Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-set"

[rlortie]

Hypothetical question.

I construct a drum shaped rotating device that is statically and dynamically OB (heavier on one side parallel to the horizontal axis than the other side.

Machine is center supported on a roll-away platform meeting the width and length of the overall drum and supports. Platform scales are set under each side of 'roll-away' base parallel to axle. The difference in scale reading determines the static amount of OB present in the machine. in a dynamic mode the maximum OB is achieved every 13.846 degrees of rotation.

What do I name such a machine? Please submit your vote.

[justsomeone]

A gravity powered classical perpetual motion machine.

[Tarsier79]

Stationary

[barksalot]

Gravity powered motor is my vote.

[rlortie]

Stationary

Care to explain your response? if it is without doubt OB when released it will at least rotate until finding a keel point. Hypothetically, if it cannot find one, then it will keep on rotating.

Ralph

[primemignonite]

I guess I can weigh-in here.

My vote would be for your fifth option, Ralph, and would (based upon my concept of how the "preponderance principle" and the "the principle of excess weight" might combine as reduced to practice) provisionally dub it something like a 'G-Force Accumulator', which is what I suspect it did actually and shall yet-again.

Those other devices as Bessler commented on variously in his MT, seemed to fit such a bill but did not as they could not.

In feedback relationship, I suspect that the accumulating part must be able to expand and reach out so as to actually accumulate. Most particular arrangements of things and things and things are therefor needed, so as to tangibly accomplish such a required, peculiar trick.

(And, for my money, the jury is still out as to the question of whether gravity is or is not energy, or a form of it. WHEREAT is to be found the smarmy dissenters' graviton??? If it exists, then let them bring it forth! We await results!!)

James

[ovyyus]

Given the empirical evidence to date it would be "a perpetual motion machine" (assuming no fraud).

[rlortie]

I thank all who have voted and posted input on their reasoning. I hope more will participate,consensus of forum members has a long way to go. It would be great to at least get enough votes to call it a "caucus" call.

James wrote;

In feedback relationship, I suspect that the accumulating part must be able to expand and reach out so as to actually accumulate. Most particular arrangements of things and things and things are therefor needed, so as to tangibly accomplish such a required, peculiar trick.

Kudos or praise for your exceptional discerning and or acute perspective.

In reality, I do not consider it "peculiar" other than the fact it is a far cry from what Bessler leads you to perceive.

Ralph

[Tarsier79]

Ralph.

Your options seem to show gravity OB as being the prime mover. ie finding a way to amplify/deflect what is normally considered a conservative force......

If it were to be shown rotating, and you were claiming Gravity OB to be the "Battery", then I would call it: "Fraudulent"

IMO B. used something else.... I won't bore you with parroting the rest.

[rlortie]

Tarsier,

Yes, my hypothetical poll relates to using gravity to produce OB and is the prime mover. There is deflection, but no amplification in the common sense of the term. What is considered a conservative force is just that: "considered".

If it were to be shown rotating, and you were claiming Gravity OB to be the "Battery", then I would call it: "Fraudulent"

A rather harsh statement to make after stating; "What is considered a conservative force". The name of the game is to put objective empirical meaning in place of "considered"...

To date my hypothetical design has not broken any common laws of conservation related to fluids. I have however reached a new problem to address and that is "Enthalpy" bringing forward the probability's of energy loss through exothermic dissipation.

Ralph

[Tarsier79]

It is only harsh if you cannot see the futility of G OB Designs, and it contradicts your own theories.

Conservation of G is mathematically, and experimentally proven. I consider this to be true, and I am surprised you haven't yet come to the same conclusion.

Fluid dynamics is something I will cannot rule out completely, but you have an uphill battle. As stated before though, fluid speed and pressure differences flowing through restrictions do have some analogy to Peqs and Kirks momentum theory, which don't hold much weight, but there are interesting differences. Measuring these forces/reactions accurately is also a challenge.

Regardless: Good luck with your build Ralph.

As far as "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-set"... Perhaps I missed the part about the big troubles...... shrug

[rlortie]

Tarsier79,

It is only harsh if you cannot see the futility of G OB Designs, and it contradicts your own theories.

When it comes to solid weights with designs of pinning to the disk or changing height, ramps, Cf, etc,,, I stand firm with my theories, I am not contradicting them.

Fluid Dynamics/Mechanics, shifting weights on a molecular scale negates some of the problems of Solid weights. I have dug deep into the accepted works of Bernoulli, Boyle, Cauchy, Charles, Euler, Gay-Lussac, Hook, Pascal, Newton and Navier-stokes regarding fluids and their properties. including but not limited to rheology and viscoelasticity.

I find that Fluid mechanics assumes that every fluid obeys the following:
A. Conservation of mass
B. Conservation of energy
C. Conservation of momentum
D. The continuum hypothesis, detailed below.

Further, it is often useful (at subsonic conditions) to assume a fluid is incompressible – that is, the density of the fluid does not change.

Similarly, it can sometimes be assumed that the viscosity of the fluid is zero (the fluid is inviscid). Gases can often be assumed to be inviscid. If a fluid is viscous, and its flow contained in some way (e.g. in a pipe), then the flow at the boundary must have zero velocity. For a viscous fluid, if the boundary is not porous, the shear forces between the fluid and the boundary results also in a zero velocity for the fluid at the boundary. This is called the no-slip condition. For a porous media otherwise, in the frontier of the containing vessel, the slip condition is not zero velocity, and the fluid has a discontinuous velocity field between the free fluid and the fluid in the porous media (this is related to the Beavers and Joseph condition).

My crutch, or that which drives me forward is the collaborated works of Bernoulli and Euler. Working together at great lengths questioning their own findings, leaving reasonable doubt regarding the accepted Laws of Conservation laid down by Newton.

I find little information on their conclusion; it is as though they did not wish to upset Newtons apple cart and tarnish their image with peers.

Ralph

[silverfox]

A few words of encouragement can be found here, Ralph...

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


And insofar as what to call such a device I'd opt for something like the "RL487"or however many tries you've made up till this one and when anyone asks what it is simply tell them it's the world's first "auto-kinetic rotary mechanism". LOL

[murilo]

Gravity Powered Motor, or...
... Falling Potentiality Potential...
... gravity turbine (my preferred)...
... sure, a simultaneous trick of 'g' acceleration, mass management, geometry management, volume management... and spatial good sense...
... all this coming from 'good and positive stubbornness'...

[eccentrically1]

Ralph, I vote to call it "An Ancient Mystery Solved?", and keep a tarp over it.