Posted by Fletcher (202.27.176.157) on May 27, 2003 at 18:45:27:
Hi John, thanks for the candid reply as you always do. I too have pursued the ‘gravity only’ assumption for motive force. Each wheel I build has assumed a “Constant Out Of Balance” (coob) position, below but as near to, the horizontal as practicable.
It seems to me that JB’s one-way wheel (coob) being tied down & then released throws a contradictory spanner in the works when I try to reconcile possible mechanisms that translate into two-way wheels.
Why do the two-way wheels need a threshold level of activation energy (or momentum) to get them & keep them accelerating?
If the push was too small the wheel stopped still, BUT, did it rock back & forth or stop dead in a smooth way. i.e. if it rocked was it moving back & forth between +ve & -ve torque areas & settling at the neutral area? Can you or anybody else shed any light or opinion here?
I was hoping that other bdb members would put their money where their mouths were so to speak & at least give some logical reasoning to back up their view on position of CoG etc especially if they held a different view. I believe that only clear & focused thinking & debate will solve this. i.e. seeing an obscure pattern in the observations & testimony & then reasoning why it had occurred – at least that’s how I’d prefer to attempt to solve it rather than relying on the scattergun approach. Sometimes you have to know ‘what question to ask’! Speaking of questions, excuse me here folks, I’m a philistine when it comes to this, but what is BTW & IMO (…doah…in advance :-))
Otherwise we can all take a holiday until the good-ol 4th July ;-)