Well Respected

[triplock]

No where have you shown that your ejaculator produces any extra energy

I'll have you know my ejaculated energy is far in excess of my input stroke ;-D

Chris

[getterdone]

No video's required Triplock, we'll take your word for it.

[nicbordeaux]

When you sober up would it be possible to answer why you were trying to square one into two. I have no idea what you are trying to show

daxwc (et son nouveau bec verseur): just trying to show that there are a load of people out there who have these real wild theories which make absolutely no sense, but they have some physics formula or math sum which they think tallies (or it could be a computer sim), and from that they get so convinced that they are right and everybody else is a dumbkopf that they get stuck in the rut and insult anybody who says they are maybe not entirely right. So, I make up a sum, square 1 to be 2, and hey presto, it's OU. Maybe, it might have been better to subtract 0 from 0 and come up with -0² ? Because there is no way to prove that one wrong.

Actually, a nylon tether linking two revolving objects is quite like grav in it's effect. But better, because you can't tie a knot in gravity.

[greendoor]

Nic - I don't know what your agenda is. Playing with stuff is cool. But don't mistake the scientific genius of Pequide's experiments here. You are focusing on the "greedy" side of the experiment - using the flywheel trebuchet to display brute force. But the real purpose of these big wheels is - as I believe Pequaide tried to explain - is getting this system to convert a very S-L-O-W rotation of the heavy flywheel to fling the small mass up a modest height ...

Greendoor, lay off it will ya ? If I want to play with stuff and have fun at the same time as I make observations and try and work things out, also
do serious builds, that's my business and mine alone. Ref "trying to play genius with peq's stuff" or whatever you're saying, on yer bike lad, I don't deal in hypothetical numbers aggravated balloney, unless it translates into real working devices. Just to refresh your memory, I stumbled on the wheel bouncy ball flinger when absent mindedly flicking around a wheel experiment designed to deflect a flung bouncy ball off some steel plates and gain height in the cog dept. And because the bouncy stuck to a wheel on some line was too good an opportunity to miss trying. Only a single track minded dolt would have done otherwise.

And yup, I do understand fully what Pequaide is saying, and I don't see it happening yet in any experimental setup. If you are seeing it, it's because you want to see it. I'm saying it's sure that you can transfer velocity from a large object to a small one, but it's totally unclear whether that's slow mass to high velocity, or Force over time with system loss, meaning some of the energy of the slow moving mass is being transferred to the small mass which acquires impressive looking momentum. Now get of your pedestal and think : why are the very few people experimenting here and devising systems rather than blathering using wheels ? because the untether profile, the constraint of the tether and ensuing effect on flung weight is giving a load of velocity. It's a whole new Science, greendoor, and I claim all rights to it. It shall henceforth be referred to as Orbital Emulation Energy Creation. The mathematical formula is 2 + 2 /1² x 5 = 10.

Do yourself a favour : bang a 8 inch nail into a rafter or a tree branch, leave 4 inches protuding. Run a line over the nail, length of rope is such that when one end is grounded, the other end is near the nail. OK so far ?
Now, take 2 (two) 5 kg weights. Stick one weight at each end of string. Pinch a ladder from a neighbor. To one weight (the grounded one) attach a few feet on nylon and a 4 oz weight. Climb up ladder and place another 4 oz mass on top 5 kg weight weight. Pull this lot up snug so that line is taught to grounded weight.
It will descend with all that lovely force over time stuff at a very slow rate indeed. And when the initially grounded weight has risen far enough, the 4 oz on end of small line will become taught, and to your utter amazement rise a miserable 4 inches off the ground. You know what the miserable gain will be due to ? To the fact that the great heavy mass had enough distance to travel to capitalize on gravitational acceleration. The result was caused by velocity of the slow moving mass, and transfers into slow velocity of the small mass. Broli says he has the measuring stuff : well can he try this ?

Or go all out for the kill: 10 kgs on one side, just 100 grammes on the other. Freefall 10 kg weight 5 meters. Now, when the fastfalling mass connects with the small stationary mass via the rope (before grounding), the 10 gramme is going to take off in a major way (and stop the 10 kg weight dead I take it). Measure the velocity ? If I follow the understanding/belief/certitudes you have in your pet theory, what should happen is this: the small weight rises with an exponential increase in velocity, so that when it reaches it's end of free vertical travel and connects with the 10 kg weight, it'll have so much velocity it'll lift the 10 kg weight like it was a feather. The 10 kg weight will gain exponential velocity increase and overtake the exponentially accelerating small weight and in a microsecond the roles will be reversed and the small weight will gain even more infinite energy an' before you know it the whole thing is past the speed of light and into another dimension, where the 10 kg weight lays grounded miserably at your feet, and the 100 gramme weight is somewhere on the ground within a distance dictated by length of interconnecting rope. OK, it was too fast to see plus what with all this being in other dimensions and stuff you can't infer in any way from the fact that the whole experiment appears to have failed miserably that the theory was wrong, because the math says it's right.

