Furcurequs (aka Dwayne) questions Jim_Mich

[cloud camper]

Oh Cmon Randall - let's get on to the good stuff.

We know you really want to explain your three fatal errors in your "motion" wheel calculations.

I have been studying hard and have learned many new fun CF facts that I can't wait to educate you with.

Since you are a CF expert, this should be very helpful for you.

Just to make it a fair fight, I'm going to tie one brain behind my back.

Since you desire to ban me, let's see just what you got.

[ovyyus]

Simply defining what something isn't leads nowhere.

[murilo]

murilo:
CC!

You described brilliantly and exactly my own personality and behavior!!!

LOL, in my opinion there is a little narcissistic personality disorder in everybody especially those such as ourselves who wish to defy dogma or looking for answers. Most great men have had the disorder so just make sure you take heed.

COL! Cry On line! B((((
The described narcissistic guys are often those born under Scorpion sign, and they are very proud to create fear! They live to get admiration from others!

They are not able to control and avoid their nature!

I remember the short story of the frog, that crossing a river, offered a ride to the scorpion. In the half way the scorpion picked deeply to the frog's back... Then frog cry: 'oh, stupid! Now we both are going to die! Why you did this?'
The insect responds: 'I couldn't avoid... That's my nature... I use to hurt without think... '

COL!

[cloud camper]

Cracks me up Murilo!

Well it seems Randall is blowing his big chance to explain his errors, silence
his critics and demonstrate his superior intellect in the absence of superior accomplishments.

You don't suppose it might be because he lost the last four CF debates do you?

I guess it's just easier to ban your critics instead of debate them.

[murilo]

Yes! Cracks you up, CC! (whatever this means... B(

Some times one may fail in the evaluation of consequences, thanx to enhanced and macro self confidence...

[Furcurequs]

Furcurequs:

I honestly don't like being made to look like a bully for simply pointing out a few errors, but jim_mich seems to like to pretend he's infallible and so when challenged that seems to be when the old Mr. Hyde come out.

I can assure you almost everyone doesn’t see you as a bully. When you have to whack an ox over the head to get him to listen there will always be some outsider thinking the tactic is wrong and inhuman till they have to deal with the ox.



.

Thanks. That's nice to know. ...and so you'll understand and maybe even forgive me for the coming sledgehammer.

...lol

Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

The reason I ask is that you would probably need to have an equivalent knowledge yourself to see the kinds of mistakes that jim_mich has been making in this forum when it comes to basic physics equations - including his so-called "radius of gyration" calculations.

Machinery's Handbook, Copyright 1914, by Industrial Press, New York
Link to a Google Books copy of Machinery's Handbook:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VkEYAA ... &q&f=false

Radius of Gyration from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_of_gyration

This kind of talk about "the kinds of mistakes that jim_mich has been making" are down right lies.

Edited to add, Old Arabian Proverb...

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.
Shun him.

He who knows not, and knows that he knows not is a child.
Teach him.

He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep.
Waken him.

He who knows, and knows that he knows is wise.
Follow him.

Oh, man! ...oww... ...eww... ...aaaaaww... ..arrgghh.. ..ohhh... ...uggh... ..look at all those maths and stuff. What am I going to do now? :(

...hahahaha

...lol

Come on, jim_mich, do you really take me for a fool? Do you think I'm not smart enough to at least try to choose my words somewhat wisely? Do you think I would even mention '(your) so-called "radius of gyration" calculations' without some sort of intent of my own in mind?

You see, jim_mich, I have a confession to make. Before I even entered this thread I had determined that I was going to lead YOU into a discussion of your radius of gyration calculations.

;)

Like I said, in that you behave like an ignorant and out-of-control little child these days, you are now quite predictable. By mentioning '(your) so-called radius of gyration calculations' I pointed you into the very direction of what will be your downfall (so to speak), and in your ignorance and smug self-righteousness you just eagerly hit the ground running.

