What goes up...

[rlortie]

Michael,

I am a long ways from having negative ideas about conceptualization. In fact I am noted as above average for the ability to do so.

An intellectual understanding of how things work only need apply in learning the skills and practice of ones pursuit.

I know how the things that interest me work, To build a design I need not sit for hours drawing sketches and running math equations. My blue prints are conceptualized in my brain and I can see the picture clearly.

In our pursuit I call it 'Mechanical Aptitude' and it is much more rewarding than doing nothing but talking about.

If sawdust could somehow be measured in an equivalency of conversations dealing in intellectual understanding, I assure you that there would be more on your floor than mine! Your sawdust pile will continue to increase as mine dwindles.

To state that I do not have an intellectual understanding of how things operate is to me a gross understatement. It is the quest by many here for intellectual understanding that prevents you and them from seeing what Bessler saw. He likely did not find the answer in a book of physics!

I am available and ready to debate 'conceptual aptitude' with you as far as you wish to carry it.

Ralph

[nicbordeaux]

Conceptual aptitude is what a chess player has : the ability to see multiple implications of one move. That can come about through natural ability to spatialize, and (or) by long experience of what happens when something is moved, a force applied in some manner. As we aren't most of us Deep Blue, intuition and "feeling" plays a large part. In fact, Deep Blue being a dumb computer which looks at every possible move but still managed to beat a great champ, computational skills can play a big part. If you live to be 100 000 years old, because the combos which will make a G wheel work are likely almost infinite.

You could say that a pure theory guy into rocket science might invent some new form of energy, or rather identify some new energy or a way of capturing energy from stones or porridge or else, whilst your workshop guy will most likely be the one to build the working G wheel.

Now, lemme think, if you have this wheel which has a container full of porridge on one side, and an equal mass of jelly beans on the other on a longer lever, and you have them sink into a saline solution which you have previously reduced the superficial tension of by introduction of an ionic agent and there is intermittant DC 9 v pulse in the porridge, given the fly in the bottle theory and the fact that the jelly beans will freefall in the container on acceleration or decceleration therefore not interacting for a period x with the apparatus other than not weighing on it, it should follow that given the difference in conductivity of the two mass mediums there will be a gradient meaning that one jelly bean can lift four equivalentce units of porridge on impactint the container, and as the porridge hits the water and displaces... Anybody want to sim that one ?

[Richard]

nicbordeaux said

Anybody want to sim that one ?

You wouldn't mind if I pass that recipe on to my wife would you ? just this though... what would you suggest as the " ionic agent.." paprika..? and at how many RPM should it cook

richard

[Michael]

You're the one who makes consistent derogatory comments about your ego's perceived 'armchair philosophers' Ralph and yet you still have no working wheel. And you know what, I'm not interested in getting into a mean spirited discussion but you make plenty of mistakes when you build so things aren't exactly as you paint them to be.
And thanks for the compliment, though it was probably a mistake.

[rlortie]

Michael,

I too would rather pass on the idea of a mean spirited discussion but I do have a couple of questions.

You claim that I do not have a working wheel.
you also state that I make plenty of mistakes in my builds.

By what means do you obtain this information, can you support these remarks, have you been visiting my shop after dark? Have you hacked into my computer and tapped my phone line.

Can you describe my current build and the mistakes made?

Ralph

[Michael]

You've made the comments yourself Ralph on this board. I can remember can't you? Do a search even back to Aug. or so.

[ruggerodk]

Just wondering,...if Newton himself ever actually held a saw or drill in his own hands?

But again - he too was wrong, wasn't he

On the other hand, I haven't heard of James Harrison (1720) having a university math deploma...nor did da Vinci for that matter.

[Michael]

ruggerodk you don't need a math diploma to know math or to intellectually understand how things behave. Both Da Vinci and Harrison knew math, Da Vinci was an early pioneer in mathematical perspective drawing, along with being given open access to universities departments for his study of anatomy and in creating scientific drawings of his studies, among other things. Newton used tools, he in fact made his own telescopes, ground his own mirrors, and spent a lot of time experimenting and observing chemical reactions since he was an avid admirer of alchemy.
Where do you think Newton was wrong?

[ruggerodk]

where Newton was wrong?

Lets start with aerodynamics () - a small error that stalled the development of aviation.

