Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)

Science > Physics > Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 4

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Max Keon"
Date:	30 Apr 2006 09:12:58 PM
Object:	Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)

I recently noticed a rather obvious flaw in my description of the
history behind my gravity experiment.
I previously wrote (12-4-06):
-------------------
Some years ago I attempted to measure the speed at which the action
of gravity is applied.
If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal. A disc that's
free to rotate within a housing which is forced to rotate at a
constant rate will never come to rest with its rotating housing.
It will always lag behind.
My original free disc was a 320mm * 10mm steel disc, rotating on
a very light duty unshielded ball bearing. That was totally useless
though because the slightest difference between the slowdown and
speedup rates would drive the disc accordingly. i.e. If the slowdown
time was longest, the disc would be dragged more in that direction
because the forces applied to keep the bearing moving are constant
and are applied for the duration of every movement.
To overcome that problem, the bearing was mounted in a separate
housing so that either the inner or the outer of the bearing could
be attached to the disc. Running a test using each option, while
changing nothing else in the setup, would give me two sets of
results that could be combined. From that, I would expect a valid
result. But the free disc wandered all over the place and led to
total confusion.
----------------
That last paragraph doesn't remotely address the problem, does it!
That's because the problem that it's attempting to address was not
the problem at all. Thus I begin this post with a short repair.
Gravity and the speed of light (update 1).
------------------------------------------
Some years ago I attempted to measure the speed at which the action
of gravity is applied.
If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal. A disc that's
free to rotate within a housing which is forced to rotate at a
constant rate will never come to rest with its rotating housing.
It will always lag behind.
My original free disc was a 320mm * 10mm steel disc, rotating on
a very light duty unshielded ball bearing, with its center fixed
with the rotating housing. That was totally useless though because
any bearing clearance at all would cause the free disc bearing
surface to roll backwards on the lesser diameter mating shaft and
lag behind the rotating housing. And I could not possibly know how
much that would affect the result.
To overcome that problem, the bearing was mounted in a separate
housing so that either the inner or the outer of the bearing could
be attached to the disc. Running a test using each option, while
changing nothing else in the setup, would give me two sets of
results that could be combined. From that, I would expect a valid
result. But the free disc wandered all over the place and led to
total confusion.
The experiment was finally terminated when I realized that the
difference between the slowdown and speedup rates would drive the
free disc in the direction of the slowest rate of change. i.e.
Because the free disc is in constant motion relative to its rotating
housing as the housing hunts back and forth around the chosen
control point, and since the forces applied in overcoming the
bearing friction are applied for the duration of every movement,
the free disc will be drawn in the direction of slowest change.
-----
The rest of this post will make little sense for anyone not familiar
with the experiment. The entire updated version is stored at
http://www.optusnet.com.au./~maxkeon/gravity.html
-----
24-4-06.
The program I was using to control the rotation rate of the free
disc housing spends time servicing all of the calculations etc.
before it can return to again take care of the rotation rate of
the housing. There is a constant time chunk removed from the cycle,
regardless of the rotation rate. Therefore, the calculated rotation
rates were not quite correct. The modified program does the
calculations in the space between light off and light on behind the
housing flag, so changes to the rotation rate also change the time
width of the window in which the calculations are done. The flag
on the housing is 16mm wide, and if the program hasn't returned to
monitor the rotation rate by the time that window has gone, the
program is halted.
The updated program set is stored as a self extracting zip file,
at http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.exe
I have now inverted the needle point bearings and the result is
still much the same. I've also increased the shaft diameters of the
rotating housing to 17mm to allow for the free disc axle to be
extended outside the entire unit so that I can physically monitor
its performance, make adjustments, and carry out any test on the
spring loaded contact point without upsetting anything else. The
disc now weighs 59 grams, and with the disc weight pressing down
on the hozizontally aligned bearings, it takes 64 grams to separate
the needle from its seat. If the need arose, that force could be
substantially reduced and the disc bearings would still be held firm
with no clearance.
During the course of a marathon test, the affects from temperature
and atmospheric pressure changes were very obvious, and expected.
i.e. If all of the air was removed from inside the rotating housing
and there was zero friction in the free disc bearings, the free disc
would remain oriented with earth.
The following list of results were collected in a short duration
test conducted on a very still and overcast day, when temperature
and atmospheric pressure would be the most stable. The test was
conducted from the higher speed to the lower speed rotation rates.
A final check at the high speed end confirmed that everything was
still running as before. Even though the results carry no absolute
guarantees, they are certainly good enough to demonstrate my point,
for now.
The start point for the comparison has been set with multipliers
to all coincide close to block no.24. It can be set anywhere you
like and everything will still compare in the same way.
Block no. 24 ( 10.51875 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
11.4008009777522 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
11.40022319348239 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[11.4] per experiment.
Block no. 25 ( 10.098 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
12.28033779784611 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
12.90786140566394 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[12.4] per experiment.
Block no. 26 ( 9.709615384615384 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
13.2585317246221 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
14.70266880111816 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[14.6] per experiment.
Block no. 27 ( 9.35 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
14.36057376583463 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
16.87533038508906 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[15.2] per experiment.
Block no. 28 ( 9.016071428571427 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
15.62159391305323 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
19.55920645940607 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[16.4] per experiment.
Block no. 29 ( 8.705172413793104 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
17.09240875820361 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
22.95878282020759 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[18.4] per experiment.
Block no. 30 ( 8.414999999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
