vortex recumbent
gdew...@gmail.com
have some pressure towards it's edges. Using some drag and the wind
to rotate a cone we can have it suck an aerodynamic body into this
"hole" then squeezing it forwards.
I tried to illustrate it a bit below.
Enjoy.
JeffWills
You have come up with an interesting theory. Theories require
verification in the real world. You should build your vehicle and come
to the World Human Powered Speed Challenge next year. Here's what last
year looked like:
http://www.recumbents.com/home.asp
http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2007/speedchallenge-2007.htm
Jeff
swor...@gmail.com
<laughing>
Werehatrack
Posting something like this once gets you the "benefit of the doubt"
label of a physics-illiterate earnest newbie. Twice is a troll.
Plonk.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
gdew...@gmail.com
Laughing is very good for you. If I can make a single person laugh
with my creation or even my presence I concider it a success.
:-)
gdew...@gmail.com
gdew...@gmail.com
Thanks for the links, I'm trying my best to read up on the Ærodynamic
accomplishments.
I don't think my design is advanced enough to build it jet I, just
wanted to share the thought.
Maybe some one here can put it to use or help advance the concept.
Putting everything under "negative drag" didn't seem to do justice to
the topics.
I did update the page with some patents, 3d images of my idea and a
sketsup model.
Chalo
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent
From the middle diagram, it is clearly seen that here we have a
vehicle propelled entirely by the force of Gaby blowing smoke up your
ass.
Chalo
gdew...@gmail.com
Ryan Cousineau
<66208ddd-ecb3-4c57...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
Gaby, you may consider yourself a great success.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
gdew...@gmail.com
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Laughing is very good for you. If I can make a single person laugh
> > with my creation or even my presence I concider it a success.
>
>
here, I write all this specially for you :-)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&p=6845
Ryan Cousineau
<5224c6f0-79d2-44f6...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, it's stopped being funny now.
But seriously, your theory is easily proven using very straightforward
tests. The people here who suggested that, if you were as confident of
your theory as you seem, you should build it and take it to Battle
Mountain next year, were being cynical but entirely sincere.
Here's the deal: Most of the people here would like for you to succeed.
Aside from any other considerations, a free energy device would be a
massive benefit to society, and I'd like to have a bike that never
needed pedalling.
However, we're really skeptical, because your theory is, as far as any
of us can tell, nonsense. It violates a fair number of currently
understood principles in physics, and it hits a few of the standard
crazy-invention test benchmarks:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/p-z-myers-sued-for-libel-what-
is-crackpot-science/
(I found that post looking for commentary referring to the Jeremy
Bernstein essay, as I have his book).
But returning to my previous point, it's easily tested: you just need to
build your device. No discussion of theory is necessary with us: I
assure you that almost everyone here will be most impressed if you build
and demonstrate this device.
We admit, we'll be probing for certain ways in which such tests are
commonly gamed, but in this case, there's even an absolutely perfect
testing bed, one which has essentially no connection with any of us
skeptics, and yet which we would consider completely neutral and
unlikely to be fooled.
I speak, of course, of the Battle Mountain speed trials put on by the
IHPVA. The rules are simple: if your vehicle is safe and human-powered
(no stored energy allowed, and record runs only count if done in low
wind), you can do a run.
If you win (heck, if you even come close to a top time), we'll be VERY
impressed. No joke. It will be like last year, when Jonathan Page, a
cyclocross racer previously assumed to be a bit of a wannabe, went and
won Silver at the Worlds. I shut up right then and there about his lack
of talent, because that's hard to debate.
So please, work hard, think hard, and go build your bike. We can't wait
to hear about the test results.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
[snip]
>http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/p-z-myers-sued-for-libel-what-is-crackpot-science/
Dear Ryan,
That somewhat convoluted page led to this nice clear one:
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm
Which in turn led me to look for "Voodoo Science" by Park, but my
library spends most of its money on forgettable movies and children's
coloring books, so I went to:
And scarfed up the cheapest used copy of "Voodoo Science" by Park for
less than five bucks, including shipping.
Thanks for the hint about what should be a nice stocking-stuffer.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ryan Cousineau
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:12:01 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@sfu.ca>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/p-z-myers-sued-for-libel-what-is-c
> >rackpot-science/
>
> Dear Ryan,
>
> That somewhat convoluted page led to this nice clear one:
>
> http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm
>
> Which in turn led me to look for "Voodoo Science" by Park, but my
> library spends most of its money on forgettable movies and children's
> coloring books, so I went to:
>
> www.bookfinder.com
>
> And scarfed up the cheapest used copy of "Voodoo Science" by Park for
> less than five bucks, including shipping.
If I have an objection to Park's essay, it's that it focuses on the
typological characteristics of crank-work, rather than the essential
characteristics that make them crank-work. In that way, I think
Bernstein's essay did better.
http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=DeqIYCSxFceX47xlWpS4EkQo
vCU_0980153148_1:1:122
The entire book is some lovely science writing.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>In article <h8a9m3t93cph0cdpd...@4ax.com>,
> carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:12:01 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@sfu.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/p-z-myers-sued-for-libel-what-is-c
>> >rackpot-science/
>>
>> Dear Ryan,
>>
>> That somewhat convoluted page led to this nice clear one:
>>
>> http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm
>>
>> Which in turn led me to look for "Voodoo Science" by Park, but my
>> library spends most of its money on forgettable movies and children's
>> coloring books, so I went to:
>>
>> www.bookfinder.com
>>
>> And scarfed up the cheapest used copy of "Voodoo Science" by Park for
>> less than five bucks, including shipping.
>
>If I have an objection to Park's essay, it's that it focuses on the
>typological characteristics of crank-work, rather than the essential
>characteristics that make them crank-work. In that way, I think
>Bernstein's essay did better.
>
>http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=DeqIYCSxFceX47xlWpS4EkQo
>vCU_0980153148_1:1:122
>
>The entire book is some lovely science writing.
Dear Ryan,
Sorry, but www.bookfinder.com searches expire after an hour. That's
why I never include them.
Which of the prolific Jeremy Bernstein's books did you have in mind?
In any case, Park and Bernstein are both starting from Langmuir's
comments:
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langB.htm#Characteristic%20Symptoms
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ryan Cousineau
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
D'oh!
> Which of the prolific Jeremy Bernstein's books did you have in mind?
"Cranks, Quarks, and the Cosmos."
<http://www.amazon.com/Cranks-Quarks-Cosmos-Jeremy-Bernstein/dp/046501449
6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197831759&sr=8-2>
I believe it's a collection of his New Yorker columns.
