Posted by Jonathan (68.14.212.239) on October 13, 2003 at 05:04:22:
In Reply to: Re: The Whole Shebang picture posted by Patrick on October 12, 2003 at 09:04:13:
If you really meant no offense you could have phrased it a better way.
Regardless, I'm not too sensitive, so I'll explain: One can only prove anything on paper if one uses faulty logic. I do not intend to do so. I said r[sub]0 is an almost arbitrary constant not to meant that it is meaningless, but to indicate that it, along with a and b, are all(the only) independent inputs from which one would design and mathematically analyse the device. I apologize for the lack of clarity, I have been working with it so long that I don't know where to start. You are right: The math I've presented does not explicitly prove that it works because the math only describes its 'tendancies' to move one way or another from a static position, I lack the skills to do a real dynamic analysis anywhere but in my head. That is why I posted this, I wanted people to try their luck with it. I am working on building one. I can see that this thread will not realy go far, so I'm abandoning hope of getting help from you guys.
: Dear Mr. Jonathan;
: Since you are asking for interest, I will post a response. Please don't take this as nasty.
: Your mathematics and diagrams appear inconsequential. For example:
: {(r(sub)0 is almost an arbitrary constant:} this parameter is meaningless. Almost an arbitrary constant? I guess it is almost a pink elephant as well.
: "I think I have mathematical proof that one can extract energy from a conservative force field." If you actually have any belief in this statement from anything remotely related to what you have presented then you are living in an alternate reality.
: I think you will achieve greater results (and interest from others) by actually building something and examining how your theories hold up in a real world application. One can prove almost anything "on paper".
: No offense intended--
: best regards--Patrick