Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Earlier I wrote, > You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract? This > answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference to having its > gravitational acceleration impeded by another body. > and Robin van Spaandonk responded, >> For in as much as I understood what you wrote above, I get the impression >> that you have simply reversed the definitions of gravitational and inertial >> mass, and without apparent cause as near as I can tell. Well, after giving it some thought, I have decided there is no need (within my theory) to impute inertial mass with the power of gravitational attraction. However, I will explain why I aim to distinguish between inertial and gravitational mass. I contend the law of inertia is over applied . To borrow a phrase from jurisprudence, what matters is the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. The spirit of this law should not apply to the motion of bodies _between_ collisions or beyond obviously mechanical systems. By extending this lawto the motion of gravitating bodies the nature of gravity becomes unduly perplexing. Where are the mechanical linkages? Where are the colliding particles? etc. Einstein's response to this puzzle was to let the logic of the law of inertia dictate the nature of space and time. My response is to leave space and time alone and explain gravitational motion (free fall, projectile, and celestial motion) with concepts that differ from the science of motion known as "mechanics". I explore the metaphysical ground on which the conceptual foundations of mechanics and quantum mechanics are situated. Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:38:38 -0500: Hi, [snip] >> For in as much as I understood what you wrote above, I get the impression >> that >> you have simply reversed the definitions of gravitational and inertial mass, >> and >> without apparent cause as near as I can tell. > >I did not mean to give you that impression. > >Can your impression be undone? [snip] Of course it can...by a clear explanation on your part. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:17:58 -0500: > Hi Harry, > [snip] You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract? This answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference to having its gravitational acceleration impeded by another body. >>> [snip] >>> I'm sorry, but I can make no sense whatever out of this. Perhaps you could >>> put >>> it in other words? >>> >> >> >> >> Mechanics is _a_ science of motion. However it has become an ideology >> of motion over the last 250 hundred years. >> I will put together a cut and paste history of the science of motion from >> Aristotle to Newton with selections I have gathered from the internet over >> the years. >> >> Harry >> > I'm afraid a history isn't going to address the issue, and besides I have > little > patience with historical texts anyway. One usually ends up wading through > reams > of irrelevant nonsense, in the vague hope of extracting one or two gems of > useful information. > > Your reply BTW didn't answer my question. You just evaded the issue. > > For in as much as I understood what you wrote above, I get the impression that > you have simply reversed the definitions of gravitational and inertial mass, > and > without apparent cause as near as I can tell. I did not mean to give you that impression. Can your impression be undone? Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:17:58 -0500: Hi Harry, [snip] >>> You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract? >>> This answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference >>> to having its gravitational acceleration impeded by another body. >> [snip] >> I'm sorry, but I can make no sense whatever out of this. Perhaps you could >> put >> it in other words? >> > > > >Mechanics is _a_ science of motion. However it has become an ideology >of motion over the last 250 hundred years. >I will put together a cut and paste history of the science of motion from >Aristotle to Newton with selections I have gathered from the internet over >the years. > >Harry > I'm afraid a history isn't going to address the issue, and besides I have little patience with historical texts anyway. One usually ends up wading through reams of irrelevant nonsense, in the vague hope of extracting one or two gems of useful information. Your reply BTW didn't answer my question. You just evaded the issue. For in as much as I understood what you wrote above, I get the impression that you have simply reversed the definitions of gravitational and inertial mass, and without apparent cause as near as I can tell. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:14:46 -0500: > Hi Harry, > [snip] >> However, I also make distinction between gravitational >> mass and inertial mass. >> >> The sun would still have plenty of inertial mass, and it is >> this inertial mass that attracts (accelerates) the planets. >> >> You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract? >> This answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference >> to having its gravitational acceleration impeded by another body. > [snip] > I'm sorry, but I can make no sense whatever out of this. Perhaps you could put > it in other words? > Mechanics is _a_ science of motion. However it has become an ideology of motion over the last 250 hundred years. I will put together a cut and paste history of the science of motion from Aristotle to Newton with selections I have gathered from the internet over the years. Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:14:46 -0500: Hi Harry, [snip] >However, I also make distinction between gravitational >mass and inertial mass. > >The sun would still have plenty of inertial mass, and it is >this inertial mass that attracts (accelerates) the planets. > >You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract? >This answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference >to having its gravitational acceleration impeded by another body. [snip] I'm sorry, but I can make no sense whatever out of this. Perhaps you could put it in other words? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:24:34 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] >> New speculation: >> The electrons and protons have weight only when they form >> molecules such as H2. Neutrons have weight both when they are free >> and when they are part of a nucleus. > [snip] > Since the Sun is mostly a proton electron plasma, it would have nearly no > gravitational field according to this premise. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > Good point. However, I also make distinction between gravitational mass and inertial mass. The sun would still have plenty of inertial mass, and it is this inertial mass that attracts (accelerates) the planets. You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract? This answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference to having its gravitational acceleration impeded by another body. Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:24:34 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] >> New speculation: >> The electrons and protons have weight only when they form >> molecules such as H2. Neutrons have weight both when they are free >> and when they are part of a nucleus. > [snip] > Since the Sun is mostly a proton electron plasma, it would have nearly no > gravitational field according to this premise. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > Good point. However, I also make distinction between gravitational mass and inertial mass. The sun would still have plenty of inertial mass, and it is this inertial mass that attracts (accelerates) the planets. You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract? This answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference to having its gravitational acceleration impeded by another body. Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
thomas malloy wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >> >> >> Ok. >> >> New speculation: >> The electrons and protons have weight only when they form >> molecules such as H2. Neutrons have weight both when they are free >> and when they are part of a nucleus. >> > I don't understand why you would think that protrons wouldn't have > weight. Ditto for the electron, but they don't contribute much. > It can be used to explain and predict weight anomalies. The gravitational mass-density (as distinguished from the inertial mass-density) of a _macroscopic_ body would vary inversely with the distribution of net charge through out the body. Since the weight of a body is equal to the body's gravitational mass-density times its volume multiplied by the gravitational acceleration, the weight of the body will depend on the distribution of charges. Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:24:34 -0500: Hi, [snip] >New speculation: >The electrons and protons have weight only when they form >molecules such as H2. Neutrons have weight both when they are free >and when they are part of a nucleus. [snip] Since the Sun is mostly a proton electron plasma, it would have nearly no gravitational field according to this premise. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Harry Veeder wrote: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Ok. New speculation: The electrons and protons have weight only when they form molecules such as H2. Neutrons have weight both when they are free and when they are part of a nucleus. I don't understand why you would think that protrons wouldn't have weight. Ditto for the electron, but they don't contribute much. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:07:30 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] >> Here is another speculation: >> >> Maybe only neutrons have gravity. > [snip] > H2 gas has weight, and it has no neutrons (to speak of). > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > Ok. New speculation: The electrons and protons have weight only when they form molecules such as H2. Neutrons have weight both when they are free and when they are part of a nucleus. Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:07:30 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Here is another speculation: > >Maybe only neutrons have gravity. [snip] H2 gas has weight, and it has no neutrons (to speak of). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:37:45 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] >> Obviouslybut then again >> maybe free electrons and protons have no weight. > [snip] > The Solar corona (no to mention the Sun itself) is largely free electrons and > protons, yet they are kept "attached" to the Sun by their weightor are > they > kept there by their electric field...or are they the same thing? :) > > When a charged particle tries to leave a neutral plasma, it leaves behind a > particle of the opposite charge. That results in an attractive force between > the > plasma and the charged particle. If this force is summed over all particles, > do > we end up with "gravity"? (Just a "what if" - please all feel free to pounce > at > once. ;) > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk Here is another speculation: Maybe only neutrons have gravity. Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:37:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Obviouslybut then again >maybe free electrons and protons have no weight. [snip] The Solar corona (no to mention the Sun itself) is largely free electrons and protons, yet they are kept "attached" to the Sun by their weightor are they kept there by their electric field...or are they the same thing? :) When a charged particle tries to leave a neutral plasma, it leaves behind a particle of the opposite charge. That results in an attractive force between the plasma and the charged particle. If this force is summed over all particles, do we end up with "gravity"? (Just a "what if" - please all feel free to pounce at once. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Re: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge
On Saturday 25 November 2006 18:19, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Jeff Fink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:49 AM > Subject: [Vo]: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge > > > Rather than use hydraulic shocks on vehicles that convert energy into > > waste > > heat, why not use electro magnetic shocks and put the energy back into > > the battery? > > A mechanic comments: > > 1. The amount of energy you would gain is useless. Ever felt a hot shock? > You won't unless it is next to something that is radiating a lot of heat, > say, a brake rotor or a rear shock near an exhaust pipe. > > 2. This would be yet another sucker punch to the working class who are > barely able to afford new automobiles as it is. We need to simplify and > make them cheaper, not more complex. If efficiency must suffer, so be it. > Then the solution is to find a better front-end energy source (read: cheap > synthetic fuel) > > 3. Basic shocks cost between $15.00 and $100.00 for most American cars. A > Mercedes-Benz S500's computerized shocks (stupid concept) price around > $1200.00 apiece. This is so that people who live in a country the size of a > small-end state can cruise at 140+mph, whereas here in the geographically > massive USA we get by just fine on 65mph. The added complexity is insane. > > 4. There are those in government who are trying to impose computerized > shocks and such as mandatory equipment on all new cars produced after 2009. > In the name of safety of course. This is stupidity. We need better, > smarter, more educated drivers who will not NEED another idiot system to > correct their own lack of driving sense. Make the licenses harder to get I > say. > > >Additionally, electronic controls would allow the driver to adjust > > the feel of the ride to anything he wants at the touch of a button. > > Any thoughts on how much this could extend the range of an electric car? > > To what end? Why? If people wanting smoother rides are the same as those > complaining about rising prices of cars and fueldamn. > > Jeff I am not flaming you, please understand that. It is just that as a > mechanic and one of the 'little guys' who sees my peers getting hurt day in > and day out, that I am really beginning to hate the words 'safety' and > 'efficiency'. Especially when they are used to line people's pockets. > > --Kyle I feel this is not about safety or 'ride'. Rather it is about getting you the working person out of your car. Permanently! If you cannot afford to buy or fix a car, then you will not drive. Period. This is just another way to create another elitist privilege, driving, out of what really is a necessity. Think of the disruption and depression in the USA if workers could not afford to drive! Especially if because of some stupid bureaucratic screwup of a rule. Standing Bear that aint scientific, but neither are starvin people
[Vo]: Re: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge
- Original Message - From: "Jeff Fink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:49 AM Subject: [Vo]: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge Rather than use hydraulic shocks on vehicles that convert energy into waste heat, why not use electro magnetic shocks and put the energy back into the battery? A mechanic comments: 1. The amount of energy you would gain is useless. Ever felt a hot shock? You won't unless it is next to something that is radiating a lot of heat, say, a brake rotor or a rear shock near an exhaust pipe. 2. This would be yet another sucker punch to the working class who are barely able to afford new automobiles as it is. We need to simplify and make them cheaper, not more complex. If efficiency must suffer, so be it. Then the solution is to find a better front-end energy source (read: cheap synthetic fuel) 3. Basic shocks cost between $15.00 and $100.00 for most American cars. A Mercedes-Benz S500's computerized shocks (stupid concept) price around $1200.00 apiece. This is so that people who live in a country the size of a small-end state can cruise at 140+mph, whereas here in the geographically massive USA we get by just fine on 65mph. The added complexity is insane. 4. There are those in government who are trying to impose computerized shocks and such as mandatory equipment on all new cars produced after 2009. In the name of safety of course. This is stupidity. We need better, smarter, more educated drivers who will not NEED another idiot system to correct their own lack of driving sense. Make the licenses harder to get I say. Additionally, electronic controls would allow the driver to adjust the feel of the ride to anything he wants at the touch of a button. Any thoughts on how much this could extend the range of an electric car? To what end? Why? If people wanting smoother rides are the same as those complaining about rising prices of cars and fueldamn. Jeff I am not flaming you, please understand that. It is just that as a mechanic and one of the 'little guys' who sees my peers getting hurt day in and day out, that I am really beginning to hate the words 'safety' and 'efficiency'. Especially when they are used to line people's pockets. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Think about it. The energy generated is not meant to power vehicles. It is meant to power the traffic systems that driver's utilise. The energy costs of operating a vehicle are not just the cost of filling the gas tank or recharging a fuel cell or battery. These costs are born by municipal governments, which in turn are born by local taxpayers ... you do the math. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: > "Q1. Doesn't the ramp just steal pennies from our petrol tanks? > > A1. The ramp is designed to be situated in parts of the roadway where > vehicles are having to slow down anyway, for example on downhill > gradients, when approaching traffic lights or roundabouts as well as > being used to replace sleeping policemen and traditional traffic > calming measures. In the these situations, the kinetic energy of the > car is being dissipated into heat (i.e. through the braking system) > anyway; the ramp at this point scavenges a degree of kinetic energy > as the car passes over it, but this is far less than is lost through > other mechanisms."Harry, this "technology" is ridiculous, and so is the > argument above, as hybrid and fully electric cars feature kinetic energy > recuperation already.Michel > - Original Message - > From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > > >> Frederick Sparber wrote: >> >>> Harry Veeder wrote: >>>> >>>> Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating >>>> electricity. >>>> >>>> http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>>> >>> The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a "pothole" it >>> cost me a tire and a new wheel. I guess I was going too slow Harry. >> >> I suppose it is concave, but this version, called the Electro-Kinetic Road >> Ramp, is slightly convex. >> >> Diagram (1.4 MB) >> http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/Pictures_Videos/Pics/Ramp_1/ >> Full_Ramp_Guide_Thumb.jpg >> >> Frequently Asked Questions >> http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/FAQs.htm >> >> >>> At 60 mph (0.088 ft/millisecond) against a wheel drop distance of >>> 1/2 * 32.2 ft/second^2 * 0.001 second^2 = 0.0161 ft or 0.193 inches >>> for the first 0.088 feet or 1.056 inches of initial pothole width.(not >>> counting >>> the downward thrust of the wheel by the springs ). >>> >>> This GSU URL will guide you through bigger concave speed bumps "Potholes". >>> with the free fall and trajectory calculators. (spring-shock absorber >>> contribution not included) >>> it covers it all. >>> >>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html >>> >>> KinergyPower is coming from your gas tank-wallet. The oil interests will >>> endorse it too. :-) >>> >>> Fred >> >> Before you jump to conclusions about the value of such devices, please read >> the FAQ above. >> >> >> Harry >> >
[Vo]: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge
-Original Message- From: Jeff Fink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:11 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [Vo]: weight and charge I didn't follow all of this thread, but an interesting thought occurred to me that may have been considered and rejected already. Rather than use hydraulic shocks on vehicles that convert energy into waste heat, why not use electro magnetic shocks and put the energy back into the battery? Additionally, electronic controls would allow the driver to adjust the feel of the ride to anything he wants at the touch of a button. Any thoughts on how much this could extend the range of an electric car? Jeff
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Michel Jullian wrote: > > "Q1. Doesn't the ramp just steal pennies from our petrol tanks? > > A1. The ramp is designed to be situated in parts of the roadway where > vehicles are having to slow down anyway, for example on downhill > gradients, when approaching traffic lights or roundabouts as well as > being used to replace sleeping policemen and traditional traffic > calming measures. In the these situations, the kinetic energy of the > car is being dissipated into heat (i.e. through the braking system) > anyway; the ramp at this point scavenges a degree of kinetic energy > as the car passes over it, but this is far less than is lost through > other mechanisms." > > Harry, this "technology" is ridiculous, and so is the argument above, as hybrid and > fully electric cars feature kinetic energy recuperation already. > >Michel > Ludicrous is the more fitting terminology. The examiners at the patent office have a sense of humor too. OTOH. It sheds new light on the meaning of Beltways, and the "Beltway Bandits". Fred > - Original Message - > From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > > > > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > > >> Harry Veeder wrote: > >>> > >>> Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating > >>> electricity. > >>> > >>> http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm > >>> > >>> > >>> Harry > >>> > >>> > >> The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a "pothole" it > >> cost me a tire and a new wheel. I guess I was going too slow Harry. > > > > I suppose it is concave, but this version, called the Electro-Kinetic Road > > Ramp, is slightly convex. > > > > Diagram (1.4 MB) > > http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/Pictures_Videos/Pics/Ramp_1/ > > Full_Ramp_Guide_Thumb.jpg > > > > Frequently Asked Questions > > http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/FAQs.htm > > > > > >> At 60 mph (0.088 ft/millisecond) against a wheel drop distance of > >> 1/2 * 32.2 ft/second^2 * 0.001 second^2 = 0.0161 ft or 0.193 inches > >> for the first 0.088 feet or 1.056 inches of initial pothole width.(not > >> counting > >> the downward thrust of the wheel by the springs ). > >> > >> This GSU URL will guide you through bigger concave speed bumps "Potholes". > >> with the free fall and trajectory calculators. (spring-shock absorber > >> contribution not included) > >> it covers it all. > >> > >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html > >> > >> KinergyPower is coming from your gas tank-wallet. The oil interests will > >> endorse it too. :-) > >> > >> Fred > > > > Before you jump to conclusions about the value of such devices, please read > > the FAQ above. > > > > > > Harry > >
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
"Q1. Doesn't the ramp just steal pennies from our petrol tanks? A1. The ramp is designed to be situated in parts of the roadway where vehicles are having to slow down anyway, for example on downhill gradients, when approaching traffic lights or roundabouts as well as being used to replace sleeping policemen and traditional traffic calming measures. In the these situations, the kinetic energy of the car is being dissipated into heat (i.e. through the braking system) anyway; the ramp at this point scavenges a degree of kinetic energy as the car passes over it, but this is far less than is lost through other mechanisms."Harry, this "technology" is ridiculous, and so is the argument above, as hybrid and fully electric cars feature kinetic energy recuperation already.Michel - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > Frederick Sparber wrote: > >> Harry Veeder wrote: >>> >>> Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating >>> electricity. >>> >>> http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm >>> >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >> The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a "pothole" it >> cost me a tire and a new wheel. I guess I was going too slow Harry. > > I suppose it is concave, but this version, called the Electro-Kinetic Road > Ramp, is slightly convex. > > Diagram (1.4 MB) > http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/Pictures_Videos/Pics/Ramp_1/ > Full_Ramp_Guide_Thumb.jpg > > Frequently Asked Questions > http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/FAQs.htm > > >> At 60 mph (0.088 ft/millisecond) against a wheel drop distance of >> 1/2 * 32.2 ft/second^2 * 0.001 second^2 = 0.0161 ft or 0.193 inches >> for the first 0.088 feet or 1.056 inches of initial pothole width.(not >> counting >> the downward thrust of the wheel by the springs ). >> >> This GSU URL will guide you through bigger concave speed bumps "Potholes". >> with the free fall and trajectory calculators. (spring-shock absorber >> contribution not included) >> it covers it all. >> >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html >> >> KinergyPower is coming from your gas tank-wallet. The oil interests will >> endorse it too. :-) >> >> Fred > > Before you jump to conclusions about the value of such devices, please read > the FAQ above. > > > Harry >