> In any case, Park and Bernstein are both starting from Langmuir's
> comments:
>
>
> http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langB.htm#Characteristic%20Symptoms
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Hm. I may be mis-remembering Bernstein's arguments, and since my copy is
now blocked into a shelf behind the Christmas tree*, I am unwilling to
properly confirm the facts. But I remember his essay putting
considerable weight on the specific "good science" of Einstein's "annus
mirabilis" papers, namely the coherence of their relationship to
previous science, and their specific, testable predictions.
I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill. It also seems that
Park's essay and Bernstein's were aimed at different types of crankery.
Bernstein, as I remember it, wanted to define the basics of "good
science", while Park's essay seemed more to act as a quick checklist for
outright crackpottery. (If you need a distinction, I would say that
N-rays, being properly reported in the normal way, were purely "bad
science," while Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion fiasco may have
crossed the line into crackpottery owing to the way they announced the
results.
Einstein's first papers, by contrast, were wild, from a complete
outsider, but submitted in the usual way, and most importantly, they
made sense on the face and offered several ways to test the theories.
Now I'd have to think of a counterexample of an important scientific
result that did not pass through the usual channels.
*I suppose it's a damning indictment of my bibliophilia that the
Christmas tree is permitted to block access to about half of the
household books.
gdew...@gmail.com
papers"
.ca> wrote:
> HoCousineau're really skeptical,
talk for yourself
> because your theory is, as far as any of us can tell, nonsense.
If you claim to be able to tell something. Then why are you not
telling?
Why are you telling me about things you could be telling me?
> It violates a fair number of currently
> understood principles in physics,
You name the specific principal you are talking about here.
Until you actually name the thing you are talking nonsense.
>and it hits a few of the standard
> crazy-invention test benchmarks:
>
You hit the dumb shit, with shallow mind and dull personality
benchmark right here.
You have not addressed the original topic at all. All you did was pull
nonsense from your ass and discuss the book of some fucking moron
government puppet.
And you think I should be building things for you? Just to make a
point you say?
PFFFF Hilarious!
No little boy, all I PFFFFd to show you I have shown to you.
Your response was donkey crap. Just another jackass fly on the wall.
You only had crap to talk.
I know I'm a little harsh for such gentle person like yourself. But
you chose sides with fascist science. To heroically slandering people
as crackpots is one kind of fascism. But to call it science is quite a
different kind. So you should drown in your own shit just like the
rest. You don't get any special treatment.
Could you be bothered to address the topic you are posting in? Then I
don't have to read your mindless drivel. And that would prevent me
from having to tell you what dumb shit you are.
Thank you Mister Crackpot.
nice :-)
Ryan Cousineau
<4fc8ab08-b133-47fe...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "the specific "good science" of Einstein's "annusmirabilismirabilis"
> papers"
>
> .ca> wrote:
> > HoCousineau're really skeptical,
>
> talk for yourself
>
> > because your theory is, as far as any of us can tell, nonsense.
>
> If you claim to be able to tell something. Then why are you not
> telling?
>
> Why are you telling me about things you could be telling me?
>
> > It violates a fair number of currently
> > understood principles in physics,
>
> You name the specific principal you are talking about here.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
> Until you actually name the thing you are talking nonsense.
>
> >and it hits a few of the standard
> > crazy-invention test benchmarks:
> >
>
> You hit the dumb shit, with shallow mind and dull personality
> benchmark right here.
>
> You have not addressed the original topic at all. All you did was pull
> nonsense from your ass and discuss the book of some fucking moron
> government puppet.
>
> And you think I should be building things for you? Just to make a
> point you say?
>
> PFFFF Hilarious!
>
> No little boy, all I PFFFFd to show you I have shown to you.
>
> Your response was donkey crap. Just another jackass fly on the wall.
>
> You only had crap to talk.
>
> I know I'm a little harsh for such gentle person like yourself. But
> you chose sides with fascist science. To heroically slandering people
> as crackpots is one kind of fascism. But to call it science is quite a
> different kind. So you should drown in your own shit just like the
> rest. You don't get any special treatment.
>
> Could you be bothered to address the topic you are posting in? Then I
> don't have to read your mindless drivel. And that would prevent me
> from having to tell you what dumb shit you are.
>
> Thank you Mister Crackpot.
>
> nice :-)
Oh, I so shouldn't encourage you, but I'd just like to to be known that
"Mister Crackpot" is a form of address I will gladly answer to in
rec.bicycles.tech, and "on the side of fascist science" is, well, it's
just great!
Ryan Cousineau
<4fc8ab08-b133-47fe...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, and I remembered it too late for my last response, but I really
think you should get this t-shirt:
http://www.offworlddesigns.com/ps-291-8-fools-i-will-destroy-you.aspx
You might relate to the comic series it comes from, too:
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20021104
gdew...@gmail.com
> Oh, and I remembered it too late for my last response,
No I think you still have some time to create a decent response. This
wasn't it tho.
I'm refuting your crackpot claim by insulting you. Insults are good
science. You said so yourself.
You didn't like it to be called a fascistic scientist?
Why not Ryan you little Nazi?
But your condescending behaviour really qualifies as such.
definition of crackpot:
A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy: crazy,
eccentric, lunatic. Informal crank, loon, loony. Slang cuckoo, ding-a-
ling, dingbat, kook, nut, screwball, weirdie, weirdo. See wise/
foolish.
I think you got the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confused with the Nazi
law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring.
Here lets refresh that bookworm memory of yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Prevention_of_Hereditarily_Diseased_Offspring#Operation_of_the_law
(1) Any person suffering from a hereditary disease may be rendered
incapable of procreation by means of a surgical operation
(sterilization), if the experience of medical science shows that it is
highly probable that his descendants would suffer from some serious
physical or mental hereditary defect.
(2) For the purposes of this law, any person will be considered as
hereditarily diseased who is suffering from any one of the following
diseases:-
(1) Congenital Mental Deficiency,
(2) Schizophrenia,
(3) Manic-Depressive Insanity,
(4) Hereditary Epilepsy,
(5) Hereditary Chorea (Huntington's),
(6) Hereditary Blindness,
(7) Hereditary Deafness,
(8) Any severe hereditary deformity.
(3) Any person suffering from severe alcoholism may be also
rendered incapable of procreation.
Lets give you the hard facts:
The moment you revert back to your pre-teen skool bully personality
you have closed the door on your source of information. You can either
laugh at people and call them crackpots OR you can ask them for
information.
You will never get both.
By picking the first you silence the source of information. By
behaving in such a way you have eliminated factors that could have led
you to the actual data. Your scientific method now evidently
eliminates it's own data before review.
Your type of scientists always do that. It's more the rule as the
exception. Must accept public slander if you want to share something.
GOOD SCIENCE!!!!
I'm just expanding the elimination drill to include your nonsense.
