Furcurequs (aka Dwayne) questions Jim_Mich

[jim_mich]

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.

You continually assume things incorrectly. In the past I've only brought up the subject of radius of gyration because so often I've seen people make wrong calculations concerning wheel momentum. Many times they assume that all of the weight is at the edge of a wheel.

You will note that at the end of the aforementioned calculation I wrote: "Hopefully I've made no mistakes. I make no guarantee. I've checked and double checked and believe this is the correct answer." This was one of the few times I attempted to do a calculation in metric. I normally do all my calculation using English variables. I have a natural 'feel' for them. When working with metric values, they are just numbers in the calculator. But I know instinctively the length of a foot or inch, the volume of a US gallon, the weight of a pint of water, the height of a 6 foot wheel, etc. If I'm doing calculations and I screw something up, I quickly recognize it when working with English values.

But metric values are foreign to me. If I screw up and by mistake divide a number instead of multiplying, then the results are just numbers, and I might not catch the mistake. Which is why I wrote the disclaimer at the end of that posting: "Hopefully I've made no mistakes. I make no guarantee. I've checked and double checked and believe this is the correct answer." The calculations results might not be correct. But the method is correct. I was simply trying to be helpful. I'm done trying to be helpful. I'll never try helping anyone with anything ever again. Screw you guys.

The bottom line is that there is such a thing as Radius of Gyration. To refer to radius of gyration as being "so called" and thus insinuate that it is something I just made up, shows a lack of knowledge. Radius of gyration has been around long before I was born. And I was born a long time ago.

Radius of gyration is simply a mathematical tool to help calculate the rotation or swinging of wheels and pendulums. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you don't know the actual radius of gyration then the results of any calculation concerning swinging or rotating will be only approximate, because you are left with assuming the radius at which the mass is located rather than knowing it.

[rlortie]

Dwayne,

I thank you for your patience and must admit that for the convenience of others I have sold myself short by not letting on any knowledge of properties that; "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".

I am aware of this and am familiar for the reasons to delete as much mass as possible from the radius of a flywheel moving the inertial mass to the outer perimeter. That which moves the center of gyration inward represents a loss of efficiency in the dampening value of a flywheel.

In fact I am currently taking a coffee break from laying out and cutting the innards out of two six foot solid diameter disks making for a four spoke wheel or disk. I do not need the additional weight riding on the axis bearings or moving the dynamic mass and inertia (gyration) inward.

As for your analogy of comparing it to Ohms Law: E=I/R I understand, do I want force of pressure or high flow of current, our goal for a running wheel is the best of both worlds yet keeping "R" to a minimum.

Thus once again we are stuck, waiting for a response from Jim, as to how radius of gyration plays a roll in his design? I have explained what it does in mine!

Ralph

[rlortie]

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.

Good one Bill! I agree, until some objectivity is in hand both are redundant!

Ralph

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich wrote:

Radius of gyration is simply a mathematical tool to help calculate the rotation or swinging of wheels and pendulums. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So does this mean that it has nothing to do with your "Cf motion wheel" design?

[jim_mich]

So does this mean that it has nothing to do with your "Cf motion wheel" design?

I think I already answered that question.

You guys make all sorts of erroneous assumptions.

[eccentrically1]

What is the equation for perpetual motion?

[jim_mich]

What is the equation for perpetual motion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuE_jqYNi3c

:)}

[ovyyus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4olKvCqXe70

[eccentrically1]

That's funny!
I knew you knew.
Does anyone besides you and I know?

[cloud camper]

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.

I guess everyone here is just too buttoned up to appreciate the irony.

[pequaide]

Jim; Your opponents have a foundational flaw in their understanding of physics. Of course your math does not correspond to their math because their math formulas and concepts are wrong. If you lay a faulty foundation the whole house is crooked.
 
I see radius of gyration is being discussed. But they don’t properly define the quantity of motion produced, so they can’t begin to know how that quantity of motion is produced. The radius is of course important in the radius of gyration and it allows you to determine how motion is achieved, but once the motion is achieved that motion is independent of radius.
 
The mathematical expression for the motion on the end of a string or stick is in no way determined by the length of that string or stick. R can’t be part of the formula. Unless of course you make the force act through a rigid radius and then radius again becomes an issue.
 
Smokin lamas is yet another experimental proof that r is not part of the formula for the existing motion of an object. Face book has some nice pictures of the construction of the wheel of Smokin Lamas. These pictures show that the rope unwinds from the side of bolts that connect the two sides of the wheel. Each successive bolt is at a greater distance from the axis as the rope unwinds from bolt to bolt. This gives you about 7 different radii as the rope unwinds. The quantity of motion of the pumpkin therefore has 7 radii.
 
Our opponent’s graph (the quantity of motion over time) of the instantaneous quantity of motion would leave them with a line that had seven vertical straight lines that jump the quantity of motion to the next higher level. Their line graph would look like the edge of a serrated leaf.  A straight vertical line is impossible; even a sharp vertical line would require a massive instantaneous increase in force and then an instantaneous removal of that force after the line has moved to the next level.  Their math is at fault; the missile is not jumping motion levels. It may be a clearly upward line but it would not jump straight up from level to level. Their serrated edge is their foundation of physics and their house is crooked. Why are you arguing with them they don’t understand; their house is crooked.
 
