Big try at gravity wheel

[minnie]

Hi,
   if somebody can explain how, with the diagram on post 395, you could use this extra height
to do more cycles with a fixed point of reference then I'll go away.
              John.
Red sky at night shepherd's delight!

[TinselKoala]

Grimer would you please calm yourself down?  Where is this fraud you keep alleging?

Yes, Frank, please explain how someone telling you that a device is NOT OU IN ANY WAY, that it is perfectly ordinary and everything it does is in accord with normal physics, someone who actually REFUSED your cynical offer of money for the device .... is a "fraud", or how it compares to Mylow, who told everyone he had a working Free Energy Magnet Motor and took money and materials from people under those false pretenses. Let's see you reproduce some of the conversations you held, where YOU were arguing that it was OU when the builder kept telling you it wasn't. Those were a real hoot to read at the time.

Frank Grimer, like one or two others, was utterly fooled by a simple child's toy, in spite of everything he was told by the builder, in spite of physics, and now he's bitter about it. He _saw something_ and chose to interpret it through his rose-tinted glasses, and would not accept other interpretations as possible or real.  He also has funny ideas about internet identities.

[TinselKoala]

Hi,
   if somebody can explain how, with the diagram on post 395, you could use this extra height
to do more cycles with a fixed point of reference then I'll go away.
              John.
Red sky at night shepherd's delight!

There is NO extra height! You can put whatever "blocks" you like on one side of a pendulum's swing, and the bob will NOT rise above its initial release height -- unless it is 'released' with a push in the first place. No fiddling with flexibility of the support, fulcrum point or anything else that does not add energy, will cause the bob to rise higher than its initial release.

Imagine a pendulum with the first quadrant unconstrained and the second quadrant fitted with a cycloidal block. IF the pendulum bob reached a higher point than its initial release, you could simply swing the cycloidal block over to the other side (rotating around a vertical hingeline) at very little cost in energy, and let the bob fall, now from its higher initial height in the second quadrant, down its unconstrained arc and up over the cycloidal block which is now in the first quadrant.... where the bob would go even higher.... so you swing the block back to the first side, let the bob descend its circular arc and climb up the cycloidal block, getting even higher.....

I expect to see Frank's prototype swinging away, gaining height with each swing...... soon? No... Frank is not an experimentalist, he just has pipe dreams and berates people who DO build things and who tell him his ideas are FOS.

[Red_Sunset]

There is NO extra height! You can put whatever "blocks" you like on one side of a pendulum's swing, and the bob will NOT rise above its initial release height -- unless it is 'released' with a push in the first place. No fiddling with flexibility of the support, fulcrum point or anything else that does not add energy, will cause the bob to rise higher than its initial release.

Imagine a pendulum with the first quadrant unconstrained and the second quadrant fitted with a cycloidal block. IF the pendulum bob reached a higher point than its initial release, you could simply swing the cycloidal block over to the other side (rotating around a vertical hingeline) at very little cost in energy, and let the bob fall, now from its higher initial height in the second quadrant, down its unconstrained arc and up over the cycloidal block which is now in the first quadrant.... where the bob would go even higher.... so you swing the block back to the first side, let the bob descend its circular arc and climb up the cycloidal block, getting even higher.....

I expect to see Frank's prototype swinging away, gaining height with each swing...... soon? No... Frank is not an experimentalist, he just has pipe dreams and berates people who DO build things and who tell him his ideas are FOS.

TinselKoala,
I am not disagreeing with you on the principle point that the Grimer's idea has some issues.
But I am not impressed with,  neither your logical, neither your scientific analysis method used here.  The very graphical picture portrayed is even more unrealistic and further from a possible truth than the system you trying to disprove.
Red_Sunset

[powercat]

TinselKoala,
I am not disagreeing with you on the principle point that the Grimer's idea has some issues.
But I am not impressed with,  neither your logical, neither your scientific analysis method used here.  The very graphical picture portrayed is even more unrealistic and further from a possible truth than the system you trying to disprove.
Red_Sunset

Yeah right, you know all about scientific analysis, remember you were the one totally convinced that Wayne Travis had a working OU device, when most people could see the BS.