I'm not going to die because you are such ignorant bitch.
People are dieing SO no mercy for your lies.
Vehicles can be powered by wind.
Get used to it.
Oxygen deficiency cause most illness, disease. Without vital earth
element, human life, health would end.
Oxygen deficiency medical symptoms include: stomach acid, bacterial,
viral, parasitic infection, bronchial, chronic hostility, circulation
problems. Also depression, dizziness, fatigue, irrational behavior,
irritation, lowered immunity to colds, flu and infections, memory
loss, muscle aches, overall bodily weakness, poor digestion, tumors,
deposit buildups.
Ninety percent of our energy is created by oxygen. Our eliminative
processes consume larger amounts of oxygen to rid human bodies of
waste and toxins.
Scientists were stunned to discover that atmospheric oxygen level in
ancient times measured twice as high as that of today: We are being
more and more deprived of precious oxygen in the modern environment,
and it is causing serious health problems as numerous studies and
research on Oxygen Deficiency have proved.
Medical symptoms of oxygen deficiency include: acid stomach,
bacterial, viral and parasitic infections, bronchial problems, chronic
hostility, circulation problems, depression, dizziness, fatigue,
irrational behavior, irritation, lowered immunity to colds, flu and
infections, memory loss, muscle aches, overall bodily weakness, poor
digestion, tumors and deposit buildups.
These medical symptoms often begin with the vague feeling of
uneasiness. They progress over time, to full-blown illness and
disease. As stated in The Townsend Letter for Doctors: Cells
undergoing partial oxygen starvation send out tiny panic signals which
are collectively felt as the continuous vague sensation of uneasiness,
dread or disaster. This low level generalized warning tends to get
turned out as mere background noise by the individual experiencing it.
Or, it is attributed to other sources of uneasiness.
Cancer has only one prime cause. It is the replacement of normal
oxygen respiration of our bodies cells by an anaerobic (oxygen-
deficient) cell respiration. Dr. Otto Warburg. Two-time Nobel Laureate
Winner of the Nobel Prize For Cancer Research. etc etc etc
http://www.appliedozone.com/oxygen_deficiency_disease.html
Some guy mentioned he measured it for school in 1960. 30% it was.
So how is Ryan going to power his car when he doesn't have any oxygen
FOR HIS CAR!! Is this where the concentration camps come into the
picture?
Or will you just roll over and die with a sad face?
All this group can do is make stupid remarks?
You are like a farm with donkeys?
It's not scientific enough for you?
"The biggest mass extinction in Earth history some 251 million years
ago was preceded by elevated extinction rates before the main event
and was followed by a delayed recovery that lasted for millions of
years. New research by two University of Washington scientists
suggests that a sharp decline in atmospheric oxygen levels was likely
a major reason for both the elevated extinction rates and the very
slow recovery."
http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=9592
But you don't have to worry.
Those in power didn't get there though nihilism and ignorance.
They are very realistic about global oxygen depletion.
The filthy rich will assassinate all of us in time. They might have to
move into their subterranean bunkers while designer diseases do all
the hard work. But they have room for millions of executives, there
are even subterranean shopping centers and office complexes.
Why do you think the world is changing into a totalitarian control
state?
It's about time the donkey farm woke up.
There might be more to life as entertainment between slavery.
This is a fun article on how Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise
to power
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Now isn't that good entertainment?
You feel uber already?
:-)
datakoll
perpetually
gdew...@gmail.com
> Oh, and I remembered it too late for my last response,
No I think you still have some time to create a decent response. This
wasn't it tho.
I'm refuting your crackpot claim by insulting you. Insults are good
science. You said so yourself.
You didn't like it to be called a fascistic scientist?
Why not Ryan you little Nazi?
But your condescending behaviour really qualifies as such.
definition of crackpot:
A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy: crazy,
eccentric, lunatic. Informal crank, loon, loony. Slang cuckoo, ding-a-
ling, dingbat, kook, nut, screwball, weirdie, weirdo. See wise/
foolish.
I think you got the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confused with the Nazi
law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring.
Here lets refresh that bookworm memory of yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Prevention_of_Hereditarily_D...
A Muzi
>> Oh, and I remembered it too late for my last response,
gdew...@gmail.com wrote:
-snip-
> Nazi
-snip-
OK, move along, nothing to see here.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Dec 17, 9:36 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and I remembered it too late for my last response,
>
> wasn't it tho.
>
> I'm refuting your crackpot claim by insulting you. Insults are good
> science. You said so yourself.
>
> You didn't like it to be called a fascistic scientist?
>
> Why not Ryan you little Nazi?
>
> But your condescending behaviour really qualifies as such.
>
> definition of crackpot:
> A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy: crazy,
> eccentric, lunatic. Informal crank, loon, loony. Slang cuckoo, ding-a-
> ling, dingbat, kook, nut, screwball, weirdie, weirdo. See wise/
> foolish.
>
> I think you got the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confused with the Nazi
> law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring.
>
> Here lets refresh that bookworm memory of yours.
>
Ryan Cousineau
A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >> Oh, and I remembered it too late for my last response,
>
> gdew...@gmail.com wrote:
> -snip-
> > Nazi
> -snip-
>
> OK, move along, nothing to see here.
Dude! That was, by far, the least bizarre part of the message. I mean,
at some point you almost expected that.
Ryan Cousineau
<e71e52ee-3281-4aa7...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
I was having a pretty grumpy day until I sat down on my couch to eat
some chicken soup and absorb some Usenet.
I'd just like to thank you for the following, which put a smile on my
face and reminded me how much fun adding a little surrealism to life
could be.
Your insanity is charming and has brought some much-desired cheer to my
day
[it is at this point a smarter, kinder RjC would leave off...]
And I want you to know that when we get the New World Order fully
operational, I'll put in a good word for you so that you get left on the
"DO NOT STERILIZE" list, and I'll do my best to see that you get light
duties in the oxygen mines.
Share & Enjoy,
--
datakoll
not only was that outburst on RC uncalled for but believe you me no
one reads that BS. If we did that when would we have time for
productive activities?
gdew...@gmail.com
> not only was that outburst on RC uncalled for but believe you me no
> one reads that BS.
Exactly my point.
Out of the blue RC was called names and ridiculed.
Not a very nice thing to do at all.
But it serves the purpose of explaining what branding people as quacks
actually does to the person.
RC can just run away from the discussion.
His "crackpot" scientist subjects don't enjoy this privilege when
treated like this in the context of their lives work.
Specially the "crackpots" who have no success and are attempting that
what is assumed to be impossible.
Look if a guy wants to climb the Himalaya in his wheelchair then I
wish him all the best.
I guess I could climb ahead of him and piss in his face.