18.84995016142232 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
27.40438267664037 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[19.8] per experiment.
Block no. 31 ( 8.143548387096773 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
21.01768006803662 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
33.46656429904869 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[xxxx] per experiment.
Block no. 32 ( 7.8890625 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
23.80973429022801 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
42.22304886474959 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[25.2] per experiment.
Block no. 33 ( 7.649999999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
27.6403354219342 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
55.98323889656531 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[29.6] per experiment.
Block no. 34 ( 7.425 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
33.45565812222623 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
80.75158095383364 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[36.4] per experiment.
Block no. 35 ( 7.212857142857143 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
44.14924480557234 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
138.5443790874597 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[48.0] per experiment.
Block no. 36 ( 7.012499999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
78.10803022744601 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
427.5083697555903 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[64.8] per experiment.
The program points to infinity at block no. 36.5 because that's
where the bearing resistance is presumed to halt the free disc
rotation. During the physical test, block no. 37 took 131.6 seconds
on average for each free disc revolution. Block no. 38 took 171.5
seconds.
The best way to describe how I arrived at the results is with the
program that created them. Notice that the gravity affected result is
raised to ^.5 . In normal circumstances, the air within the rotating
housing provides a restraining force which increases proportionally to
the rotation rate of the free disc. But the air surrounding the free
disc is also being dragged proportionally to the rotation rate,
culminating in a free disc drag ^.5
DEFDBL A-Z
CLS
n$ = "grav.dat"
OPEN n$ FOR OUTPUT AS #1
'Free disc diameter = 346mm
c = 300000000#
g = 9.8#
aa: LOCATE 1, 12: PRINT hb; " 0 MUST be entered to exit the program."
LOCATE 4, 1
INPUT " Block no."; hb
IF hb = 0 THEN CLOSE : END
rps = 9.35# * (27# / hb) 'Block no.27 runs at 9.35rps on my computer.
PRINT " Revs per second ="; rps; "(for my computer)."
PRINT
v = rps * 1.087# 'Free disc circumference is 346mm *pi =1.087 meters.
gu = ((c + v) ^ 2 / c ^ 2) * g
PRINT " Gravity rate up = ((c+v)^2/c^2)*g ="; gu; "m/sec."
gd = ((c - v) ^ 2 / c ^ 2) * g
PRINT " Gravity rate down = ((c-v)^2/c^2)*g ="; gd; "m/sec."
PRINT " The gravity anisotropy is"; gu - gd; "m/sec."
PRINT
'---------------------------------------------------------------------
rp = 36.5 'Block no.?? Set this figure to the resistance break point.
'---------------------------------------------------------------------
r = (hb / rp) * v
PRINT " Resistance break point is set at block No."; rp
PRINT " Tangential velocity ="; v; "m/sec. "
PRINT " Minus constant bearing resistance factor of"; r; "m/sec."
PRINT " Effective velocity ="; v - r; "m/sec."
ma = (rp / 33#) * 1840665# 'If the resistance break point is set at
'block No.33 the required muliplier is
'1840665
m = ((gu - gd) / 2#) * ma
' "m" sets the gravity anisotropy to unity for the resistance break
'point of your own determination. That's where the bearing friction
'has been finally overcome. And that's where the cause of the movement
'begins to take effect.
PRINT
PRINT " The gravity anisotropy is acting on only half the disc-air"
PRINT " mass at any instant and is therefore"; (gu - gd) / 2; "m/sec."
PRINT " Gravity ratio (unity for block"; rp; "="; m
PRINT
'-----------------------------------------------------------------
ma = 1283 'These mutipliers must be changed to coincide with the
mb = 44.64 'compare point origin of your choice. But the relationship
'between curves generated from the results will never change.
'They are currently set to coincide at block No.24
'------------------------------------------------------------------
PRINT " Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes"
PRINT ""; SQR(ma / ((v * m) - r)); "seconds to lose 1 free disc rev."
PRINT ""; mb / (v - r); "seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear)."
PRINT #1, " Block no."; hb, "("; rps; "revs per second)."
PRINT #1, " Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes"
PRINT #1, SQR(ma / ((v * m) - r)); "seconds to lose 1 free disc rev."
PRINT #1, mb / (v - r); "seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear)."
PRINT #1, " [ ] per experiment."
PRINT #1,
'(the data file will be stored in the same directory as Qbasic)
GOTO aa
Example. (program execution for block no.24)
Block no.? 24 0 MUST be entered to exit the program.
Revs per second = 10.51875 (for my computer).
Gravity rate up = ((c+v)^2/c^2)*g = 9.800000747013589 m/sec.
Gravity rate down = ((c-v)^2/c^2)*g = 9.79999925298644 m/sec.
The gravity anisotropy is 1.494027149107069D-06 m/sec.
Resistance break point is set at block No. 36.5
Tangential velocity = 11.43388125 m/sec.
Minus constant bearing resistance factor of 7.518168493150684 m/sec.
Effective velocity = 3.915712756849315 m/sec.
The gravity anisotropy is acting on only half the disc-air mass
at any instant and is therefore 7.470135745535345D-07 m/sec.
Gravity ratio (unity for block 36.5 = 1.520835259212234
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
11.4008009777522 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
11.40022319348239 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
This is the resultant graph. The black curve is from experiment, the
red curve is the calculated curve assuming that a gravity anisotropy
exists, while the green curve is the best fit for the calculated
curve which assumes that some mechanical flaw in the device is the
cause. The first character in the full character set is No.0 for
this experiment. http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/no-24.jpg
SOMETHING IS CAUSING THE FREE DISC TO ROTATE AS IT DOES, AND THAT
SOMETHING MUST BE IDENTIFIED. IF IT'S NOT A GRAVITY ANISOTROPY, THEN
WHAT IS IT?
The next step is to upgrade the precision of the needle point
bearings. Also, a free disc axle shaft that has a needle point on
one end and a cavity on the other will eliminate any possibility
of the axle rolling in either direction, even if there is slight
clearance between the mating parts.
27-4-06
The bearing upgrade has been completed. All mating parts are now
hardened and have been run in prior to assembly. The load on the
bearing ends is now 108 grams, and it runs much more freely than
the previous bearing set. In fact it runs so free that it's hard
to determine at what point the bearing friction is overcome. Because
the rotating housing is forever hunting back and forth around any
chosen speed control point, the bearing surfaces between the housing
and disc are in constant motion, and remain fluid. The disc just
keeps on slowly chugging along. That explains why the generated
curve drifts off to the right of the screen.
The next obvious task is to control temperature. Atmospheric
pressure change rates shouldn't be of consequence on the right day.
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	12 May 2006 05:51:33 AM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147339615.364827.227140@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147174055.664958.27430@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

