Big try at gravity wheel

[conradelektro]

As for the rest of the post 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.

Sorry, my obscene post was not nice.

But the aloof and arrogant reasoning of Grimer made me respond with something as absurd as his arguments. Not everybody saw the joke, again sorry.

Please read this document carefully http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf (posted by Grimer http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg383571/#msg383571).

The document says that the "chops" do not cause a true cycloid pendulum movement (or a isochronous clock) and that they were abandoned by the clock builders quite soon for this reason.

So, as I said, there is no way of causing a cycloid pendulum movement with gravity alone (by adding some guides or chops).

Greetings, Conrad

[Grimer]

Sorry, my obscene post was not nice.

But the aloof and arrogant reasoning of Grimer made me respond with something as absurd as his arguments. Not everybody saw the joke, again sorry.

Please read this document carefully http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf (posted by Grimer http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/msg383571/#msg383571).

The document says that the "chops" do not cause a true cycloid pendulum movement (or a isochronous clock) and that they were abandoned by the clock builders quite soon for this reason.

So, as I said, there is no way of causing a cycloid pendulum movement with gravity alone (by adding some guides or chops).

Greetings, Conrad

Correct. Your obscene post was not nice. But since you've apologised we'll move on.


I looked again at the link I gave and found the there are no less that 60 references to "chops".


For your penance ;-) and to save me having to trawl through all 60 please could you tell me which reference to chops you are referring to.


Thank you.


Edit: I have now searched on the word "true" and it comes up with a much smaller number of hits.


I think quote on page 15 may be the one you are referring to.

But he deduced something else as well. When the work on the rigid body pendulum was published in Part
IV of Horologium Oscillatorium, Huygens put it unequivocally, at Proposition XXIV, "It is not possible to
determine the centre of oscillation for pendula suspended between cycloids." The very reason this is true
means that cycloidal chops do not provide an isochronous path for a rigid body pendulum.

But as you can see from the diagram on page 15 below the above quote this is not the kind of pendulum we
are discussing here.


Wouldn't you agree?

[Grimer]

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.

Of course you would have to move the pivot point. So what. No one's suggesting this as a a practical generator. It's to prove a point - a very important process in science.


You conclude "there is no, or minimal gain". But which?


Believe me there is an enormous difference being not pregnant and being minimally pregnant. ;-)

[conradelektro]

I looked again at the link I gave and found the there are no less that 60 references to "chops".

For your penance ;-) and to save me having to trawl through all 60 please could you tell me which reference to chops you are referring to.

In this document (which was cited by you) http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf they talk about chops in old pendulum clocks which were supposed to cause cycloid pendulum movement but they did not. Therefore the clock builders abandoned chops and the idea of an isochronous clock.

"It is said that Huygens deduced that, if the chops were cycloidal, the bob of a pendulum would swing
along a cycloidal path, rather than the circular arc of the simple pendulum, and the pendulum would then
be isochronous."

My argument: there is no way to cause a pendulum weight to go along a cycloid path by gravity alone. No "chops" or any other "guides" can do that. One needs to introduce other forces provided by some additional mechanisms (which will consume energy and the consumed energy will be at least the energy gained by the cycloid path, if there is indeed some energy gained).

But my heart is not in "gravity machines", therefore I will not invest more time in this topic. I belive in experiments, theory is cheap.

Good science is derived from experiments. Every valid theory must be supported by real experiments. Of course you may decline experiments, but that will also decline your credibility. But again, count me out, I am interested in other strange things.

Greetings, Conrad

[Grimer]

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.[size=78%][/size][size=78%]

[/size]






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

Newlands was a prime example of that


Newlands noted that many pairs of similar elements existed, which differed by some multiple of eight in mass number, and was the first to assign them an atomic number. When his 'law of octaves' was printed in Chemistry News, likening this periodicity of eights to the musical scale, it was ridiculed by some of his contemporaries. His lecture to the Chemistry Society on 1 March 1866 was not published, the Society defending their decision by saying that such 'theoretical' topics might be controversial.