"Jerry" wrote in message
ps.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

Max Keon wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
ps.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

Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----

So the observed lag is extremely temperature dependant.

Not at all. When the device was running in a temperature controlled
environment, no noticeable difference showed up in the results when
the temperature was shifted by a couple of degrees. The cause of
that affect was later identified as faulty components, which have
since been replaced.

Yea, right.

"no noticable difference". How accuratly can your device measure
differing rotation rates? Do you even know?

"a coubple of degrees". You have no idea what you are talking about, so
you figure since you didn't see anything the natural temperature flux
in your garage is good enough.

What are you babbling about, in your own little world? Two degrees
is 360 / 5248 = 29.16 program cycles if the housing is set to rotate
at e.g. 12.625 revs per second (which is full character set block
no.20 http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/grav7.jpg ).

The rotating housing flag travels (390mm dia * pi) 1.225 meters
* 12.625 = 15.47 m/sec. The number of program cycles (character set
blocks) per rev is 5248, which is 5248 * 12.625 = 66256 program
cycles per second. The distance between each block is 15.47 / 66256
= 2.33E-4 meters. The housing rotation rate can be contained within
two adjacent blocks, which is within .23 millimeters. That's not bad
considering the velocity of the housing flag.

....and how accurate is your detector?

I see you only use 3 digits this time. Did you suddenly realise you
don't have 15 signifigant digits to work with?


The same level of precision applies for measuring the distance
between the rotating housing and the free disc.

You have no idea how precise your measurments are. It appears you have
only did one experimental run according to your....plots.


The above image is showing the total path length for block no.22
22 * 256 + 128 = 5760 character set blocks (just in case there's
any confusion).

Your page said NOTHING about faulty components. You need to rewrite
your page so it is readable and contains everything that actually
happened.

That is mentioned in the previous update (14-5-06), to which I've
just added this paragraph;
The test criteria is now, for each chosen housing rotation rate,
the time taken for the free disc to complete one full rotation cycle
relative to the housing is recorded for many completed free disc
rotations. That data is then averaged. But before any data can be
taken, at each chosen rotation rate, it is essential that that rate
be maintained for ten minutes or more (much more for slower rotation
rates) so that the free disc can settle down to fall behind the
rotating housing at a uniform rate.

I am tired of looking through your experimental blog to figure out what
your setup is now as opposed to its 50 previous iterations.

Nobody will ever take your setup seriously if you intend that to be how
you present it.


The theory predicts a gravity anisotropy in the up-down directions.

No, the theory POSTULATES that the anisotropy is there because the
theory does not derive it. Open any college level textbook that
contains mathematics to see what an actual prediction is.

It's enlightening to note how you react to "POSTULATES". I feel the
same way. But I can't criticize you for not understanding the zero
origin concept.

You don't understand my criticism.

You postulate the anisotropy is there, which is fine. What is not fine
is saying your theory predicts the anisotropy. If you postulate it, it
is not a prediction.

Your theory boils down to you believing there is an effect there
without any theoretical or experimental justification.

I don't expect you to have an immediate comprehensive understanding
of the zero origin concept, but you could at least try.

You make the faulty assumption that my opinion will change to agree
with you just because I "think about it some more".

-----
-----

Your interpretation of your "observation" is highly questionable
because your result suggests you have found a way to make a static
gravitational field do work. I think that breaks a conservation law
or two.

There is no static gravitational field in the zero origin universe.
It's very dynamic. Hence the **predicted** gravity anisotropy for
up-down motion relative to the gravity source.

A theory that predicts an energy conservation violation is dead on
arrival.

An interesting observation. GR more or less postulates that the
speed at which the action of gravity can be applied is limited to
light speed, and thus complies with a philosophy that the
9.8 m/sec^2 acceleration rate at the earth's surface reduces with
velocity toward the earth's center of mass, becoming zero for a
light speed approach. But that would cause GR to fall on its face,
wouldn't it! GR must then postulate a much faster than light speed
action of gravity. The trouble is, the next logical alignment of
the three coconuts beyond light speed, is infinity.

You didn't address the "interesting observation". Instead, you reply
with a word salad of meaningless babble that just points out you don't
understand GR.

-----
-----

If you look at the graph you will notice that the data points from
experiment (blue dots) wander around the curve shape to some degree.
As you can see, there is a margin of error between the result from
experiment and the best fit curve that can be generated. Fit your
own error bars in there if you like. I'm sure you can handle that.

That is not what an error bar is.

