Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel  (Read 716010 times)

conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #360 on: January 18, 2014, 08:50:06 PM »
The flaw in Grimer's theory lies in the fact that one can not create a cycloid pendulum without putting energy in.

If I read the article http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf correctly, nobody could ever build a true cycloid pendulum.


The path of an pendulum on which only gravity acts is circular:

- this is obvious for a rigid arm pendulum (the rigid arm enforces it)

- this is obvious for a weight on a string because the string is always tight (does not bend or slacken)

What ever one does to distort the path of a pendulum to a "cycloid" path (e.g. by bending the pendulum arm or string) needs energy.


Besides this, Grimer shows the clear signs of a deluded person:

- nobody is clever enough to understand his outstanding mental achievements (he is quite aggressive in this respect, always questioning the mental powers of people asking straight forward questions; and one gets attacked fiercely if demanding clarifications of wild concepts)

- he states himself that his theory can not be  proven by experiment (which ensures that nobody can disprove his delusion)

- he thinks that his mental capabilities are so great that he does not need proof by experiment, just look how clever he is, you just have to believe

- he always wiggles away from clear statements and does not answer simple questions

- he invents new science terms and unproven concepts to support his delusion


He is allowed to do all this, but one should not waste time with people like him. Yes, I am attacking Grimer because his style is very annoying.

Greetings, Conrad

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #361 on: January 18, 2014, 09:36:16 PM »
conrad, I agree that it takes energy to flex the suspending thread.  The really neat characteristics of a cycloid pendulum are that it is both isochronous, and has a shorter period than a circular pendulum with an equal length fully extended arm.

I have not seen evidence of the "ersatz gravity" energy or "third derivative" energy that Grimer contends exists and I highly doubt that it does.  His latest diagram suggesting that a series of pendula that are circular on one side and cycloid on the other appears to contradict other representations that he has made.  Those doubts aside, I am prepared to go down the road of testing for the existence of this "ersatz gravity" energy or "third derivative" energy that Grimer says exists. 

Grimer says that he lacks the skills to define and conduct proof experiments of his claims.  If he really believes his claims I should think that he would be anxious to see them evaluated fairly.  That cannot happen until he confirms a clear and unambiguous statement of at least one of his hypotheses.  If he holds out refusing to ever state any of his hypotheses in clear and unambiguous terms, then his hypotheses may as well not exist.

conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #362 on: January 18, 2014, 10:51:14 PM »
conrad, I agree that it takes energy to flex the suspending thread.  The really neat characteristics of a cycloid pendulum are that it is both isochronous, and has a shorter period than a circular pendulum with an equal length fully extended arm.

@Mark:

I agree that a "cycloid pendulum" would be neat. But it does not exist ín nature. One can theoretically construct one, but this cycloid movement of a weight can not be done without investing more than gravity.

A pendulum swings and only gravity acts on it. So, you hang a weight on a string, you pull the weight to one side, you let go, and gravity does its thing and moves the pendulum back and forth (till friction stops it).

Now, to move a weight in a "cycloid pendulum fashion" one needs an apparatus which has to add an "other force" besides gravity to realize this cycloid path. This "other forth" could be an electro magnet pulling at certain moments with a certain strangth on little iron beads fixed in equal distances along the string holding the weight.

Whatever machine one invents to create a cycloid path for a suspended weight needs to use some "other force" besides gravity. Gravity can still be the major force, but something else has to be employed (a rocket, a diesel engine, an electromagnet) to deviate the weight the string or the flexible arm to cause the "cycloid path".

I think this is the gist of any counter argument to Grimer`s delusion.

I am convinced that Grimer does not even have a well formulated theory, just a bunch of misconceptions he dreams up when pressed hard. Some mushy believe, rooted in the will to be better, superior and different than people who did him wrong in his opinion, which might well be the world in general. Sorry, Freud just got the better of me. Some people in the OU forum awaken the hobby shrink in me. But I am serious about the need for an other force besides gravity to cause a pendulum to swing along a cycloid path.