I have a question; and I have respect for your abilities.
 
What is the release velocity of a pumpkin that can travel 1776 feet?
 
Note: I don’t bother to tell you the tether length, which is of course useless information.
It is pumpkin chuckin time; I have not seen the videos but we have the throws. Smokin Lamas has thrown 1776 feet.  They have made changes in this year’s model but it is still roughly the same bicycle driven multi-rotational wheel.
Okay this is a non-aerodynamic gourd with the density of water, and it travels about 600 meters. That would mean it would go up about 300 meters, especially if it were a smooth steel bullet.
The pumpkin has a mass of about 4 kilograms.
The wheel can throw a 40th of its own mass with one wrap around the circumference.
40 times 4 would allow the system to have a mass of 160 kilograms; the wheel could be only 24 kilograms and the pumpkin 4.  160 -28 / 160 * 9.81 = for an acceleration of 8.09 m/sec/sec.  But only 33 (132 kg) pumpkin are remaining for drive.
 
A distance of 300 meters divided by 33 would be 9.09 meters. A pumpkin could be place every 9.09 meters along a descending drive. It will take about .66 meters for the unwinding pumpkin to stop the drive and motion. This .66 meters is still under drive, but the velocity at release will be determined by a (9.09 - .66 meters) 8.43 meters.
 
The square root of (2 * 8.43 m * 8.09 m/sec/sec) = v = 11.7 meter per second. That is about 2 RPS or 120 RPM, which is sufficient rotational velocity to throw.  So you have 160 kilograms moving 11.7 m/sec that needs to throw 4 kilograms 77 m/sec. 
 
In a vacuum an object moving 77 m/sec will rise 302 meters.
 
 
Look at it a different way:
 
You have a 300 meter high chain drive with 4 kilograms at each meter mark.  At the bottom it runs a 5 cm gear that is on a shaft that is attached to a one meter wheel.  The one meter wheel has 4 kilograms attached to the outer edge.
 
From my own real world experiments I know that the 4 kilograms will act like (4*20) 80 kilograms at the 5 cm gear because it has a mechanical advantage of (2.5 to 50) 20.
 
So this will be 1200 kilograms accelerating 1280 kilograms for an acceleration of (1200/1280 * 9.81) = 9.19.
 
Let it drop one meter and the 1200 kilograms will be moving: the square root of (9.19 m/sec/sec * 1 m * 2) = 4.29 m/sec.
 
And the 4 kilograms will be moving 85.77 m/sec.

[pequaide]

A 300 meter chain (avalanche) with a 4 kilogram mass at one meter apart is a counter weight mass of 1200 kilograms; which is 11,772 joules of energy for a one meter drop. Even if you conserve energy with the 4 kilograms on the edge of a wheel you still have 58 m/sec velocity for that 4 kilograms. ½ *4 kg * 58 m/sec *58 m/sec = 6728 + 5046 ( ½ * 1200 kg* 2.9 m/sec * 2.9 m/sec) = 11774 joules. I don't think you conserve energy I am just pointing this out.

58 m/sec is already very fast and if you then throw, as in a trebuchet, even a moderate increase would yield tons of energy. I see the newest entry is at 2400 feet with a counter weight of about a ton. But 1200 kilograms is a ton. Trebuchets are centrifugal throwing devices and the acceleration is not moderate; it is violent.

[cloud camper]

Peq - by now you have probably noticed that Mr Randall does not show even the slightest appreciation for your experiments.

This is of course due to the fifth symptom of NPD: Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others

But don't take it personal - There is only one individual in whose ideas Randall finds value.

It seems very odd that you would seek one's approval who makes egregious physics errors, sees no need for experiments, builds no devices, yet loudly proclaims "the truth" based on nothing but fairy dust and unsubstantiated assertions.

However if you continue to stroke his ego, he may decide not to ban you.

[ovyyus]

...sees no need for experiments, builds no devices...

Not true. Why lie?

I guess everyone here is just too buttoned up to appreciate the irony.

Perhaps you think everyone here takes their research too seriously to properly appreciate you? I can see how that must be frustrating. The personal enjoyment you derive from stalking Jim has become chronic. You now post about nothing else. Boring.

Bullying is at least as well understood as NPD. Maybe we should go through the criteria one at a time to see how they fit? Help is just a keystroke away :D

http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/attent.htm

[cloud camper]

Sorry to disappoint Bill, but I stalk nothing but bad physics.

We have identified three (and counting) fatal physics errors in Randall's
theories and I will continue to challenge his false conclusions.

If Randall does not wish to explain his errors, we may only assume he is
educationally incapable of mounting a defense.

Mr Randall has aggressively challenged others in the past for their unproven assertions, why should he expect the kid gloves treatment for his bunny smoke and mirrors claims?