You forgot to mark your snip. Here, I will restore the part you are
afraid to respond to:

Read this page. Then read it again. Then look at what you are
presenting to me as convincing experimental results. Notice the many
glaring differences.

http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~marcumsd/p293/lab0/lab0.htm

Well?


I know it's not. Do you think I'm going to spend a year collecting
data just to prove what is already blatantly obvious, that I don't
stand a chance of correctly identifying the exact speed of the
gravity force?

What data?

You have shown me NO DATA. You have shown pictures, plots, and
halfassed theory but NO actual data. Where is it?

Show me the raw data for the CMBR and I'll show you mine.

I was not talking about the CMBR. I'm certaintly not going to start
now.


On the web page, I thought I had explained how the data
was collected. Perhaps if I repeat the latest inclusion. After a
time, when a specific rotation rate is well established, the time
it takes for the free disc to lose one complete revolution relative
to the rotating housing is recorded many times, and is then
averaged. The next chosen rate is tested in the same manner, etc^2.
The blue dot-circles on the graph are the results from one such test
series. http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/anistrop.jpg

Same criticisms as before.

http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~marcumsd/p293/lab0/lab0.htm

No data, no error bars, and more signifigant figures than you could
possibly have for that setup.

Again, if you think you actually have something try to publish it. I'm
sure Henri Wilson would love to assist.


-----

Max Keon

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----

"no noticable difference". How accuratly can your device measure
differing rotation rates? Do you even know?

"a coubple of degrees". You have no idea what you are talking about, so
you figure since you didn't see anything the natural temperature flux
in your garage is good enough.

What are you babbling about, in your own little world? Two degrees
is 360 / 5248 = 29.16 program cycles if the housing is set to rotate
at e.g. 12.625 revs per second (which is full character set block
no.20 http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/grav7.jpg ).

The rotating housing flag travels (390mm dia * pi) 1.225 meters
* 12.625 = 15.47 m/sec. The number of program cycles (character set
blocks) per rev is 5248, which is 5248 * 12.625 = 66256 program
cycles per second. The distance between each block is 15.47 / 66256
= 2.33E-4 meters. The housing rotation rate can be contained within
two adjacent blocks, which is within .23 millimeters. That's not bad
considering the velocity of the housing flag.

...and how accurate is your detector?

At higher rotation rates the detector is identifying one of the two
adjacent blocks at the page center (128 characters in) for each
completed housing rotation. I intend to check its true capability
with a much faster computer one day.

I see you only use 3 digits this time. Did you suddenly realise you
don't have 15 signifigant digits to work with?

That's all I need to prove that the gravity anisotropy exists.

The same level of precision applies for measuring the distance
between the rotating housing and the free disc.

You have no idea how precise your measurments are. It appears you have
only did one experimental run according to your....plots.

The two graph plots displayed on the web page are representative
of the general trend. They were generated from different axle
setups, while the resistance break points were set to be directly
comparable. But most of my time was spent in marathon tests trying
to understand what was happening at low rotation rates, around the
bearing resistance break point.

So long as I could identify a general curve shape and compare that
with the predicted shape was all that really concerned me. The
curve shape generated through experiment highlighted a flaw in my
reasoning.

The above image is showing the total path length for block no.22
22 * 256 + 128 = 5760 character set blocks (just in case there's
any confusion).

Your page said NOTHING about faulty components. You need to rewrite
your page so it is readable and contains everything that actually
happened.

That is mentioned in the previous update (14-5-06), to which I've
just added this paragraph;
The test criteria is now, for each chosen housing rotation rate,
the time taken for the free disc to complete one full rotation cycle
relative to the housing is recorded for many completed free disc
rotations. That data is then averaged. But before any data can be
taken, at each chosen rotation rate, it is essential that that rate
be maintained for ten minutes or more (much more for slower rotation
rates) so that the free disc can settle down to fall behind the
rotating housing at a uniform rate.

I am tired of looking through your experimental blog to figure out what
your setup is now as opposed to its 50 previous iterations.

After considering the negative reaction to my experiment
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html which falsifies SR
at every re-run, this time I decided to take interested parties
along for the ride to follow the progress of the experiment, instead
of lumping it all together at the end.

Nobody will ever take your setup seriously if you intend that to be how
you present it.

It's not over yet.
-----
-----

I don't expect you to have an immediate comprehensive understanding
of the zero origin concept, but you could at least try.

You make the faulty assumption that my opinion will change to agree
with you just because I "think about it some more".

I don't imagine it ever will. But the world doesn't end with you.
-----
-----

There is no static gravitational field in the zero origin universe.
It's very dynamic. Hence the **predicted** gravity anisotropy for
up-down motion relative to the gravity source.

