Big try at gravity wheel

[conradelektro]

The flaw in Grimer's theory lies in the fact that one can not create a cycloid pendulum without putting energy in.

If I read the article http://www.antique-horology.org/piggott/rh/images/81v_cycloid.pdf correctly, nobody could ever build a true cycloid pendulum.


The path of an pendulum on which only gravity acts is circular:

- this is obvious for a rigid arm pendulum (the rigid arm enforces it)

- this is obvious for a weight on a string because the string is always tight (does not bend or slacken)

What ever one does to distort the path of a pendulum to a "cycloid" path (e.g. by bending the pendulum arm or string) needs energy.


Besides this, Grimer shows the clear signs of a deluded person:

- nobody is clever enough to understand his outstanding mental achievements (he is quite aggressive in this respect, always questioning the mental powers of people asking straight forward questions; and one gets attacked fiercely if demanding clarifications of wild concepts)

- he states himself that his theory can not be  proven by experiment (which ensures that nobody can disprove his delusion)

- he thinks that his mental capabilities are so great that he does not need proof by experiment, just look how clever he is, you just have to believe

- he always wiggles away from clear statements and does not answer simple questions

- he invents new science terms and unproven concepts to support his delusion


He is allowed to do all this, but one should not waste time with people like him. Yes, I am attacking Grimer because his style is very annoying.

Greetings, Conrad

[MarkE]

conrad, I agree that it takes energy to flex the suspending thread.  The really neat characteristics of a cycloid pendulum are that it is both isochronous, and has a shorter period than a circular pendulum with an equal length fully extended arm.

I have not seen evidence of the "ersatz gravity" energy or "third derivative" energy that Grimer contends exists and I highly doubt that it does.  His latest diagram suggesting that a series of pendula that are circular on one side and cycloid on the other appears to contradict other representations that he has made.  Those doubts aside, I am prepared to go down the road of testing for the existence of this "ersatz gravity" energy or "third derivative" energy that Grimer says exists. 

Grimer says that he lacks the skills to define and conduct proof experiments of his claims.  If he really believes his claims I should think that he would be anxious to see them evaluated fairly.  That cannot happen until he confirms a clear and unambiguous statement of at least one of his hypotheses.  If he holds out refusing to ever state any of his hypotheses in clear and unambiguous terms, then his hypotheses may as well not exist.

[conradelektro]

conrad, I agree that it takes energy to flex the suspending thread.  The really neat characteristics of a cycloid pendulum are that it is both isochronous, and has a shorter period than a circular pendulum with an equal length fully extended arm.

@Mark:

I agree that a "cycloid pendulum" would be neat. But it does not exist ín nature. One can theoretically construct one, but this cycloid movement of a weight can not be done without investing more than gravity.

A pendulum swings and only gravity acts on it. So, you hang a weight on a string, you pull the weight to one side, you let go, and gravity does its thing and moves the pendulum back and forth (till friction stops it).

Now, to move a weight in a "cycloid pendulum fashion" one needs an apparatus which has to add an "other force" besides gravity to realize this cycloid path. This "other forth" could be an electro magnet pulling at certain moments with a certain strangth on little iron beads fixed in equal distances along the string holding the weight.

Whatever machine one invents to create a cycloid path for a suspended weight needs to use some "other force" besides gravity. Gravity can still be the major force, but something else has to be employed (a rocket, a diesel engine, an electromagnet) to deviate the weight the string or the flexible arm to cause the "cycloid path".

I think this is the gist of any counter argument to Grimer`s delusion.

I am convinced that Grimer does not even have a well formulated theory, just a bunch of misconceptions he dreams up when pressed hard. Some mushy believe, rooted in the will to be better, superior and different than people who did him wrong in his opinion, which might well be the world in general. Sorry, Freud just got the better of me. Some people in the OU forum awaken the hobby shrink in me. But I am serious about the need for an other force besides gravity to cause a pendulum to swing along a cycloid path.

Greetings, Conrad

[Grimer]

The amount of energy needed to flex the string can be made vanishing small with the right design of string. Since Mark claimed to be able to design an experiment he should know this. As for the rest of the post I draw members attention to the obscene first contribution made to this thread by Conrad:

I would like to offer an alternative explanation for the falling chimney:

See, chimneys are jerks who jerk off during the night because they do not like being watched jerking off.

Usually chimneys are blown up during the day. And when the chimney falls it wants to jerk off one last time. But the chimney cramps up in daylight and breaks because he applies a too great bending force.

Greetings, Conrad

I'm sure members can draw their own conclusions as to this Troll's agenda and motivations.



[size=78%]
[/size]

[MarkE]

Conrad, I agree that it takes some amount of work to bend the suspension arm in the cycloid pendulum.  There are also losses in an ordinary pendulum.  Air resistance, and non-zero friction in the pivot bearing also constitute losses in any kind of pendulum.  We can work to make these small, even going so far as to operate the pendulum in a low pressure bell jar.  But we cannot make them zero.  I do not know of any pendulum that does not run down.  For the cycloid pendulum, if the suspension arm is out of very high quality spring material, then the energy bending the spring gets released as it unwinds.  If we make the material very thin then the amount of energy that gets stored, and the amount of energy that gets released can be made very small, as can the energy that will be lost each cycle.  The up shot is that we will have losses but that we can make them small.

Grimer postulates that horizontal extension of the bob from the pivot requires an "ersatz gravity" energy.  He has posted diagrams showing this energy.  He has also called this energy "third derivative" energy.  If the energy that Grimer postulates were to exist, then depending on what determines its magnitude, we should be able to devise an experiment where according to Grimer's postulate it is much greater than the losses a pendulum suffers, and the uncertainties that would be present in our measurements.  So we could by one means or another detect this energy including over and above any losses that winding the arm around the cycloid chop introduce.  In order to design an experiment that could do that we need Grimer to state both his hypothesis, and how he calculates his extra energy.

I do not try to hide my skepticism of Grimer's extraordinary ideas.  I don't see any source for this extra energy he claims.  I also see disturbing self-contradiction of what I understand are his claims in his recent posts.  Based on the history of well controlled experiments before, I know that I expect new experiments will again confirm that gravity acts conservatively.  I am still willing to give Grimer's ideas the chance.  That requires that he state his ideas clearly and unambiguously.  Otherwise I don't know what it is that we are trying to test. 

At this point it is pretty much up to Grimer to fill-in the remaining blanks.  If he does, then great, I am happy to take things to the next level.  If he doesn't, then the conservative nature of gravity marches on unchallenged.  In that case he will have to find someone else to help him find evidence for his extraordinary claims.