Craftmanship was not for Newton...but something he ordered to be made.

da Vinci?
You don't need to know math to make perspective drawings: You need to SEE.

[Fletcher]

IIRC, Newton wrote a paper on the forces that made a spinning tennis ball curve sharply to the ground [topspin] & formulated the basis for the magnus effect.

The magnus effect is aerodynamics [modern circulation theory].

[Michael]

ruggerrodk you need to do your research to see how much of an advocate Da Vinci was of math and exactly what Newton did make by hand. And ruggerrodk, math isn't just crunching numbers, it's any form of measurement and real perspective drawing is entirely mathematical.
Your right Fletcher. I wonder if ruggerrodk was thinking of Kelvin.

By grinding his own mirrors, using Newton's rings to judge the quality of the optics for his telescopes, he was able to produce a superior instrument to the refracting telescope, due primarily to the wider diameter of the mirror. (Only later, as glasses with a variety of refractive properties became available, did achromatic lenses for refractors become feasible.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

“ He who does not know the supreme certainty of
mathematics is wallowing in self confusion� Leonardo

http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography. ... ician.html

Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (April 15, 1452 � May 2, 1519) was a talented Italian Renaissance Roman Catholic polymath: architect, anatomist, sculptor, engineer, inventor, geometer, scientist, mathematician, musician, and painter. He has been described as the archetype of the "Renaissance man", a man infinitely curious and equally inventive. He is widely considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time and a universal genius.
http://www.du.ac.in/coursematerial/ba/e ... 0Vinci.htm

http://www.shsu.edu/~mth_jaj/math467/me ... tation.pdf
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... s/Art.html

[Grimer]

Or as Bessler said:
When something got a downward impetus another got an equal upward impetus.

regards
ruggero ;-)

In modern terminology, Forces are equal and opposite.

Momentums arising from those equal and opposite forces are also equal.

But are Kinetic Energies?

[Grimer]

Ralph you seem to have negative ideas about people who conceptualize, calling them 'armchair philosophers' but if you can't graduate to having an intellectual understanding of how things operate then you'll forever be making sawdust.

I agree.

[Grimer]

where Newton was wrong?

Lets start with aerodynamics () - a small error that stalled the development of aviation. ...

You could add, the speed of sound in air. He assumed the compression/rarefaction of the air was isothermal. In fact it is adiabatic.

[ruggerodk]

Well Michael....my research involve "Archimedes - wrong for the right reasons" ( Chapter: Was Wrong Newton Bad Newton? by George Smith
DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-3048-7_7) page 127:

"Without question Book 2 puts forward a number of empirical claims that subsequent science has concluded are wrong. Some of these, however, have little to do with the book’s central concern, the theory of resistance forces on bodies moving in fluid mediums. Let me dispense with these first so that we can then focus on errors that were central to the theory construction task of the book. The three most notable errors that have nothing as such to do with resistance forces occur in the last two sections of the book:

1. At the end of Section 8 Newton derives from first principles a value for the
speed of sound in air of 979 ft/sec, which by the time of the second edition
he realized is well below a properly measured value of “more or less� 1142
ft/sec; before mentioning this measured value, however, he introduces a pair
of ad hoc correction factors – fudge factors, if you will – that transform his
theoretical value into 1142 ft/sec.3".

Page 129
....

3. In the next proposition Newton again balances forces instead of torques in extending his solution for a rotating cylinder to a rotating sphere, concluding that the times for one revolution in a vortex maintained by the latter vary as the radius squared; but, as Stokes later showed, in contrast to the case of a rotating cylinder, no permanent, stable vortex is generated and maintained by a sphere rotating in a viscous fluid.
....

Turning now to the Principia's errors about resistance forces, the two most famous are of less significance to Newton's theory of these forces than their fame would suggest. Both are claims about forces on a body moving in what Newton calls a "rarified" fluid, a limited case in which the fluid consists of solid particles that in no way interact with one another, but instead act like debris in empty space impacting on moving body:

4. In such a fluid, Newton concludes, the resistance force on the surface of the moving body varies as the square of the sine of the incidence angle at which the particles impact the surface;8 this "served, at the beginning of the XIX century, to demonstrate mathematically the impossibility of flying and by reason of [it] Newton has been blamed for having delayed aviation at least for half a century"9 ".

One can interpret this as they wish.