So, you are now exactly where I want(ed) you to be, and you are certainly not going to like what is in store for you now, either, for there are not going to be too many ways out for you.

You want a showdown? Let's have it.

You would even hand me one of the very weapons I will use to take you down (again, metaphorically speaking).

I was chuckling off and on all night, as matter of fact, (well, the other night now) as I would think of this last post of yours and your little poem and just how truly ironic it is.

(I do keep odd hours due to my health problems, btw. ...oh, and sorry for taking awhile to get back to you.)

...but now I guess, to be honest, it's all seems rather sad.

Do you not remember that I said I have an engineering degree? Do you not even know what sort of curriculum an engineering student takes?

As I've said before, you may be trying to educate people more knowledgeable and capable than yourself.

I've had enough calculus and physics and courses in problem solving and analysis that I would (or at least should) actually be able to derive those equations you have posted myself (for in school we did very similiar problems if not even some of the same) - rather than to have to just look them up in a handbook as apparently you have to do in some feeble hope you will know how to correctly use them.

(Okay, I admit, I might have to do a little review of my calculus before attempting an actual derivation now. It has been awhile, but anyway...)

Some have said you need to put up or shut up, jim_mich. Well, since you are obviously not going to do either one on your own, I'm going to force your hand a bit by forcing you to make a decision here.

After I have made my case, you will either have to admit that you can indeed be very mistaken in your understanding, application and/or execution of proper radius of gyration calculations (not to mention your basic physics), or you will have to publicly defend one of "(your own) so-called radius of gyration calculations" which to an intelligent, reasonable and rational person with enough knowledge will clearly show that you don't know what you are doing.

Btw, you don't seem to pick up on the subtle little nuances, do you, jim_mich? I wasn't saying at all that there was no such thing as a radius of gyration calculation but rather that your own calculations may not deserve that label - and thus my speaking of '(your own) so-called "radius of gyration" calculations." I hope that is a little more clear to you.

If it is not now, it might be shortly. ...well, at least to others.

Oh, and thanks for posting the information that you did, too. That saves me the trouble. ...and thanks, also, for highlighting the words in my last post that I have just explained. As can be seen in that one conservation of angular momentum thread in which you had so much trouble before, you do seem to like to highlight the very words of mine that cause you the most confusion and, of course, eventually give you grief.

Have you forgotten about that particular thread, jim_mich? Maybe I need to remind you of it and perhaps remind others here of it, too, or if they haven't yet seen it point it out to them, even, for I am certainly no liar when I speak of your mistakes in this forum. Did you really think you could just run off with your tail between your legs from a thread in which you ultimately got your ass schooled and then just go on pretending that you are infallible - and after your behavior in that thread?!

You showed you didn't have a clue about some of the very fundamentals of physics, but what was even more disturbing was how you insistently, stubbornly, arrogantly, repeatedly and even rudely preached your own misconceptions as if they were absolute fact, when in actual fact you and they were absolutely wrong.

You had plenty of time, though, to have corrected yourself and there would have even been plenty of different ways for you to have done that - especially before daring to be that incredibly rude and disrespectful to others (again, who are possibly more knowledgeable and capable than yourself in the subject).

You could have simply looked more closely at the output of the experiment in the video we were discussing itself, for example, which clearly showed that you were wrong. You could have picked up a physics book and read for a few minutes. You could have looked some stuff up online or maybe watched a basic physics video. ...but, no, jim_mich is beyond anything like that. His assertions are pure fact that need no checking or verification but rather just blind belief and acceptance by others.

Such a wonderfully simple experiment it was, too, that we were discussing - and which so beautifully demonstrates the principle of the conservation of angular momentum. You were willing, though, to confuse and mislead others about it, and others who took your words seriously based upon your history in this forum, and according to what one new member said, even because of just the number of green dots near your name.

