Amateur -1

Great! Now you can tell us how well they cope with radial loads.

Incidentally, what is the nylon/plastic for in your diagram?

These Kits came Hobby Lobby.

This when I made my gyro.

I made mine a little bigger just to see if I could

And it did work ,but I do not have the

means to do test any kind testing.

But, just my be you can see it now.

What is the nylon/plastic for in your diagram?

They hold the bottom and top magnets and align the shift magnets

so the magnets a prose each other. Making it float on the fields.

Yes I know they have magnetically levitated trains.

I know they are expensive.

They are expensive because they are complicated.

If you could make them work without being complicated they would be cheaper.

The people who buy trains do not want them any more expensive than they need to be.

So the people who make them complicated do that because that can not make them simple.

If your idea for a bearing worked then it would be simple and cheap and so people would use it. They don't.

So your idea does not work.

Magnetic bearings do work, but they are much more complicated than your idea.

Dear 'John Cuthber'

1. I only told you about the trains doe to they are magnetically Levitated

2. What I was talking being costly is the off the self Magnetic bearings.

3. Back in the early 90's The HIA [Houston Inventors Association] members

gave magnetic barring gyro kits for the Schools class's to put together.

What you see here is just some of the parts in the kits. Along with my Ids for HIA.

These Kits came Hobby Lobby. This when I made my gyro.

"And I can assure you the that ½ in. By 3/8th. thick button magnets are strong enough that you can not pull the apart"

 

The same would be true for a couple of bits of metal covered with epoxy cement, but I wouldn't use them as a bearing.

 

What did you use as the bearing with that flywheel?

Did you use magnetic bearings and if so how?

 

(BTW, I'm not too fussy about Earnshaw's theorem. I have a small magnet floating in mid air and if you blow on it you can set it spinning. But it's horribly unstable and has almost no resistance to radial forces.)

Dear John Cuthber;

I have one of thouse toys also, but do you understand that in Germany & Japan they are working on high-speed trains

that totally float on magnets fields. Also they are very coustly but you can get on the market Magnetic floating barring.

How well does that handle radial loads?

Amateur -1

Well the one that I made was made from a 9" flywheel off a out board motor and was about 3.5Lb.

And I can assure you the that ½ in. By 3/8^th. thick button magnets are strong enough that you can not

pull the apart & for sure that you and a friend would be able push them together.

okay, so i want to build some sort of mechanism which is able to be activated by an object to start a stop watch and be stopped by the same object to measure the time it takes to travel a chosen distance. (i want to be able to calculate the force of for example a bb or dart).

i thought about taking a simple stopwatch and controlling the start/stop button with an electrical current (since all the button does is close a circuit) so i could make a switch (for example some aluminium foil)

which when i shoot a bb gun for example at it flips the aluminium foil to connect two wires which are connected to a power source and the stop watch, closing the circuit and starting the watch.

and after 5 meters or so there's a second switch which the bb would hit stopping the watch.

 

ive got a problem with this idea.

for the first switch to work it needs to be open and the second switch closed so when the first closes the watch starts, however as soon as the bb closed the switch it needs to open again (since the button push is only a short connection of the circuit), thats all good.

but when it gets to the second switch for it to work it needs to be open and the first close to send another electric signal.

 

there are two ways i can think of that might work,

1. the stop watch could start with all switch closed and hopefully this doesnt cause it to start and that the opening and closing of the switch cuases it to start/stop.

or

2. have 2 separate stop watches and the bb activates the first when it is shot and the second at the end and that i could calculate the time difference between them, but since the difference would be very small it would be hard to stop them at the same time and get the correct time.

so, anyone got any ideas?

Go to you gun shop they already have this equipment.

One of the projects on my back burner array is making a gyroscope out of an old 6" ball bearing race. One of the things I need to figure out is how to mount the spindle in the frame.

 

Given the mass of the thing, the mounting needs to be robust in order to resist the effects of precession. My first thought was to use a needle bearing:

 

 

but that would require a seriously hardened spindle tip and equally wear-resistant fitting. And precession thrusts would probably do neither much good.