Good. We're making progress at last. We all agree that the free disc
will now rotate at a lesser rate than the housing. Now replace that
axle with one which is pointed on both ends, while the inner housing
now carries a cavity. I assume we all agree that the free disc will
now rotate in advance of the housing?

But that just doesn't happen.

There are other factors to consider. Any vibration will cause loss
of contact and relative slippage. Is your drive vibrationless?

In which direction do you imagine this slippage might go? While
the free disc is enclosed within the housing, there is no movement
whatever occurring between the enclosed air or the free disc
bearings while the free disc is stationary relative to the housing.
Can't you even see that?

And if there is clearance between the bearing components, the free
disc will roll forward or backward depending on the bearing design.
**But it only ever rolls backward**.

Suppose the bearings are off-center. A rotor as
heavily off-balance as illustrated below might not
rotate at all. One that is only slightly off-balance
will still drag more "going up" than it will gain
"going down".

And why might that be? Are you proposing that an anisotropy in the
gravity force exists? That's the only way your eccentric mass is
going to drag more on the way up than on the way down. The only
times that it won't be affected is if no anisotropy in the gravity
force exists, or the action of gravity is applied instantaneously.

Don't tell me your rotors are PERFECTLY balanced. Only
a -tiny- imperfection in rotor balancing is necessary
to explain your results.

Not that it's of any consequence, but the free disc was balanced
to within a few grains of high density foam on its own needle point
bearings, when it was completely free to rotate (unloaded).
A 32 x 32 x 32mm block of that foam weighs 1 gram.

-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	12 May 2006 06:18:10 AM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147339615.364827.227140@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147174055.664958.27430@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

There are other factors to consider. Any vibration will cause loss
of contact and relative slippage. Is your drive vibrationless?

------- ----------------
l l
l l
l ----------- l R
l l l l O
l l LIGHT 1 l T
l l END l l A
/--------l l l l--------\ T
/ -----------l-----------l--------- \ I
/ l l \ N
l l l l G
\ l l /
\ -----------l-----------l--------- / H
\--------l l l l--------/ O
l l l l U
l l l l S
l l HEAVY l l I
l l END l l N
l l l l G
l 1 1 l
------- 1 1 ----------------
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
-----------
THINK, MAX, THINK!!!
If you could get the above to spin at all, wouldn't
the rotor tend to lag a wee bit behind the housing?
You don't need gravitational anisotropy to explain
the lag.
A "slightly" unbalanced rotor is different from the
above ONLY IN DEGREE.

Don't tell me your rotors are PERFECTLY balanced. Only
a -tiny- imperfection in rotor balancing is necessary
to explain your results.

With nearly perfectly frictionless bearings (as you claim)
even the tiniest imbalance will result in significant lag.
Your description of your balancing procedure is vague.
Get together with James Driscoll to get an explanation
of how to balance a tire.

-----

Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	12 May 2006 07:11:06 AM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147432690.694455.185350@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147339615.364827.227140@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147174055.664958.27430@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

There are other factors to consider. Any vibration will cause loss
of contact and relative slippage. Is your drive vibrationless?

------- ----------------
l l
l l
l ----------- l R
l l l l O
l l LIGHT 1 l T
l l END l l A
/--------l l l l--------\ T
/ -----------l-----------l--------- \ I
/ l l \ N
l l l l G
\ l l /
\ -----------l-----------l--------- / H
\--------l l l l--------/ O
l l l l U
l l l l S
l l HEAVY l l I
l l END l l N
l l l l G
l 1 1 l
------- 1 1 ----------------
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
-----------

THINK, MAX, THINK!!!
If you could get the above to spin at all, wouldn't
the rotor tend to lag a wee bit behind the housing?
You don't need gravitational anisotropy to explain
the lag.

A "slightly" unbalanced rotor is different from the
above ONLY IN DEGREE.

Don't tell me your rotors are PERFECTLY balanced. Only
a -tiny- imperfection in rotor balancing is necessary
to explain your results.

With nearly perfectly frictionless bearings (as you claim)
even the tiniest imbalance will result in significant lag.

Your description of your balancing procedure is vague.
Get together with James Driscoll to get an explanation
of how to balance a tire.

-----

Jerry

Don't give up your day job Jerry.
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	12 May 2006 06:05:16 PM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147432690.694455.185350@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

------- ----------------
l l
l l
l ----------- l R
l l l l O
l l LIGHT 1 l T
l l END l l A
/--------l l l l--------\ T
/ -----------l-----------l--------- \ I
/ l l \ N
l l l l G
\ l l /
\ -----------l-----------l--------- / H
\--------l l l l--------/ O
l l l l U
l l l l S
l l HEAVY l l I
l l END l l N
l l l l G
l 1 1 l
------- 1 1 ----------------
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
-----------

THINK, MAX, THINK!!!
If you could get the above to spin at all, wouldn't
the rotor tend to lag a wee bit behind the housing?
You don't need gravitational anisotropy to explain
the lag.