...and then when finally even Fletcher's simulation of the problem showed, too, that you were wrong, you the "truth seeker" and one who just wants to "share the knowledge" after all of that obnoxious mess of yours just disappeared from the thread without even acknowledging that you had been wrong and/or apologizing for having confused and misled others - leaving those others in their confusion.

Would a simple "oops, sorry" truly have been so difficult for one as great as yourself? I believe someone called you a "man-child," though I'm personally now really having a hard time seeing the man part.

Of course, though, a few of us (including myself who was taught such basic physics nearly three decades ago) were not at all confused about the physics that some apparently believed was actually in question due to your own incorrect and repetitive assertions. Some of us, though, may have been quite confused about your very unusual behavior.

You seem to have a pattern now of trying to defend your own misconceptions, mistakes and but mere opinions as if they are fact, and many of us are seeing that and are very annoyed by it. Some things, though, like basic physics are simply no longer subject to anyone's mere opinion - at least not for some centuries now.

Maybe some of those who have left here were the wise ones not to stay around and have to continue to "fool" with you.

You did finally admit you had been mistaken, I will give you that, but you didn't do that in the thread in which those mistakes were made and in which you had been truly misleading others.

Of course, with your added assertion that your new understanding shows your device functioning even better raises some rather interesting new questions too, now, doesn't it?

...like, "Why didn't you thank me and a few others for trying so hard to finally help you get to that new understanding?!" for instance.

:(

...lol... ...yeah, right. If you collect royalties, you owe me, man! ...lol

...or how about, "How did your new understanding just automatically make any working experiments and/or devices of yours work any better?" ...hmmm... ...or maybe they are still only working in your head?

Perhaps, though, you meant you quickly redesigned and modified your devices based upon that new understanding? That would perhaps better explain your quick exit from the thread in which we helped you come to that understanding, so you could get right to it, huh? ...lol... ...though, again, you didn't mention doing any redesign or rebuilding.

...hmmm...

Tell us jim_mich. Just what should we ASSUME?

Here is the thread I'm talking about. Just look for jim's editing in red if you must:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... um&start=0

Here are a couple of places where he FINALLY admits he was mistaken including the one I mentioned (notice they are indeed in other threads), and so I'll even go ahead and quote them for the benefit of those who might have missed his misplaced confessions earlier:

Trevor, get lost! The video is not relevant. Yes, pulling a weight in against CF adds energy to the spinning weight as the weight accelerates. I was wrong. The energy ratio was not as I expected. I now fully understand how CF works in a situation where the spinning weight is free to accelerate as it is pulled inward. This situation is quite different from my CF concept.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 101#111101

I made one "mistake of understanding" involving CF in a situation totally different from the functioning of my device. And that "mistake of understanding" actually shows my device functioning better than my original expectations.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 710#111710

...hmm... A totally different situation, even, and yet it shows your device works better? ...lol

...anyway...

Now, let's get to the meat of the matter. In another forum thread in which someone asked for help with a simple problem you volunteered your services and you said it required the use of a radius of gyration calculation.

Oh, look. We can see that incredible mess of yours here:

Weights on rod = 1kg each
Rod weights are 1m from the center.
Pulley has a radius of 10cm
Falling mass = 500g

Is there a formula that will tell me how much time and how far the weight would need to fall to reach 50RPM?

Radius of Gyration formula:
RoG = (a²×W+b²×w)÷(a×W+b×w)

W = 2000 g (two 1_kg weights at ends of rod)
a = 100 cm (radial distance of weight 'W')
w = 500 g (dropping weight)
b = 10 cm (radius of pulley)

Filling in the values:
RoG = (100²×2000+10²×500)÷(100×2000+10×500)

Radius of Gyration result:
RoG = 97.804878 cm

In other words, the arrangement will accelerate and rotate as if it were a single 2500g weight located at 97.804878 cm radius, sans gravity.