Greetings, Conrad

Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #363 on: January 19, 2014, 01:02:41 AM »
The amount of energy needed to flex the string can be made vanishing small with the right design of string. Since Mark claimed to be able to design an experiment he should know this. As for the rest of the post I draw members attention to the obscene first contribution made to this thread by Conrad:


Quote
I would like to offer an alternative explanation for the falling chimney:

See, chimneys are jerks who jerk off during the night because they do not like being watched jerking off.

Usually chimneys are blown up during the day. And when the chimney falls it wants to jerk off one last time. But the chimney cramps up in daylight and breaks because he applies a too great bending force.

Greetings, Conrad


I'm sure members can draw their own conclusions as to this Troll's agenda and motivations.



[size=78%]
[/size]

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #364 on: January 19, 2014, 01:11:01 AM »
Conrad, I agree that it takes some amount of work to bend the suspension arm in the cycloid pendulum.  There are also losses in an ordinary pendulum.  Air resistance, and non-zero friction in the pivot bearing also constitute losses in any kind of pendulum.  We can work to make these small, even going so far as to operate the pendulum in a low pressure bell jar.  But we cannot make them zero.  I do not know of any pendulum that does not run down.  For the cycloid pendulum, if the suspension arm is out of very high quality spring material, then the energy bending the spring gets released as it unwinds.  If we make the material very thin then the amount of energy that gets stored, and the amount of energy that gets released can be made very small, as can the energy that will be lost each cycle.  The up shot is that we will have losses but that we can make them small.

Grimer postulates that horizontal extension of the bob from the pivot requires an "ersatz gravity" energy.  He has posted diagrams showing this energy.  He has also called this energy "third derivative" energy.  If the energy that Grimer postulates were to exist, then depending on what determines its magnitude, we should be able to devise an experiment where according to Grimer's postulate it is much greater than the losses a pendulum suffers, and the uncertainties that would be present in our measurements.  So we could by one means or another detect this energy including over and above any losses that winding the arm around the cycloid chop introduce.  In order to design an experiment that could do that we need Grimer to state both his hypothesis, and how he calculates his extra energy.

I do not try to hide my skepticism of Grimer's extraordinary ideas.  I don't see any source for this extra energy he claims.  I also see disturbing self-contradiction of what I understand are his claims in his recent posts.  Based on the history of well controlled experiments before, I know that I expect new experiments will again confirm that gravity acts conservatively.  I am still willing to give Grimer's ideas the chance.  That requires that he state his ideas clearly and unambiguously.  Otherwise I don't know what it is that we are trying to test. 

At this point it is pretty much up to Grimer to fill-in the remaining blanks.  If he does, then great, I am happy to take things to the next level.  If he doesn't, then the conservative nature of gravity marches on unchallenged.  In that case he will have to find someone else to help him find evidence for his extraordinary claims.

fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #365 on: January 19, 2014, 06:30:46 AM »
And you couldn't say it more plain or fairer than that MarkE.

Your agenda is at least clear.



Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #366 on: January 19, 2014, 06:36:43 AM »
........................................................
At this point it is pretty much up to Grimer to fill-in the remaining blanks.  If he does, then great, I am happy to take things to the next level.  If he doesn't, then the conservative nature of gravity marches on unchallenged.  In that case he will have to find someone else to help him find evidence for his extraordinary claims.

This is a simple case of a pending confirmation answer.
The answer is pending with clear indications of answer 'avoidance'.
No attacks are needed, all members are quite able to derive their own conclusions.
We all know where the ball came to rest in the court.
Nothing further needs to be said.

Red_Sunset


minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #367 on: January 19, 2014, 09:13:26 AM »
Hi,
   it's to do with the sideways shift towards the pivot point. What you have to do is calculate
the energy needed to put the bob back in line with the path were it to be a straight shaft and
subtract that from the height gained by the cycloid pendulum.
   You can not repeat the cycle over and again without moving the pivot point, what you have
to do is imagine doing the cycle many times and you see what happens.
     I therefore conclude there is no, or minimal gain in the proposed system.
 Put your minds to developing a long lived electrical storage battery, then you will be on to
a winner!
              John.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #368 on: January 19, 2014, 09:19:44 AM »
.......................................
 I draw members attention to the obscene first contribution made to this thread by Conrad:
 I'm sure members can draw their own conclusions as to this Troll's agenda and motivations 

At this point, I think we have 3 options,

1..  PLAN-B,  discuss the Grimer's motivation
A discussion on why "Grimer" is avoiding to acknowledge the "MarkE" summary statement.
The summary statement appears to confirm pretty closely the theory statements that "Grimer" has postulated and published here already.
1..  What is "Grimer's" game?
2..  What is hidden ?   
3..  Does he think that he has overplayed his card to gain recognition?
4..  Would he like to retract his postulation?
5..  Did he assume that nobody would hold him to his word and put it to the test?
6..  Is he just playing with time for maximum exposure and attention ?

2..  PLAN-C,  proceed without Grimer
Proceed without "Grimer" on board.
The project definition as stated by "MarkE" is the basis for a verification test case.
Additional input is invited for evaluation to enhance the mission statement.
The next step would be the formulation of the test protocol and measurement requirements followed by
  1.. Test1 steps
  2.. Test2 steps
  3....ect....

3.. PLAN-D,   go home and do nothing.
Just ignore the ramblings as a distraction and go home.

Red_Sunset

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #369 on: January 19, 2014, 10:42:51 AM »
Red_Sunset the trouble that I have with the Plan B options is the highly subjective nature of each.  I would much rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do.

Grimer has contacted me privately, but he has not offered confirmation or correction of my statement of his hypothesis.  While we wait to see if Grimer will perhaps come through, I will suggest things that we can think about towards devising an experiment under a Plan C, or if Grimer comes through a Plan A:

We can minimize air resistance losses up to and including placing the pendulum in a bell jar and pumping the jar down to a low air pressure.
We can minimize the losses bending the support arm around the cycloid chop through material selection and support shape selection.
We can take advantage of statement 1) in the hypothesis that notes a cycloid pendulum has only gravitational potential energy at its apogee.
We can take advantage of statement 1) and the fact that at its lowest point the cycloid pendulum's arm, like the circular pendulum's arm aligns to the vertical, and therefore the acceleration due to gravity is normal to the direction of travel at that point.
We can construct Gendanken experiments before setting up physical experiments that will help us predict expected results.
We can look to existing experiments to see if any cover part or all of what we ultimately choose to set-up in our own experiments.

Because gravity has so often been shown to behave conservatively, if Grimer believes as he says that he does that he has an exception it is very crucial that there is zero misunderstanding of his hypothesis as to the conditions under which he believes that gravity behaves non-conservatively. 

My proposed statement of Grimer's hypothesis repeated here again for Grimer's convenience to either confirm or correct:

1) The cycloid pendulum potential energy at its apogee contains only gravitational potential energy with all gravitational force operating normal to the horizon.
2) A circular path pendulum with a vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 has at its apogee additional "third derivative energy" over and above the potential energy as an otherwise identical cycloid pendulum has.
3) A hybrid pendulum with vertical length arm of y1 and bob mass m1 that follows a circular path on one side of its travel and a cycloid path on the other half of its travel will convert the additional "third derivative energy" of the circular path half to additional gravitational potential energy observable as a higher apogee on the cycloid side than the circular side.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #370 on: January 19, 2014, 10:51:05 AM »
Hi,
   it's to do with the sideways shift towards the pivot point. What you have to do is calculate
the energy needed to put the bob back in line with the path were it to be a straight shaft and
subtract that from the height gained by the cycloid pendulum.
   You can not repeat the cycle over and again without moving the pivot point, what you have
to do is imagine doing the cycle many times and you see what happens.
     I therefore conclude there is no, or minimal gain in the proposed system.
 Put your minds to developing a long lived electrical storage battery, then you will be on to
a winner!
              John.
Minnie, energy associated with the greater horizontal displacement at apogee is what Grimer has labeled his eG and called "ersatz energy".  I have asked him to provide a formula to calculate the "ersatz energy".  I am waiting for an answer.

Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #371 on: January 19, 2014, 11:22:26 AM »
Red_Sunset the trouble that I have with the Plan B options is the highly subjective nature of each.  I would much rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do.
......................................................................... 
MarkE, 
I agree that you "rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do."  You can see this exercise as a scientific pre-test.

The Plan B cross-examines the relationship boundary between the "science idea/hypothesis" and the scientist (as a person in his social position/standing).
This interaction could have limited the disclosure and possibly nullify the hypothesis as it currently stands.
The lack of backing by the originator for the hypothesis puts a doubt shadow over the disclosure

Red_Sunset

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #372 on: January 19, 2014, 11:46:48 AM »
MarkE, 
I agree that you "rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do."  You can see this a a scientific extension.

The Plan B cross-examines the relationship boundary between the "science idea/hypothesis" and the scientist (as a person in his social position/standing).
This interaction could limited the disclosure and possibly nullify the hypothesis as it currently stands.
The lack of backing by the originator for the hypothesis puts a grave doubt over the disclosure

Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset I think all that you are saying is true.  I think that it is prudent for people to privately assess what they can by how they see others behave.  Public discussion of those assessments can easily turn into something that looks like a mob ganging up on someone.  When that happens, even if the person involved may seem to invite it, it can have a chilling effect on other people from coming forward with their ideas.  I think that it is a tragedy when people censure themselves out of fear that they will be ridiculed if they've made a  mistake. 


Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #373 on: January 19, 2014, 02:07:27 PM »
Red_Sunset I think all that you are saying is true.  I think that it is prudent for people to privately assess what they can by how they see others behave.  Public discussion of those assessments can easily turn into something that looks like a mob ganging up on someone.  When that happens, even if the person involved may seem to invite it, it can have a chilling effect on other people from coming forward with their ideas.  I think that it is a tragedy when people censure themselves out of fear that they will be ridiculed if they've made a  mistake.
MarkE
The issue arises with "no answer", as said before "No" or " I can not" is a valid answer.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything that they are in any way uncomfortable with.
Neither do I believe in dramatizing this, the hypothesis as concept is enough for me at this stage.
I am fine with plan-D.
Red_Sunset

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #374 on: January 19, 2014, 02:49:14 PM »
MarkE
The issue arises with "no answer", as said before "No" or " I can not" is a valid answer.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything that they are in any way uncomfortable with.
Neither do I believe in dramatizing this, the hypothesis as concept is enough for me at this stage.
I am fine with plan-D.
Red_Sunset
Red_Sunset my concern is more the effect anything that might look like an attack on Grimer's personality might do to discourage other people from proposing ideas out of fear that they would be treated harshly.  I think ideas should be encouraged.  I also believe rigorous analysis and test are absolutely essential when considering extraordinary ideas.

I am afraid that I am quite certain that the hypothesis as stated can be shown to be false without getting to physical experiments or at most only requires trivial physical experiments.  Without further input from Grimer, I believe that we are at Plan C or Plan D.  This is because according to the hypothesis the cycloid pendulum translates only between kinetic energy and GPE.  If the kinetic energy at the bottom of the travel for the cycloid case is the same as for the circular case, then we may conclude that the energies at the apogees are the same and since the hypothesis states that at the apogee the cycloid case has only GPE, then so must the circular case.  All that remains is to look up maximum velocity derivations from actual observations for circular pendula.  The hypothesis fails if any of the following are true:

1) The maximum velocity for a circular pendulum with massless free arm length Y1 and point mass bob mass M1, released from raised height Hdelta1 is the same for a cycloid pendulum with the same parameters.

OR

2) The computed kinetic energy for a circular pendulum at the bottom of its travel equals the GPE of the raised height of the bob at its release.