That would sure teach him!
Then I could point and laugh at his misfortune.
But the reality is that if I so much as say something to the guy I'm
already influencing his results. If I can make him give up by pissing
in his face then that will be the main reason he gave up.
Not something else.
It's like taking a photo of a nesting bird with one foot in the nest
then complaining about the shitty picture you got.
> If we did that when would we have time for productive activities?
How would you define what is productive if you don't?
Is not the quality of your judgement of productivity developed by
first guessing then comparing the guess with the end result?
If you prevent or even influence the end result your judgement doesn't
enjoy any validation anymore.
So now you can all start acting normal again. :-)
All except me of course. lol
_____
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent
gabydewilde - vortex recumbent
Chalo
>
> RC can just run away from the discussion.
>
> His "crackpot" scientist subjects don't enjoy this privilege when
> treated like this in the context of their lives work.
>
> Specially the "crackpots" who have no success and are attempting that
> what is assumed to be impossible.
>
> Look if a guy wants to climb the Himalaya in his wheelchair then I
> wish him all the best.
>
> I guess I could climb ahead of him and piss in his face.
>
> That would sure teach him!
>
> Then I could point and laugh at his misfortune.
>
> But the reality is that if I so much as say something to the guy I'm
> already influencing his results. If I can make him give up by pissing
> in his face then that will be the main reason he gave up.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
- Sir Isaac Newton
When we innovate, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, among whom
we can count Sir Isaac. That is the only way by which we can make
progress. Every once in a long while, we may come across a freak like
Einstein who singlehandedly manages to revise problems in the rules
that have remained unsolved by all others. But even someone as
revolutionary as Einstein did not invalidate the principles that had
been identified and set forth by Newton hundreds of years before-- for
most people's purposes, Newton's laws still apply unerringly and
Einstein's will never matter in the least.
So when we see technical and scientific amateurs claiming that
Newton's laws somehow don't apply to their crude and unproven
inventions, they discredit themselves straightaway. Machines are
fundamentally Newtonian things. If they don't work according to
Newtonian principles, they simply don't work at all-- and it's doing
someone a favor to help end his waste of time and effort right
there.
No beleaguered genius has ever emerged from seclusion in his workshop
with a device that skirted Newton's physics or the laws of
thermodynamics. Many claimed to have done so, but they were all
mistaken or, more often, lying to attract gullible investors or even
just to attract attention. No global conspiracy by Big Oil is
necessary to explain their failures-- the villains are all far too
busy distorting markets and buying off politicians anyway.
The pattern is common enough to be mundane. When a small time tinker
claims to have accomplished the physically impossible, he's wrong.
One thousand point zero zero times out of a thousand, he's wrong.
Chalo
gdew...@gmail.com
> I was having a pretty grumpy day until I sat down on my couch to eat
> some chicken soup and absorb some Usenet.
>
Tell me,
What kind of life did your chicken have before you ate it? Was it a
healthy happy chicken? You have any rational arguments for you and me
to treat those chickens this way? Should a chicken not be something
that makes you happy when you see one? Why would we put them in
torture chambers? Because it costs less coupons like this? Treating
them in some normal way would require faces of George Washington
printed on trees?
Those Asian sweatshop workers are not allowed to say anything bad
about their company. Iike having a 36 hour shift then 2 hours off then
8 hour shift then 8 hours "freedom" and starting from the beginning
again. They are not allowed to say all this bad things about the
company to our western production control squads. It makes perfect
sense to them.
We are the high class slaves of our fascist dictators. Every kind of
"something for nothing" has been replaced with slavery. Suggesting
elsewise makes the person a crackpot.
It's crackpot this, crackpot that... truthy?, conspiracytheorist?,
extreamist, moving on to terrorists.... Al kaydah! jajajajaja
I want to talk about my vortex recumbent idea here. With your
offending shit waxed onto the topic this becomes increasingly less
likely to happen.
As-if that little tuf tuf of yours could push my train of thought to
the scrapyard.
Let me put a swastika sticker on it for you.
ROFL!
We need bicycles to outperform cars in (real world) traffic.
Cars become increasingly less interesting by the second already.
Adding a windmill to a bicycle allows us to move the windmill up the
wind.
An awfully interesting situation arises that I've rather poorly jet
elaborately accomplished to document here.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag
Creating a vortex and surfing the apparent wind in it's concave from
both sides should make the wind propelled bicycle drop down the wind
like a stone.
If the vortex can be engineered to be beneficial the windmill
propelled bike can make it's own wind.
Rather then try to pull the whole object forwards by it's tires we
create a vacuum at the front and pressure at the backside.
The thought is worth being entertained.
I'm not likely to be it's ideal entertainer.
But to use the body of the vehicle to create pressure at the front and
vacuum at the rear (as in conventional methods) is obviously going to
backfire at the source of the energy.
You keep having to overcome the very energy you just put into the
system.
Accelerating into the wind increases the pressure and so does the
potential energy to be extracted. Sure just the drag converted into
propulsion is incapable of overcoming it's own drag.
Each unit of air we pump though the prop contains one unit of wind.
A body on a recumbent dramatically decreases the drag. The wheels have
good grip on the ground. The thing stands like a house.
Imagine cycling up the wind on a normal bike.
At 25 mhp the wind is enormous.
FEEL how much stronger the wind becomes when you accelerate into it.
Like a wize Chinese translator ones said " dont think FEEL. " ( 李小龍 )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1c05bh6URc
Now think how much wind there is when you move down the wind with the
speed of the wind.
You are going 30 up the wind but you are getting drag as if it was 40.
you are going 40 up the wind but the drag is as if it was 50.
So if you have very bad gearing you will have to go really fast to
make it accelerate perpetually. (lol)
I do think a maximum speed is kind of desirable.
A bicycle should mainly use human power, but this power is used to
displace air so we cant escape from building some kind of land sailing
apparatus.
Thus therefore and so~on we need wheels at the other end of the
contraption.
Can the byproduct of our rotary apparatus be used to enhance the
aerodynamic profile?
Perhaps it can even create additional propulsion?
You are here to create an exact and accurate description on how to
build the device so that others skilled in the art to which it
appertains may be enabled to construct and deploy the same.
Eventually even the chicken and the nihilists will benefit. :-)
gdew...@gmail.com
> No beleaguered genius has ever emerged from seclusion in his workshop
> with a device that skirted Newton's physics or the laws of thermodynamics.
So your definition of a genius is someone who doesn't own a workshop.
Yes lets create classes of people. FUN!
Then later we can subscribe the classes to characteristics? Right?
I think they never emerged because your are ignorant media puppet
class who uses logic that is primarily anally fixated. With arguments
that come out like soft brown blobs. But mind you, I have not
levitated this thought into an absolute truth jet.