The 500 kg dropping weight is at 10 cm while the RoG is at 97.8 cm, so the torque force is leveraged.
It will be 97.804878÷10 = 9.7804878_g of force acting on 2500 g of mass.

The desired speed is 50 RPM. The RoG is 97.804878.
Note that Radius of Gyration value must be used as the radius of the moving weight, else the calculations WILL NOT BE CORRECT.
I've seen some members just grab any old radius that they come up with from who know where.
If you want accurate calculations concerning rotating objects then you MUST reduced everything that is rotating down to equivalant Radius of Gyration values.

So the circumference at RoG is 2×pi×97.804878 = 614.526172727 cm.
The desired velocity is 614.526172727 × 50 RPM = 30726.3086364 cm/min.
Or 30726.3086364 ÷ 60_seconds = 512.10514394 cm/s velocity desired.
Or 5.1210514394 m/s velocity desired.

We want to know the time needed to accelerate 2500 grams up to a Radius of Gyration velocity of 5.1210514394 m/s using a force of 9.7804878 grams where the gravitational acceleration is 9.80665_m/s².

Time = (M × V) ÷ (Ga × F)
Time = (2500_g × 5.121_m/s) ÷ (9.80665_m/s² × 9.7804878_g)
Time = 133.48 seconds to accelerate the mechanism up to a speed of 50 RPM.

Final velocity of dropping weight = 50_RPM × 10_cm × 2 × pi = 3141_cm/min = 52.36_cm/s
Distance dropped = (V×T)÷2
Distance dropped = 52.36_cm/s × 133.48_s ÷ 2 = 3494.5_cm or about 114.65 feet.


Hopefully I've made no mistakes. I make no guarantee. I've checked and double checked and believe this is the correct answer.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 402#104402

The highlighting in the above was done by jim_mich himself and not me, btw.

I can now see that in this calculation of yours, and even thanks to some of the information you have just provided (hehe), you have used the radius of gyration equation for a "compound pendulum" and then have plugged the value of the descending drive mass in this problem into that equation as if it were actually a part of the rotating system of mass itself. Admittedly, that is some interesting thinking on your part, but unfortunately for YOU it doesn't seem to yield the correct answer.

In actuality Wubbly's formulas for an Atwood's machine apply to this problem and yield the correct results and results that have already been shown to be VERY different from your own. An actual radius of gyration calculation for the rotating portion of the system is not even necessary in this particular problem, either, for with the given conditions the radius given for the rotating masses is sufficient.

In this strange mathematical model of yours you seem to have the drive mass, instead of simply moving downward as it accelerates, somehow moving with and accelerating along with the rotating masses at your calculated radius of gyration. ...and you seem to have somehow used a fraction of the weight of the descending mass that you derive from a static leverage calculation (?) to accelerate all the mass as if in a linear fashion?

To be honest, though, I can't make much sense at all out of whatever you were trying to do there. I'm mostly guessing.

...but before you rack that up to MY ignorance, I would emphasize that it is YOU with the wrong answer. If you don't "believe" me or understand Wubbly's equations for the Atwood's device, then I would suggest that you might ask for Fletcher to help you again by perhaps modeling this one for you, too, like he did in that conservation of angular momentum thread.

You see, one might even ASSUME that since you speak of radius of gyration calculations so much you might have also used what you would call a radius of gyration calculation somewhere within that hand written computer program of yours which you have also said showed an energy gain with your motion machine concept and excited you so.

If such an assumption happened to be true, then one could also quite reasonably assume that you could certainly have made some mistakes with the math in your computer program, TOO, and mistakes like you have clearly made above.

Know what I mean?

What do you call someone who knows and knows that he knows, but he is actually wrong?

How about jim_mich? ...or Mr. Randall? ...or full of himself. ...or truly deluded.

Feel free to deOrffyreusize my name, if you must.

Take care.

Oh, but you do now got some 'splainin' to do.

