Big try at gravity wheel

[Grimer]

Grimer, the only question that you have posted in the past few hours is this one, which I have already answered twice:
For the third time:  There is no gravitational energy associated with the EG vectors because the acceleration due to gravity is normal to those vectors. 

There is no "dancer" or "arms" in your diagram.  There are two pendula.  If you feel differently, then kindly explain why.

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image//

I didn't say there was Newtonian Gravitational energy. It's Ersatz gravitational energy. If you don't know what Ersatz gravitational energy is then you've never watched Star Trek. How do you think Spock keeps his feet on the floor.


The tension in the tie between the bob and the pivot can be resolved vertically and horizontally. The horizontal component is analogous to a ballet dancer pulling a weight towards her body. She does work. She puts energy into the system.


The horizontal resolved force of the tie is doing work.


The horizontal force to the right is balanced by an equal and opposite horizontal force at the pivot.


I'll stop there to make sure you're following me.


And no more irrelevant stuff. If that stuff was any us the gravity problem would have been solved years ago. It's rubbish.


And the reason I'm being rude and not calming down is because I've got to rattle your brain until all the cognitive dissonance is shaken out of it.


If you don't know what cognitive dissonance is - Google it.

P.S. I'm going for my lunch. In the meantime read my stuff from p.15 onwards and get those little grey cells working hard on understanding it.

[MarkE]

Grimer, mechanical energy has a well accepted definition and that is:  E=integral(F*ds).  You have not specified any other source of acceleration or apparent force other than that of gravity accelerating parallel to the NG vectors and normal to the EG vectors.  As you have set the scenario up, the only source of work in this system is the gravitational field, and it cannot do any work in the normal, IE horizontal, plane.

A spinning ballet dancer has angular momentum and radial acceleration in the horizontal plane.  The pendula do not.  If you are alleging a source of acceleration along the EG vector, kindly state that source of acceleration.  Tension does not equal acceleration.  The Sword of Damacles doesn't go anywhere as long as the thread holds.

If you need to introduce some additional constraints to your set-up, then by all means do that.  Going off topic to science fiction TV does not add insight.

It would be great if you have insights into some set of conditions where gravity is non-conservative.  It would be an incredible breakthrough.  I am still waiting to learn of such conditions from you.

[Grimer]

Oh dear.


I was using the dancer as an analogy. You've pressed it too far.


I'm using science fiction to jump your ideas out of the grooves they are running in. To try and get you to use you imagination for once. To think outside the box, Dr Bono's lateral thinking.


Didn't you ever play Cowboys and Indians as a child - on your own - running around with an imaginary gun in your hand shooting imaginary Indians?


You need to exercise that kind of imagination here. Its like trying to see a joke.


Do you have mild autism, Asperges syndrome? Do you have difficulty seeing jokes? People who have a detailed knowledge of a subject like you have of electronics are often mildly autistic. If you are I'm wasting my time because you are never going to "see" it. If so tell me now.

[/font][/size]
Have you ever watched Star Trek. Do you love it or do you think it's childish and boring.[/font][/size]

[/font][/size]
Are you capable of becoming a child again? Because you need to if you are to enter the kingdom of gravitational energy.[/font][/size]

[Grimer]

This is an extract from one of the files on my website. As you will see, my [/pre]boss had the same problem as you. Lack of imagination. Lack of lateral thinking.[/pre]Lack of an ability to turn a problem inside out.[/pre]==============================================================================[/pre]
[/pre]There was an interesting incident occurred whilst we were making density measurements, an incident which illustrates two aspects of research which were later to become very important, the possibility of conceptual inversion and the psychological difficulty such inversion inculcated. To find the density of a piece of material one needs to measure two quantities. The weight of the material – straightforward enough, just stick it on a balance – and the volume of a material. Finding the volume of a material is easy enough when the material is a nice simple shape like a cube or a cylinder; you just make measurements and use the appropriate mathematical formula. When the material is irregular, like a roughly hacked piece of soil cement or a king's crown then there's more of a problem as Archimedes realised. The solution which came to him in his bath and led to him shouting Eureka and running through the streets naked (allegedly) has never been improved upon and it is his method, more specifically its inverse, which we used to find the volume of our soil-cement pieces. Nowadays Archimedes' discovery is normally expressed in the form, "The loss of weight in water is equal to the volume of water displaced." Strictly speaking, the loss of weight in water is equal to the weight of water displaced but since 1 cc  of water weighs one gram more or less, one of the more useful features about the metric system, we can jump directly from loss of weight to volume. Using this principle then the volume of a lump of stuff can be measured by hanging it by a thin thread from one arm of a lever balance to measure its weight and then letting out the thread until it is immersed in a beaker of water when its weight is again measured. The original weight is its weight. The loss in weight is its volume. So the original weight divided by the loss in weight is its density. The Concrete Division were using just such a system for measuring the density gradients of core slices cut from concrete roads. Because we didn't have a suitable lever balance we thought we would be clever and do it slightly differently. Using a pan balance we measure not the loss in the weight of the specimen but the gain in the weight of the water when we hung a specimen in the water. On day our Division Head was walking through the lab and he happened to see me holding one end of the piece of cotton and calling out the scale readings to my colleague. He stood and watched for a while looking puzzled. "What are you doing Grimer?" "I'm measuring the volume of these soil-cement slices, sir." "But the volume is equal to the loss in weight of the specimen. You are holding the end of the string. How can you measure the loss in weight like that." "I'm not measuring the loss in weight of the specimen, sir. I'm measuring the gain in weight of the water." "Are you sure you can do that, Grimer?" His incredulity was so palpable that I almost started having doubts myself. It was like when your wife asks you for the third time if you turned the gas off when you left. "Pretty sure. After all, the weight has to go somewhere, doesn't it! It can't just disappear." He walked slowly away looking very unconvinced. In retrospect I can't really blame him. When all your life you have been used to seeing a thing done one way, its very difficult to accept that it can also be done in completely the opposite way. Standing there holding one end of a thread  with the specimen dangling in a beaker of water at the other it must have seemed as though I was engaged in some mystic rite of pendulum divination. [/pre]============================================================================[/pre]Now go to my website and read the rest of the "Stuff" file.[/pre]
[/pre]Sorry about the lack of paras. the programme has destroyed my tags. Put in your own[/pre]Alternatively go to my website and read the extract in context.[/pre] [/pre]

[MarkE]

Oh dear.


I was using the dancer as an analogy. You've pressed it too far.


I'm using science fiction to jump your ideas out of the grooves they are running in. To try and get you to use you imagination for once. To think outside the box, Dr Bono's lateral thinking.


Didn't you ever play Cowboys and Indians as a child - on your own - running around with an imaginary gun in your hand shooting imaginary Indians?


You need to exercise that kind of imagination here. Its like trying to see a joke.


Do you have mild autism, Asperges syndrome? Do you have difficulty seeing jokes? People who have a detailed knowledge of a subject like you have of electronics are often mildly autistic. If you are I'm wasting my time because you are never going to "see" it. If so tell me now.

[/font][/size]
Have you ever watched Star Trek. Do you love it or do you think it's childish and boring.[/font][/size]

[/font][/size]
Are you capable of becoming a child again? Because you need to if you are to enter the kingdom of gravitational energy.[/font][/size]

Grimer, we don't need to go off topic with science fiction, childhood games, or analogies that require elements that are completely unevidenced in the case under discussion.  Again, I ask you to remain on topic. 

Do all the lateral thinking that you like.  Really, I encourage you to: ponder, imagine, play, think as non-linearly as you like.  Look for inspiration wherever you can find it.  Perhaps someday you will find inspiration that allows you to form insights that you have so far failed to supply.  Imagination is wonderful for conceiving ideas.  Rigorous analysis and / or experiments are how researchers test ideas.

We have your idea.  It is that gravity is not always conservative.  What we don't have is any expression of limiting conditions that would allow that against the myriad of conditions where gravity has been shown to behave conservatively.  I am interested in whether evidence that supports your idea can be developed or not.  If you cannot or simply do not identify some limiting conditions, then we are stuck with all the existing evidence that gravity is conservative and none for your idea.  At that point, your idea just fails.  No entertainment preferences can address that impasse.

If you ever do find insights that allow you to define a set of limitations under which you believe a gravitational field acts in a non-conservative way, then please share those insights and I will be happy to assist in developing tests for those ideas.