> When a small time tinker claims to have accomplished the physically impossible, he's wrong.
Ahhh, but the laws of decency dictate that when an adult refers to
people as small time tinkers then he is a retarded imbecile and a
NAzi.
I wonder when you are going to address the fucking vortex assembly you
nazi moron.
Could you Nazi please explain exactly and accurately where I claim to
have accomplished the physically impossible? In stead of your
childish hogwash?
I was under the impression I was just entertaining a thought. Do I
need your permission for that?
ROFL!
Eventually even the nihilists will benefit. :-)
datakoll
drag is added to the low pressure, the low pressure gains pressure and
the boat slows.
there's no way to get that back.
there is a water pumping system generally similar to what you're
working over.
gdew...@gmail.com
> drag is added to the low pressure.
Learn the lesson you noob.
That what you call the low pressure area is behind the rotor.
Drag is coming from the front.
Your suggestions are those of an imbecile.
Are you always this slow?
gdew...@gmail.com
Eventually even the nihilists will benefit. :-)
Ryan Cousineau
<3612adca-9dc6-4c62...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 6:27 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No beleaguered genius has ever emerged from seclusion in his workshop
> > with a device that skirted Newton's physics or the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> So your definition of a genius is someone who doesn't own a workshop.
>
> Yes lets create classes of people. FUN!
I'd just like to point out that this initial part of the response is
about the most creative misreading of (or perhaps, most complete failure
to understand) a point I have read on Usenet.
At least I think it is. But memory diminishes with time, and is
generally unreliable.
Chalo
>
> I think they never emerged because your are ignorant media puppet
> class who uses logic that is primarily anally fixated. With arguments
> that come out like soft brown blobs. But mind you, I have not
> levitated this thought into an absolute truth jet.
Ahoy, he's crossed the Rubicon from mere crackpot to full-on
crackhead!
I'll now be taking my leave before I get any on me.
Chalo
gdew...@gmail.com
On Dec 18, 6:27 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So when we see technical and scientific amateurs claiming that
> Newton's laws somehow don't apply to their crude and unproven
> inventions, they discredit themselves straightaway.
but but but.....
You do-not get to talk for anyone besides yourself.
YOU are DISCREDITING people STRAIGTAWAY.
YOU insist upon not giving them the light a day and most certanly wont
look at what they have to show.
It's like Galileo's telestcope story all over again. No we already
know earth is the center of the gallaxy. We don't need your silly
telescope!
Heavyer than air apparatus cant fly!! Why don't you give up? Cant you
just be a giving up kind of person? You know? Try be as ordinary as
possible and stop that crackpot aircraft stuff? Be a giving up person!
We insist!!
IF you guessed right is most utterly irrelivant. The fact you are
trying to justify a prejudgement of any kind good or bad is laughable.
But you want it to apply to hundreds of people?
ROFL!!!
No dude, it only describes YOU, thats how prejudgements work.
Your proud consumerism is also misplaced. Every apparatus on this
planet was invented by some home-thinking inventor. Busnesses love
jumping on the bandwagon. They don't like building bandwagons however.
For example google is a tech company, they have in house techies. They
didn't invent usenet or keyhole or blogger or picasa ur youtube etc
etc They buy out competition. This you can by no means define as
bandwagon building. Google still is a tech comapny with in-house
techies that could actually develop such products. But even those end
up buying readymades.
"One of the world's most prestigious science publications is the 400-
year-old Nature magazine. Although Stefan Marinov has submitted
numerous publications to Nature, his papers are seldom published.
Recently (see report in New Energy News April 1996) Marinov bought
advertising space in Nature to get his message to their readers.
When Marinov recently learned about the Finsrud perpetual motion
moving sculpture he sent an article to Nature with the offer to place
it as an advertisement if they didn't want to publish the article.
[snip response from Nature's editor]
The message is that if you are not following orthodox teachings you
will not be published nor allowed to advertise in Nature. In case you
haven't looked it up recently, orthodox is defined as conforming to
established doctrine. It is the nature of true science to periodically
unestablish orthodoxy. Then, of course, after an appropriate number of
years, we have a new orthodoxy that somehow forgets its radical past
and becomes the conservative line."
http://www.padrak.com/ine/FINSRUD1.html
> Machines are fundamentally Newtonian things. If they don't work according to
> Newtonian principles, they simply don't work at all--
Your prejudgement is irrelivant in any kind there of!
>and it's doing someone a favor to help end his waste of time and effort right
> there.
>
"Stefan Marinov (Bulgarian: Стефан Маринов) (1931-1997) was a
Bulgarian physicist, researcher, writer and lecturer who promoted anti-
relativistic theoretical viewpoints, and later in his life defended
the ideas of perpetual motion and free energy. He committed suicide in
Graz, Austria on July 15, 1997."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Marinov
Doing someone a favor right?
Doing favors for Bulgarian Physicist....
"Yull Brown is the man responsible for that popular urban myth of the
car that runs on water. When he first developed his new water
electrolysis process in the mid-70s he found a safe, non-explosive
method of separating water into oxygen and hydrogen. He built a device
that converted his car to run on the hydrogen from water, with oxygen
as the only exhaust emission. He was shown on television at the time
actually filling his car with an ordinary garden hose!
A skeptical world was amused by the oddball news snippet. Then Mr
Brown began to have problems. He was, of course, loudly denounced as a
crank. Scientific experts were quoted as saying the new technology was
"physically impossible" and "ludicrous". Absolutely no one would give
him a research development load. Approaches to the automobile industry
only brought derision. His bank foreclosed the mortgage on his home
and, shortly thereafter, he made television news again because of
attempts made on his life. Shots were fired into his kitchen.
Realizing that his new technology aroused the considerable opposition
of different corporations, Yull Brown disappeared from public view
with his water-car and set off on another track to research and
develop he new electrolysis process he had discovered. The water-car
became another urban myth along with crocodiles in the sewers under
the city.
Suddenly, last year, Mr Brown surfaces with a way of turning water
into fire.Under the corporate name of B.E.S.T Aust. Pty. Ltd. He
introduced a commercial range of revolutionary Gas Generator Welders.
Disposing completely with conventional bottled gas, this new water-
powered system generates a gas mix called Brown's Gas which produces a
flame that can cut, fuse, weld, solder and braze. Brown's Gas has some
remarkable characteristics which include being able to weld a steel
pipe to brick with perfect molecular fusion! "
http://www.rexresearch.com/hyfuel/ybrown/4014777.htm
Of course neither browns gas nor the finsrud device violate one single
law of thermodynamics. But you didn't want to know about that right?
You already had your ready-made opinion ready?
