Decoupling RKE from GPE, for fun and profit

[jim_mich]

I'm confident he will overcome his experimental problems and be the first to demonstrate harvesting the gravitational wind.

I'm confident Mr. Camper will never demonstrate a harnessing of a gravitational wind.

There is no gravitational wind. There is only gravitational force. And no amount of seeking a gravity solution will produce a Bessler gravity-wheel. Such goes against the laws of nature. Bessler explained this in his writings, though he wrote it very subtle. Bessler wrote very plainly that his wheel was rotated by force gained from the motion/swing of the wheel's weights. Thus Bessler's wheel was a motion-wheel that turned perpetually.

Everyone else posts their thoughts without a disclaimer, but because my thoughts run counter to the gravity-wheel crowd, I must post that these are my own, well founded, fact based, opinions.

[Grimer]

It's an analogy, you pillock. You, know - like Supermac's "Wind of change blowing through Africa".

[Ed]

fact based, opinions.

That is a contradiction, my good man.

[Furcurequs]

I'm confident he will overcome his experimental problems and be the first to demonstrate harvesting the gravitational wind.

I'm confident Mr. Camper will never demonstrate a harnessing of a gravitational wind.

There is no gravitational wind. There is only gravitational force. And no amount of seeking a gravity solution will produce a Bessler gravity-wheel. Such goes against the laws of nature. Bessler explained this in his writings, though he wrote it very subtle. Bessler wrote very plainly that his wheel was rotated by force gained from the motion/swing of the wheel's weights. Thus Bessler's wheel was a motion-wheel that turned perpetually.

Everyone else posts their thoughts without a disclaimer, but because my thoughts run counter to the gravity-wheel crowd, I must post that these are my own, well founded, fact based, opinions.

Hey Jim Mich!

How are you doing in overcoming your own experimental problems?

Two or three months ago I forced myself to work through my chronic pain for a few days and tried some things I wanted to test with the main build that I've been concentrating on as of late.

One of the mechanisms that I tried behaved in part as I had hoped, which was really quite nice to see, but unfortunately I also saw that it would still require some additional features before I could use it to adequately test my overall hypothesized working principle.

...and even then it might not be the most effective of my designs - meaning that the results with it might not be definitive (at least if they were negative).

I tried another method, too, with about the same outcome.

I also tried adding some pieces to the general design that I thought would help conserve some lost energy but found that they only made the losses greater due to friction. :( ...so I removed them.

...but even so, with just that little physical hands on time I was finally inspired with a beautiful solution to the major technical problems I had been trying to overcome (for probably years) with another mechanism that I have believed all along would be the most promising test of this current general device design! ...woohoo!

So, now, it may truly just be a matter of me finishing the build and doing some fine tuning before I could have some very real answers!

Of course, as you may somewhat understand, with health issues one's motivation (not to mention functionality) can be somewhat lacking. It can really be a head game.

Do you force yourself to work through the pain just to be disappointed? That would truly suck!

...or what if it were to actually work?! Wow, but that would certainly be a major burden while feeling this crappy!

Damned if I do. Damned if I don't.

I guess, and again as you may know, it's easier to just pretend to oneself (and in your case others, too, perhaps... ...lol) you have the answer without doing what needs to be done to know for sure. ...and just cling to that blissful dream while trying to escape the painful reality.

You are not entirely alone in where you are, in other words. So, maybe we should all be encouraging one another to find the determination to plug away and just do the proper tests, huh? ...on whatever our individual designs.

Oh, and glad to see that the reception on your avatar has cleared up. ...though you still seem to be picking up an old signal - or watching reruns.

Dwayne

[jim_mich]

It's an analogy, you pillock. You, know - like Supermac's "Wind of change blowing through Africa"

pillock
noun British informal

a stupid person

As stated earlier, there is no such thing as a gravitational wind. There is only gravitational force. Even in an analogy, wind and gravity are NOT analogically equal. Wind has mass. Gravity is simply a force with no mass.

