Isn't Wednesday "benefit of the doubt" day?
Assuming the "Ho Group" has seen a real anomaly.... and is not some
3-Stooge comedy routine (where are the ape suits?)
...is there anything valid in this setup which could have relevance to
other concepts - even nonmagnetic (chemical, mechanical etc)?
Well the one thing which seems unexplored and stands out like a red
herring, opps, I mean red flag is the whole "Four-legged stool" thing.
In a logical world, if the device worked without it - then it would not
be there. If it worked better with 3 or 5 legs, then it would not have
four. It is way too weird and complicated to be incorporated at all -
unless it is inherently OU in itself or at least highly synergetic to
OU. IOW it IS the main design feature - if this is not comedy.
ERGO - it may have some importance which could be used with something as
simple as a low RPM flywheel, no? Before now, I never had any faith in
the Bessler wheel stuff ... but OTOH - do think that there is something
valid to the so-called "Aspden effect"... and with loose stools,
anything goes, as they say ;-)
Dr. Math,
Do tell - Why is a 3-legged stool (tripod) usually steady, versus a
4-legged stool, which can be wobbly ?
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/53267.html
Dr. Math's Executive summary: For 1,2 or 3 supports, each time you
optimally add a leg to support an object, you remove one dimension in
which the object can move freely - that is, each leg can remove one
'degree of freedom' but only up to three.
Now, what happens when you add a fourth and unneeded support?
Well, now you have too many constraints wrt dimensions. This means that
there are multiple ways that the stool can 'solve' the problem of which
three legs to use for support. Wobbling occurs when the stool can't
'decide' which solution to use, or, more precisely, when it's changing
its mind about which solution to use.
To explain things to executives, one needs to wax anthropomorphic.
Except at the highest level. For the Chief executive, clarity demands
that one put on an ape-suit, hold hands over ears, and repeat what he
wants to hear.
Professor OU,
Do tell - why would a device in which a fluid was used (to provide
synergy for auto-rotation ?) be effective -- such as, when placed below
a rotor assembly, but only if it has four legs, rather than three? IOW
why does an inherent wobble get translated into a vector.
Prof OU : Hmmm ... let's see, where did I put that ape suit?
Seriously however, we can probably opine that if the thing did work as
advertised - but only with a four legged rotor and not with a three
legged rotor - then it has something to do with "too many degrees of
freedom" being the important (sine qua non) design feature ... and with
any other design variables being present ONLY because they are able to
*rectify* or convert wobble into vector acceleration.
OTOH - one wonders - do the Chinese have a word for red herring?