This was "to good" for the Nature mag?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3078131163857744253
Each construction drawing is an artwork in it self. that alone should
have been reason enough to publish it. I think Finstud's artwork is
amazing. You of course would argue the editor is right and you are
going to point out the inventors mistaken part for us? As promised
right?
Friction is of course work. The device is doing work. It tends to take
an infinite number of cycles to reach zero.
It's not bad to remember that the inventor of the first modern digital
computer is of Bulgarian origin. Here is Yull Brown. Another one of
those nasty Bulgarians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6bfpdBUa2Y
Tell me how he deserved all those prejudgement favors of yours.
Why have you persistently turned browns gas into an urban myth 20
times over?
you nutcase!!
___
gdew...@gmail.com
> In article
> <3612adca-9dc6-4c62-82f8-9f2604ea6...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 6:27 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > No beleaguered genius has ever emerged from seclusion in his workshop
> > > with a device that skirted Newton's physics or the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> > So your definition of a genius is someone who doesn't own a workshop.
>
> > Yes lets create classes of people. FUN!
>
> I'd just like to point out that this initial part of the response is
> about the most creative misreading of (or perhaps, most complete failure
> to understand) a point I have read on Usenet.
It was by lack of better words, there is so much wrong with that
sentence I couldn't fit whole paragraphs about it into my stylish
editorial.
You can whine you can cry you can even talk about the invention? The
Dutch guy combined the bicycle with the windmill. We should be
scratching our head what took him so long?
The next idea was to use the apparent "wind" generated by the vortex
shaped by the rotary~deformed air stream in order to further propel
the vehicle as well as utilise that very same prop an additional time
to create a vacuum at the front of the vehicle.
I understand it's all going a bit to fast for you.
I think the turbine should create as little spin in the air as
possible but it can never be zero so we might as well use it as we
already suffer the extra turbulence that comes with it.
If vortexes are really 100% undesirable we could fix 2 rotors on the
thing and have em spin in opposite direction.
The second layer in the rotor would probably spin faster as the first.
lol
Load applied to the first rotor generates extra torque on the second.
hahahahaha
______
dabac
Chalo Wrote:
> .. No global conspiracy...
This is beginning to look look like that German guy who thought that
what the rental MTB industry really needed to take off was a bike with a
hydraulic drivetrain. He actually went as far as to accuse us of being
directly employed by Shimano only to discredit him when we questioned
the merits of his design...
--
dabac
gdew...@gmail.com
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
And what kind of farce do we have here.
Hey, moron. You are littering my topic.
If I wanted to suppress your discussion yours would be exactly the
behaviour required for it.
spamming you Nazi crap is a perfect way to litter it.
So address the topic you brainless donkey.
Your lecture on your superiority ends right here.
datakoll
drag happens anywhere, ask Toyota and Langley, the drag experts.
negative pressure areas on an airplane wing are physically free of
drag?
like you can distribute bumps over an eddy and not caws drag?
The negative pressure area on a saulboat does not ove forward?
NANO TECH? let's say nano waterwheels ARE the surface of an LSR
bicycle body.
how much power, let the generating equipment run at zero kelvin, what
level power does the body generate, how much more does the body weigh,
and how does this balance the 1/50 horsepower generated?
AS FOR WHO I AM? I am a very well known amateur scientist, tops in my
field, and one of the characters (amung others) in Atlas Shrugged as a
consequence of synchronicity, commenting on your material from mutual
interests in energy generation.
AND YOU ARE NOT!
that being said: happy trails!
dabac
Going OT is accepted, if not encouraged. Rudeness and frivolous Nazi
accusations are neither. Since you've shown a penchant for dictionary
diving earlier please show how the Nazi reference would make sense to
anyone outside your own brain cavity.
There, I'm done feeding the troll.
--
dabac
A Muzi
> Nazi
> offending shit
> little tuf tuf
> swastika
Godwin.
Can we move on now?
RicodJour
>
> If vortexes are really 100% undesirable we could fix 2 rotors on the
> thing and have em spin in opposite direction.
Right. Nothing like having an escape route. "If my initial idea is
full of crap, we can double it and the crap will cancel out!"
You're cute when you're spewing and sputtering. Don't ever change.
R
A Muzi
> vortexes
better than 'vortexi' you used last week but try 'vortices' if you must
persist in this.
Kerry Montgomery
"dabac" <dabac....@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:dabac....@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
Well, this could be a recumbent, if the guy'd only lie down in the truck
bed:
http://www.otherpower.com/
Kerry
Michael Press
<rcousine-437702.11383816122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvo
x.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> Einstein's first papers, by contrast, were wild, from a complete
> outsider, but submitted in the usual way, and most importantly, they
> made sense on the face and offered several ways to test the theories.
You can download an English translation of
Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper.
<http://dbserv.ihep.su/~elan/src/einstein05b/eng.pdf>
On the Electrodyamics of Moving Bodies.
As you say it is pure mainstream physics.
Well worth reading. Some of it is only
accessible with a year of classical electrodynamics.
--
Michael Press
gdew...@gmail.com
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com>
> Going OT is accepted,
The only reason I'm here is to talk about the subject. You seem to
think it's important to make this impossible. Sure you can compare me
with other people you have slandered in the passed.
This would be what makes you a fascist. My whole discussion was
already disallowed. More then my right to talk you cant take away from
me. You gag me with a spoon already then tell me what I cant talk
about? Fantastic minion behaviour!
If I had 10 minions like you I could conquer the galaxy.
You want to talk about "good science"?
I think it's counter part is not "cracput science" Cracput is an
insult. The counterpart of "good science" would be "EVIL SCIENCE" The
first thing to do with mind control would be to make people think it
doesn't exist. Lets give you an idea how duped you really are.
First some film for the illiterate.
What if Mobile phones really are primitive remote control devices? Can
suppress thought, even kill people!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3476132824538683963
You being a good minion would deny the whole thing? RIGHT?
