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:
..... since it illustrates the false idea students are given about the properties of a gas where the gas is represented diagrammatically by straight lines bouncing off the side of the container, i.e. with no, or next to no, interaction.
Thanks for digging that up.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
You are welcome, Grimer ;-)
Very good links, Michael.
I noticed the intro:
"Leonardo had a grasp for higher mathematics but he did not know how to express it in the academic form of numbers we recognise in mathematics today."
and later:
"Pure maths excludes the inexplicable qualities of reality that are better replicated with a drawing. Maths is only a tool to produce an outcome and thus Leonardo preferred drawing as his primary tool to execute his studies of proportionality and spatial awareness, which are used in his engineering designs....In the diagrammatic form of mathematics, a greater sense of spatial awareness is needed than formal mathematics..."
I believe that follows what Nick said in an ealier post.
di·a·gram (d-grm)
n.
1. A plan, sketch, drawing, or outline designed to demonstrate or explain how something works or to clarify the relationship between the parts of a whole.
2. Mathematics A graphic representation of an algebraic or geometric relationship.
3. A chart or graph.
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
What Ralph and I visulise as a runner is quite different from other peoples. We no longer consider a " drinking bird " a runner. We have many of that type. Working? YES. RUNNING. NO!
Good point Mr Kelly, but do you have a wheel that will 360° from a given start position and run at whatever feeble speed for a prolonged period ? Protracted enough that coasting being the cause of the multiple turns being the cause ? Please, see no agressivity, animosity, provocation or else in this, just a straight question, pure curiosity.
In nearly three months this is the first input I've heard from you.Nothing and no questions on the DLF nothing and no questions on the RO and your first words to me are adversarial. In fact There were no questions on The Bessler type untill now. All the Input on these designs were mine and not even a single Question....Give me a break.. and for what its worth I should not like to let this play out on a public forum...I asked you not to be decieved by my lack of formal education..I am a driven individual
Richard
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think
Me provoking James kelly , you're joking I guess ? I'm not provoking anybody, just asking a plain question. Anybody asks me that exact same question, no hassle, the answer is : NO, I don't have a working wheel.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
james kelly wrote:OUR working unit is measured in time of run duration and not ther number of revolutions.
Which includes seesaw levers and pendulums. If a quarter of the clever solutions invented to try and make wheels run without "fuel" where applied to seesaw levers, runners would be everywhere. Problem w/these silly seesaws is that the amplitude is limited, and the nuber of oscillations per minute is also very limited.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
james kelly wrote:OUR working unit is measured in time of run duration and not ther number of revolutions.
My mother-in-law has a grandfather clock that runs for eight days, so I guess it beats any wheel that only runs a few hours?
That, Jim, is an assertion or claim, not a proven fact. Nobody can live in their mother in law's house for 8 days to check that there is no nocturnal winding.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
Which includes seesaw levers and pendulums. If a quarter of the clever solutions invented to try and make wheels run without "fuel" where applied to seesaw levers, runners would be everywhere. Problem w/these silly seesaws is that the amplitude is limited, and the number of oscillations per minute is also very limited.
I am glad you reminded me. I had almost forgotten about this one...
