A machine to convert gravity to mechanical energy # 2

[mondrasek]

Brian,

Previously we have discussed that the 63lb weight cannot expand your tank if the expansion area is equal to the cross section of your tank (1' x 1' x 1').  It can only expand a piston with ~14 sq inches (not 144 sq inches).  I have asked repeatedly for you to show a design of a tank with only a 14 sq. in. piston on each side and the weight in the middle.  The purpose is to show you one cannot be made.  You continue to avoid doing any of the work to teach yourself what you are missing.

I have to ask:  Is your purpose here to try and win an argument/debate, or to learn the truth about your concept?  If it is the former, I will gladly stop trying to help you learn and admit defeat for your arguments.  You can then include me with the others that have "failed to prove" that your idea will not work.  But if you wish to learn the truth then get off your ass and show the design!

You are avoiding doing any of the experiments/exercises we have suggested that should show you the flaws in your concept.  Instead you have repeated statements time and again that have been shown to more knowledgeable persons to be false.  You repeat these false statements as proof that your concept will work.  Repeating a falsehood over and over does not make it true.

Show us the design of a tank that can expand only ~14 sq. in. pistons on each side.  This exercise is designed to help YOU understand.

Also, my glass did not wobble noticeably (better glass or spin, who knows or cares?).  It did however slow quite rapidly due to the known effect of the drag from the surrounding water.  The water adhered to the sides of the glass in a relationship including the constant known as the Reynolds number for that surface.  While I might have used a glass with a surface who's Reynolds number was more advantageous to your arguments, there is no known surface that will let it reach a terminal velocity approaching 50% of what it could reach in air.  5%, maybe, but that is only and educated guess.

M.

[TinselKoala]

Here's my hypothesis:

Jandell will do the math on the spreadsheet and will demonstrate that Brian's machine cannot work.
Brian will then inform us that Jandell did not do the math model correctly, and will repeat his claim that nobody has yet shown how his device won't work. Or Brian will come up with some mechanical modification of the pulleys or transfer solenoid or other part of his mechanism, and claim that it will now work as designed, and the whole silly process will begin again.

PROVE ME WRONG!!

Please.

[brian334]

I will post Jendells numbers as soon as I get them.

M.
Go to my website and check out GRAVITY MACHINE # 1
It will help if you print out the drawings.

[mondrasek]

M.
Go to my website and check out GRAVITY MACHINE # 1
It will help if you print out the drawings.

Brian,

Sadly, you have once again sidestepped the issue.  Again (fourth or fifth time now?), I ask you to draw the tank described.  Directing me to a different concept does not fix the flaws in this one.

Also, I ask again:  Do you only want to win the argument/debate, or do you truly want to learn why your concept will not work?  So far you have shown little effort to learn.  And when we abandon the discussion due to you repeating falsehoods over and over, you claim that means we have not disproved your concept and therefore it must work, ie. you win!  What do you really want?  The truth, or agreement with your misunderstanding of reality?

M.

[brian334]

M.
Gravity Machine # 1 is the best answer I can give you.
You asked for a different design, Gravity Machine # 1 is a different design.
I am not side stepping your question, I am answering your question.
At my website http://bsandler.com click on the tab at the top of the page marked Gravity Machine # 1