 

Next I considered a simple ball-bearing:

 

 

and that's the best I've been able to come up with. Shoulder bearings such as used in 'jewel' watches would require the fitting to be adamantine and refractory. and there'd need to be at least a tiny bit of play. One's hard to come by, and the other's not something I want in a fairly massive device spinning at thousands of RPM.

 

Any thoughts or suggestions on a solution suitable to construction in a home shop?

 

Thanks!

This is what I have done some time back. And it is cheep along with doing in you home shop.

Hello;

I am [ Amateur -1] I am 65 years old and back in 2006 -2007 I went by Aphla-137.

Then I moved to working nights and stopped posting. I am now off for from a work

injury, and most likely I will retire the second time.

That is why I came back to discuss physics one of my hobby’s. As I said earlier I am

sixty five I could not remember that used Alpha-137 or my password. So I started back

as Amateur -1. If you look at broth profiles you can see I am one and the same, I was not

and am not trying to hide anything.

My Avatar is our family Ring.

Edward E. Kerls

My FCC Radio call sign;

ke5rls

Sir;

 

I have grate respect for anyone that has polished the nose of my Hero before doing a

 

physics test, I have not, But I was very lucky to meat him in person one time.

 

It is not just my concept of the edge's of the slits here,

 

What I was trying to suggest is that some times we need to use the newer technology

 

to recheck some of the older experiments.

 

You are most likely setting at your desk and in your desk you most likely have a

 

laser-pointer. I ask what is your concept of why if you aimed that laser-pointer at a

 

rod that is the very same as the with of the beam and see that the beam will be bent

 

around the rod and come to a focus-point a short dissident behind the rod.

 

All that I will say is that Einstein says that gravity will bend light. Also These little

 

fields are what causes accretion [gravity] a very short distant in space, [Away from gravity.] they can pull salt &

 

sugar together, also keep in mind a water drop at the edge of pitcher until it accretion adds

 

to it more water and gravity pulls the drop off the edge.

 

Please Sir you conception or what you call "

 

Speculations."

 

on this.

 

swansont, on 1 May 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

"Any independent test of the conjecture that the field of the atoms at the edge of the slits is what causes the deflection? Doesn't this imply that the material matters, rather than (or in addition to) the geometry?"

Sir;

What I am Saying & Einstein said that ALL MASS has Gravity extending from it's, now days most scientist call it at very short range " ACCRENTION "

Sir did you even read my answer to your question??????

OK; I now understand now; Back in the 70’s I paid over $4,000 to take a class of a Nobel Prize winner, and the end when I turned my paper, [back then we did not have spell-checkers.] and on the front cover I missed spelled a word and before he set it on his deck he put a C on it.

...?

Sir;

These are very old experiments.

And What I was trying to suggest is that some times we need to use the newer technology to recheck some of the older experiments.

Please Sir all Im asking is for your or anyone else’s conception or what you call “

Speculations.”

on this.

Please read my post at

Today, 10:06 AM

Any independent test of the conjecture that the field of the atoms at the edge of the slits is what causes the deflection? Doesn't this imply that the material matters, rather than (or in addition to) the geometry?

Sir;

I have grate respect for anyone that has polished the nose of my Hero before doing a

physics test, I have not, But I was very lucky to meat him in person one time.

It is not just my concept of the edge's of the slits here,

What I was trying to suggest is that some times we need to use the newer technology

to recheck some of the older experiments.

You are most likely setting at your desk and in your desk you most likely have a

laser-pointer. I ask what is your concept of why if you aimed that laser-pointer at a

rod that is the very same as the with of the beam and see that the beam will be bent

around the rod and come to a focus-point a short dissident behind the rod.

All that I will say is that Einstein says that gravity will bend light. Also These little

fields are what causes accretion [gravity] a very short distant in space, [Away from gravity.] they can pull salt &

sugar together, also keep in mind a water drop at the edge of pitcher until it accretion adds

to it more water and gravity pulls the drop off the edge.

Please Sir you conception or what you call "

Speculations."

on this.

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Amateur-1

 

Posting pictures of other members is absolutely not appropriate behavior. Do not do it again.

 

Secondly, you will notice that you have been asked questions related to your theory. The rules of the Speculations forum require that you answer them. Please do so that we can elicit some kind of discussion out of this.

