Big try at gravity wheel

[Grimer]

Grimer are there any existing, replicated experiments that you can point to that show the gravitational field operating in a non-conservative manner?

You're new here, Mark, aren't you.


You suddenly appear over the horizon suggesting to Al that he cools things down with Rosemary.


You tell me who you are, who you work for and what your connection with Al is and I might think about answering your question.
Until then I suggest you think very carefully about the pendulum proof of principle.
After all, you can't be a little bit pregnant, can you.


Your employer might want your opinion on the proof so as he knows whether or not to short his shares.

[Grimer]

Red .. Grimer has been presenting this hypothesis of gain in Pe [i.e. gravity force is not conservative] as fact for quite some time - he has been asked to provide repeatable experimental evidence of his claim both here & over at BW.com - IINM he has never 'produced the goods' - having a theory is one thing, promoting it as a fact or truth is another.

A couple of renowned commentators here have politely pointed out the contradictory evidence to the 'Grimer theory'.

Perhaps I am less quick to accept someone's musing as indisputable fact than you [my failing perhaps ?] & prefer to check facts as best I can before willingly becoming an acolyte - IIRC You-tube has some good experiments with pendulums, in such a manner as Grimer proposes, which do not show a gain in height.

Perhaps Grimer would like to provide his experimental basis for his theory so we can forever retire Gravity as a conservative force  & open the Pandoras box !

Hi Fletch,


I wondered when you'd turn up.


We had this discussion on the Brachisochrone some years ago. I seem to remember that I pointed out that any curve that departed from the cycloid form must involve higher derivative energy. At that point you went silent. 


As for Utube having the experiment I describe, I very much doubt it.
If you know of one together with the graphical proof I gave then I would love to see it.


Anyway, my argument doesn't need experimental proof any more than Euclids.


As far as providing experimental evidence is concerned that's not my job.


I was employed as a Scientific Officer when in government service, not an Experimental
Officer. I had people like you and Al to do experiments. Al had reluctantly agree to do the
Bruce experiment but I suddenly started having doubts about him and backed out.


He had got to the stage of sending me his address by email and I told him not to.

[Grimer]

Replies: 24 Views: 527 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/templates/Classic/images/icon_minipost.gif)Forum: Community Buzz   Posted: 22nd August 2012, 4:12 am   Subject: Milkovic pendulum[/size]

I can now see that the Bruce's uncle toy, the Milkovic pendulum and the Keenie all depend for their jerk energy generation on ground effect, on ground reaction twisting the gravity wind vector (cf. sailing where you have the interaction between the wind action and the water reaction). I had a discussion sometime back with Fletcher where I pointed out that departure from the Brachistochrone curve must involve the third derivative of position with respect to time (jerk). The fall is slower because jerk energy is being generated. Now a vortex is just about as far from the Brachistochrone as you can get. Instead of the fastest time of descent you have the one of the slowest. Fascinating - really fascinating.

[/font]

[fletcher]

Hi Fletch,


I wondered when you'd turn up.


We had this discussion on the Brachistochrone some years ago. I seem to remember that I pointed out that any curve that departed from the cycloid form must involve higher derivative energy. At that point you went silent. 


As for Utube having the experiment I describe I very much doubt it. If you know of one together with the graphical proof I gave then I would love to see it.


Anyway, my argument doesn't need experimental proof any more than Euclids.

Ahhh yes - the brachistochrone, jack abling's wheel & omnibus's cummulative Ke.

I went silent because we had reached an impasse - conservative gravity force describes that if gravity acceleration is the only acceleration/deceleration in play on an object rolling [or swinging, or spiraling, or rotating] down a slope [straight or curved of any shape or steepness] then at ANY same loss of vertical height for direct comparison purposes, the object will have lost the same Pe as gained as Ke - IOW's the Pe lost & Ke gained is path independent.

Sorry Frank, perhaps someone else can find the You-tube experiments [very slow internet here].

All arguments need experimental proof Frank to transition to accepted facts & truth, else they remain theory's - I'd like to see your experimental evidence to compliment your theory - perhaps you could use the ball rolling down a vortex tube & measure the horizontal exit speed [well, even just the velocity in any direction will do, for a given height loss] to prove a gain in Ke above Pe lost ?

ETA: I see you added to your post - pity you backed away from TK's offer of help - you could of actually proved something ;7)

[Grimer]

Here's a relevant thread from BesslerWheel.com

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4592&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=brachistochrone&start=0