Max Keon wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.p...31cb900ae33838

Jerry

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

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

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

Max Keon wrote:

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.

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

Max Keon wrote:

[snip]

Do not try to sidestep the issues by answering questions I did not ask
and by ignoring the ones I did.

1) You have no error bars and thus no idea if you are actually
measuring what you think you are measuring. You use "mabey", "could",
"possibly" and variations thereof many times which shows to me you
don't really know what is going on.

2) You think you know how your device works, but I don't. Yes - I want
an actual diagram explaining how it works rather than have to piece
together from the disjoint notes. That is the price you pay for wanting
people to take you seriously.

3) You still have no theoretical justification for your predicted
effect, nor do you have any for why the effect would exist in the first
place. You say it is due to "the theory", but you fail to say what "the
theory" is, much less even answer my question.

4) The acceleration due to gravity in Austrailia is not 9.8m/s^2. The
variance in your local g and 9.8m/s^2 is many orders of magnitude
larger than the effect you seek to measure. If I gussed right and you
are in Victoria, g is 980.1364 cm/s^2.

"Jerry" wrote in message
ups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----

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.p...31cb900ae33838

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

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.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**.

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.

------- ----------------
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

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

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

Max Keon wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.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**.

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.

------- ----------------
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