Gravity Driven Mechanisms

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Even so, it still irks me the way DFNTLYDSTRUBD jumps up to call it all pseudo science, pure BS, bupkis and tripe from the vantage point of someone having a "firm understanding of physics and engineering" when he can't even solve one simple vector diagram problem or use them to show how any of the other diagrams are incorrect. Can one really have a "firm understanding of physics and engineering" without even a rudimentary grasp of simple vectors? What's his conclusion based on.... "I just know that this is the way it is"?

And it..well nah it don't....pretty much expect it....How much longer are you going to ignore the elephant in the room? That one simple question you seem so eager to avoid. Can your device once started follow the rules you set forth in this thread and operate with only gravity as it's power source as you've repeatedly stated?

[Guest Aemilius]

DFINITLYDISTRUBD "Can your device once started follow the rules you set forth in this thread and operate with only gravity as it's power source as you've repeatedly stated?"

 

I never meant to set forth any definite "rules" in this thread.... just tried to keep it on topic generally. I should've started out with the analysis. I've already said I made some mistakes here and botched it up pretty good, but if you really want to keep waving it around the way Turtle kept waving around the misunderstanding about the locks.... go ahead.

 

DFINITLYDISTRUBD "Still waiting on an answer."

 

From Turtle's post #156 (it's a long thread, you must have missed it), "....he (Emile) says himself the mechanism comes to a stop when the operation of the lever stops." He's right too, I did say.... "It comes to a stop if it's not being periodically imbalanced."

 

DFINITLYDISTRUBD "Really, specifically who demanded vectors?"

 

Well, what language does your alleged "firm understanding of physics and engineering" dictate we use.... Klingon maybe?

 

DFINITLYDISTRUBD "Among key details conveniently left out, the force you are applying, the mass of the weights, distance to the fulcrums, and distance of any concentric offsets from center. What information a person can glean from a few sketches with arrows is not nearly enough to make any sort of determination of accurate or not."

 

That remark's relevant to the analysis.... I'll respond to it over in the "Exploratory Research Mechanism - Analysis" thread.

 

I've worked on this thing on and off for years, it's fun. This thread was my first attempt ever to discuss it with anyone and I'm trying to describe it the best I can. I don't have any illusions of grandeur, and even though I said I looked into perpetual motion many years ago, I also made it clear that I soon saw the folly of it. After that, the focus shifted to the question of getting the maximum possible output from the minimum possible input. That's all this really is.... amateur exploratory research.

 

"tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh'a' DFINITLYDISTRUBD? not yap wa' Hol!!"

 

Edited November 30, 2012 by Aemilius

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Well, what language does your alleged "firm understanding of physics and engineering" dictate we use.... Klingon maybe?

Um...gee....I dunno....how about the official language of physics and engineering, mathematics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tap dancin' on a landmine

Edited November 30, 2012 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[CraigD]

Can your device once started follow the rules you set forth in this thread and operate with only gravity as it's power source as you've repeatedly stated?

I think we need to clear up possible basic physics misconceptions around phrases like “gravity as a power source”.

 

Gravity is not substance that can be annihilated or transformed to produce work (note that power is a measure of the rate of work, that is [imath]P = \frac{\Delta W}{\Delta t}[/imath], and that work shares its units, and is somewhat synonymous with energy) – that is, it is not a fuel. It is a force, also known as an interaction between bodies. It makes no more sense to refer to a device such as a traditional cuckoo clock or a hydroelectric powerplant as “gravity powered” than it does to call a gasoline fueled engine “metal-on-metal force driven”. A cuckoo clock is powered by its weights moving from further from the center of the Earth to closer. A hydroelectric plant is powered by water moving from further from the center of the Earth to closer. A gasoline engine is powered by the chemical transformation of C₈H₁₈ and O₂ to CO₂ and H₂O. In a cuckoo clock or hydroelectric plant, the gravitational interaction between weights and water and the Earth is important in allowing their work to occur, as are electromagnetic forces between and within the atoms comprising them. In a gasoline engine, only these electromagnetic forces are important. This is to say, a gasoline engine doesn’t need gravity, while a cuckoo clock does.

 

Note that we should more correctly call a cuckoo clock “weight-powered”, or better yet “change in position of weights-powered” than “gravity-powered”. The energy source for the clock is the change in position of its weights, which occurs because of the gravitational interaction between them and the Earth. This position changes, getting “used” and must eventually be reset. The gravitational interaction doesn’t change, get used, or need to be reset. It’s an unchanging, fundamental physical law.

 

Until one has a formal and intuitive understanding that gravity is not something used-up or transformed, like gasoline, but something that “carries” force, like electromagnetism, discussions of machines that depend on the gravitational interaction can be terribly confusing.

[lawcat]

One of the most fantastic things about pseudoscience is that it can not be disproven by science, but by experience, because pseudoscience does not use accepted physics. That is just wonderful.

[Guest Aemilius]

I wrote.... "Well, what language does your alleged "firm understanding of physics and engineering" dictate we use...."

 

DFINITLYDSTRUBD "Um...gee....I dunno....how about the official language of physics and engineering, mathematics"

 

Right.... I contacted Wikipedia to let them know you disagree with them and they immediately agreed to remove eroneous information like this....