What about thousands of mind control test subjects? Why did we need
those?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2927316845773056069
It's not important if you like the word Nazi, this is your future
baby:
4877027 microwave voice device
3951134 : Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering
brain
waves
4858612: A method and apparatus for simulation of hearing in mammals
by
introduction of a plurality of microwaves
3773049 : APPARATUS FOR THE TREATMENT OF NEUROPSYCHIC AND SOMATIC
DISEASES WITH HEAT, LIGHT, SOUND AND VHF
3576185 : SLEEP-INDUCING METHOD AND ARRANGEMENT USING MODULATED SOUND
AND LIGHT
5507291 : Method and an associated apparatus for remotely determining
information as to person's emotional state
4048986 : Individual identification and diagnosis using wave
polarization
5458142 : Device for monitoring a magnetic field emanating from an
organism
4951674 : Biomagnetic analytical system using fiber-optic magnetic
sensors
4591787 : Multi-channel device with SQUIDS and superconducting
gradiometers
for the measurement of weak magnetic fields 4771239 : Multichannel
device
with superconductor gradiometers for measuring weak magnetic fields
3980076 : Method for measuring externally of the human body magnetic
susceptibility changes
3789834 : PROCESSES AND APPARATUS FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF INTERNAL
PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA
5579241 : Real-time acquisition and archiving system for multiple
time-sampled signals
5256960 : Portable dual band electromagnetic field radiation
measurement
apparatus
5557199 : Magnetic resonance monitor
4864238 : Device for measuring weak magnetic fluxes utilizing planar
technology
5330414 : Brain wave inducing apparatus
3884218 : Method of inducing and maintaining various stages of sleep
in the
human being
3837331 : SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE NERVOUS SYSTEM OF A
LIVING ORGANISM
5213562 : Method of inducing mental, emotional and physical states
of
consciousness, including specific mental activity,
3712292 : METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PRODUCING SWEPT FM AUDIO SIGNAL
PATTERNS FOR INDUCING SLEEP
4335710 : Device for the induction of specific brain wave patterns
4573449 : Method for stimulating the falling asleep and/or relaxing
behavior of a person and an arrangement
3835833 : METHOD FOR OBTAINING NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
3727616 : ELECTRONIC SYSTEM FOR THE STIMULATION OF BIOLOGICAL
SYSTEMS
3646940 : IMPLANTABLE ELECTRONIC STIMULATOR ELECTRODE AND METHOD
3662758 : STIMULATOR APPARATUS FOR MUSCULAR ORGANS WITH EXTERNAL
TRANSMITTER AND IMPLANTABLE RECEIVER
4834701 : Apparatus for inducing frequency reduction in brain wave
4573449: Method for stimulating the falling asleep and/or relaxing
behavior
of a person
5036858 : Method and apparatus for changing brain wave frequency
4883067 : Method and apparatus for translating the EEG into music to
induce
and control psychological and physiological states 4335710 : Device
for the
induction of specific brain wave patterns
4354505 : Method of and apparatus for testing and indicating
relaxation
state of a human subject
3967616 : Multichannel system for and a multifactorial method of
controlling the nervous system of a living organism
5356368: Method of and apparatus for inducing desired states of
consciousness
5522386: Apparatus particularly for use in the determination of the
condition of the vegetative part of the nervous system
3893450: Method and apparatus for brain waveform examination
5453361 : Method for producing biologically active human brain
derived
neurotrophic factor
5124146 : Differential delivery of therapeutic agents across the
blood
brain barrier
4479932 : Brain-specific drug delivery
4202323 : Drug activation by radiation Related Links
3646940 Implantable electronic stimulator electrode and method
* 3727616 Electronic system for the stimulation of biological systems
* 3835833 Method for obtaining neurophysiological effects
* 3837331 System and method for controlling the nervous system of a
living organism
* 3837331x Patents Referencing This One
* 3951134 Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering
brain waves
* 3951134x Further Details
* 3967616 Multichannel system for and a multifactorial method of
controlling the nervous system of a living organism
* 4834701 Apparatus for inducing frequency reduction in brain wave
* 4335710 Device for the induction of specific brain wave patterns
* 4858612 A method and apparatus for simulation of hearing in mammals
by introduction of a plurality of microwaves
* 4883067 Method and apparatus for translating the EEG into music to
induce and control various psychological and physiological states and
to control a musical instrument
* 5036858 Method and apparatus for changing brain wave frequency
* 5213562 Method of inducing mental, emotional and physical states of
consciousness, including specific mental activity, in human beings
* 5330414 Brain wave inducing apparatus
* 5356368 Method of and apparatus for inducing desired states of
consciousness Interference with Sleep and or Healing
* 3576185 Sleep-inducing method and arrangement using modulated sound
and light
* 3712292 Method and apparatus for producing swept frequency-modulated
audio signal patterns for inducing sleep
* 3773049 Apparatus for the treatment of neuropsychic and somatic
diseases with heat, light, sound and vhf electromagnetic radiation
* 3884218 Method of inducing and maintaining various stages of sleep
in the human being
* 4573449 Method for stimulating the falling asleep and/or relaxing
behavior of a person and an arrangement therefor
* 3789834 Processes and apparatus for the investigation of internal
physiological phenomena based on measurements of the impedance
variation of the surface of the body
* 3893450 Method and apparatus for brain waveform examination
* 3980076 Method for measuring externally of the human body magnetic
susceptibility changes
* 4354505 Method of and apparatus for testing and indicating
relaxation state of a human subject
* 4591787 Multi-channel device with SQUIDS and superconducting
gradiometers for the measurement of weak magnetic fields produced by
various field sources
* 4771239 Multichannel device with superconductor gradiometers for
measuring weak magnetic fields
* 4864238 Device for measuring weak magnetic fluxes utilizing planar
technology
* 4951674 Biomagnetic analytical system using fiber-optic magnetic
sensors
* 5256960 Portable dual band electromagnetic field radiation
measurement apparatus
* 5458142 Device for monitoring a magnetic field emanating from an
organism
* 5507291 Method and an associated apparatus for remotely determining
information as to person's emotional state
* 5522386 Apparatus particularly for use in the determination of the
condition of the vegetative part of the nervous system
* 5557199 Magnetic resonance monitor
* 5579241 Real-time acquisition and archiving system for multiple time-
sampled signals
* 4202323 Drug activation by radiation
* 4479932 Brain-specific drug delivery
* 5124146 Differential delivery of therapeutic agents across the blood
brain barrier
* 5453361 Method for producing biologically active human brain derived
neurotrophic factor
* 3662758 Stimulator apparatus for muscular organs with external
transmitter and implantable receiver
* 4048986 Individual identification and diagnosis using wave
polarization
You still don't want a self-propelled bike?
datakoll
ST LOUIS PADUCAH MOBLIE AND POITNS SOUTH NOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW BOARDING!
Michael Press
<5e7d8ae2-cc64-4b2c...@o42g2000hsc.googl
egroups.com>,
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am absolutely convinced that you are not a crackpot.
--
Michael Press
Jay Beattie
> In article
> <rcousine-437702.11383816122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvo
> x.net]>,
>
> > Einstein's first papers, by contrast, were wild, from a complete
> > outsider, but submitted in the usual way, and most importantly, they
> > made sense on the face and offered several ways to test the theories.
>
> You can download an English translation of
> Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper.
> <http://dbserv.ihep.su/~elan/src/einstein05b/eng.pdf>
> On the Electrodyamics of Moving Bodies.
>
> As you say it is pure mainstream physics.
> Well worth reading. Some of it is only
> accessible with a year of classical electrodynamics.
I have a classic Electrolux. Would that help? -- Jay Beattie.
RicodJour
>
> You still don't want a self-propelled bike?
I wish you'd self-propel yourself in front of a truck and put us all
out of your misery.
R
gdew...@gmail.com
"We are a group of alternative energy enthusiasts who want to spread
the message that It's EASY to make your own power FROM SCRATCH.
Otherpower.com's headquarters is located in a remote part of the
Northern Colorado mountains, 15 miles past the nearest power pole or
phone line. All of our houses and shops run on only solar, wind, water
and generator power...not because we are trying to make some sort of
political or environmental statement, but because these are the only
options available. And we refuse to move to town."
I like it how you apologise in advance for having a political opinion.
Anyway thanks for your comment on my windmill idea Kerry Montgomery.
It was really worth reading.
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Dec 19, 2:57 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If vortexes are really 100% undesirable we could fix 2 rotors on the
> > thing and have em spin in opposite direction.
It's part of the original idea now.
This idea allows me to make the vortex as big as I like without
changing the size of the rotors.
I know you are afraid of change.
But you can stick with the 1800 style bicycle.
It looks good on primates.
Tom Sherman
>
> I have a classic Electrolux. Would that help?
I hear those really suck!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
Tom Sherman
>
> not only was that outburst on RC uncalled for but believe you me no
> one reads that BS. If we did that when would we have time for
> productive activities?
Like posting to Usenet?
Tom Sherman
> ...
> Look if a guy wants to climb the Himalaya in his wheelchair then I
> wish him all the best....
I think this would be a better choice for the mountain climbing
paraplegic than a wheelchair: <http://www.mobilityeng.com/snowpod1.htm>.
A Muzi
gdew...@gmail.com wrote:
>fascist
> Nazi
> -snip blah blah on and on blah-
Godwin. OK, let's move on already
RicodJour
> On Dec 19, 6:18 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 2:57 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If vortexes are really 100% undesirable we could fix 2 rotors on the
> > > thing and have em spin in opposite direction.
> > [snip baby brain fart]
>
> It's part of the original idea now.
>
> This idea allows me to make the vortex as big as I like without
> changing the size of the rotors.
>
> I know you are afraid of change.
Okey dokey, Sparky, answer this:
How do you reconcile the vectors to eliminate the components that
_don't_ go in the direction you're intending to travel? Ever notice a
sailboat has to tack back and forth? Ever hear of leeway?
Let me guess, you're going to be pulling so much energy out of the
wind that you'll be able to make the bike a lot heavier so it won't
get blown off of the road. That's what I've always wanted - a two ton
vehicle that I don't have to pedal. Oh, wait, I already have one!
If you can diagram the vectors, including reasonable numbers, and it
works, I'll personally open up my coffers and pay for whatever
development expenses you incur. When you're done, ask for Mr. Blue.
That's what color I will have turned holding my breath waiting for
your balanced equation.
R
PS I'll help get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_%28spatial%29
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Dec 20, 1:36 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 6:18 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 2:57 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > If vortexes are really 100% undesirable we could fix 2 rotors on the
> > > > thing and have em spin in opposite direction.
> > > [snip baby brain fart]
>
> > It's part of the original idea now.
>
> > This idea allows me to make the vortex as big as I like without
> > changing the size of the rotors.
>
> > I know you are afraid of change.
>
> Okey dokey, Sparky, answer this:
> How do you reconcile the vectors to eliminate the components that
> _don't_ go in the direction you're intending to travel? Ever notice a
> sailboat has to tack back and forth? Ever hear of leeway?
>
Think of it like this:
The rotor blades tack up wind.
They are not moving straight into the wind but sidewards relative to
the vehicle. They may spin much faster sidewards then the bike is
moving forwards.
> Let me guess, you're going to be pulling so much energy out of the
> wind that you'll be able to make the bike a lot heavier so it won't
> get blown off of the road. That's what I've always wanted - a two ton
> vehicle that I don't have to pedal. Oh, wait, I already have one!
>
hehehe
> If you can diagram the vectors,
my math cant possibly be good enough for you.
There are enough website where you can read how much energy a windmill
generates.
>including reasonable numbers,
Doubling the speed of a vehicle costs 4 times as much energy.
Doubling the wind blown onto a windmill generates 8 times as much
energy.
Assume:
moving at : 20 km/hr
wind:10 km/hr
total drag: 30 km/hr
Thats 5600% of the original wind power.
At those wind speeds a small mill can do usefull work.
Of course you would have to go really fast to make this self run with
a small propellor/rotor/windmill/sail. The point was for it to assist
cycling.
The wind force does not drop off when one accelerates into it.
Accelerating is more like cycling into a moving wall.
> and it works, I'll personally open up my coffers and pay for whatever
> development expenses you incur.
>
I'm 100% convinced it works but not sure what size and for what speed
it should be engineered. Not at all sure about creating a useful
vortex with a prop.
you can help figure out how to build it.
Going down the wind it doesn't work but there a rotor would be a good
means of propulsion. One can convert energy from the wheels onto the
rotor and use that to push against the wind.
This topic is about using the vacuum and the pressure from the
centrifugal forces.
I want to do more with the whirly air.
If you ask around you can conclude people don't know about sailing up
the wind and Ærodynamics treats both drag and vortexi as problems.
There is loads of documentation on making wind and vortexi go away.
Same goes for resonance, and Æroflutter.
It's far far from an inspired mindset. It's like playing a victim
role. It's problem~thinking, looking for problems means you will find
them. It's just like looking for solutions. I prefer to look for the
fun of looking and develop the skill of looking. :-o)
Things are not what they seem! I can tell you that much already! If I
wouldn't be so busy looking at things I would see enough problems to
spend lifetimes complaining about. lol
lets give an example. I was looking into this.
I see a tire drags air along it's rim, this airstream becomes thicker
and more violent when you go faster.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
I'm not complaining about how Aerodynamics works I'm merely observing
how a mindset doesn't try to create that what it refers to as
"problems".
Lots of people think propelling up the wind is impossible.
But it's forces not work, so it's just a mater of gearing.
It makes me think there is lots to be discovered here.
:-)
gdew...@gmail.com
> A vortex it will always have some vacuum at it's center, it will also
> have some pressure towards it's edges. Using some drag and the wind
> to rotate a cone we can have it suck an aerodynamic body into this
> "hole" then squeezing it forwards.
>
> I tried to illustrate it a bit below.
>
> Enjoy.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent
This is a great page with the amazing Helica devices on it.
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/helica/helica.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducted_fan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_fan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeller