been one of my strengths to be honest, so I appreciate that.

Dwayne

[Fletcher]

Guys .. howabout you just let it go.

You didn't 'defeat' jim_mich with a superior argument [yours being the conventionally accepted] - it was plain to see that it was a one-sided argument & he told you this enough times & he told you why he wouldn't enter the debate with details - to do so would give away his intellectual property rights - he didn't show a working wheel or reciprocating device either, as we all know to well, to back up his assertions with a physical device working on the 'jim_mich principle' - we know why that was as well - either he didn't have one or if he did, without revealing the whole mechanisms, he would attract a deluge of ridicule & stick poking.

So, I understand why he was defensive & even angry at times - not so much from the superior arguments but from his own self imposed frustrations of not being able to punt the ball back to the opposition.

ATEOTD I think he was somewhat naive to take his position - he should of expected to be questioned hard based on first principles but he also shouldn't have gone to war with no arrows in the quiver & no superior force.

However, if someone presents a hypothesis & theory then it is a different matter - the error IMO is to go the next step & elevate it to a claim, without substantial proof.

In jim's defence he was very clear at the start that he could do one or two things - say nothing & stay under the radar .. or .. tell you what he was doing & where he was at but not discuss detail or show proof until he was ready, & we (the forum) could come along on his journey - well, since it became personal then we know how well that turned out for him.

ETA: I make no judgements as to whether his ideas were real or imagined - we probably will never know, though obviously we know what fundamental physics says.

[Furcurequs]

Fletcher,

jim_mich showed that he was rather ignorant when it came to his understanding of some basic physics principles and in his ability to solve some simple basic physics problems - even as the results of some of your own computer simulations ultimately showed, too. (Don't you remember?) In my last interaction with him, of course, I even had to find and show him what was wrong with his own "radius of gyration" calculation. (...and did you notice, by any chance, how polite he was to me there at the end as he was finally accepting my help? That truly was a nice and pleasant - though, of course, very brief - change from what seems to have been his normal behavior when I and others were trying to help him with his very real errors. ...but anyway...)

Unfortunately, jim_mich may have caused much confusion while so stubbornly and vociferously trying to defend his own mistaken work and notions and while also trying to discredit those of us who actually did know what we were doing and talking about. So, most likely there will be continuing discussions about stuff that he truly misunderstood - if even just for the benefit of others - for he may have indeed misled quite a few people in this forum.

Now, I really don't at all understand the relevance of most of what you posted above. You seem to be discussing his claims to his alleged "motion machine," perhaps? Well, I certainly can't address specifically anything that he has kept "secret" from us, of course. I can only continue to address (if necessary) the things that he posted in this forum for all to see - which unfortunately do indeed include some rather major mistakes that some of us had to help him correct.

As someone educated in engineering and quite familiar with the basic physics, and after having seen jim_mich's "struggles" in trying to grasp such basic physics, I personally cannot at all believe any of his more, shall we say, outlandish claims.

You, though, Fletcher, can believe whatever you wish in regards to such things, as can anyone else. Of course, though, how many times was it that your very own computer simulations showed us all that he didn't really know what he was doing (and that, of course, I did know what I was doing)? I personally don't know how you yourself can take him seriously after those, but well, that's for you to decide, I guess.

After jim_mich tried to avoid scrutiny of his mistaken calculations by pretending that some who were trying to help him were instead personally attacking him - which, of course, even led to the confusion and the stirring up of the emotions of people who weren't even directly involved, Fletcher - I suspect that individuals will decide to "let it go" each in their own time.

If you were to more closely examine the real physics and then go back and look at where jim_mich truly struggled to understand the real physics, when it comes to any belief that there might have actually been something to jim_mich's "motion machine" claims, Fletcher, you and others might even decide to just let that one go, too.

Thanks for your input.

Take care.

Dwayne

[Fletcher]

Dwayne .. I don't believe jim_mich has/had a working prototype, because I haven't seen any evidence of one - I also haven't seen his full idea & examined his math behind it.

I do know that in the Conservation of Angular Momentum thread where the spinning batteries were discussed that Wubbly put up an excellent spreadsheet that showed the relationships very clearly - my sim of the two mass system matched his spreadsheet results closely which is what I'd expect since both are based on first principles.

I do know that jim_mich was in disagreement with about four members who all were in agreement - I think it was clear & very public that he was erroneous about his conclusions about the battery experiment.

Jim-mich also preferred to use his Machinery's Handbook calculation for finding Center of Gyration v's other methods that gave slightly different results [but not significant IMO] - the assumption could be made that CoG was an important facet of his ideas about using Cf's & inertia mitigation - I don't know that his use of the Machinery Handbook calc was germane or not.

My point was that I still don't know the details of Cf's jim_mich's idea - I do know that if a way can be found in nature to make a self sustaining Cf driven wheel & assuming that it can be described using current physics & first principles, then a particular arrangement would hold the key to breaking the symmetry, found in Wubbly's spreadsheet for instance - I don't know whether jim_mich found that key stone concept regardless of whether he was mistaken about his interpretation of other concepts such as the batteries experiment.

If I here other members erroneously quoting jim_mich's interpretation of either CoG or CoAM [re the batteries experiment] then I'll put them straight, if you or CC haven't already done so.