 

Wikipedia "In mathematics, physics, and engineering, a Euclidean vector (sometimes called a geometric or spatial vector, or—as here—simply a vector) is a geometric object that has magnitude (or length) and direction...."

 

"Vectors are fundamental in the physical sciences. They can be used to represent any quantity that has both a magnitude and direction, such as velocity, the magnitude of which is speed. For example, the velocity 5 meters per second upward could be represented by the vector (0,5) (in 2 dimensions with the positive y axis as 'up'). Another quantity represented by a vector is force, since it has a magnitude and direction. Vectors also describe many other physical quantities, such as displacement, acceleration, momentum, and angular momentum."

 

You tell'em boy!

Edited December 2, 2012 by Aemilius

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

LMAO! your funny It does not say anywhere what you are trying to claim, it merely states that they are used...a portion of, not the whole....AND a very cursory scan reveals that there is no good reason for you not to provide a standard equation format as requested. Would it kill you to provide values instead of leaving ti up to the reader to make assumptions as well.

Classical PhysicsWave equationHistory of physics

Founders

[show]

Branches

[show]

Scientists

[show]

• v
• t
• e

And again your nifty drawings while showing direction of force, leave out the forces themselves as well as the mass of the components the forces are acting upon. Overall YOUR own understanding of the use of vectors is flawed as you don't seem to grasp that the representations are intended to function as a visual aid to be used in conjunction with proper mathematical representation, not instead of.

[Guest Aemilius]

"yIDoghQo' DFINITLYDSTRUBD.... Hab SoSlI' Quch! Haaaa' Hah!"

Edited December 5, 2012 by Aemilius

[blamski]

can i chip in here...?

 

i have no qualifications in physics at all, but did fairly well in high school maths and pretty much get what vectors are all about. so, from your drawings, emile, i can get a rough idea of general directions and forces but i don't get any idea about what the initial input and resulting output forces are. for you to make your vector drawings, whereby the length and direction of an arrow implies its force and er... direction, you must have had to do some calculations to work them out. i mean, how did you know how long to make all the arrows if you hadn't done the math? how do you know exactly what the proportions and relations of these forces are?

 

would you be able to share any of these calcualtions, or let us know exactly how you arrived at the lengths of the arrows on the diagrams? maybe that would make some people a little happier...

[Guest Aemilius]

lawcat "One of the most fantastic things about pseudoscience is that it can not be disproven by science, but by experience, because pseudoscience does not use accepted physics. That is just wonderful."

 

"Silence is better than un-meaning words" Pythagoras

 

blamski "can i chip in here...?

 

i have no qualifications in physics at all, but did fairly well in high school maths and pretty much get what vectors are all about. so, from your drawings, emile, i can get a rough idea of general directions and forces but i don't get any idea about what the initial input and resulting output forces are. for you to make your vector drawings, whereby the length and direction of an arrow implies its force and er... direction, you must have had to do some calculations to work them out. i mean, how did you know how long to make all the arrows if you hadn't done the math? how do you know exactly what the proportions and relations of these forces are?

 

would you be able to share any of these calcualtions, or let us know exactly how you arrived at the lengths of the arrows on the diagrams? maybe that would make some people a little happier..."

 

Hey blamski....

 

It might be a few days, but I'll answer that along with what DFINITLYDSTRUBD wrote earlier....

 

DFINITLYDSTRUBD "Among key details conveniently left out, the force you are applying, the mass of the weights, distance to the fulcrums, and distance of any concentric offsets from center. What information a person can glean from a few sketches with arrows is not nearly enough to make any sort of determination of accurate or not."

 

....in my next post in the "Exploratory Research Mechanism - Analysis" thread (I think that's where the answer belongs).

 

I see you're an artist (from the thread "Proliferation Of Genius"), where can I see your work?

 

Emile

[blamski]

ok, cool. will look forward to it.

 

 

as for seeing my work - you can currently see it physically at UNAM in mexico DF, or at slovenj gradec in slovenia if you happen to be passing through either of those places. otherwise the online presence is at hostprods.net.

[alionalizoti]

GDM - any others?

 

of course there are many others, claimed to be working at perfection!

 

you tube

 

1) Overbalanced Cross

 

2) Mysterious mechanism

 

3) DaVinci designs

 

4) Bassara Wheels

 

etc.

 

they are not that useless if we be able to attach them some little electric generator and have them work! 

But can we buy them and show them true! 

 

[alionalizoti]

OK God,

Let's have some round rings around universes

and hear your voice everywhere

and have full fun vacations! 

[HydrogenBond]

One interesting gravity driven mechanism is the earth's magnetic field. At the temperature of the earth's core, iron would be a vapor on the surface of the earth and therefore subject to high entropy. This high entropy gas state of the iron would make it hard keep all the iron molecules aligned for a consistent magnetic field.

 

Because of gravitational pressure, the vapor state of iron becomes a solid in the core of the earth, even at temperatures where it would be a gas on the surface. The solid state of the iron, in the core lowers the entropy of the gaseous iron and allows the iron in the core to align magnetic fields. 

 

Water behaves in a similar way due to gravity, with its properties changing with gravitational pressure. At high enough gravitational pressure water becomes a metal. If you could take a cup of metallic water and bring it to the surface, it would go through phases changes and explode. Gravity makes it stable and therefore useful for other mechanisms that need a high energy base state. 

Edited September 29, 2014 by HydrogenBond