A "slightly" unbalanced rotor is different from the
above ONLY IN DEGREE.

Don't give up your day job Jerry.

A rather feeble attempt at insult. You have no valid
response to my criticism, do you?
Jerry
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	16 May 2006 05:05:54 PM

Max Keon wrote:
[...]

Don't give up your day job Jerry.

What is it with Aussies and weak insults?
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	11 May 2006 08:38:07 AM

Jerry wrote:
[snip]
Now I finally understand how he constructed his device. All I needed
was a simple diagram.
Thanks Max....oh why did Jerry need to be the one to create the
diagram? Thanks for understanding his experiment more than he does,
Jerry.
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	11 May 2006 08:50:38 AM

Eric Gisse wrote:

Jerry wrote:

[snip]

Now I finally understand how he constructed his device. All I needed
was a simple diagram.

Thanks Max....oh why did Jerry need to be the one to create the
diagram? Thanks for understanding his experiment more than he does,
Jerry.

You're welcome. By the way, since Max hasn't seemed to figure it
out, did you come up with any answers to my pop quiz challenge
to Max? When you do, the answers will be -so- obvious!
Quote from my challenge to Max:
"Pop quiz: It is not at all difficult to build rotors that, running
on frictionless bearings in perfect vacuum, will exhibit continuous
deceleration. How can this be? I can immediately think of two rotor
designs working on fundamentally different principles that will
exhibit such behavior."
Jerry
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	11 May 2006 09:33:01 AM

Jerry wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

Jerry wrote:

[snip]

Now I finally understand how he constructed his device. All I needed
was a simple diagram.

Thanks Max....oh why did Jerry need to be the one to create the
diagram? Thanks for understanding his experiment more than he does,
Jerry.

You're welcome. By the way, since Max hasn't seemed to figure it
out, did you come up with any answers to my pop quiz challenge
to Max? When you do, the answers will be -so- obvious!

Quote from my challenge to Max:
"Pop quiz: It is not at all difficult to build rotors that, running
on frictionless bearings in perfect vacuum, will exhibit continuous
deceleration. How can this be? I can immediately think of two rotor
designs working on fundamentally different principles that will
exhibit such behavior."

A motor? That is the first thing I can think of. Drop some magnets on
the rotor and have some wire coiled nearby, current will be induced and
the rotor will slow down.
My next thought was a rotor composed of aluminum in an ambient magnetic
field. It will slow down due to induced current.
Not fundamentally different, but two.
Slight tangent: Remember when I said "there is a better way" re:
detecting the rotation of the rotor?
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/story_of_gpb/gpbsty5.html
How they figured out to detect spin speed is one of those things that
makes me say "holy ***** that was clever".

Jerry

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	11 May 2006 09:47:08 AM

Eric Gisse wrote:

Jerry wrote:

You're welcome. By the way, since Max hasn't seemed to figure it
out, did you come up with any answers to my pop quiz challenge
to Max? When you do, the answers will be -so- obvious!

Quote from my challenge to Max:
"Pop quiz: It is not at all difficult to build rotors that, running
on frictionless bearings in perfect vacuum, will exhibit continuous
deceleration. How can this be? I can immediately think of two rotor
designs working on fundamentally different principles that will
exhibit such behavior."

CONGRATULATIONS on one! My idea was to take the armature out of
an electric motor, short out the windings, and to align the rotor
crosswise to Earth's magnetic field. Exactly the same principle.
You ought to be able to think of the other one without difficulty.
:-)

Slight tangent: Remember when I said "there is a better way" re:
detecting the rotation of the rotor?

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/story_of_gpb/gpbsty5.html

How they figured out to detect spin speed is one of those things that
makes me say "holy ***** that was clever".

Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	12 May 2006 07:07:24 AM

Welcome to play-school folks......................
Damn, someone has left those bloody doors open again.
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147358828.183931.60960@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Eric Gisse wrote:

Jerry wrote:

You're welcome. By the way, since Max hasn't seemed to figure it
out, did you come up with any answers to my pop quiz challenge
to Max? When you do, the answers will be -so- obvious!

Quote from my challenge to Max:
"Pop quiz: It is not at all difficult to build rotors that, running
on frictionless bearings in perfect vacuum, will exhibit continuous
deceleration. How can this be? I can immediately think of two rotor
designs working on fundamentally different principles that will
exhibit such behavior."

CONGRATULATIONS on one! My idea was to take the armature out of
an electric motor, short out the windings, and to align the rotor
crosswise to Earth's magnetic field. Exactly the same principle.

You ought to be able to think of the other one without difficulty.

Well, you could try spinning a 346mm diameter foam disc in a vaccum
and watch the eddy currents whizzing about in it. Make sure you have
the rotation plane set perpendicular to earth's surface and at 90
degrees to the poles though. Even if that's not enough, the enormous
eddy currents flowing in the 6mm diameter steel axle which is
spinning at the gigantic rate of around 10 revs per second will
surely be enough to cause the disc to slow at an unexpectedly high
rate? It's not the housing that's slowing you know. Or perhaps you
didn't know?
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	12 May 2006 07:46:57 AM

Max Keon wrote:

Welcome to play-school folks......................
Damn, someone has left those bloody doors open again.

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147358828.183931.60960@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Eric Gisse wrote:

Jerry wrote:

You're welcome. By the way, since Max hasn't seemed to figure it
out, did you come up with any answers to my pop quiz challenge
to Max? When you do, the answers will be -so- obvious!

Quote from my challenge to Max:
"Pop quiz: It is not at all difficult to build rotors that, running
on frictionless bearings in perfect vacuum, will exhibit continuous
deceleration. How can this be? I can immediately think of two rotor
designs working on fundamentally different principles that will
exhibit such behavior."

CONGRATULATIONS on one! My idea was to take the armature out of
an electric motor, short out the windings, and to align the rotor
crosswise to Earth's magnetic field. Exactly the same principle.

You ought to be able to think of the other one without difficulty.

Well, you know, Max, the other idea is to construct the rotor
of a deformable material that converts a large fraction of the
energy of deformation (result from its sagging under gravity) into
heat. Like foam, for instance...
Variants of the idea include mounting a cup in the middle of the
rotor and filling the cup partially with sand. Basically the same
principle of nonelastic changes in shape.
But I suspect the major effect is rotor imbalance.
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	22 May 2006 06:42:24 PM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147438017.386020.66150@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

-----
-----

Do you have any idea how much energy would be generated by foam
sagging when the rotation rate is only around 10 revs per second?
The foam material is entirely elastic to minor distortions, so where
do you imagine this energy might be generated?

Variants of the idea include mounting a cup in the middle of the
rotor and filling the cup partially with sand. Basically the same
principle of nonelastic changes in shape.

But polystyrene foam isn't sand is it.

But I suspect the major effect is rotor imbalance.

Rotor imbalance *must* be evident right from the start of rotation.
It's not.
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	22 May 2006 07:53:47 PM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147438017.386020.66150@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

-----
-----

Oh, yes, the beautiful elasticity of polystyrene foam! Bells cast
of styrofoam ring beautifully, with a wonderfully resonant tone!
Tuning forks cast from styrofoam exhibit high Q, with virtually
no damping! Echo chambers are lined with styrofoam because
they reflect sound virtually without absorption! Styrofoam cups
tinkle prettily when people clink them together in toast!
Get real, Max.

Variants of the idea include mounting a cup in the middle of the
rotor and filling the cup partially with sand. Basically the same
principle of nonelastic changes in shape.

But polystyrene foam isn't sand is it.

But I suspect the major effect is rotor imbalance.

Rotor imbalance *must* be evident right from the start of rotation.
It's not.

At the start of rotation, you need to overcome static frictional
effects. Please review carefully your assumptions. For your disk
to be lagging as it does, it must be constantly dissipating energy.
Follow the logical consequences of that observation.
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	24 May 2006 08:57:37 PM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148345627.784947.216010@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148345627.784947.216010@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147438017.386020.66150@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

Oh, yes, the beautiful elasticity of polystyrene foam! Bells cast
of styrofoam ring beautifully, with a wonderfully resonant tone!

Just because a polystyrene foam bell doesn't develop resonance
between its walls via the air medium is no indication that it's not
entirely elastic. All that proves is that foam doesn't resonate.
Perhaps you would care to explain the origin of the slippage between
the foam cells which absorbs the energy. Perhaps some invisible
protrusions are poking out of each cell and are rubbing together
enough to generate the heat required to shift a 346mm diameter foam
disc one full rotation within an air filled housing that has an air
gap of less than 6mm between its walls and the disc, in around 9
seconds. And it must generate this energy from a rotation rate of 10
revs per second. That's dragging the outer edge of the disc through
the air resistance at the rate of 120mm per second. There is of
course the rest of the air-disc surface area to consider as well.
The cell structure of high density foam is quite rigid and any minor
depression is reclaimed completely when the cause is removed. Unless
you can demonstrate otherwise of course.
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	26 May 2006 10:41:08 AM

Max Keon wrote:

Entirely elastic? Come on. A simple experiment shows this not
to be so. I just finished taking a flat strip of styrofoam packing
material, clamping it to the edge of the table with a couple of
textbooks (neuroanatomy and family medicine, but I imagine any
would do), and weighted the end with a few quarters. I pulled the
assembly down a few centimeters and let it swing. My eyeball
estimate is that the amplitude decreased by about 50% with each
swing, meaning that about 75% of the energy was lost each cycle.
Repeating the experiment with half of a metal yardstick sticking over
the table, to approximate the dimensions of the styrofoam strip so
as to more or less equalize air resistance effects, I got a "twang"
that lasted for several seconds, meaning that many dozens of
cycles were required for 50% amplitude loss.

Oh, yes, the beautiful elasticity of polystyrene foam! Bells cast
of styrofoam ring beautifully, with a wonderfully resonant tone!

I don't need to explain anything. It is sufficient that I can
empirically demonstrate the loss of energy. If you wish to claim
that styrofoam is "entirely elastic", you had better be able to
back up that claim with empirical evidence. My observations say
that it isn't.

Perhaps some invisible
protrusions are poking out of each cell and are rubbing together
enough to generate the heat required to shift a 346mm diameter foam
disc one full rotation within an air filled housing that has an air
gap of less than 6mm between its walls and the disc, in around 9
seconds. And it must generate this energy from a rotation rate of 10
revs per second. That's dragging the outer edge of the disc through
the air resistance at the rate of 120mm per second. There is of
course the rest of the air-disc surface area to consider as well.

The cell structure of high density foam is quite rigid and any minor
depression is reclaimed completely when the cause is removed. Unless
you can demonstrate otherwise of course.

