Toxic

Clim said:

My other interest. http://climate-cycling.com/

p.s., a basic example is 1 - cos^2 = sin^2. Just basic math and yet most people in this forum will not know what it means.
What is the difference between sin x and cos x? One word answers that difference. Okay, maybe 2. Inverse function. I
doubt anyone will know it.
Tomorrow I will explain that difference. This will help everyone to understand Pi and the unit circle. It's that or f(x) = dy/dx.
Starting tomorrow as requested we will make the math known.

Click to expand...

Thanks for supporting my theories!

Clim said:

… a basic example is 1 - cos^2 = sin^2. Just basic math and yet most people in this forum will not know what it means.
What is the difference between sin x and cos x? One word answers that difference. Okay, maybe 2. Inverse function. I
doubt anyone will know it.
Tomorrow I will explain that difference. This will help everyone to understand Pi and the unit circle….

Click to expand...

The first “example” you show is nothing more than a Pythagorean IDENTITY.

When you say this “is basic math”, you’re incorrect. The above and the rest of the trig identities are fundamentals in any first-year calc course.

Instead of trying to explain concepts for which you have no fundamental grasp, not to mention the totally backwards pedagogical sequence you’re attempting to “teach” them in, post the conservation of energy results and let them stand on their own merit. While you’re at it, list the enthalpies of formation of your bastardized attempts at writing chemical reactions.

I’m not convinced the OP isn’t 14 year old who’s been home-schooled.

This link is to a file. The spreadsheet shows the average of cos 0º to cos 90º.
https://share.internxt.com/d/sh/fil...64ca84eb3fcf56b98a29b80898a0d836a31426dfb28bf

For what I am building I will use {x} to show the average value of x between 2 points or limits such as ∫ with the limits of 0 and 90.
This means that f{x} = cos 0º < x > cos 90º
Since 90 = 180/2 we can use 90 since it is below the axle is the opposite of hat is above the axle.
Then we can say net torque = a{x}z - b{x}z where z is the mass of the weight
a is the radius of the weight being rotated at the top and b is the radius of that weight when it is rotating downward.
f = ma can be ((a{x}z - b{x}z) * 9.81)/2 = yzm/s where y is the net torque
That is the average velocity relative to gravity if b is in meters. Since I am building and want to enjoy working on it I will be staying offline.
Chances are that with the math I showed I think few if any will take the time to do the math. And when people say it can't work, it starts
with them not having done the math. An example is if the top weight when over balanced were 25 inches from the axle of the wheel, then
when it is 5 inches from its own axis on the wheel, it could be geared to rotate 1/5 as quickly as the wheel.
Then when the wheel rotates 180º then a weight being rotated away from the axle of the wheel likewise will rotate 180º using only 1/5th of
the torque the overbalanced weight is generating. And yet I doubt anyone will do the math or will consider if 1/5 < 1 or 1/5 is less than 1.
And unfortunately this is because a scientist said it can't work. And this is considered cheating the laws of physics when in 1687 some guy
said a body in motion will stay in its motion unless acted upon by an external force. When an external force acts upon it then it can conserve
momentum. What I am building will actually show a mechanical representation of Newton's laws of motion. And yet that is considered as
cheating the laws of physics.
Math will also explain how much CO2 warms the atmosphere and why Venus is so hot. They didn't do the math so they got that answer wrong
as well. Venus' atmospheric temperature is relative to the Earth's just as its atmospheric pressure is. Since they didn't take the time to do the
math they got those answers wrong.

p.s., with what I am building I will say that f = ma and then KE = 1/2mv^2. And that when the Earth's temperature allows for Venus' temperature
to be calculated, it suggests that gravity has energy while a scientist will say that gravity does not have energy. I think Einstein would say it's all relative.
And I think with woodworking I'll be able to forget about the science. It will be interesting to see if scientists will try to prove that math is wrong.

QT: (Einstein would say it's all relative.)
I don't think Einstein's relatives get much credit. seem like you never hear much about them and his In-laws even less.

I'm tolerating this so long as it does not veer back into personal diatribes because it is no more nor less inane than an lot of other posts across the board; and it might have some therapeutic value.

That said, if people ignore it, the post count would go way down.

Clim - you need to start posting more woodwork (of your own, not unrelated links). Enough with the plans and theory for a while, get on with the work. This is a woodworking forum. There are many others on the net for physics and science. I know plenty of people who do exquisite work with handtools, less than you are using, or at least well within the same cost application.

smt

For Sale: Starter motor for Perpetual Motion Machine.​

Only used once.