Then come and give me some moralizing or condescension or reproach for jumping somebody else's bandwagon. Or question my agenda.

In the meantime, I have things to do, so I'll await the video of your validation experiment (protocol given generously).

Hi Nic - sorry if i've offended you - that wasn't my intention. I admire your practical inventions and hands-on approach. And your crazy sense of humour, which is much needed in this kind of mad quest.

I know I annoy you with my armchair maths approach. And frankly, at times you annoy me with your anti-maths anti-established physics approach.

For example - when you try to tell me that a Lever does not multiply Force - you are - how should I say this ... WRONG! This is Physics 101 stuff.

But we aren't that different really. Most Physics professors would tell me that i'm a complete imbecile for doubting the established concept of Energy the way that I do.

So really - this is about words and communication, and as long as we are trying to create a running Bessler wheel I don't really care what words we use.

But when I say I don't understand your agenda - you have used words that give me the impression you don't believe a running Bessler wheel is ever possible. You don't believe in OU, for example.

So to keep this simple: do you believe Bessler created a running wheel: Yes or No? Are you hoping to achieve a running wheel: Yes or No?

You have suggested an experiment above which deserves a good reply. I will create a new thread, because this one is not really the best place and has got a bit derailed. Cheers!









This makes communication a little difficult at times, but

[ovyyus]

Most Physics professors would tell me that i'm a complete imbecile for doubting the established concept of Energy the way that I do.

On the contrary, science encourages doubt and scepticism.

However, a physics professor might call you a complete imbecile for doubting rigorous established concepts in favour of flippant unproven personal belief. I guess believing anything is often a poor substitute for knowing something.

[nicbordeaux]

Greendoor, my excuses, probaly a bad moment, like I got a cup of reheated/boiled coffee. Bessler ? No idea. Possible. Haven't the motivation to dig into interpreting (both meanings of the word) old books. Is a Bessler wheel possible ? if you mean a grav wheel, of course I believe it's a distinct possibility, otherwise I'd not be wasting any time on trying to get a wheel to work. This belief comes not blindly, but out of observing stuff happening in other mechanical builds. Wouldn't bet my life on it though.

OU ? Like Jim said, depends of the meaning. If it's ex-nihilo energy creation, no way. There is energy everywhere, just a question of the way to harness/channel/release it most efficiently. If OU is a weight which starts at height x, falls to y, and then either returns to x or via "work" performs an equivalent task on a secondary device, we are back at "besler Wheel" (see above).

[daxwc]

Nic, any particular reason I feel like a raccoon caught in a baited trap? Must say you amaze me and I see now why most people just try to ignore you. I probably should have picked this up earlier, but never gave your posts much thought after I tried to validate your first ejaculator. I will try to without prejudice, but with proclivity to revert to my former self. Say... can I borrow your cowboy hat with the plastic whistle it might come in handy...

[triplock]

Must say you amaze me and I see now why most people just try to ignore you.

A bit harsh that IMO. It is the likes of maverick Nic that grease the wheels of innovation and conceptual design. Admittedly he's a little blinkered with the tethered bob design, but, hey, we can like what we want, and believe in what we want.


Chris

[daxwc]

Yes, you are right Chris, more along the lines of trying not to get in constructive banter then ignore is what I was trying to convey. Then again, when I am the one that calls him out on a mathematical equation, which admittedly is not my forte, then a whole lot of people here have him on ignore. Of course, it might be I was the only one gullible enough to think he was serious.

[broli]

OU ? Like Jim said, depends of the meaning. If it's ex-nihilo energy creation, no way. There is energy everywhere, just a question of the way to harness/channel/release it most efficiently.

Since the subject is raised. How about becoming gay? You will get to know how to harness, channel your lever and release loads up a blackhole. Isn't this what Bessler talked about, the prime faggot? Or have I misread the clues.

[nicbordeaux]

then a whole lot of people here have him on ignore.

Interesting, you think that's true ? I guess ignorance is bliss. LOL.