Sorry. -You- are the one claiming a novel physical effect completely
contradicting centuries of observation, experiment, and theory, and
it is up to -you- to justify your crazy, Rube Goldberg experimental
arrangement.
Why do you avoid discussing rotor imbalance, which I believe may
be the major contributor to the effects that you observe?
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	26 May 2006 08:42:31 PM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148658068.599800.76970@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

We are indeed impressed.

but I imagine any
would do), and weighted the end with a few quarters. I pulled the
assembly down a few centimeters and let it swing. My eyeball
estimate is that the amplitude decreased by about 50% with each
swing, meaning that about 75% of the energy was lost each cycle.

Repeating the experiment with half of a metal yardstick sticking over
the table, to approximate the dimensions of the styrofoam strip so
as to more or less equalize air resistance effects, I got a "twang"
that lasted for several seconds, meaning that many dozens of
cycles were required for 50% amplitude loss.

Did you happen to notice the time it took to dissipate the energy
for each material? All you have proven is that the grain structure
of steel is far more rigid than that of styrofoam. Did you really
expect anything different?
But 10 out of 10 for effort.
-----
-----

Why do you avoid discussing rotor imbalance, which I believe may
be the major contributor to the effects that you observe?

Why do you avoid listening when I tell you?
Rotor imbalance MUST be obvious right from the start of rotation.
It does NOT increase with velocity.
Are you sure you're not Eric Gisse?
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	27 May 2006 04:50:48 AM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148658068.599800.76970@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

We are indeed impressed.

Did you happen to notice the time it took to dissipate the energy
for each material?

They took about the same time. The frequency of the styrofoam
twanger was much lower than the metal yardstick twanger, so
the energy loss per cycle was orders of magnitude higher.

All you have proven is that the grain structure
of steel is far more rigid than that of styrofoam.

What? Don't you know ANYTHING about damped harmonic
oscillators?
Go to an arts-and-crafts store and buy a styrofoam ball.
Bounce it. How high does it bounce? What does this tell
you about the elasticity of styrofoam?

Did you really
expect anything different?

Nope.

But 10 out of 10 for effort.
-----
-----

Why do you avoid discussing rotor imbalance, which I believe may
be the major contributor to the effects that you observe?

Why do you avoid listening when I tell you?
Rotor imbalance MUST be obvious right from the start of rotation.
It does NOT increase with velocity.

(sigh) Static friction versus sliding friction. Vibration effects,
expected to increase at increased rotation rates. Variable
viscosity of the lubricant, since once the rotor starts lagging
relative to the housing, the local temperature at the needle
point bearing contacts will rise significantly.
The conditions at high speed will NOT match low speed
conditions. Your results are critically dependent on the
CONTRADICTORY REQUIREMENTS of your drive train. On the
one hand, your bearings must transmit torque efficiently to the
rotor, without artifactual slippage. On the other hand, your
bearings must be as frictionless as possible, allowing unimpeded
slippage.
Pop quiz: In old-style vinyl records, what temperature did the
stylus reach at the contact points? What pressures did they
experience? (Answer below)

Are you sure you're not Eric Gisse?

So long as you mention him, why not try out a sanity check
that Eric suggested. Mount your apparatus with a vertical axis
and run your experiment. What do you expect to happen?
What do you observe happening?
Jerry
(Answers) The stylus reached approximately 300 F, and
the pressures reached around 16,000 lbs/sq. in.
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	28 May 2006 08:17:10 AM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148723448.730683.168550@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148658068.599800.76970@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

We are indeed impressed.

Did you happen to notice the time it took to dissipate the energy
for each material?

They took about the same time. The frequency of the styrofoam
twanger was much lower than the metal yardstick twanger, so
the energy loss per cycle was orders of magnitude higher.

No it's not. The frequency that you *observed* was lower. How many
other changes do you think were taking place in the foam structure
during that time? Bending the foam would generate a multitude of
frequencies in ever part of the deformation because the cell
structure of the foam is not symmetrical. All of those various
vibrations are going to interact with the local foam cells. But
all of these vibrations must find their way out of the foam into
the surrounding air mass because the foam structure is returned to
exactly its original state when the oscillation ceases. NOTHING HAS
CHANGED, SO NOTHING IS LOST.
Your bouncing styrofoam ball scenario suffers much the same fate.
If the cell structure of the foam was harmonically symmetric (if
you know what I mean), the wave of the impact force with the ground
would be uniformly sent throughout the ball and would all reflect
back to the impact zone and arrive as one. The ball would thus
rebound 100%. But since the foam structure isn't symmetric, the
impact force is broken down into various vibration frequencies which
return to the impact zone in relative chaos. The unspent vibrations
would remain rattling around in the ball until they finally emerge
into the surrounding air mass. Once again, nothing has changed.
You could claim that the missing bounce has been somehow converted
to heat energy. I have no idea how this could be though unless there
is some slippage between the components of the foam structure. It
can't remain contained within the ball as vibration "heat" can it.
And even if it could, through continuous bouncing, it would build
to a level where it would dissipate as quickly as it was generated.
The bounce height would then improve over time. Hmmmm.

All you have proven is that the grain structure
of steel is far more rigid than that of styrofoam.

What? Don't you know ANYTHING about damped harmonic
oscillators?

Go to an arts-and-crafts store and buy a styrofoam ball.
Bounce it. How high does it bounce? What does this tell
you about the elasticity of styrofoam?

Did you really
expect anything different?

Nope.

But 10 out of 10 for effort.
-----
-----

Why do you avoid discussing rotor imbalance, which I believe may
be the major contributor to the effects that you observe?

Why do you avoid listening when I tell you?
Rotor imbalance MUST be obvious right from the start of rotation.
It does NOT increase with velocity.

What the hell are you on about now?
Are you suggesting that the free disc will fall behind the housing
at an increasing rate as the bearing lubricant heats up? It just
doesn't do that. Do you think I wouldn't notice that in the results?

