Posted by Jeff Langworthy (66.82.9.16) on March 17, 2003 at 19:39:37:
In Reply to: What Exactly !! posted by gill simo on March 17, 2003 at 07:36:34:
Gill,
I just wanted to let you know that your voice has indeed been heard and your writings understood and appreciated, so don't be discouraged by the lack of immediate responses- it's pretty heavy stuff until minds are pried open and it sinks in. I for one have spent many hours digesting what you have presented and am planning to build the double helix device using golf balls for weights. My biggest problem at the moment is getting specific dimensions of the bowls so that everything fits together as it should. I don't have either of the books you mentioned, so I would welcome any specifics you could furnish regarding bowl radius of curvature, diameters, petal size, ratio of petal to valley angles, etc. I plan to build the bowls myself out of wood, but would like to have some "concrete" dimensions to go by. Any help you or anyone could offer would be appreciated by any of us who are not as familiar with the bowls/bearing cages.
You presented some intriguing concepts and my mind started to wander, as it often does. One especially useful way of thinking I had not previously considered was the fact that a falling weight on the rising side of a rotating device "disappears" and weighs nothing while it is falling, which could contribute as much to rotation as adding more weight to the falling side. Remove most of the kinetic energy from the falling weight and re-use it to produce positive torque... food for thought. This shift in thinking could very well be central to working devices of possibly several types, and maybe remove some of the "inventor's block" I'm sure most of us have experienced.
Anyway, it takes some of us a little digestion time before responding, and be assured that your efforts are not wasted.
Best Regards,
Jeff Langworthy
: hi, a question
: i am speaking i assume to a group of interested perpetual motionists am i not ?
: and you are presumably on the same planet as me yes ?
: you are aware are you not that recent thinking in regard to our ancient past is suggesting most strongly that the ancients were perhaps not quite as ancient as we had always assumed ? that they were more than likely more advanced than ourselves ?
: i recently placed a notice on this b/b. in that notice i pointed out that the 1st dynasty bowl from the tomb of prince sabu, hitherto a mysterious, out of place artifact with no known application, is in FACT a bearing cage. i ask you to simply place 6 balls on a surface, bunched together in the shape of a triangle and that you will then see, BEYOND ANY DOUBT that this 5000 year old bowl fits over the 3 inner balls and into the 3 outer balls. it fits to complete and utter perfection. yes i went futher and maybe in hindsight too far, too fast, but whether or not i personally have come up with the answer to pm is surely neither hear nor there
: bearing in mind what i said at the beginning re. who i`m speaking to and what you know can i then ask why none of you seem remotely interested.
: thus far i`ve had comtact re the gnomes (ta very much, very interesting) a sad statement as to my state of mental health, a retraction of the same and a genuine request " have i built a working example of my contraption "
: sweet jesus and mother bloody mary, get real will ya !!!!!!
: i know a bearing cage when i see one. don`t you ?
: i know an odd, like no other, bearing cage when i see one . don`t you ?
: i know that the ancients didn`t have bearings, especially one`s this advanced. don`t you ?
: nasa had their grubby little hands on this bowl for almost 6 years, it`s scientists trying to establish it`s identity.!!!!
:
: come on now, shall we sit back and hope that those scientists were as dense as you and i (took me 4 years to see the obvious so `i should be so smart`!!
: bloody moment now so will not at least one of you Wake Up
:
: Gill Simo
: