Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[PIH123]

Experimental proof was provided in the first article I referenced: Ref: The Great Pi Conspiracy

To dispute any such data provided is the work of a FOOL

The difference between the two stated numbers in the referenced article (3.14159 and 3.14460) is 0.00301
which multiplied by 32 is 0.1 rounded to 2 sig figs.

So for units of measurement, say inches, 0.1 32nds of an inch.

I'll repeat, 0.1 (zero point one) 32nds of an inch.


Now leaving aside the experimenters 1st statement in the article, namely :
"I used an optical disc which was ~4.7 inches diameter, but not truly round, off by a few thousandths"



Let's get into the meat and taters of his measurements.
It seems he used calipers to measure diameters of discs (fairly accurate, so OK so far).
But then he goes on to say that he used tape measures graduated in 1/32ths of an inch to measure the rolling circumference.

Repeating - 1/32ths of an inch. That is One, not 0.1 as above.


Quoting him :
He "had to interpolate between lines" for his measurements.

So unless my understanding of the word 'interpolate' is way off base,
he is saying that he had to accurately estimate a tenth of the distance between two 1/32 nd lines
giving 3 thousand ths of an inch accuracy
and then miraculously, was hence able to come up with one thousand th of a unit final accuracy ?



And we are expected to take this as irrefutable evidence ?


Pete

AKA PHIffle to EMJ each time I have proved him dead wrong.

[EMJunkie]

The roundest thing in my easy-to-reach environment is a "mini" CD-ROM disk. I took my digital caliper and measured its diameter to be 79.93 mm. Then I took a sheet of copy paper and wrapped it tightly around the circumference of this mini-disk, and using a sewing needle, I pierced through the sheet once where it overlapped itself on the rim of the disk, making two tiny holes. Then I unwrapped the sheet and measured the distance between the two holes with a steel machinist's ruler. This distance was 251.1 mm.

Do the math.

FAIL!!!

Evidence Old Pi Might Be Wrong

Turns out this is easier said than done, but with some diligence one can do it. ( I used an optical disc which was ~4.7 inches diameter, but not truly round, off by a few thousandths, so I had to try to find an average circumference). The difference between the 2 corresponding values of pi would be roughly 1/16th inch (actually, roughly 3/64th of an inch or 1 millimeter) rolling such a disc 3 times. The three problems encountered are finding a true circular disc, accurately measuring the circumference, and rolling the disc with no slippage. Error is easily introduced if the disc deviates from the vertical plane while being rolled. My measurements did vary, but my most diligent attempts turned out considerably higher. than the old pi. This was enough to convince me that the old pi might be wrong. and gave me enough reason to continue investigation. During the course of developing mathematical proofs, I repeated this measurement one more time with the optical disc, as carefully as I could, and got 3.1448 (measuring to 4 significant figures, the 5th digit can only be an approximation). With a 10-inch brake disc and 12-inch caliper, my initial tries at 5-place precision were unsuccessful. Although I had a well-machined disc to within about 1/1000th inch at 10.124", the thicker disc seemed to provide other problems with reproducibility, along with variations in various tape measures themselves. My numbers varied between 3.143 and 3.145. still far from the old pi at 3.14159....

Attempts to reproduce measurements prior to publications of this article again highlighted difficulties encountered, with variable results. It is possible to reproduce consistent and accurate results with proper technique and diligence. The subject of how to do this could be it's own article, and this article needs to be kept to a palatable length. But a few points need to be made. If you want to try this, here's my advice:

1. If you use a standard optical disc, it must be a CD, NOT a DVD. The CD's (at least the one's I have) have a square edge, my DVD's don't. The CD's I used had a pretty uniform diameter, didn't vary more than a thousandths of an inch in a given individual disc. Different discs seem to vary by a couple thousandths.

2. When you roll it, it must be kept perfectly vertical. The rolling surface I used was wooden with a piece of electrical tape along the rolling surface to add a little more friction. I had to fashion a jig to keep the disc vertical. Rolling must be done with no slippage. Do not use much downward pressure as you roll the disc, as the thin disc is easily distorted, and doing so will affect accuracy.

3. Accuracy of measuring equipment can vary. I have several stainless-steel 6-inch calipers which are all consistent and give precise reproducible measurements. I had some difficulty getting consistent measurements with my 12-inch calipers. I suggest using a good 6-inch caliper with an optical CD, as they are inexpensive and accurate to four decimal places.

4. The accuracy of tape measures I have found can vary by 1/32nd of an inch among various models, and even within the same unit, depending on start and stop points. But this accuracy is enough to refute the old pi. If you want consistent 4-place accuracy, you may have to check your tape against others, or roll the disc over a longer distance, up to 8 feet.

Only one of my tape measures was graduated in 1/32ths of an inch, and I had to interpolate between lines. When I was able to get consistent rolls of 3 rotations, the same measured distance using five different tape measures revealed the following calculated pi values:

1) 3.144

2) 3.144

3) 3.143

4) 3.143

5) 3.145

You will need to check measurements for yourself. If my numbers aren't reproducible, they won't mean anything. If people want to obscure the truth, they will just post bogus numbers. If you are good with detail work, have a steady hand and a good eye, know how to use linear measuring equipment, you should be able to duplicate my results. I contend that these results call into serious question the validity of the old pi, and the hypothesis that the circle equals an infinitely-sided polygon must be re-examined.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[TinselKoala]

FAIL!!!


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

You're wrong once again. My measurements and my technique and my tools are far superior to those in your quoted reference.

You can't refute me, so go ahead and whine and moan. Why don't you get some accurate measuring tools and make your own set of measurements?

I know why, and so do you.

My digital caliper is precise to the 1/100th of a millimeter. The disk I used varies by less than 0.05 mm in diameter as measured in various places. I can read my steel machinist's ruler accurately to the tenth of a millimeter (0.1 mm). 
And your quoted reference isn't even accurate to 1/32 inch, which is about 0.8 mm. In other words, your quoted reference is a FAIL, because it's not precise enough and also it uses a bogus methodology.

[EMJunkie]

You're wrong once again. My measurements and my technique and my tools are far superior to those in your quoted reference.

You can't refute me, so go ahead and whine and moan. Why don't you get some accurate measuring tools and make your own set of measurements?

I know why, and so do you.

My digital caliper is precise to the 1/100th of a millimeter. The disk I used varies by less than 0.05 mm in diameter as measured in various places. I can read my steel machinist's ruler accurately to the tenth of a millimeter (0.1 mm). 
And your quoted reference isn't even accurate to 1/32 inch, which is about 0.8 mm. In other words, your quoted reference is a FAIL, because it's not precise enough and also it uses a bogus methodology.

Why have you failed TK? Ask yourself, why have you failed so miserably in this half PI'd effort of yours again?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

An example of the difference:

BLACK Using: 3.1415926535897932384626433832795
RED Using: 3.144605511029693144282691537944

one overlaid on the other...

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org