The conditions at high speed will NOT match low speed
conditions. Your results are critically dependent on the
CONTRADICTORY REQUIREMENTS of your drive train. On the
one hand, your bearings must transmit torque efficiently to the
rotor, without artifactual slippage. On the other hand, your
bearings must be as frictionless as possible, allowing unimpeded
slippage.

Pop quiz: In old-style vinyl records, what temperature did the
stylus reach at the contact points? What pressures did they
experience? (Answer below)

Are you sure you're not Eric Gisse?

So long as you mention him, why not try out a sanity check
that Eric suggested.

Stand with your back to a mirror for several minutes then quickly
turn around. With a bit of luck you might just catch a glimpse of
him before he changes back to being you.

Mount your apparatus with a vertical axis
and run your experiment. What do you expect to happen?
What do you observe happening?

Would that verify a prediction of yours, or is it just a "let's
try it and see what happens" thing. Anyway, what do **you** think
would happen? And why do you think it would happen? I can't really
justify wasting my time on some scatterbrain whim you know, if
that's all it is.

Jerry

(Answers) The stylus reached approximately 300 F, and
the pressures reached around 16,000 lbs/sq. in.

Perhaps if the stylus pressure was applied with a flat spring
tensioner?
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	28 May 2006 10:35:14 AM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148723448.730683.168550@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

The frequency of the styrofoam
twanger was much lower than the metal yardstick twanger, so
the energy loss per cycle was orders of magnitude higher.

Conservation of energy assures us that in a closed system,
the total energy should not change. But that does not mean
that if you bend and return a styrofoam bar to its original shape,
that mechanical energy has not been converted to heat.

Your bouncing styrofoam ball scenario suffers much the same fate.
If the cell structure of the foam was harmonically symmetric (if
you know what I mean), the wave of the impact force with the ground
would be uniformly sent throughout the ball and would all reflect
back to the impact zone and arrive as one. The ball would thus
rebound 100%. But since the foam structure isn't symmetric, the
impact force is broken down into various vibration frequencies which
return to the impact zone in relative chaos. The unspent vibrations
would remain rattling around in the ball until they finally emerge
into the surrounding air mass. Once again, nothing has changed.

Conservation of energy assures us that in a closed system,
the total energy should not change. But that does not mean
that if you bounce a styrofoam ball, that mechanical energy
has not been converted to heat.

You could claim that the missing bounce has been somehow converted
to heat energy. I have no idea how this could be though unless there
is some slippage between the components of the foam structure. It
can't remain contained within the ball as vibration "heat" can it.
And even if it could, through continuous bouncing, it would build
to a level where it would dissipate as quickly as it was generated.
The bounce height would then improve over time. Hmmmm.

WATCH FOR THE NEXT MAX KEON INVENTION: "FLUBBER"

I think it is evident that the rotor lag rate bears a nonlinear
relationship with housing velocity. At sufficiently low speeds
(not plotted in your graphs), rotor angular velocity may equal
housing angular velocity, simply because static bearing friction
has not been overcome. As speeds increase, a fairly complex
relation develops as the bearing switches from static to a
hydrodynamic mode of operation. Note also that the lubricity
additives included in most modern oils render them quite
thixotropic.

No comments? Max, suppose you mounted the rotor on totally
frictionless bearings and spun up the housing.
How fast would the rotor spin? Isn't there something funky
about relying on the air mass to transmit torque?

Stand with your back to a mirror for several minutes then quickly
turn around. With a bit of luck you might just catch a glimpse of
him before he changes back to being you.

Mount your apparatus with a vertical axis
and run your experiment. What do you expect to happen?
What do you observe happening?

I predict the rotor will not spin at the same rate as the
housing, and that the magnitude of the discrepancy will
be comparable to the discrepancies that you attribute to
gravitational anisotropy in a horizontally mounted rotor.
The observed discrepancies will obviously not be from rotor
imbalance nor from internal frictional losses in the styrofoam,
but will be from other idiosyncrasies in your drive train,
which we will discuss after you have conducted the
control test and verified the complete nonsense of your
Rube Goldberg experimental setup.
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	30 May 2006 05:47:10 AM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148830514.604537.56960@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148723448.730683.168550@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

-----
-----

Mount your apparatus with a vertical axis
and run your experiment. What do you expect to happen?
What do you observe happening?

I've been trying to understand why you have predicted this, and
the only thing I can conclude is that there has been a serious
misunderstanding regarding the operation of the device. Forgive
me for not noticing it earlier. In my description of the test
procedure, I included these part sentences "After the unit was
rotating for a time at a chosen rate, when everything had settled
down", and "After a short time, when the rotating housing had well
established itself at the chosen speed". They were probably the best
indications to the fact that prior to gathering any data for a
*specific* rotation rate, that rotation rate was maintained for a
time until the free disc had settled into a stable relationship with
the rotating housing. i.e. It maintained a fairly constant rotation
difference.
That would be a primary requirement before any data from the
vertical axis setup is taken. There would then be no rotation
difference of course because the state of zero forces acting within
the housing is when the housing, the air, the free disc and its
bearings are all in a stationary relationship with each other.
You can quite justifiably change your prediction if you want?
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	30 May 2006 06:27:05 AM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148830514.604537.56960@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148723448.730683.168550@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

-----
-----

Mount your apparatus with a vertical axis
and run your experiment. What do you expect to happen?
What do you observe happening?

I've been trying to understand why you have predicted this, and
the only thing I can conclude is that there has been a serious
misunderstanding regarding the operation of the device. Forgive
me for not noticing it earlier. In my description of the test
procedure, I included these part sentences "After the unit was
rotating for a time at a chosen rate, when everything had settled
down", and "After a short time, when the rotating housing had well
established itself at the chosen speed". They were probably the best
indications to the fact that prior to gathering any data for a
*specific* rotation rate, that rotation rate was maintained for a
time until the free disc had settled into a stable relationship with
the rotating housing. i.e. It maintained a fairly constant rotation
difference.

That would be a primary requirement before any data from the
vertical axis setup is taken. There would then be no rotation
difference of course because the state of zero forces acting within
the housing is when the housing, the air, the free disc and its
bearings are all in a stationary relationship with each other.

You can quite justifiably change your prediction if you want?

Try it out. There should be some interesting effects that we
haven't at all touched upon, provided your bearings are good
and don't bind in the vertical orientation.
Jerry
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	31 May 2006 07:29:02 AM

Jerry wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

You can quite justifiably change your prediction if you want?

Try it out. There should be some interesting effects that we
haven't at all touched upon, provided your bearings are good
and don't bind in the vertical orientation.

Remember we are talking of a real apparatus machined to
real tolerances. Imagine yourself an ant on the rotor.
What motions might you feel? Remember that air is an
important factor in transmitting torque. What happens
to the air on the way to steady-state, whatever this
steady-state may be?
Is the steady-state necessarily one where rotor, air
mass, and housing are in a static relationship with
respect to each other?
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	01 Jun 2006 06:38:47 AM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1149078542.126420.85630@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Jerry wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

You can quite justifiably change your prediction if you want?

Try it out. There should be some interesting effects that we
haven't at all touched upon, provided your bearings are good
and don't bind in the vertical orientation.

Remember we are talking of a real apparatus machined to
real tolerances. Imagine yourself an ant on the rotor.
What motions might you feel? Remember that air is an
important factor in transmitting torque. What happens
to the air on the way to steady-state, whatever this
steady-state may be?

Is the steady-state necessarily one where rotor, air
mass, and housing are in a static relationship with
respect to each other?

I'm a little preoccupied at the moment and really don't have time
to try it. I will probably get around to it one day though. It's
not going to prove much, whatever the outcome. Apart from the
gyroscope effect trying to tip the thing over as the earth rotates,
I can't imagine what possible forces could be acting on the air and
free disc while enclosed within the housing.
My prediction is of course that the whole assembly will rotate as
a unit. But does it really matter?
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	01 Jun 2006 08:52:52 AM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1149078542.126420.85630@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Jerry wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

You can quite justifiably change your prediction if you want?

Try it out. There should be some interesting effects that we
haven't at all touched upon, provided your bearings are good
and don't bind in the vertical orientation.

Remember we are talking of a real apparatus machined to
real tolerances. Imagine yourself an ant on the rotor.
What motions might you feel? Remember that air is an
important factor in transmitting torque. What happens
to the air on the way to steady-state, whatever this
steady-state may be?

Is the steady-state necessarily one where rotor, air
mass, and housing are in a static relationship with
respect to each other?

I'm a little preoccupied at the moment and really don't have time
to try it. I will probably get around to it one day though. It's
not going to prove much, whatever the outcome. Apart from the
gyroscope effect trying to tip the thing over as the earth rotates,
I can't imagine what possible forces could be acting on the air and
free disc while enclosed within the housing.

My prediction is of course that the whole assembly will rotate as
a unit. But does it really matter?

It matters a great deal. If cyclical vibrations cause a tendency
for the rotor to rotate, if turbulence effects cause detachment
of the air flow from the rotor (why do golf balls have dimples?),
if slight mechanical misalignments cause needle and race to
systematically engage and disengage, if hysteresis (racheting)
in the bearings cause an overall net tendency of the rotor to
turn unidirectionally, will the assembly necessarily rotate as
a single unit? And if such -secondary- effects can cause
artifactual net rotation, what might the -primary- effects of
rotor imbalance, decentering, and internal frictional losses
with the rotor in the normal orientation do to your results?
No, you have not proven your experimental apparatus to
be free of mechanical artifact. And since your results,
interpreted as you WISH to interpret them, would imply a
violation of conservation of energy and conservation of
angular momentum, the preference would be to interpret
them as pure mechanical artifact, and then no problem
with either conservation law.
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	03 Jun 2006 05:31:03 AM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1149169972.148391.226640@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1149078542.126420.85630@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Jerry wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

You can quite justifiably change your prediction if you want?

Try it out. There should be some interesting effects that we
haven't at all touched upon, provided your bearings are good
and don't bind in the vertical orientation.

Remember we are talking of a real apparatus machined to
real tolerances. Imagine yourself an ant on the rotor.
What motions might you feel? Remember that air is an
important factor in transmitting torque. What happens
to the air on the way to steady-state, whatever this
steady-state may be?

Is the steady-state necessarily one where rotor, air
mass, and housing are in a static relationship with
respect to each other?

I'm a little preoccupied at the moment and really don't have time
to try it. I will probably get around to it one day though. It's
not going to prove much, whatever the outcome. Apart from the
gyroscope effect trying to tip the thing over as the earth rotates,
I can't imagine what possible forces could be acting on the air and
free disc while enclosed within the housing.

My prediction is of course that the whole assembly will rotate as
a unit. But does it really matter?

It matters a great deal. If cyclical vibrations cause a tendency
for the rotor to rotate,

I can't imagine too much vibration occurring from a rotation rate
of only 6 revs per second, which is where the bearing friction
(settable via the bearing tensioner) is first overcome. Even if the
effect is present, why does it invariably ca