A theory that predicts an energy conservation violation is dead on
arrival.

An interesting observation. GR more or less postulates that the
speed at which the action of gravity can be applied is limited to
light speed, and thus complies with a philosophy that the
9.8 m/sec^2 acceleration rate at the earth's surface reduces with
velocity toward the earth's center of mass, becoming zero for a
light speed approach. But that would cause GR to fall on its face,
wouldn't it! GR must then postulate a much faster than light speed
action of gravity. The trouble is, the next logical alignment of
the three coconuts beyond light speed, is infinity.

You didn't address the "interesting observation". Instead, you reply
with a word salad of meaningless babble that just points out you don't
understand GR.

GR is however very relevant to this debate because my predictions
are in direct conflict with it.

Trying to understand how a static space curve accelerates matter
in the first place leaves me, and many others I'm sure, completely
bewildered. Added to that is the requirement that the static space
curve, in any specific location around a gravity source, will always
accelerate matter at the same rate regardless of its velocity toward
the gravity source. It's little wonder that such things as gravitons
are invented in an attempt to fill the conceptual void.

Even if a static space curve can accelerate matter to light speed,
it has no mechanism with which to accelerate matter beyond that
speed. Whether or not matter can reach light speed is irrelevant.
Then the action of gravity either, reduces with speed toward the
gravity source, or is maintained as a constant, right up to light
speed, where the transition to zero gravity action takes place,
which is a ridiculous thought.

An instantaneous action of gravity is the only possible way to
remove the gravity anisotropy completely, regardless of what *any*
theory predicts, or postulates.

You seem to understand how it all works.
Would you care to explain it to me?
-----
-----

You forgot to mark your snip. Here, I will restore the part you are
afraid to respond to:

Read this page. Then read it again. Then look at what you are
presenting to me as convincing experimental results. Notice the many
glaring differences.

http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~marcumsd/p293/lab0/lab0.htm

Well?

Well what? http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/the1-1a.html
You might learn something too.
-----
-----

You have shown me NO DATA. You have shown pictures, plots, and
halfassed theory but NO actual data. Where is it?

Show me the raw data for the CMBR and I'll show you mine.

I was not talking about the CMBR. I'm certaintly not going to start
now.

But if you ever find that data, please point me to it.
-----
-----

Max Keon

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
ps.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 cause the free disc to fall
behind the rotating housing regardless of what bearing configuration
I use? If the free disc axle has a cavity on each end, the cyclic
vibration will drive the free disc in the opposite direction to that
if the axle is pointed both ends. That doesn't happen.

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,

Turbulence effects? Where could they come from while the disc, the
air, the bearings and the housing are in a fixed relationship?

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?

Reversing the free disc axle bearing configuration will reverse
the drive direction. It obviously doesn't.

And if such -secondary- effects can cause
artifactual net rotation, what might the -primary- effects of
rotor imbalance,

Rotor imbalance applies an asymmetric load on the bearing sides,
which in turn increases bearing friction, thus further resisting
bearing movement. It doesn't add to the problem, it reduces it.

decentering, and internal frictional losses
with the rotor in the normal orientation do to your results?

Do you still tentatively predict that the free disc will be driven
to fall behind the rotating housing, even if it doesn't, and that the
"foam sagging" in the horizontal setup is just enough to tip the
scales in favor of the free disc falling behind the housing?

You really do need something else to add to the foam sagging though
because the amount of heat energy required to break the bearing
bond seems to be far more than 6 revs per second could ever provide.
At 12.6 revs per second the free disc currently loses 1 rev in 7
seconds. The free disc is made from high density foam, and believe
me, it doesn't sag too much on my sailboard. It is quite easy to
machine as well. I can make a new free disc from another grade of
foam if you wish and compare the results. That would be a far more
useful experiment than tipping the thing up to prove nothing.

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.

If the gravity anisotropy violates a conservation law, then that's
something else you're going to have to get used to. But it doesn't
because the energy expended in stretching the air mass between the
rotating housing and free disc, as it lags behind, accounts for
the force applied by the gravity anisotropy. A *force* is applied to
drive the disc away from the rotating housing. Why else do you think
it lags behind?

-----

Max Keon

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

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.

What you "can't imagine" is one thing; what actually
happens needs to be measured.

Even if the
effect is present, why does it invariably cause the free disc to fall
behind the rotating housing regardless of what bearing configuration
I use? If the free disc axle has a cavity on each end, the cyclic
vibration will drive the free disc in the opposite direction to that
if the axle is pointed both ends. That doesn't happen.

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,

Turbulence effects? Where could they come from while the disc, the
air, the bearings and the housing are in a fixed relationship?

Do you mean there is no period of acceleration? Air goes into
a turbulent state when moving at only millimeters per second,
so during the acceleration period, when would you not predict
turbulence? Have you established that this start-up turbulence
will have completely died down when your rotor achieves
breakaway?

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?

Reversing the free disc axle bearing configuration will reverse
the drive direction. It obviously doesn't.

And if such -secondary- effects can cause
artifactual net rotation, what might the -primary- effects of
rotor imbalance,

Rotor imbalance applies an asymmetric load on the bearing sides,
which in turn increases bearing friction, thus further resisting
bearing movement. It doesn't add to the problem, it reduces it.

decentering, and internal frictional losses
with the rotor in the normal orientation do to your results?

Do you still tentatively predict that the free disc will be driven
to fall behind the rotating housing, even if it doesn't, and that the
"foam sagging" in the horizontal setup is just enough to tip the
scales in favor of the free disc falling behind the housing?

You really do need something else to add to the foam sagging though
because the amount of heat energy required to break the bearing
bond seems to be far more than 6 revs per second could ever provide.

"Seems to be", another handwaving guess.

At 12.6 revs per second the free disc currently loses 1 rev in 7
seconds. The free disc is made from high density foam, and believe
me, it doesn't sag too much on my sailboard.

Believe me, bells made of high density foam don't ring, and
balls made of high density foam don't bounce.

It is quite easy to
machine as well. I can make a new free disc from another grade of
foam if you wish and compare the results. That would be a far more
useful experiment than tipping the thing up to prove nothing.

I suggest making them out of aluminum or, better, glass, and
making a series of disks with controlled levels of imbalance so
you can measure the effects of rotor imbalance and get an
understanding of that aspect of your experiment.

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.

If the gravity anisotropy violates a conservation law, then that's
something else you're going to have to get used to. But it doesn't
because the energy expended in stretching the air mass between the
rotating housing and free disc, as it lags behind, accounts for
the force applied by the gravity anisotropy. A *force* is applied to
drive the disc away from the rotating housing. Why else do you think
it lags behind?

Yes, forces are present causing the disk to lag. The question
is, are the forces the result of defects in your experimental
design or some new aspect of nature?

Look, Max. Your experiment has effectively been performed
many, many times already with gyroscopic rotors in vacuum
floating on virtually frictionless suspensions, magnetic and
otherwise. Effects such as you suggest should have manifested
themselves as exceedingly obvious deceleration anomalies.

If you discover a strange effect that seemingly violates
established principle, your responsibility as a scientist is
to do everything possible to discover holes in your own
experiment. Dismissing the effects of rotor imbalance
without actively trying to investigate the effects of rotor
imbalance is irresponsible. Dismissing the effects of rotor
sag without actively trying to investigate the effects of
rotor sag is irresponsible. Dismissing the effects of
mechanical vibration without actively trying to investigate
the effects of mechanical vibration is irresponsible...

Jerry

Max Keon wrote:

[...]

This nolonger entertains me.

"Max Keon" wrote in news:448164ec$0$370$afc38c87
@news.optusnet.com.au:

Why else do you think
it lags behind?


What have you done to prevent the earths magnetic field from interacting
with your disk?

Magnetic breaking occurs for all conductors within magnetic fields.

I see the question has been raised several times but I don't see anywhere
you have addressed it.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

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

What you "can't imagine" is one thing; what actually
happens needs to be measured.

I'm currently addressing that by changing the free disc axle so that
it's again pointed on both ends. As the housing and free disc
revolve as a unit, the rolling action of each needle point as it's
forced by gravity to the lower edge of its mating cavity, will cause
the free disc to roll in advance of the housing. The same drive
direction will be applied to the free disc if the needle points are
vibrating within their mating cavities as well because the vibration
causes the contact radius to increase for the cavity and decrease
for the needle point. The free disc will again be driven in advance
of the rotating housing as it all rotates as a unit.

That's the best possible configuration acting to prevent the free
disc falling behind the rotating housing. It can only roll in
advance of the housing.

Does that make you happy?

Even if the
effect is present, why does it invariably cause the free disc to fall
behind the rotating housing regardless of what bearing configuration
I use? If the free disc axle has a cavity on each end, the cyclic
vibration will drive the free disc in the opposite direction to that
if the axle is pointed both ends. That doesn't happen.

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,

Turbulence effects? Where could they come from while the disc, the
air, the bearings and the housing are in a fixed relationship?

