Big try at gravity wheel

[MarkE]

Hi,
   it's to do with the sideways shift towards the pivot point. What you have to do is calculate
the energy needed to put the bob back in line with the path were it to be a straight shaft and
subtract that from the height gained by the cycloid pendulum.
   You can not repeat the cycle over and again without moving the pivot point, what you have
to do is imagine doing the cycle many times and you see what happens.
     I therefore conclude there is no, or minimal gain in the proposed system.
Put your minds to developing a long lived electrical storage battery, then you will be on to
a winner!
              John.

Minnie, energy associated with the greater horizontal displacement at apogee is what Grimer has labeled his eG and called "ersatz energy".  I have asked him to provide a formula to calculate the "ersatz energy".  I am waiting for an answer.

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset the trouble that I have with the Plan B options is the highly subjective nature of each.  I would much rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do.
......................................................................... 

MarkE, 
I agree that you "rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do."  You can see this exercise as a scientific pre-test.

The Plan B cross-examines the relationship boundary between the "science idea/hypothesis" and the scientist (as a person in his social position/standing).
This interaction could have limited the disclosure and possibly nullify the hypothesis as it currently stands.
The lack of backing by the originator for the hypothesis puts a doubt shadow over the disclosure

Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

MarkE, 
I agree that you "rather deal with testing scientific ideas than guessing why someone behaves as they do."  You can see this a a scientific extension.

The Plan B cross-examines the relationship boundary between the "science idea/hypothesis" and the scientist (as a person in his social position/standing).
This interaction could limited the disclosure and possibly nullify the hypothesis as it currently stands.
The lack of backing by the originator for the hypothesis puts a grave doubt over the disclosure

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset I think all that you are saying is true.  I think that it is prudent for people to privately assess what they can by how they see others behave.  Public discussion of those assessments can easily turn into something that looks like a mob ganging up on someone.  When that happens, even if the person involved may seem to invite it, it can have a chilling effect on other people from coming forward with their ideas.  I think that it is a tragedy when people censure themselves out of fear that they will be ridiculed if they've made a  mistake. 

[Red_Sunset]

Red_Sunset I think all that you are saying is true.  I think that it is prudent for people to privately assess what they can by how they see others behave.  Public discussion of those assessments can easily turn into something that looks like a mob ganging up on someone.  When that happens, even if the person involved may seem to invite it, it can have a chilling effect on other people from coming forward with their ideas.  I think that it is a tragedy when people censure themselves out of fear that they will be ridiculed if they've made a  mistake.

MarkE
The issue arises with "no answer", as said before "No" or " I can not" is a valid answer.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything that they are in any way uncomfortable with.
Neither do I believe in dramatizing this, the hypothesis as concept is enough for me at this stage.
I am fine with plan-D.
Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

MarkE
The issue arises with "no answer", as said before "No" or " I can not" is a valid answer.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything that they are in any way uncomfortable with.
Neither do I believe in dramatizing this, the hypothesis as concept is enough for me at this stage.
I am fine with plan-D.
Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset my concern is more the effect anything that might look like an attack on Grimer's personality might do to discourage other people from proposing ideas out of fear that they would be treated harshly.  I think ideas should be encouraged.  I also believe rigorous analysis and test are absolutely essential when considering extraordinary ideas.

I am afraid that I am quite certain that the hypothesis as stated can be shown to be false without getting to physical experiments or at most only requires trivial physical experiments.  Without further input from Grimer, I believe that we are at Plan C or Plan D.  This is because according to the hypothesis the cycloid pendulum translates only between kinetic energy and GPE.  If the kinetic energy at the bottom of the travel for the cycloid case is the same as for the circular case, then we may conclude that the energies at the apogees are the same and since the hypothesis states that at the apogee the cycloid case has only GPE, then so must the circular case.  All that remains is to look up maximum velocity derivations from actual observations for circular pendula.  The hypothesis fails if any of the following are true:

1) The maximum velocity for a circular pendulum with massless free arm length Y1 and point mass bob mass M1, released from raised height Hdelta1 is the same for a cycloid pendulum with the same parameters.

OR

2) The computed kinetic energy for a circular pendulum at the bottom of its travel equals the GPE of the raised height of the bob at its release.