Big try at gravity wheel

[Red_Sunset]

TK & co  OR  coTK

your post still lead to debate about self-running/OU/Claims and at the end just Blame each others among of us. 

Are YOU  HAPPY ? 

Marsing,
To see a real trail of destruction left by these individuals, like bulls in a China shop
Check Wayne's topic.....
They are very creative in their scorched earth tactics !!
Red_Sunset

[Grimer]

"... Of course you are right that the probability of getting exactly 1/6 is less as the number of trials grows large. But, just in case you really need this explained, repeating the _series_ of trials many times leads to "errors" or deviations from 1/6 that cancel out. Each series _asymptotes_ to 1/6, and some go above it and some below it. In the -really long run- these deviations again _average_ to an asymptote of 1/6.
Now, I don't believe for a moment that you aren't aware of this. Therefore your post must have been designed deliberately by you to misdirect.

Of course I'm aware of it, dear boy. The word "misdirect" is pejorative.


The extract was from my note, N 74/80
PROBABILISTIC DESIGN IN TERMS OF SYSTEM VARIETY


That particular bit was intended to shock the reader into carefully noting what I had written - not what he might carelessly think I had written.


The frightening thing is that even when what I had written was pointed out to Farmer he still insisted I was wrong.  In view of his responsibilities it won't be surprising if, like the Comet airliners, the AGR proves to be a reactor too far.

[MarkE]

To repeat the conservation laws over and over and stay nicely in the mainstream by keeping to the general semantics is not helping here at all.  I have no problem with all your statements since they are describing a symmetrical and linear system, by falling back on those well known basics, you are evading the crucial point around which the whole debate is focused.
A non-linear piston that creates a asymmetry. 

Forget about a moment about overunity.
Have a close looks at this asymmetry, why is it asymmetric ?
What is the cost of the asymmetry and what measures has Wayne employed to reduce that cost.

I know what your reaction is going to be,  explain it to me in detail (creating a lot of work for me) so we can keep on shooting it down with traditional symmetry without trying to look deeper into the concept.   
With an open mind you would be unbiased and assume a 50/50 position on the same concept until it has been dismantled from the ground up.  You possibly could improve on the concept strategy.
You may do something productive now or carry on ranting about basic physics and Archimedes
It depends on where you want to go in the universe

In General: Does anybody here have a framework that could lead to OU ?
OU is not possible in the framework of symmetrical physics, how could you tamper with the standard framework to achieve asymmetry, a requirement for OU. 
A model like that would put the search in the right direction for possible positive results.  Wouldn't it ?

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset, you propose a premise:  "A non-linear piston that creates a asymmetry.  "  Then almost as quickly you declare that you are unwilling to supply any evidence that such an asymmetry as you propose exists or can exist.  That is magical thinking.  You are welcome to think as magically as you like.  It does not make Wayne's failed claims any more credible.

Obtaining over unity is by definition not possible from a conservative field.  That leaves showing that some field is not conservative, thus creating a principle on which over unity could be obtained by exploiting such a field.  Wayne Travis and HER claim that they obtain free work from a buoyancy machine.  The operative field in a buoyancy machine is gravitational.  Neither Wayne Travis, nor HER, nor any other supporter including you have shown any evidence of an "asymmetry" in gravity, or other behavior by which gravity acts non-conservatively.  Magical thinking will not cut it.

[Marsing]

Marsing,
To see a real trail of destruction left by these individuals, like bulls in a China shop
Check Wayne's topic.....
They are very creative in their scorched earth tactics !!
Red_Sunset

Copied

[MarkE]

Mention has been made in this thread, by Red Sunset among others about the difficulty in communication of ideas, of getting people to understand what one is saying.


I have a particularly interesting example of that from my own career.


Normally my way-out notes and publications with Clayton were tolerated by my superiors. However, as I was approaching retirement the Buiding Research Establishment had the misfortune to end up with a director sicked up on us from Porton Down - a Dr Rex Watson.


When he read my internal note on Iterative Hierarchical Mechanics he went ape-shit and banned me from writing internal notes. I appealed against his decision and because of the nature of my work (anticipating failures) in the end the appeal went right up to Butler, the Cabinet Secretary.


Anyway, an expert panel was set up to examine the various unorthodox stuff Clayton and I had written over 3 decades.


The members were, Sir Alan Cottrell, Professor F R Farmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._R._Farmer
and Dr D Goodison.


They tried desperately to pick holes in our work but the only point they came up with where Farmer claimed I was wrong was this:


I had written,


"Chance and probability in terms of the observer


A simple point of entry to an analysis of probability is the paradigm of dice throwing. What do probability statements about the chances of a particular number resulting from a given throw mean. To take a specific example, what does it mean when I say that the probability of a 2 coming up in the next throw is 1/6? Is this an objective statement about the next throw, or about the dice; or is it perhaps a subjective statement about my way of looking at the world?


The most traditional answer, that the 1/6 refers to the outcome of a large number of trials is not very satisfying since it seems to get away from the point. I am interested in the next throw, not a large number of trials, and anyway, however many trials I make there is no guarantee that the percentage of 2's will be exactly 1/6. On the contrary, if I make 6N trials where N is a very large integer, even though the fraction of 2's could be 1/6 the probability of this is small and tends to zero as N tends to infinity."


Farmer claimed this was wrong. The other two "experts" remained silent which was rather cowardly of them.
Could we get Farmer to see we were right? No way.


So you can see the kind of thing I would be up against in trying to show a member of this forum how the Keenie worked and why. Perhaps when RAR is shown to work it will be easier.

Grimer your expression of probability is wrong.  You have conflated the definition of a random process with a means of evaluating whether a process is entirely random or biased.  A result is random if it is unpredictable based on ALL prior knowledge.  That means that it is irrelevant how badly you or anyone else might wish to predict the next result.  If the process is actually random, the probability of any outcome is the same as any other.  Nature doesn't care how satisfied or unsatisfied you might find that truth.

There are many processes that contain both stochastic and deterministic components.  At first glance some deterministic components may appear to be random, when they are really complicated and/or long sequences.