Hey, maybe you just made a mistake in your calculations rather than your actual method. So, I would suggest you look the above over and see if you believe there is anything wrong with your solution and whether or not you want to stand by it, or maybe correct it a bit and then stand by it, or whatever.

If you won't stand by it, though, then maybe even you can see that I certainly wasn't lying about your mistakes. If you do stand by it, then maybe we should call on Wubbly or Fletcher, hey, or even both of them and/or anyone else who wishes to get involved to resolve the confusion - YOUR confusion - and for the benefit of all.

To all the forum, above is a true example of the garbage jim_mich would call a radius of gyration calculation which, of course, he has done himself. I'm not sure exactly what he was trying to do, to be honest, but the answer does seem to be very wrong and you can verify that for yourselves. You don't have to just believe me, and I honestly don't want you to just believe me. You can believe me in that!

If you want to look at the way I solved the problem in that thread myself, though, my answer is there. I checked it in multiple ways and just solved it again today without even looking at what I had done before and each and every time I have gotten the same answer.

I would hope that many of you would be quite able to quickly check the answer for yourselves, anyway.

Well, toodle-oo for now.

Dwayne

[ovyyus]

Thanks Mr Shepherd for your excellent argument.

[rlortie]

I stated that I did not wish to get involved with this thread, but some things just cannot go without curiosity getting the best of me.

Having been duly recognized and filling the roll of a civil mechanical and structural engineer (Pe) I find myself in total puzzlement as to what the hell does radius of gyration have to do with centrifugal force and sustained movement thereof? Sorry but I just do not see the relationship!

It makes about as much sense as Bill's Karma.jpg posted above!

Ralph

[Furcurequs]

Hey Ralph,

For a rotational device I can certainly see how you might want to know the moment of inertia of different parts of it to help in correctly modeling things, and knowing the radius of gyration of some of the parts could help in calculating those. I don't claim to know how or even if jim_mich is using radius of gyration calculations in his own stuff, however. I only know that he mentions radius of gyration on occasion.

In the problem I addressed in my last post, when I worked it myself, I simply solved it using "point masses" at the radius given to find the moment of inertia of the rotating part of the system. If the actual size and geometry of the rotating masses were given in the problem, however, we could have then used a radius of gyration calculation to help make corrections for the actual mass distribution.

For instance, if instead of point masses at 1 meter radius, we had 20 cm diameter uniform density disks of the same mass centered at the one meter radius, then we could have used one of the radius of gyration formulas in jim_mich's post to get the more precise moment of inertia. Knowing the radius of gyration for the disk at a distance, we could then use its "k" for the "r" in the r^2*m moment of inertia formula instead of the 1 meter distance.

Using the formula for the "Cylinder. Axis at a distance." from the table, then, we would have k=(a^2 + 1/2*r^2)^0.5

In this formula k is the radius of gyration and "a" is our 1 meter distance and "r" is the radius of the disk, so...

k=(1m^2 + 1/2*0.1m^2)^0.5 or (1.005m^2)^0.5 or the radius of gyration equals 1.0025 m

So using a 20 centimeter diameter (nearly 8" diameter) flat disk is like having all the mass at a 1.0025 meter radius instead of 1.0000 meter. In other words the radius in the formula is only 2.5 millimeters different or 0.25% different.

...but since it is squared in the moment of inertia equation itself, it means our answer could be off by 0.5% if we just ignored that calculation.

So, for a fairly concentrated mass, just doing a calculation for a point mass at the given distance for its center of mass should often be sufficient and give a close enough answer.

Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

Thanks Mr Shepherd for your excellent argument.

Thank you, Mr. Ovyyus.

I believe I understand your cartoon, which got me thinking. Wow, what if my equations are wrong?! That could be very embarrassing. That could really be a big "oops, sorry" there!

Look what I have to go through just to get people to check my work in this forum!

Take care.

Dwayne

[cloud camper]

Well, we have some really exciting breaking news folks.

