Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)

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

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 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: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	05 May 2006 10:23:07 PM

Max Keon wrote:

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.

That is obvious.
It is also obvious that this criticism applies to ANY mechanical
bearing technology, such as your needle point bearings, etc.

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.

Any misalignments between needle point and bearing surface
will also manifest itself in anomalous differential rotations, of
a purely mechanical nature.

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.

In other words, mechanical artifacts still dominated your results.

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.

Highly doubtful. In the past, you have consistently proven
yourself unable to conduct a well controlled experiment. You
show no evidence of any improvement in your current work.
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	06 May 2006 07:29:34 PM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1146885787.753810.238670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

That is obvious.

Yes, it is obvious. But whether or not that would be a problem
wasn't even considered in the initial stages of the experiment.
The fundamental problem of maintaining a constant rotation rate was
a far greater priority. All of these little details would eventually
show their faces. This experiment didn't start off with any grand
master plan. It was a step by step process. If I couldn't overcome
problems as they emerged, that's where the experiment would end.

It is also obvious that this criticism applies to ANY mechanical
bearing technology, such as your needle point bearings, etc.

Any misalignments between needle point and bearing surface
will also manifest itself in anomalous differential rotations, of
a purely mechanical nature.

You are apparently not understanding the significance of inverting
the needle point bearings so that the needle points are fixed to
the rotating housing instead of the free disc. When the points are
fixed to the free disc the disc will roll forward of the rotating
housing, and will roll backwards when the points are fixed to the
housing. I could have been lucky enough to set the bearings so that
two completely opposing mechanical functions delivered exactly the
same result. Then of course I need to include the extra piece of
luck that caused the free disc to rotate, again in exactly the same
direction and by exactly the same amount, when I attached one needle
point to the housing and one to the free disc.
Whatever your mechanical flaw may then be in one bearing, it would
be the same in the other, **and each would counteract the other**.

In other words, mechanical artifacts still dominated your results.

That's some domination. A 100% reversal of rotation??? I think you
could be on track to discover perpetual motion. Good luck.

Highly doubtful. In the past, you have consistently proven
yourself unable to conduct a well controlled experiment. You
show no evidence of any improvement in your current work.

My methods are unorthodox, that's why they succeed.
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	06 May 2006 08:51:53 PM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1146885787.753810.238670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

That is obvious.

It is also obvious that this criticism applies to ANY mechanical
bearing technology, such as your needle point bearings, etc.

Any misalignments between needle point and bearing surface
will also manifest itself in anomalous differential rotations, of
a purely mechanical nature.

You are apparently not understanding the significance of inverting
the needle point bearings so that the needle points are fixed to
the rotating housing instead of the free disc. When the points are
fixed to the free disc the disc will roll forward of the rotating
housing, and will roll backwards when the points are fixed to the
housing. I could have been lucky enough to set the bearings so that
two completely opposing mechanical functions delivered exactly the
same result. Then of course I need to include the extra piece of
luck that caused the free disc to rotate, again in exactly the same
direction and by exactly the same amount, when I attached one needle
point to the housing and one to the free disc.

Whatever your mechanical flaw may then be in one bearing, it would
be the same in the other, **and each would counteract the other**.

Counteract exactly? Consider the effects of nonparallelism.

In other words, mechanical artifacts still dominated your results.

That's some domination. A 100% reversal of rotation??? I think you
could be on track to discover perpetual motion. Good luck.

I could say the same to you.

Highly doubtful. In the past, you have consistently proven
yourself unable to conduct a well controlled experiment. You
show no evidence of any improvement in your current work.

My methods are unorthodox, that's why they succeed.

Did you ever fix the gross mechanical problems in your OWLS
anisotropy experiment? Or have you disassembled it, blindly
thinking that you've succeeded?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7531cb900ae33838
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	08 May 2006 05:48:48 AM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1146966713.707996.31610@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

-----
-----

My methods are unorthodox, that's why they succeed.

Oh, but I have succeeded. Trying to convince the likes of you would
be an exercise in futility. But I can reassemble the device anytime
I like and, as is invariably the case, I will get exactly the same
result.
The updated description of that experiment is at
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	08 May 2006 06:38:08 AM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1146966713.707996.31610@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

-----
-----

My methods are unorthodox, that's why they succeed.

