A Murilo Solution

[justsomeone]

Well said Ovyyus!

Well said ME!

Frank, if you make up sh_t, back it up and quit deflecting! I personally ignore your posts but do not have you on ignore. I am so tired of your NG, EG bull crap. If you want anyone to care about your posts, please use language common to our forum and back them up with math.

Please....

Thanks

[eccentrically1]

Senax wrote

. Now I'm only too well aware that it is easy to make a mistake in this kind of
argument.

😂

[WaltzCee]

Murilo's. Wheel is a balancing of force and distance on both the left and the right sides.
It's a pulley system.

No amount of gibberish is going to change that.

[murilo]

For years I'm trying to develop my design - since 1989.

Always I find a kind of 'bad luck'... I have my feelings upon this... B(

When at the end, in 2014, I found a simulator guy, after partial cash pay, he got so crazy and nutty that we fight, much before the simulation evolute, as wished... B(

But if we look at the sent file, up to the final presentation, we'll see what I mean when is say that 'avalanchedrive' will run. B)))

Jealous? Good!
Murilo

[ME]

I'm sure some will be happy to see the bar pushed so low.

😁

It would be ironic if deep coal mine shafts were to be used

Link to file: https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/file ... 140808.wmv

What I see is a simulation that's settling itself into balance.

We don't see how it goes further, but when the set-up is without much friction then the simulator may even show a residual constant motion (Newton's first law).
With the intention of the design you actually want to see an acceleration. Because the intent is an overwhelming amount of mass on one side versus less mass on the other side with the hope that it causes a resulting torque as like you see on a pulley-system.
That it doesn't work that way should be the outcome of the simulator.

[agor95]

Agor95, you seem to be confusing argument with opinion?

Well I an not going too disagree with you there for that would be argumentative.

Can we up the bar a little from opinion normally in full [subjective opinion].

To an 'objective position' of the members understanding?

You see an argument implies a conflict with a winner and looser; Or two losers.

However a position can be changed. The request the position has an objective
foundation allows a way forward by members to raise the bar together.

Also were a member is not able to come forward with objective reasoning then
they should think a little more on describing their position.

All the smiley best.

[agor95]

We don't see how it goes further ...

With the intention of the design you actually want to see an acceleration...

thank you for the link

It would be good to have seen an acceleration.

If the vertical collapsed chain on the left's potential energy was used to facilitate
the extension of the chain down an incline at the bottom.

Then that would convert potential to kinetic energy.

If this extended chain was curved around and up using a light oil to help reduce friction,
then some kinetic energy would go back into potential.

This would require the chain to be restricted by a guide keeping one mass in front of the next.

However not all of the K.E would be used.

If the extended chain passed the level mark of the chain on the left and was given a supportive return incline then gravity would collapses chain to start the next round.

When I read the above I start to think on 'power used' as an alternative understanding [position] to Energy as a snapshot in time.

Therefore joules per second [watts] released on the left and used on the right.
This power could be equal when comparing density time flow rate.

Then there is back pressure on both sides. Could some of the back pressure be removed by supporting it and could this supported extended chain reach back into the left section?

P.S. And do I want to spend time on creating objective proof when the owner has not done so from 1989?

[agor95]

When you start to force yourself to create an 'Objective Position'. Then you start too understand how little you actually know.

That is why we have so many opinions. It is a lot less work.

Regards

[ME]

When you start to force yourself to create an 'Objective Position'. Then you start too understand how little you actually know.

Opinions are plenty and old knowledge usually rigid and rusty.
I think that's where the scientific thinking should come to play.
The fun of science: we can use science to doubt science, or to verify it's still correct.
You can check if a new idea is true when it can (still) be reproduced, especially by others.

And do I want to spend time on creating objective proof when the owner has not done so from 1989?

Non renewed opinions turn into rigid and rusty memories of knowledge you once thought you had.
Whatever you try to say or do, the owner only gets his objective proof when he would build the device himself. But he doesn't because <reasons>.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't spend time on creating objective proof.
You can test your own competence to actually fabricate such proof . Maybe you think you can, but how would you know if you are actually at that 'objective position'?
While having your proof anyway, you can test it a second time by putting it online here.
Four immediate benefits as far as I can see:
- You learn how to take an 'objective position' towards any design - especially your own;
- You may learn about some of the thinking processes of the designer - it helps to look objectively because it always makes sense in some 'position';
- Your posted proof should be 'objective'-by-design because you actually climbed your own learning curve instead of sliding downwards by bashing someone's design for no good reason (Prepare that you'll be accused and blamed for that anyway).
- Even when your proof is wrong, there is at least a second viewpoint with added thought and attention -- that's always a win in my opinion.

[agor95]

Your justification for working on an 'Objective Position' is well reasoned.

We should be able to put forward an abstract test framework.

The framework would allow members to build on the idea and produce a peer-reviewed
understanding [position].

Regards

[ovyyus]

Well I an not going too disagree with you there for that would be argumentative.

I think you might be undervaluing the power of argument to transform thinking and belief. Arguing different points of view is the history of our progress. Those who argue and protect a long-held design or belief deserve a counter-argument more than anyone. IMO, anything less is a disservice.

[agor95]

There is nothing like a good argument to thrash out the outline of a belief.
That allows the scope and strength of an argument to be framed.

However some arguments are a subjective pressure of wills between
the long-held believer and the others.

Were a design is involved one should be able to put forward an objective position.
For a design that can not be made into an object for testing has little reality.

All the best.

[murilo]

We're dealing to guessing, thinking, mental vision, creativity, speculations and, as we say down here free 'swim-into-mayonnaise'... BUT also relative to objectives, math, physics, some art and good moral sense...

The pure emotional and preconceptions side MUST BE OUT! I said OUT ( or should be! )!!!

Best!
M

[ME]

There is nothing like a good argument to thrash out the outline of a belief.

A good argument depends on solid proof and can stand serious criticism.
Not everyone with a random argument has a valid point. But there's a difference between arguing against belief -which appeals more to awareness or hope thus hard to proof-, and arguing against speculations about physics -which can be handled with similarities and experiments-.

I argue that you can piece together small experiments to predict a reliable outcome of a compound design without even having to build it.
The proof for that can be found in Physics, with force decomposition as a first example, or simulators of any kind to name a practical application.
But we can argue all we want.
When in doubt, then the most objective answer you'll get is from actually building a design.

For that Perpetual motion is very simple: it's either able to overcome balance and friction or it doesn't.

Unless proven, it simply can't do such thing because perpetual motion is the exception on normality. Hence the proof is a working mechanism.

So I agree with Murilo, emotional preconceptions must stay out of it.

[ovyyus]

However some arguments are a subjective pressure of wills between the long-held believer and the others.

Belief is usually subjective and rigid. That typically means long and loud circular statements of faith that reject argument.