As revealed on the Drudge Report today through the exposure of hacked personal data from the Obamacare website, Mr James Randall has checked himself in at the University of Michigan for a semester of Physics 101 Rehab.

Randall will be confronting and handling disturbing issues from his past, such as

Where does CF go when it was never really there at all?

CP/CF: How can a real force oppose an imaginary one?

Inertia: How can inertia resist a force and not be one itself?

CF: Does it really cause tornadoes?

Fictitious Forces: Are you serious?

Radius of Gyration: Why does it really matter?

This is great news for all of us here on the BW Forum as we can now all
get back to discussing proper OOB Gravity wheels!

[rlortie]

Dwayne,

I do not disagree with your above response directed to me, I am sure you spent considerable time drafting your response. I find it concise, but it lacks addressing my question in explanatory terms that the average member can relate to.

My question which I readily admit as a structural educated person sees radius of gyration or moment defining such things as beam center of mass modular stress aka modular elasticity.

From wiki: The underline bold is mine.

The mass moment of inertia, usually denoted I, measures the extent to which an object resists rotational acceleration about an axis, and is the rotational analogue to mass. Mass moments of inertia have units of dimension mass × length2. It should not be confused with the second moment of area, which is used in bending calculations.

Geometrically simple objects have moments of inertia that can be expressed mathematically, but it may not be straightforward to symbolically express the moment of inertia of more complex bodies.
The radius of gyration about a given axis (r_{\mathrm{g}\text{ axis}}) can be computed in terms of the mass moment of inertia I_\text{axis} around that axis, and the total mass m;

Which brings me back to my question: What and how can this influence Cf in such a manner to exhibit self-sustaining motion?

IMO, radius of gyration other than a gyroscope has no relation to support Jim's fallacy of sustaining rotation by the use of Cf.

Ralph

[Furcurequs]

Ralph,

Radius of gyration can refer to either of two different things. The one you are familiar with, of course, relates to the strength of materials and the other is the one we've been talking about that involves mechanical dynamics. ...just to summarize.

This fellow in this youtube video in the very beginning nicely explains the distinction between the two before then going on to concentrate on the one dealing with the strength of materials (for anyone who may be interested in watching it):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXAwEneKEFM

As far as the radius of gyration in dynamics:

When it comes to the rotational properties about a given axis (such as the mass moment of inertia), a rigid complex system of mass can be more simply represented by a single point mass at a specific radius - which is the radius of gyration. In other words, the distributed system of mass behaves rotationally as if all the mass were just concentrated at a single ideal mathematical point at the radius of gyration. This, of course, simplifies the calculations.

Having been in electrical engineering, I tend to think of Thévenin's theorem as being somewhat analogous in its purpose:

"Any combination of batteries and resistances with two terminals can be replaced by a single voltage source e and a single series resistor r."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... venin.html

Now, as far as how any of this relates to sustained motion other than just rotational inertial motion as in a flywheel, I cannot tell you, and no, not because I'm just keeping it secret from you, either. ;)

Based upon what I've seen of jim_mich's calculations, though, and what I've seen him mention about radius of gyration, it is my own suspicion that he has simply somehow misused the formulas and gotten excited about bogus results while also somehow tying it in with his CF notions.

So, if I understand your question, I'm with you in believing this is all fallacious stuff on jim's part.

He has the burden of proof and so should expect some skepticism.

I hope that answers your questions. If I misunderstood you, please ask again.

Dwayne

[ovyyus]

This is great news for all of us here on the BW Forum as we can now all get back to discussing proper OOB Gravity wheels!

'Proper' OOB gravity wheels? :D

Do we apply the same rules to discussing proper OOB gravity wheels that are currently applied to discussing proper inertia wheels? How can physics 101 be used to promote one area of apparently absurd inquiry while dismissing another area of apparently absurd inquiry? Wouldn't a proper OOB gravity wheel or a proper inertia wheel both make physics 101 equally redundant? Please explain.