You may continue using the stupid sounding phrase "gravitational wind", but it simply makes you seem like a pillock, to use your British ad hominem that you threw at me.

[Grimer]

You can't say it's got no mass. All you can say is that any mass is below the threshold of perception.

Unless you are God of course.

Are you? :-)

[jim_mich]

According to current scientific thinking, pure force has no mass.

[Ed]

It irritates me when people talk down to me, and assume I don't understand things, and then they attempt to 'educate' me as to how things work.

[ME]

What I think:
Gravity is an acceleration effect, and not a force.
Wind force is or is like kinetic energy (not sure yet).

Gravitational Force: F=m*g (m=mass, g=gravitational acceleration)
Wind Force: F = P*A = P/v = (1/2)*r*A*c*v^2 (P=Pressure, A=area, v=velocity, r=air density, c=drag coefficients)

[jim_mich]

So what's your point of quoting me, Ed ???

Grimer was indeed talking down to me, called me "pillock". (Had to look that one up.) Then he stated gravity wind is an analogy.

But such is a very wrong analogy, since there is no energy in gravity. Energy only comes into existence when the FORCE of gravity causes MOTION of mass. On the other hand, wind contains the moving mass.

Then Grimer tries to 'educate' me about gravity having a mass below the ' threshold of perception', which means there is no way to know if gravity has mass or not. If you can't measure then mass of gravity, then we must assume it has no mass.

[jim_mich]

Gravity is an acceleration effect, and not a force.

Most people have a name for "acceleration effect"... they call it "force".

Why twist the English language? Why not use the proper words for common things?

[ME]

Why not use the proper words for common things?

Because Gravity as 'force' is confusing (whether right or not); it would indicate that all objects would be subject to some same constant gravitational-force (which is not so).
But it is the Acceleration which is (almost) constant on the scale we can work on (just about 9.81m/s^2), and then the force depends on the mass we work with: and this force is variable.
That's why F=m*g and not F=G*m1*m2/r^2.

Perhaps for that last formula (on a larger than earth scale) Gravity as Force could be considered as being more correct... where acceleration is the eventual effect.
That's why I called it acceleration-effect.

We could also call it space-time-curvature (or something similar) but that would make it even more impractical.

[jim_mich]

Because Gravity as 'force' is confusing (whether right or not);

It's not confusing to me.

[eccentrically1]

I'm confident he will overcome his experimental problems and be the first to demonstrate harvesting the gravitational wind.

I'm confident Mr. Camper will never demonstrate a harnessing of a gravitational wind.

There is no gravitational wind. There is only gravitational force. And no amount of seeking a gravity solution will produce a Bessler gravity-wheel. Such goes against the laws of nature. Bessler explained this in his writings, though he wrote it very subtle. Bessler wrote very plainly that his wheel was rotated by force gained from the motion/swing of the wheel's weights. Thus Bessler's wheel was a motion-wheel that turned perpetually.

And no amount of seeking a motion solution will produce a Bessler motion wheel. Such goes against the very exact same laws of nature. There aren't two sets of laws of nature, one set that shows it possible, and another set that shows it impossible. Thus Bessler's wheel had to be a clever disguise.

[jim_mich]

And no amount of seeking a motion solution will produce a Bessler motion wheel. Such goes against the very exact same laws of nature. There aren't two sets of laws of nature, one set that shows it possible, and another set that shows it impossible. Thus Bessler's wheel had to be a clever disguise.

You are correct. There aren't two sets of Laws. I've never claimed two sets of laws. But PM is IMPOSSIBLE by means of gravity. That's a scientific fact.

On the other hand, natures laws do not forbid a motion wheel, contrary to your harping about it. Just because you don't know the motion-solution does not make Bessler's wheel a clever disguise.

Now stop treating me like I'm some sort of 'pillock'. Shame on you. Show some respect.