My love for you is like perpetual motion​

It doesn’t exist

I'm pretty interested in knowing how he feels finding out that a $3 calculator from WalMart can provide him as good information as far as Trig goes?

Oh hells, he doesn't even need that, if he has a computer worthy of the Net, as every software out there, includes a Calculator that knows at least as much, maybe a lot more, than he does!
Sky's above! The one that comes standard with Windows, will even Graph it all! Oh Lawdy! Angels be Praised!

QT: That said, if people ignore it, the post count would go way down0

We can't ignore it, free power would be a massive asset to the world. Once we get free power then we can develop free food. With free power and free food.. we would not be obligated to do anything and we could just do nothing all the time.

stephen thomas said:

I'm tolerating this so long as it does not veer back into personal diatribes because it is no more nor less inane than an lot of other posts across the board; and it might have some therapeutic value.

That said, if people ignore it, the post count would go way down.

Clim - you need to start posting more woodwork (of your own, not unrelated links). Enough with the plans and theory for a while, get on with the work. This is a woodworking forum. There are many others on the net for physics and science. I know plenty of people who do exquisite work with handtools, less than you are using, or at least well within the same cost application.

smt

Click to expand...

And if what I am building, will anyone apologize? They won't. There is a difference between using a calculator and understanding what the math means.
If anyone understood the math then they'd find this more interesting. At the same time I am handicapped and don't have a shop. If I make too much
noise then my neighbor complains and I get evicted. I live in a duplex and my neighbor had surgery. I'd do most of my work on Sunday mornings when she's in church. I'd spend the week prepping for those 2 - 3 hours.I have started work on it and I'm hoping it will be finished next month.
When considering the comments I've read, I take it no one bothered to consider the difference in torque between a weight 25 inches from the axle and
one rotating on an axis of 5 inches.
Also, a librarian at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands is aware of my work. He has a PhD and a rare original Johann Bessler book.
the digital version
If I am successful then my work will be in a museum. And then I am back asking if anyone can calculate torque and work? For the woodworking I am pursuing,
it does involve math and science. And while a calculator can solve complex equations they still can't think and a computer cannot tell the difference between a tomato and an apple. You know, what's red and round and is a fruit?
And with this project, it's a German historical project. My Father ran from Nazis for his life and yet I am still working on it because I find Bessler's work interesting.
Nazis caught my Father's friend. They were caught not thinking the right way. And I guess that is one reason why I like Bessler's Wheel. It really bothers people
and yet it seems as Gottfried Leibniz said, Bessler wasn't a fraud. Who was Leibniz? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/
Leibniz defended Bessler in court; https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3097
I guess my question is, how does a person pursue a historical project? Myself, I can make a case for atmospheric pressure coming from Italians calibrating the barometer. And I can use current science to say that a column of air cannot weight 14.7 lbs. because its orbital velocity simply would not allow for it. Then we get into math and inertia vs. the acceleration of gravity which is 9.81 m/s. That is if people have the time to consider the math.
And it all comes back to if Johann Bessler was successful in 1712 and had his life ruined because of it. He was 1/2 Polish and 1/2 German so he was labeled a fraud.
And since I am 1/2 Norwegian and 1/2 American, I too have been labeled a fraud. And with Ovyyus, he ended up posting he wished I died from cancer. It is a toxic subject because people don't need to consider the math. And with this, history does matter just as science does.
And if my build works because I took the time to do the math, I will be changing physics. Why the science I'm aware of matters. I'll be proving that gravity has energy.
That is why scientists say what I am building cannot work. If gravity has no energy then there is nothing to be conserved. Can I meet ridicule with science? Can I say gravity has energy? https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/20...d-can-we-use-it-as-an-infinite-energy-source/

For me, I did let the librarian in the Netherlands know that if my work is successful then the book in his library will become much more valuable. I think what he really liked
was my suggestion of displaying Bessler's book with an actual working Bessler Wheel. The book isn't leaving his library so its monetary value isn't as important as the attention his university could get from it. And we have been in contact over the last couple of years. That has helped to keep me motivated.