At the very least, MOUNT THAT RIDICULOUSLY THIN SLAB ON A
THREE POINT SUSPENSION to isolate it from bending stresses.
Jerry
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	08 May 2006 06:47:40 AM

Jerry wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1146966713.707996.31610@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

-----
-----

My methods are unorthodox, that's why they succeed.

At the very least, MOUNT THAT RIDICULOUSLY THIN SLAB ON A
THREE POINT SUSPENSION to isolate it from bending stresses.

Correction. Add the word "floating", i.e.
MOUNT THAT RIDICULOUSLY THIN SLAB ON A THREE POINT FLOATING SUSPENSION
Jerry
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	07 May 2006 08:50:41 AM

Max Keon wrote:

Whatever your mechanical flaw may then be in one bearing, it would
be the same in the other, **and each would counteract the other**.

Mount the bearings symmetrically about the rotor, and drive the
shafts in OPPOSITE directions. You are claiming that in such an
arrangement the rotor will show no steady state rotation, because
the two bearings will PRECISELY counteract each other.
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	08 May 2006 05:50:29 AM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147009841.465094.292470@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

Whatever your mechanical flaw may then be in one bearing, it would
be the same in the other, **and each would counteract the other**.

------- ----------------
R l ----------- l R
O l l l l O
T l l FREE l l T
A l l DISC l l A
T l l l l T
I l l-------\ l l--------\ I
N l----------- \--l--------- \ N
G l l \ G
l l l
H l l / H
O l----------- /--l--------- / O
U l l-------/ l l--------/ U
S l l l l S
I l l FREE l l I
N l l DISC l l N
G l l l l G
l ----------- l
------- ----------------
Picture the above assembly rotating as a unit, with gravity forcing
the free disc bearing ends onto the rotating housing bearing
components. It shouldn't be too difficult to see that one end of the
free disc bearing is going to roll in advance of the housing while
the other will be retarded by the same amount.
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	09 May 2006 06:03:55 AM

Max Keon wrote:

------- ----------------
R l ----------- l R
O l l l l O
T l l FREE l l T
A l l DISC l l A
T l l l l T
I l l-------\ l l--------\ I
N l----------- \--l--------- \ N
G l l \ G
l l l
H l l / H
O l----------- /--l--------- / O
U l l-------/ l l--------/ U
S l l l l S
I l l FREE l l I
N l l DISC l l N
G l l l l G
l ----------- l
------- ----------------

Picture the above assembly rotating as a unit, with gravity forcing
the free disc bearing ends onto the rotating housing bearing
components. It shouldn't be too difficult to see that one end of the
free disc bearing is going to roll in advance of the housing while
the other will be retarded by the same amount.

You diagram shows that the bearing loads are unequal.
Since most of the weight is on the central bearing, the frictional
coupling between housing and central bearing will dominate, and
the free disk will lag behind the housing due to this mechanical
artifact.
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	10 May 2006 06:55:53 PM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147172635.658106.83230@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

------- ----------------
R l ----------- l R
O l l l l O
T l l FREE l l T
A l l DISC l l A
T l l l l T
I l l-------\ l l--------\ I
N l----------- \--l--------- \ N
G l l \ G
l l l
H l l / H
O l----------- /--l--------- / O
U l l-------/ l l--------/ U
S l l l l S
I l l FREE l l I
N l l DISC l l N
G l l l l G
l ----------- l
------- ----------------

Picture the above assembly rotating as a unit, with gravity forcing
the free disc bearing ends onto the rotating housing bearing
components. It shouldn't be too difficult to see that one end of the
free disc bearing is going to roll in advance of the housing while
the other will be retarded by the same amount.

You diagram shows that the bearing loads are unequal.

Since most of the weight is on the central bearing, the frictional
coupling between housing and central bearing will dominate, and
the free disk will lag behind the housing due to this mechanical
artifact.

This design will roll in advance of the housing. So why on earth
does it invariably roll backwards ????
------- ----------------
l ----------- l R
l l l l O
l l FREE l l T
l l DISC l l A
l l l l T
/--------l l l l--------\ I
/ -----------l-----------l--------- \ N
/ l l \ G
l l l l
\ l l / H
\ -----------l-----------l--------- / O
\--------l l l l--------/ U
l l l l S
l l FREE l l I
l l DISC l l N
l l l l G
l ----------- l
------- ----------------
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	11 May 2006 03:59:30 AM

Max Keon wrote:

This design will roll in advance of the housing. So why on earth
does it invariably roll backwards ????

------- ----------------
l ----------- l R
l l l l O
l l FREE l l T
l l DISC l l A
l l l l T
/--------l l l l--------\ I
/ -----------l-----------l--------- \ N
/ l l \ G
l l l l
\ l l / H
\ -----------l-----------l--------- / O
\--------l l l l--------/ U
l l l l S
l l FREE l l I
l l DISC l l N
l l l l G
l ----------- l
------- ----------------

-----

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

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	08 May 2006 06:34:42 AM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147009841.465094.292470@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

Whatever your mechanical flaw may then be in one bearing, it would
be the same in the other, **and each would counteract the other**.

------- ----------------
R l ----------- l R
O l l l l O
T l l FREE l l T
A l l DISC l l A
T l l l l T
I l l-------\ l l--------\ I
N l----------- \--l--------- \ N
G l l \ G
l l l
H l l / H
O l----------- /--l--------- / O
U l l-------/ l l--------/ U
S l l l l S
I l l FREE l l I
N l l DISC l l N
G l l l l G
l ----------- l
------- ----------------

Picture the above assembly rotating as a unit, with gravity forcing
the free disc bearing ends onto the rotating housing bearing
components. It shouldn't be too difficult to see that one end of the
free disc bearing is going to roll in advance of the housing while
the other will be retarded by the same amount.

Only if the bearings EXACTLY MATCH.
Two bearings will never EXACTLY match.
Reverse the inner bearing and rotate the two ends in OPPOSITE
DIRECTIONS. If the two bearings EXACTLY match, the free disk
(if well balanced) will show zero steady state rotation. Does
it show zero steady state rotation? YES or NO?
Jerry
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	07 May 2006 07:38:34 AM

Max Keon wrote:

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?

You have a rotor being driven by a slippery "clutch" in a 1 atm
environment. There are many questions concerning the nature of the
bearings that form the "clutch" and many questions concerning the
effects of atmospheric drag on the rotor. Even in the absence of
gravitational anomalies, why in the world should you expect the
rotor to rotate at the same rate as the housing?
You have slippage effects, atmospheric drag effects, and drive train
effects to account for. You CLAIM to have eliminated drive train
effects by mounting your bearings in such a manner that, in perfect
conditions, their effects should be equal and opposite. But they can
only cancel due to slippage in the very coupling that is being used
to drive the rotor.
Basically, your entire experiment is a Rube Goldberg setup.
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	08 May 2006 05:54:21 AM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147005514.225906.280760@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

You have a rotor being driven by a slippery "clutch" in a 1 atm
environment. There are many questions concerning the nature of the
bearings that form the "clutch" and many questions concerning the
effects of atmospheric drag on the rotor. Even in the absence of
gravitational anomalies, why in the world should you expect the
rotor to rotate at the same rate as the housing?

You have slippage effects, atmospheric drag effects, and drive train
effects to account for. You CLAIM to have eliminated drive train
effects by mounting your bearings in such a manner that, in perfect
conditions, their effects should be equal and opposite. But they can
only cancel due to slippage in the very coupling that is being used
to drive the rotor.

Basically, your entire experiment is a Rube Goldberg setup.

This is the very first paragraph on
the web page describing the experiment:
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.
Perhaps I haven't made it clear that the air environment around the
free disc is moving along with the rotating housing because the free
disc is totally enclosed within the housing.
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	08 May 2006 06:44:12 AM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147005514.225906.280760@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

You have a rotor being driven by a slippery "clutch" in a 1 atm
environment. There are many questions concerning the nature of the
bearings that form the "clutch" and many questions concerning the
effects of atmospheric drag on the rotor. Even in the absence of
gravitational anomalies, why in the world should you expect the
rotor to rotate at the same rate as the housing?

You have slippage effects, atmospheric drag effects, and drive train
effects to account for. You CLAIM to have eliminated drive train
effects by mounting your bearings in such a manner that, in perfect
conditions, their effects should be equal and opposite. But they can
only cancel due to slippage in the very coupling that is being used
to drive the rotor.

Basically, your entire experiment is a Rube Goldberg setup.

[snip]
WHY!?
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	30 Apr 2006 09:26:10 PM

Max Keon wrote:
[snip]

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.

[snip]
What makes you say that?
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	03 May 2006 04:50:41 AM

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146450370.206438.209450@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

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.

[snip]

What makes you say that?

Whatever it was, it has been proven correct.
A fundamental prediction of the zero origin concept is that
dimension is drawing inward at a rate which is proportional to mass.
The greater the concentration of matter the more advanced in time it
becomes, drawing into an additional void of dimension that we cannot
possibly comprehend because it's constantly in our future, existing
for a time within every instant of our time. Dimension is based on
that advanced distance in time. An up-down gravity anisotropy is an
obvious consequence around everything that's not moving along with
the base of dimension. The same of course applies for light.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/the1-1a.html is the home of
the zero origin concept. The stuff that's cluttering your mind will
place the universe beyond your powers of comprehension, so erase
your memory before you go there. Free your mind.
I didn't say it would be easy Neo.
I just said it would be the truth.
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	03 May 2006 02:27:08 PM

Max Keon wrote:

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146450370.206438.209450@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

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.

[snip]

What makes you say that?

Whatever it was, it has been proven correct.

You haven't answered my question. What makes you think a finite
propogation speed for gravitation causes a torque in your setup?
[snip babble]
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	05 May 2006 06:41:38 PM

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146684428.578631.137420@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146450370.206438.209450@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

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.

[snip]

What makes you say that?

Whatever it was, it has been proven correct.

You haven't answered my question. What makes you think a finite
propogation speed for gravitation causes a torque in your setup?

You really don't get it do you!
This experiment should help clear up your previous comprehension
problem regarding the function of the water path for the propagation
of light in the experiment described at
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza2.html The "up" directed
water flow is equivalent to the up rotating side of the spinning
disc in this experiment. And for the "down" moving orientation,
that's equivalent to the down moving side of the disc. If the water
was pumped around a circular path to simulate the spinning disc,
the same up-down asymmetry in the gravity force would be applied
to the water.
Relative to the device, a laser beam traveling in the up direction
through the water is propagating on a base which is moving downward
and is therefore slower than a beam traveling in the down direction.
Not much can be learnt by passing a laser beam in both directions
around the entire ring of water though. But if one side of the ring
is momentarily replaced with air, the opposing light paths are no
longer the same time length. Can you now see the function of the
water path in the up-down light speed anisotropy experiment.
The current experiment proves that the base of dimension (on which
light propagates) is constantly shifting into the earth. It
certainly supports the evidence from the up-down light speed
anisotropy experiment.
Perhaps you would like to explain why the free disc rotation falls
behind that of the rotating housing, in the current experiment?
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	05 May 2006 07:06:23 PM

Max Keon wrote:

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146684428.578631.137420@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146450370.206438.209450@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

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.

[snip]

What makes you say that?

Whatever it was, it has been proven correct.

You haven't answered my question. What makes you think a finite
propogation speed for gravitation causes a torque in your setup?

You really don't get it do you!

[snip IRRELEVANT experiment]
You didn't listen to the last set of criticisms, so I'm not going to
bother repeating them.

Perhaps you would like to explain why the free disc rotation falls
behind that of the rotating housing, in the current experiment?

....friction?
Perhaps you would like to explain what makes you think a fininte
propogation speed for gravity would create a torque. Like I asked 2
times already.

-----

Max Keon

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	06 May 2006 07:32:46 PM

Eric Gisse wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

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.

[snip]

What makes you say that?

Whatever it was, it has been proven correct.

You haven't answered my question. What makes you think a finite
propogation speed for gravitation causes a torque in your setup?

You really don't get it do you!

[snip IRRELEVANT experiment]

Perhaps it is a little bit beyond you.

You didn't listen to the last set of criticisms, so I'm not going to
bother repeating them.

Perhaps you would like to explain why the free disc rotation falls
behind that of the rotating housing, in the current experiment?

...friction?

What bloody friction? Is that the best you can do?

Perhaps you would like to explain what makes you think a fininte
propogation speed for gravity would create a torque. Like I asked 2
times already.

Why do you bother throwing up stupid little smoke screens. You
really can't be that dense that you can't understand a simple
experiment like this one.
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	06 May 2006 09:12:14 PM

Max Keon wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

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.

[snip]

What makes you say that?

Whatever it was, it has been proven correct.

You haven't answered my question. What makes you think a finite
propogation speed for gravitation causes a torque in your setup?

You really don't get it do you!

[snip IRRELEVANT experiment]

Perhaps it is a little bit beyond you.

No, I understand it perfectly. You are trying to blind me with crap.
Your experiment, is an attempt to measure the anisotropy of the speed
of light by using a moving fluid and interferometry. The horrors of
your experiment aside, it is completely IRRELEVANT to measuring
anything with the speed of gravity's propogation.

You didn't listen to the last set of criticisms, so I'm not going to
bother repeating them.

Perhaps you would like to explain why the free disc rotation falls
behind that of the rotating housing, in the current experiment?

...friction?

What bloody friction? Is that the best you can do?

No, it isn't the best I can do. Your experiment is fatally flawed in oh
so many ways.
Your working equations have no justification other than "I think thats
right", you have no error bars to show you are actually measuring
something, etc.
Hell, I can't even figure out how you have your setup arranged. My
complaints are entirely on the theoretical side for that reason.
You don't explain what your current setup is, I have to dig through
update after update and I'm still not sure how your apparatus is even
built.

Perhaps you would like to explain what makes you think a fininte
propogation speed for gravity would create a torque. Like I asked 2
times already.

Why do you bother throwing up stupid little smoke screens. You
really can't be that dense that you can't understand a simple
experiment like this one.

YOUR ENTIRE THESIS IS UNJUSTIFIED. How dense can you be?!
You have no justification for saying there will be unequal forces on
your rotating disc. Furthermore, you have no justification for saying
that the disc will do what you think it does.
Do you even know how sensitive your device is to the supposed
anisotropy? If repeat the setup with the axis of rotation perpendicular
to Earth's surface do you still get a supposed anisotropy?

-----

Max Keon

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	08 May 2006 12:53:47 AM

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146967934.500776.311050@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

--------------------------
[Snip humorous rejections]
--------------------------

[snip IRRELEVANT experiment]

Perhaps it is a little bit beyond you.

No, I understand it perfectly. You are trying to blind me with crap.

Your experiment, is an attempt to measure the anisotropy of the speed
of light by using a moving fluid and interferometry. The horrors of
your experiment aside, it is completely IRRELEVANT to measuring
anything with the speed of gravity's propogation.

You didn't listen to the last set of criticisms, so I'm not going to
bother repeating them.

Perhaps you would like to explain why the free disc rotation falls
behind that of the rotating housing, in the current experiment?

...friction?

What bloody friction? Is that the best you can do?

No justification other than being a direct prediction of the theory?

Hell, I can't even figure out how you have your setup arranged. My
complaints are entirely on the theoretical side for that reason.

You don't explain what your current setup is, I have to dig through
update after update and I'm still not sure how your apparatus is even
built.

I've provided the speed control program that maintains a reasonably
constant rotation rate. Do you want detailed drawings of every nut
and bolt in the thing as well? I've adequately described how it
works. Surely a man of your talent can design and build your own
device? Get off your bum and do some real work and stop babbling
on like some inconsequential little twerp with a huge ego.
The program is constructed to send zero volts to the COM port inputs
at "light on" because the signal from each light on-off detector is
inverted (if you ever need to know). And you will need an amplifier
which ramps the light on-off signal up and down almost as a square
wavefront. Otherwise you won't stand a chance of accurately detecting
the leading and trailing edges of the rotation flags attached to each
rotating component.
The two diecast aluminium boxes attached to the back of the device
are the detector-amplifiers. The light sources are two laser pointer
modules housed in the round aluminium heat sinks on the opposite
side to the amplifiers. The signal from a photo transistor is
initially amplified through a common garden variety LM741 op-amp
with a 10 meg feedback resistor. The amplified signal is then sent
to another LM741 op-amp, again with a 10 meg feedback resistor.
That will of course ring alarm bells for most folk because such a
degree of amplification would be totally out of control. Hence the
introduction of the four batteries to drive each complete amplifier.
A unique plus 9 and minus 9 volt regulated supply is provided for
each op-amp. The only direct link between op-amps is through the
diecast case (ground) and from the output of stage 1 to the input
of stage 2. The output signal from stage 2 is then extremely stable.
I've added all of this to the web page, along with more photos.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html

Perhaps you would like to explain what makes you think a fininte
propogation speed for gravity would create a torque. Like I asked 2
times already.

Why do you bother throwing up stupid little smoke screens. You
really can't be that dense that you can't understand a simple
experiment like this one.

No justification other than being a direct prediction of the theory
that is.

Do you even know how sensitive your device is to the supposed
anisotropy? If repeat the setup with the axis of rotation perpendicular
to Earth's surface do you still get a supposed anisotropy?

Do you have a theory which predicts that the free disc will fall
behind the rotating housing when the device is positioned as you
require? Or is it just a "Hey let's try it and see what happens"
thing? I was considering setting it up on my garage roof. Then
in my toilet.
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	08 May 2006 01:49:32 AM

Max Keon wrote:

Do you have any reason to believe that in the ABSENCE of
gravitational anomalies, that the free disk should rotate at the
same rate as the housing? You have slippage effects, drive train
effects, and air friction effects to account for. You claim that
you have eliminated drive train effects by mounting the needle
bearings such that, being driven through the inner race on one
end and through the outer race on the other, the differential
effects should cancel each other. This is doubtful.
Mount two needle bearings symmetrically about the rotor and
drive the rotor IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS via the inner race.
If compensation is perfect, then the rotor should exhibit ZERO
steady state rotation.
In contrast, I predict that the rotor, provided that it is well
balanced, will exhibit net steady state rotation that is a
significant fraction of the driving angular velocity. The
compensation of bearing anomalies will not be perfect, because
needle bearings are individual items, despite being mass
produced, and exhibit individual characteristics. (actually,
from your description, I am not certain that what you mean by
"needle bearings" corresponds with the standard use of the
term. No matter. The argument still holds.)
The rotor is being driven through two slippery "clutches", i.e.
the bearings, of differing characteristics. In your original
arrangement, by driving the rotor through the inner race of one
needle bearing, and through the outer race of the needle bearing,
you HOPE that drive train effects will exactly compensate. I say
that they will NEVER precisely compensate.
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	08 May 2006 09:00:44 AM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147070972.527379.237570@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

What drive train effects? The rotating housing is rotating at
constant rate. The enclosed air and the free disc are all going
along with it. What forces do you think are in place to DRIVE the
free disc away from its housing and the surrounding air mass? I
know what that force is, but you don't seem to want to know.

You claim that
you have eliminated drive train effects by mounting the needle
bearings such that, being driven through the inner race on one
end and through the outer race on the other, the differential
effects should cancel each other. This is doubtful.

You use the term "driven" where there is no drive. The free disc,
the enclosed air mass and the housing, rotate as a unit.

Mount two needle bearings symmetrically about the rotor and
drive the rotor IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS via the inner race.
If compensation is perfect, then the rotor should exhibit ZERO
steady state rotation.

In contrast, I predict that the rotor, provided that it is well
balanced, will exhibit net steady state rotation that is a
significant fraction of the driving angular velocity. The
compensation of bearing anomalies will not be perfect, because
needle bearings are individual items, despite being mass
produced, and exhibit individual characteristics. (actually,
from your description, I am not certain that what you mean by
"needle bearings" corresponds with the standard use of the
term. No matter. The argument still holds.)

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/needle.jpg is a photograph
of the accessible bearing assembly between the free disc and the
rotating housing. The needle point bearing is exactly that, a
needle point in a point cavity on the flat spring bearing tensioner.
The other end of the free disc axle shaft is the point cavity, while
the housing carries the needle point. The free disc weighs 59 grams
and the load applied on the axle end by the flat spring is 108
grams. So you see, there is no clearance between the mating parts
anyway.

The rotor is being driven through two slippery "clutches", i.e.
the bearings, of differing characteristics. In your original
arrangement, by driving the rotor through the inner race of one
needle bearing, and through the outer race of the needle bearing,
you HOPE that drive train effects will exactly compensate. I say
that they will NEVER precisely compensate.

And it will not always give the same result, regardless of how the
bearings are assembled will it. But the resulting curve **is**
always the same! And you're using the term "driving" again. I don't
think you understand this experiment at all. Try reading it properly.
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	08 May 2006 12:31:06 PM

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147070972.527379.237570@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

You use the term "driven" where there is no drive. The free disc,
the enclosed air mass and the housing, rotate as a unit.

What do you mean, "there is no drive"? The rotor is frictionally
coupled to the housing through the "needle bearings".
The central bearing will tend to under-rotate the rotor relative
to the housing. The external bearing will tend to over-rotate the
rotor relative to the housing.
Since most of the weight is on the central bearing, the frictional
coupling between housing and central bearing will dominate, and
the under-rotation that you measure between rotor and housing is
probably due to this mismatch in coupling strengths.
As I stated before, you have a Rube Goldberg setup.
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	09 May 2006 05:53:37 AM

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147109466.255311.17700@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147070972.527379.237570@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

You use the term "driven" where there is no drive. The free disc,
the enclosed air mass and the housing, rotate as a unit.

What do you mean, "there is no drive"? The rotor is frictionally
coupled to the housing through the "needle bearings".

Needle *point* bearings, which are indeed coupled to the housing
through friction. It takes a certain rotation rate to break the
*constant* friction which is applied to the axle end by the spring
loaded cavity. That friction maintains the fixed disc-housing
relationship until the rotation rate reaches a point where the
anisotropy in the gravity force is enough to break that bond.
Your dilemma is that the weight of the free disc on the bearing and
its clearance can only apply a specific torque with which to drive
the disc. Unless your gravity force changes, that torque won't
increase as the rotation rate increases. So, in your universe, how
is the bearing friction overcome?

The central bearing will tend to under-rotate the rotor relative
to the housing. The external bearing will tend to over-rotate the
rotor relative to the housing.

Since most of the weight is on the central bearing, the frictional
coupling between housing and central bearing will dominate, and
the under-rotation that you measure between rotor and housing is
probably due to this mismatch in coupling strengths.

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.

As I stated before, you have a Rube Goldberg setup.

You are really not understanding this experiment are you, whatever
your agenda may be.
-----
Max Keon
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	09 May 2006 06:27:35 AM

Max Keon wrote:

There are other factors to consider. Any vibration will cause loss
of contact and relative slippage. Is your drive vibrationless?
Your drive train must satisfy two CONTRADICTORY REQUIREMENTS.
1) The bearings must drive the rotor without artifactual slippage.
2) The bearings must not restrict the rotor from free rotation.
In other words, the bearings must be both frictionful and frictionless
at the same time, and your results are critically dependent on the
balance between these contradictory goals.
You continually reiterate that complete enclosure of the rotor
eliminates the effects of air friction. Yet your results are highly
sensitive to atmospheric pressure and temperature. WHY?
Jerry
.

User: "Max Keon"
Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1)	10 May 2006 06:58:55 PM

"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?

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**.

Your drive train must satisfy two CONTRADICTORY REQUIREMENTS.
1) The bearings must drive the rotor without artifactual slippage.
2) The bearings must not restrict the rotor from free rotation.

What slippage? Driven by what force? The free disc-housing assembly
is in a zero force state when everything is running as a unit.

In other words, the bearings must be both frictionful and frictionless
at the same time, and your re