 

 

I am Sorry about the picture!Hi Ophiolite;

If you remember that I was downloading a daily NOAA and SUGS maps and was

tracking what I conceived as gravitational waves. And when a weaker G-wave that

Would cause a area lower temp in an area of warmer area;

[ Due to lower G-force making the water sobering less heat.]

crossed a fault -line it would it would lesion the gravity locking stress on the fault

and cause an Earthquake.

An example ;

@Amateur-1

 

Here is a thought for your consideration. When a poster opens a thread with a phrase such as "science took a wrong turn", the mjaority of readers think "Oh, no, not again. Another ill informed crank, who thinks they have the answers, who will pepper his thread with misinterpretations, misunderstandings, blatant stupidity and a commitment to wrongness that would have embarassed Lysenko." I doubt that is the reaction you were aiming for.

 

You could transform that reaction by opening with a slight modification. "Is it possible science took a wrong turn? I'd like to offer some evidence and some speculative reasoning that suggests this may be the case."

 

Te medium is the message.

Hello Ophiolite;

It has been about eight years last that we talked.

Your thoughts are fine and as always you still try to help new comers,

but as you my come to see that I am no new comer. And you can see nothing

has changed.

My dyslexic way seeing and thinking along with wording things is keeping me

From communicating to people.

Back in the early 90's I stopped talking on the forums, when as now you my

Remember that I tried to worn the officials in Turkey two days in advance of an Earthquke and

Tens of thousands of people died.

Amateur -1, aka

alpha-137,

G-1

PS; I stell have you picture;

picture removed

Science took a wrong turn.

It all took a wrong turn with the missed understanding of the double slit experiment in the 20's.

And along with the discovery of the universe is expanding that took everyone away for Einstein's work that was right ON , but no one would pay attention to him any longer.

Well with the new MIT very high speed camera I know that the 1920's experiment can be turned around and be totally understood and fully predictable.

And GR and QM can be expressed in a consistent language.

Part #2

And yes Einstein’s Cosmological Constant can explain a static;

1. The planet moon systems.

2. The solar systems.

3. The galactic systems.

4. Along with why the galaxies are accelerating away from each other.

It is all in understanding the making of High-Density Mass and the expelling of true gravitational fields.

one & two slets.bmp

pin hole camera.bmp

I wish the 1% of people who are convinced that they understand physics would come out of the woodwork and supply us with a theory of everything!

It is human nature for people who are accustomed to one thing finding it difficult to accept and adapt to another - I can`t see how scientists can be insulated from this.

Scientists seem like politicians in that they often can`t say what they think in public because they might offend a lot of people. Unless you`re at the very top of your field like Einstein (There isn`t anybody like that on this forum is there?!!)

I like the concept of people expressing ideas- I wish there were more of them- and preferably the stranger the ideas are the better- because that might make clever people think about things in a different way and maybe come up with a better version of the truth.

GR and QM aren`t expressed in a consistent language. Even though the equations are revolutionary the interpretations seem inconsistent with each other (at least to me)- This is my most common gripe.

Sorry I was being a little facetious- I think that newts becoming a moderator would really irritate quite a few people.

To ukgazzer;

That was the best post that I have seen on this or any other science forum in 50 + years that I have been debating physics starting in coffeehouse in the sixties.

swansont The one that I respect the most on this forum has one of the most closed-mind of any here! And that is really sad !!

It all took a wrong turn with the missed understanding of the double slit experiment in the 20's.

And along with the discovery of the universe is expanding that took everyone away for Einstein's work that was right ON , but no one would pay attention to him any longer.

Well with the new MIT very high speed camera I know that the 1920's experiment can be turned around and be totally understood and fully predictable.

And GR and QM can be expressed in a consistent language.

Part #2

And yes Einstein’s Cosmological Constant can explain a static;

1. The planet moon systems.

2. The solar systems.

3. The galactic systems.

4. Along with why the galaxies are accelerating away from each other.

It is all in understanding the making of High-Density Mass and the expelling of true gravitational fields.

one & two slets.bmp

pin hole camera.bmp

Curious... but what kind of numbers are we talking about here?

 

Mass in (F) will be gravitationally attracted to (D) anyway, but are you saying that (F) will actually levitate and be pulled upward by a force greater than g?

 

How hot is as [Hot] as you can make it and how cold is as [Cold] as you can make it?

 

Do you have photographic or video evidence of it? Thanks.

 

 

Well the hottest that I had was 1854° F and the coldest that I was able to get

with my equipment was 17°F.

And yes I did have video but I lost it and all my best equipment in hurricane Ike

few years back.

I think they might have been talking about the curie temperature. Below which ferromagnetic materials are ferromagnetic.

 

http://en.wikipedia....rie_temperature

 

This does not apply to all materials. Gold is I believe paramagnetic for which I am not aware of a temperature dependence but there may be one.

 

http://en.m.wikipedi...i/Paramagnetism

Thank you for your reply.

I have a question about something that I read way back in 1956 or 57 in the

only chemistry class that I ever had. The best that can remember is that each and

every element have a magnetic moment at a given temperature mostly in the low

-200 F°.

If so would this be possible , a Gold magnet.

Please see the attachment.

I like this point you are making. Just so you know, I will show you some experiments i have done when i figure out how to tape with a webcam. And thanks for bringing up experimentationActuality precedes potentiality.

To

Tres Juicy, John Cuthber, Homie12

Sorry that has taken so long for to get back to you for answers.

Yes I have done the experiment sixteen times at a cost of a little over $16,450.

with the same results, but I still have the question of, is it blocking gravity to the

mass hinging from the balance bar or is it repelling the mass.

This just came out so there is not a lot of clarity on it:

 

"GENEVA (AP) -- Scientists at the world's largest physics lab say they have clocked subatomic particles traveling faster than light, a feat that - if true - would break a fundamental pillar of science."

 

 

 

http://hosted.ap.org...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Why ask if these findings would have toppled relativity, well no relativity actually

predicts it.

Look mass ð> in motion = force/ energy either as expanding steam or hot gasses, even

atomic particles.

Now look at relativities prediction of atomic energy if fully relieved at one time

E=mass at motion / speed of C² and that is the speed of light time itself.

I really hope that we never get to that point because our best one now is only

25% o 1% of that.

That's in China.

NO it is Not in China it is in about the center of Colorado and the last time is was there it was in the USA.

Hello. Here I want to hear all the evidence that the Christians have. If you have evidence, please do this.

 

Evidence:

some evidence

some evidence

some evidence

 

Note that "Evidence" is size 4, and "some evidence" is size 3.

When it comes to science and the Bible all that I have come pair are the first few lines of the bible and no further.

For me science is the study of God's creation and the rest of the Bible are stories of a Jewish Tribe's and their concepts.

And God said let there be light and let the light ferment.

So every particle that is collided in the scientist's experiments produces a W or Z High Energy Photons and then theses Photon "Referment back into Particles."

So all particles / Mass are Fermented Photons / light.

Pareidolia is a neat effect, no?

 

Here are the coordinates , of the lines on Google Earth.

Please use Google Earth and go to 38° o7' 45.44" N by 108°45' 16.58" W

then go to 38° 05' N by 108° 33' 06.67" W

Amateur -1 "aka" Physicslite "aka" Ke5rls

hang on, you said these were north american symbols, not likely to be cuneiform if its over there. I know alphabets are global these days but they weren't back then.

 

I will admit that it bears a resemblance to that cuneiform symbol but it's leaping a bit to say it is the same.

 

I can only assume that your refusal to give us the coordinates is because if you turn the labels on it says something like 'joe's quarry'

<br>Nazca type lines in the western US? One search on google gave me this for example; <a class="bbc_url" title="External link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Intaglios" rel="nofollow external">http://en.wikipedia....lythe_Intaglios</a><br><br>You may think what you're looking at is Sumerian, but how detailed are the majority of geoglyphs in the first place? Perhaps it's native american, or a modern re-make? Not to rain on your parade, but I would think the chance of you finding an undiscovered geoglyph in the states is close to zero.<br>

HA! Rubbish

Tres Juicy;

Evidently you do not like to learn for yourself by experimenting.

So there no for me to say.

BUT, I am not making this up.