p.s., if this project works out and my atmospheric chemistry experiment works, then I'll be out thinking IBM's Watson, Google's quantum computer and Amazon's AWS computer in 2 different fields. And this will be because I followed through on research others didn't. With atmospheric chemistry, some scientists may or may not like my referencing their research papers. With the IPCC, I would be showing what over 700 scientists missed in their own climate change report.
And this all starts with my Father outrunning Nazis. Working at projects is better than thinking about other things.
And to give a basic mathematical explanation. If each weight weighs 1 lb. then in the blue area, 2 - 1 lb. weights will have 1.4 lbs. of force. Times the overbalance then
you have inch lbs. of torque. When the weight passing top center is rotated upwards, depending on if 5 or 7 inches of overbalance. What the white areas represent.
When rotation starts and the counterbalance and power come into play. How much force is being generated? This is where basic math starts. If you guys can't use
a calculator to work out the numbers then I'm not the problem. It'd be the person who couldn't spend 15 or 20 minutes doing a couple of basic calculations. If someone did that then we could use algebra or the unit circle wheel to determine net force/torque. Then we'd be having a completely different discussion. Then it'd be about history and what some guy did over 300 years ago. Instead it's I'm stupid.

You know, every time you post a link to another Forum, you support the opinions of every one of us that would like you to go away and bother other people!

Honest truth, even if you WERE a great woodworker and capable of creating things of beauty, I am not really interested as much in your theories, as your results! Results will speak for themselves!

So far as you have provided, you neither produce results, OR produce folk that will agree to your theories, which should be a pretty clear indication that you ought go back to your corner and sort out the facts vs. the theories!

I'd be fascinated to see a decent working model, but so far, what has been provided, has been a wooden dummy that ran out of energy after far less than even a full turn.

Based on what you provide, apparently, the 'uphill' side of the wheel, acts in Zero Gravity, else the whole rig grinds to a halt! Which so far, has been the example you hold up as some sort of proof!

And, if anyone should object to my calling out of this particular individual, if you think about it, do we really want a BUNCH of like minds spending their time here on PM?

One is lots, and I don't regret saying so!

This place gets a LOT of hits from the Search engines. I would suggest that deciding whether you want to hear from the likes of him, is what you would be happy with here on PM, is what you desire. I know it is not what I come here for!

I think what you are building is very cool. I would love to see it even get close to running for an extended time. I have secretly been trying to figure out how to make a marble-run travel and bring a lead marble back to the top. I think I have a solution, but don't have the patience to build the device.
My comments are in jest only so please don't take any offense ..

trevj said:

You know, every time you post a link to another Forum, you support the opinions of every one of us that would like you to go away and bother other people!

Honest truth, even if you WERE a great woodworker and capable of creating things of beauty, I am not really interested as much in your theories, as your results! Results will speak for themselves!

So far as you have provided, you neither produce results, OR produce folk that will agree to your theories, which should be a pretty clear indication that you ought go back to your corner and sort out the facts vs. the theories!

I'd be fascinated to see a decent working model, but so far, what has been provided, has been a wooden dummy that ran out of energy after far less than even a full turn.

Based on what you provide, apparently, the 'uphill' side of the wheel, acts in Zero Gravity, else the whole rig grinds to a halt! Which so far, has been the example you hold up as some sort of proof!

Click to expand...

Why as I mentioned in my earlier post I don't care to show my work online anymore. That is 2 posts back. If what I am building works I will say it could've been done 10 years ago. The problem was people like you. A working model needs to be shown before the math can be considered. And I did mention that if anyone took the time to consider the math then we'd be having a very different discussion.
Gottfried Leibniz co-invented calculus with Isaac Newton while working separately. Do you consider him a credible witness? The court did. What seems to be the issue is that people don't know how to calculate torque and work. And that seems to be the basic issue. If this build works then even my none working builds of poor quality will be in a museum. And yet many people can do better woodworking and have nothing on display in a museum.
These 2 builds are described in Bessler's writings and drawings. The first image was made mostly outside using cordless tools. And I know, someone with a shop to work in can do better. I understand that.

p.s., could you imagine having crap like that in a museum? In replicating someone else's work the only thing that can be done is to work through their writings and drawings. No computer has found the short cut yet but I'm not waiting. They haven't figured out how to write an algorithm for that solution. With my work, they'll be able to do that. And I have saved both of those builds as well as the one before them. Then people will know a really crappy build led to a better idea/build.
Still, those 2 builds suck, right? It is what I hear. And since I do have them, no one has asked for more detailed pics of them. And seriously speaking, ever work under an overpass, in a parking lot or at a park so you can do wood working? The oak build wasn't built indoors. I still have the table I used to work on it. This is woodworking so I can show that, right? And I can show the detail as well. It was in a way my Ode to Bessler.
And in over 300 years no one has figured out Bessler's work. My build works then it is what? It's worthless. Someone made a nicer table or chair. That is the argument presented. And I think with me since I know continuous motion is possible, might be why I want my crappy work to not suck as much as it does. The last 2 images I took tonight. Just more proof about how much my work sucks.
And with what I'm building now, even if it works it'll be worse than those 2 other builds. It will be poorly made. It will actually suck compared to those 2 other builds.
I'm more focused on it working. And am I unhappy about this? Would you feel good about the build that works being your worst build? It is that bad.

