IamAllergicToEntropy wrote:I almost feel like I am giving a dissertation in my response. In that I apologize. I also regret that I must now deal with letting my claim "slip out" when I really did not want to. In my defense it's akin to "don't drink and blog". :)
Actually, a dissertation or thesis seems very applicable for introducing any serious perpetual motion idea!
Should at least give us that warm and fuzzy feeling we are part of your discovery or mistake (happens too)...
- A 'thesis' is a supposition of some eminent philosopher that conflicts with the general opinion...for to take notice when any ordinary person expresses views contrary to men's usual opinions would be silly".
yup, in that light, totally applicable for perpetual motion design.
IATE wrote:As for your random unverified assumptions:
1. Kinetic energy needs mass. It is basically work, a scalar quantity.
2. Bouncing balls is better than rolling cylinders. It is funny, but I am not sure of your meaning. A hydraulic ram from my understanding is water trapped by a 1-way valve with trapped air acting like the spring in a oscillator. The constant supply of water is necessary to keep the system in resonance. I am NOT a plumber... so that is only my opinion.
3. I can not help to keep thinking abut the movie/TV series "Highlander" about the quickening. Other definitions of quickening is more colorful. ;)
So about my random unverified assumptions:
1. Earlier, IATE wrote:
Earlier, MarchelloE wrote
- Kinetic energy is defined by mere acceleration;
I think I can safely claim that the relation between potential and kinetic energy is just a relation between distance and velocity defined by acceleration; it is independent of mass yet it applies to some mass.
I just wanted to say that ½m•v² is an algebraic consequence of an object's acceleration (or force if you want).
As it cannot get more basic than that, it totally underlines your statement and I wonder as well what might be added to the definition of kinetic energy that may have significant impact on discovering perpetual motion.
2. Earlier Georg Künstler wrote:
- Your jerk is used different.
a example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram
A stop is causing a lift !! A stop is causing a go ahead !! It allows a Spill !!
A rolling cylinder in a hole(carrier) make exactly the same move
Earlier, MarchelloE wrote:
- Bouncing balls can better explain the operation of an hydraulic ram than rolling cylinders;
The experiment of bouncing stacked balls ... [in brackets, what I think is similar to a hydraulic ram]
Take a basketball and a tennis ball on top. Drop this stack from a certain height [similar to the pressure head]
The basket ball hits the ground and compresses [Similar to the bounce as a water hammer closing the waste valve]
The tennis ball collides with basket ball [similar to the pressure differential opening the check-valve] and compresses on top of it [as the pressure vessel]
The tennis ball prevented the normal rebound of the basket ball [The basket ball similar to the waste water]
The tennis ball shoots up with an increased velocity because of the impact (approaches 3 times amplification).
Impact is the key here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHS883_P60
3. Earlier, IamAllergicToEntropy wrote:
Between acceleration and shock there's a wheel who wants to live forever :-)
IamAllergicToEntropy wrote:Perhaps not freely, but maybe we could try to change your momentum for a while? :-)
<Silliness OFF>
How can we help to help you to convince yourself?
I guess if you can't CNC the solution then the next best way is to try to proof you current solution wrong.... and hopefully fail at it.
Don't worry, we're all good at failing!
The ever existing dilemma (or riddle): how much are we allowed to know for getting convinced of your solution, but just shy of knowing it.
<Silliness ON>
:-)
Ok, I understand. People have come here Ad nauseam with wild claims. I deserve that. If I was searching for how Bessler did it for years or decades and someone suddenly comes along with an apparent knowledge of physics... well I guess I would have mixed feelings. On the one hand I would be polite and silently in my depression think... yea? Perhaps at the same time thinking extremely pissed... you S.O.B. @&*#!! ;)
That was the only part in the whole text I marked as me being serious. :7)
But as far as I see, your "claim" was put very nicely: "
I believe I have solved the riddle. Could I be wrong? Possible, but doubtful. "
We seriously had worse claim-attempts on this forum. Reaching the point that this forum was almost the last place on Earth to get notified of Bessler's final vindication because of how obvious this solution apparently was... never heard of that solution. again :-|
One has an idea, but how to share without actually sharing.? That's always difficult. If only we could solve this sharing-dilemma it would be worth gold.
You could just decide to totally ignore that part and just share?
Otherwise there's no other option than to Δp/Δt it out of you...
:-)
Otherwise you still have to try to find a method for building your thing ("How can we help to help you to convince yourself", so that it may come to a physical device).
Just imagine this headline: "
Guy builds mysterious powergenerator out of drinkingstraws and ducttape!".
In a way it is mechanically simple, but at the same time it is not at all easy to construct. I am not talking from my disability perspective either. I have no idea what skills a carpenter's apprentice has. Either today and in comparison to 3 centuries ago.
1. Carpenter's apprentices in those days carved complete art works on basic chairs and throw-away tools (or so I believe). Nowadays even the IKEA-picture-manual appear too difficult for some. While Banksy's art, which was not art, is still being sold as art but gets half-shredded after being sold, making it more art than it never was intended... unless it was…?
I am convinced that three centuries ago 'difficult' and 'simple' had a totally different meanings...
2. Skills of some carpenter, in any period, have no relation with your current design.
Perhaps this is an interesting read:
https://thomasguild.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... rkers.html
A conserved mass gravity motor would be quite massive to power a house.
Compare size-vs-power as happened with early house-sized computers versus current gadgets.
Don't worry about inadequacy of ANY perpetual motion machine: that will be resolved eventually. Better worry about the inadequacy of the population to handle it with care.
Start claiming the metric describing Power per Hour [J/s²].
I have re-done tests of basic physical knowns, to make sure I am not crazy.
I hope you realize that once you figured the Proper PMM Methodology (PPMMM) that basic physics will change a bit... and thus, as an immediate effect, impose a risk on that personal reflection (one to think about). You may have guessed: I also checked some physical knows and unknowns: It’s possible I’m completely nuts. (Exhibit A: this reply)
Anywho, good luck with your testing!