Do you mean there is no period of acceleration? Air goes into
a turbulent state when moving at only millimeters per second,
so during the acceleration period, when would you not predict
turbulence? Have you established that this start-up turbulence
will have completely died down when your rotor achieves
breakaway?

After the 10 minute minimum settling period has elapsed, the
air turbulence would be consistent.

There can just as often be a period of deceleration too. In fact
more often than not as it happens. If the test series is done from
the faster rotation rate to finish up at the slower end, the
rotation rate is wound down, not up. After the new lower rate is
set, the free disc catches up and falls below the rotation rate of
the housing. A 10 minute minimum settling period again applies.
-----
-----

At 12.6 revs per second the free disc currently loses 1 rev in 7
seconds. The free disc is made from high density foam, and believe
me, it doesn't sag too much on my sailboard.

Believe me, bells made of high density foam don't ring, and
balls made of high density foam don't bounce.

And sailboards don't bend.

It is quite easy to
machine as well. I can make a new free disc from another grade of
foam if you wish and compare the results. That would be a far more
useful experiment than tipping the thing up to prove nothing.

I suggest making them out of aluminum or, better, glass,

I've already been through the exercise of using more massive free
discs right at the very beginning of the project. That's the reason
the project was original terminated. And, for obvious reasons, a
free disc made from a material which could be influenced by local
electric or magnetic fields is out of the question. Needle point
bearings would not stand up either. And why do you think glass/mass
doesn't sag as much as foam/mass?

But you seem to be missing the point altogether why I'm using a
lightweight free disc. The air inside the housing is also equally
affected by the gravity anisotropy. The disc should only act as a
carrier for the flag which identifies air rotation inside the
housing. But the disc itself becomes the dominant factor.

and
making a series of disks with controlled levels of imbalance so
you can measure the effects of rotor imbalance and get an
understanding of that aspect of your experiment.

Why do you keep on with this imbalance thing when it's completely
irrelevant? Take a potato and tie it to a piece of string then whiz
it around you. What forces other than air resistance are going to
slow it down? Compare yourself and the potato with the earth-moon
relationship. If the earth revolved about a needle pointed axle
through its poles, the far edge of the needle point from the moon
would be forced against the cavity walls because the barycenter
around which it's trying to revolve is nearly 5000 km from the axle
center toward the moon. But is that **stationary** contact
arrangement going to cause the earth-moon free disc to roll in any
direction as the whole assembly rolls around as a unit?
Of course not.
-----
-----

If the gravity anisotropy violates a conservation law, then that's
something else you're going to have to get used to. But it doesn't
because the energy expended in stretching the air mass between the
rotating housing and free disc, as it lags behind, accounts for
the force applied by the gravity anisotropy. A *force* is applied to
drive the disc away from the rotating housing. Why else do you think
it lags behind?

Yes, forces are present causing the disk to lag. The question
is, are the forces the result of defects in your experimental
design or some new aspect of nature?

Look, Max. Your experiment has effectively been performed
many, many times already with gyroscopic rotors in vacuum
floating on virtually frictionless suspensions, magnetic and
otherwise. Effects such as you suggest should have manifested
themselves as exceedingly obvious deceleration anomalies.

A gravity anisotropy has never been assumed let alone investigated
because current theory gives no indication that it exists. In fact
such an idea is flatly rejected. Why would one even dream that it
was the cause of a perhaps anomalous rotor slowing? The affect could
have been explained as an unexpectedly high rate of rotor sag, or
eddy currents or whatever. But certainly not a gravity anisotropy.

If you discover a strange effect that seemingly violates
established principle, your responsibility as a scientist is
to do everything possible to discover holes in your own
experiment. Dismissing the effects of rotor imbalance
without actively trying to investigate the effects of rotor
imbalance is irresponsible. Dismissing the effects of rotor
sag without actively trying to investigate the effects of
rotor sag is irresponsible. Dismissing the effects of
mechanical vibration without actively trying to investigate
the effects of mechanical vibration is irresponsible...

I most certainly agree. But I'm not too sure about having to justify
the obvious.

-----

Max Keon

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

If you discover a strange effect that seemingly violates
established principle, your responsibility as a scientist is
to do everything possible to discover holes in your own
experiment. Dismissing the effects of rotor imbalance
without actively trying to investigate the effects of rotor
imbalance is irresponsible. Dismissing the effects of rotor
sag without actively trying to investigate the effects of
rotor sag is irresponsible. Dismissing the effects of
mechanical vibration without actively trying to investigate
the effects of mechanical vibration is irresponsible...

I most certainly agree. But I'm not too sure about having to justify
the obvious.

This is getting tedious, and I need to focus on my studies in the
hospital and clinic.

Jerry