Did any of those work as you expected?

Not to put too fine a point upon it, but if they did not produce more energy than you put in to them, then they amount to being failures!

Now, should you provide a video showing one of those apparatii accelerating, rather than slowing down, AND you can show that it is not driven by outside forces, I will be happy to concede.

Or, maybe their is something to be said for the ireproducibility of the results of Bessler!

I don't actually mind being "people like you" if you can come up with some actual proof!

trevj said:

Did any of those work as you expected?

Not to put too fine a point upon it, but if they did not produce more energy than you put in to them, then they amount to being failures!

Now, should you provide a video showing one of those apparatii accelerating, rather than slowing down, AND you can show that it is not driven by outside forces, I will be happy to concede.

Or, maybe their is something to be said for the ireproducibility of the results of Bessler!

I don't actually mind being "people like you" if you can come up with some actual proof!

Click to expand...

Since this video is a short, it might automatically repeat. The issue is with lubricating the bearings. And after that I read where Bessler wrote;
The upper weight is not attached to an external mechanism, nor does it rely on external moving bodies by means of whose weight revolutions continue as long as the cords or chains on which they hang permit. As long as it remains outside the center of gravity, this upper weight incessantly exercises universal motion from which the essential constituent parts of the machine receive power and push.

To go further into history since I am 1/2 Norwegian (it does matter) and I am from Dayton, Ohio. Alberto Santos-Dumont demonstrated the first airplane
that flew under its own power. It wasn't the Wright Bros. from my hometown of Dayton, Ohio. Why the Wright Bros. rightfully deserve credit for first in flight is documentation. Their work was documented. The most important documentation was probably those Western Union messages they sent. A disinterested 3rd party
showed a record of their messages. Like a forum today. And yet I cite research that supports Bessler having been successful.
Will it change the laws of physics? Unfortunately it won't. Scientists will merely say it is conserving the difference between g = G(M1M2/r^2). The work I am pursing in atmospheric chemistry will suggest that gravity influences that field of science. The field of Atmospheric Chemistry and Astrophysics doesn't exist yet but if my work is successful then such a field will be created. Basically I would become famous because when I was 13 or 14 years old I read a biography about Albert Einstein when I wanted to be a machinist. Reading something like that really kills in my opinion basic science. Basically understanding real science might start with those who created it and how they thought. In junior high school I had to take a music appreciation class and learned about people like Bach, Mendelssohn and Beethoven. That is the person and not their music. I think knowing who did what and why gives me a decided advantage.
Still, the main issue is how does a person approach a historical woodworking project? Can we consider the history of that time? Basically Newton discovered gravity and someone else realized inertia? What was the science of 1700? Since I am into atmospheric chemistry, a French scientist (Charles Fabry) in 1911 or 1913 discovered the ozone layer. I know, you guys don't care.
With the video I showed a link to, I am actually going over the math for reduced friction roller bearings. And if I can invent those then that build might work rather easily.
Still, with such bearing wind turbines might become more efficient. And with what I'm designing, they'll be made out of wood.

trevj said:

Did any of those work as you expected?

Not to put too fine a point upon it, but if they did not produce more energy than you put in to them, then they amount to being failures!

Now, should you provide a video showing one of those apparatii accelerating, rather than slowing down, AND you can show that it is not driven by outside forces, I will be happy to concede.

Or, maybe their is something to be said for the ireproducibility of the results of Bessler!

I don't actually mind being "people like you" if you can come up with some actual proof!

Click to expand...

The main problem with this guy, outside of the pity party and self-fellating attitude, is he makes fundamental errors in assumptions and then cites that as proof. A column of air weighing 14.7 lbs? What is the area of the column? He doesn’t say, just that it’s wrong.

If he spent even a quarter of the time building his trash as he does posting links of irrelevant tangents, he’d be busy building a box under the contraption to hide a real energy source to fool rubes that don’t know any better.

