Big try at gravity wheel

[Grimer]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...
...

Whether or not the RAR device works you've got to admit, it's extraordinary.   

[Liberty]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...

in other words, the onus is ALWAYS on the person/s claiming over unity to prove their case and not the other way round.

Poit

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

What is the difference between a proof and extraordinary proof?

Can a woman be kind of pregnant?  She either is pregnant or she is not.  There is no in between.  So it is for Over Unity.  It is OU or it is not.  It is self evident with an accurate standard proof for those that are willing to admit it as a truth.  It becomes as muddy waters and endless proofs (extraordinary proof) for those that refuse to acknowledge a true proof.

[Grimer]

... 
Proof is in what YOU can figure out, sort deduct, interpret, reach to a logical conclusion, put to the test as truth, compare as facts. But that takes some work.
...

Very true.


"Proof" has certainly come to me from the mental stimulus of the imminent RAR demonstration.


Thanks to BesslerWheel.com forum discussions over the four years since I joined, I've been able to link up all that "work", all that collection of concepts relating to the Keenie wheel mechanism.


I now understand why the Keenie generates an asymmetric gravity action and how the increments of that action are integrated by a succession of fall and recoil pulses of weights on the active side of the wheel.


I can illustrate this more specifically by quoting from a recent BW thread.

...
The problem with gravity being the 'prime mover' force is that gravity is symmetrical.

Gravity is symmetrical but its effect on both sides of the wheel is not
necessarily symmetrical.

Gravity force is the same on both sides of the wheel.

But its effect on both sides of the wheel is not necessarily the same.


For example. If the wheel has a one way clutch at its axle then there will be a force opposing gravity on one side of the wheel and not on the other. In effect gravity will be switched off, neutralized, balanced on one side of the wheel and not on the other.


In these circumstances gravity will be acting asymmetrically and provide a torque which will drive the wheel. Gravity will be partitioned into two equal angular momentum components, one which is driving the wheel one way, clockwise say, and the other which is "driving" the wheel supports connected to earth, anticlockwise.


This is how and why the Keenie wheel works.

And gravity force acts the same on a rising weight as on a falling weight.

Indeed it does.


But the action of the one way clutch does not have the same result on a weight on one side of the wheel as on the other.

This symmetry of force is the reason that gravity cannot be a prime mover force for a PM wheel.

The asymmetry of the effective gravitational action introduced to the wheel by the use of a one way clutch is the reason that gravity can be a prime mover force for a PM wheel.

[Poit]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

What is the difference between a proof and extraordinary proof?

Can a woman be kind of pregnant?  She either is pregnant or she is not.  There is no in between.  So it is for Over Unity.  It is OU or it is not.  It is self evident with an accurate standard proof for those that are willing to admit it as a truth.  It becomes as muddy waters and endless proofs (extraordinary proof) for those that refuse to acknowledge a true proof.

Do you have this "rar" over unity built in your garage? do you have the blue prints to build one? or at least get an engineer to build one? No you don't...

Lets say I was to tell you I saw a rat in my basement... I took a picture of it... even a video... that would be ordinary proof... its common place.. no real reason for you to doubt I saw a rat in my basement...

What if I said to you that I have captured an alien and have it tied up in my basement..... would a picture or a video suffice? of course not... because it is an extraordinary claim.. you would either need to come over and see it for your self or go capture your own alien!

SEE THE DIFFERENCE?!

[Grimer]

Poit


I don't have to prove that the square on the hypotenuse is always equal to the sums of the squares on the other two sides by constructing physical right angle triangles for you to measure because you could always claim, and you would be right, that I had not constructed all possible right angle triangles.


Likewise, I don't have to prove the extraordinary claim that there are an infinite number of primes by counting them, another impossible task.


Of course, if through lack of education a person is incapable of appreciating the arguments of both claims then there is no way one can provide proofs to them.


In the case of the Keenie wheel for example, simple logic can show how and why it worked. There is no need to prove it by building one although no doubt someone who was not confident of their powers to reason correctly would take the same line as Didymus.