As for wood working, how is a historical project valued? How is its merits to be determined?
I could mention little known history that has been documented like a guy named Thomas but
that wouldn't matter.
That has to do with cross border laws and black people. This includes church and the seating
in church. And this gets into wood working. I'll do some searches to find this person. Laws differed
from one state to the next as to what was allowed.
Thomas was negro and an excellent woodworker by all accounts.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Day_(cabinetmaker)
Thomas was his first name but a search turned him up right away. But what do I know about woodworking, right?
I've watched 1 or 2 documentaries about him. His story shows how ugly things can get. It is about being the right person in the right place.
With Thomas, he wasn't allowed to marry the woman that he loved. Laws at that time did not allow for a free negro to marry a slave. That's
basically it. He lived in North Carolina and the woman he loved lived in a different state. Pleas were made on his behalf because of how well
respected he was but the law came first. Watch a documentary about him. You'll understand what the law is about.
To give you guys an idea, have you ever rebushed a bearing? I doubt it. Have you ever turned a flame sprayed shaft? No?
What about surface grinding a plate? Still a no? Have you guys ever worked in a machine shop? This gets into what Thomas did. He used
a mill as a boring mill on a plane. Rather simplistic and yet that made him even a better woodworker.
You guys don't get this, do you? Can you turn something on a lathe even if it's a thread? Am just looking for common ground here.
If you take the tool on your lathe and then have it spun from your mill, you'll have what Thomas used to plane wood. Yet you can't imagine
it and yet slavery was legal when it was done. Think a boring mill planing a flat surface. It is that simple. And if you don't know what I'm
talking about, then it's your lack of experience.

deleted and will not post in here anymore. It is a historical project. No one seems to understand math.It's impossible because someone said so.

Oh dear! So sorry to interrupt your life with minor details like facts and physics! And skepticism!

As for the Jews in Camps, that pretty much puts the lie to the theory of "Strength in numbers", no?

Go for the Lawsuit, see what it gets you. Suing the site owner won't fly. You could maybe sue me, because I don't agree with you, but I'm pretty sure that isn't much to go on...

To the best of MY knowledge, you have no right to say what you want where you want, and neither do I! Nor am I obliged by Law, to agree with anything you say!

In the United States of America, you have protection of Freedom of Speech, which only covers the ability to be able to say what you want, about the Government, and not have them punish you for it. You have the right to Pursue Happiness, but not the Right to "Have" Happiness !

And I fail entirely, to see how you being disabled has anything to do with the subjects you keep dragging out as excuses, side notes, misdirection's, and obfuscations!

I don't particularly care about you, or your health. As I stated much earlier, I also am a Veteran, and dealing with disabilities. The difference between you and I is, that I do not think that gives me a free pass to use that as a catch-all excuse, to cover any of my other failings!

On the plus side, maybe the threats of a Lawsuit against the site owner, might finally get you punted off here and you can go bother someone else.

So far, what I have seen from you for woodwork, has amounted to one video of a contraption that failed to make even a full revolution after being given a pretty solid push. But it was held up as if it was a proof that the contraption worked. Oh, and a photo of a Ryobi chop saw and sander...

Even the half-hearted attempts at running a motor with a car alternator on youtube, do better than that!

Clim said:

My website is linked. I'm not too bright. Just an FYI, nothing you mentioned (et al) considered how to consider a historical project. It was purely personal in nature about myself. You need to attack the documentation. Your perspective shows that Alberto Santos-Dumont was first in flight and not the Wright Bros. Since I am from Dayton, Ohio this is funny. "Real" Americans support the Brazilian because he was seen flying a plane before the Wright Bros. It was in Paris, France. The French saw a Brazilian flying an airplane when no one else ever flew one. I will believe you guys. Brazil is first in flight. That is your argument. The Wright Bros. merely did better than Santos-Dumont. I will agree with you guys.

Does the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have the same cause and affect? (scroll down to below the picture) - Atmospheric Chemistry and Astrophysics

The image is of an anvil cloud. When clouds rise high enough, they stop at the tropopause where temperatures haveContinue readingDoes the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have the same cause and affect? (scroll down to below the picture)

climate-cycling.com

Why this matters is because I am replicating Bessler's work. I would not be happy with people saying I thought of it when someone else did the work first.

trevj, your opinion is the common opinion. If my build works I am the inventor. Bessler said he was Hermes while I am Orpheus. Are you familiar with Greek
mythology? Hermes invented the lyre but Orpheus became famous because of it? Like I said, I am working on a historical project.

Click to expand...

Silly me.... I do not recall having brought either Santos-Dumont, OR the Wright brothers into the conversation.

Can you keep it on topic at least? Hope springs eternal!