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:16:15 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] >> Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating >> electricity. >> >> http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm >> > This device falls in the "not even wrong" category. Essentially it is an > extremely inefficient means of converting the energy in gasoline into electric > power. Note that because it makes the surface rougher, the vehicle consumes > more > gas. > The Electro-Kinetic Road Ramp is similar system. This FAQ page explains how they can be employed without causing the vehicle to consume more gasoline. FAQ http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/FAQs.htm Diagram (1.4 MB) http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/Pictures_Videos/Pics/Ramp_1/ Full_Ramp_Guide_Thumb.jpg Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Frederick Sparber wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote: >> >> Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating >> electricity. >> >> http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm >> >> >> Harry >> >> > The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a "pothole" it > cost me a tire and a new wheel. I guess I was going too slow Harry. I suppose it is concave, but this version, called the Electro-Kinetic Road Ramp, is slightly convex. Diagram (1.4 MB) http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/Pictures_Videos/Pics/Ramp_1/ Full_Ramp_Guide_Thumb.jpg Frequently Asked Questions http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/FAQs.htm > At 60 mph (0.088 ft/millisecond) against a wheel drop distance of > 1/2 * 32.2 ft/second^2 * 0.001 second^2 = 0.0161 ft or 0.193 inches > for the first 0.088 feet or 1.056 inches of initial pothole width.(not > counting > the downward thrust of the wheel by the springs ). > > This GSU URL will guide you through bigger concave speed bumps "Potholes". > with the free fall and trajectory calculators. (spring-shock absorber > contribution not included) > it covers it all. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html > > KinergyPower is coming from your gas tank-wallet. The oil interests will > endorse it too. :-) > > Fred Before you jump to conclusions about the value of such devices, please read the FAQ above. Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
I make an explicit distinction between inertial mass and gravitational mass. Lets call them m' for inertial mass and m~ for gravitational mass. If a is an acceleration due to an inertial force, and g is the acceleration due to gravity, then weight = (m~)(g) inertial force = (m')(a) See my illustration for the conjectured dependence of m~ on speed. http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/dynamics/testing_weightNOV2006.pdf Now m' is not suppose to decrease with horizontal speed. If m~ decreases with horizontal speed then m' is different from m~. Harry Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:40:25 -0500: > Hi Harry, > [snip] > > Is it possible you are confusing weight and mass? (You're certainly confusing > me > ;) > >> Michel, >> >> This time I am being serious. >> >> If one begins with the postulate that that all weight is >> apparent weight then it is easier to understand how >> and why weight anomalies might arise. >> >> Gravity is the tendency of a body to accelerate. >> Weight is only a _measure_ of this tendency, and it is >> a relative measure at best. A true measure of gravity is 'g'. >> >> Weight is also used as a measure of inertia, so there >> is tendency to confuse inertia and weight. Mind you, in >> applied mechanics, one treats weight as if it were >> an inertial force. >> >> Einstein went further and turned the treatment >> into a principle of nature, and the theory of general >> relativity was born. >> >> Harry >> PS On a half serious note. The condition of >> of being over-weight is really the condition >> of possessing excess inertia.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Harry Veeder wrote: > > Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating > electricity. > > http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm > > > Harry > > The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a "pothole" it cost me a tire and a new wheel. I guess I was going too slow Harry. At 60 mph (0.088 ft/millisecond) against a wheel drop distance of 1/2 * 32.2 ft/second^2 * 0.001 second^2 = 0.0161 ft or 0.193 inches for the first 0.088 feet or 1.056 inches of initial pothole width.(not counting the downward thrust of the wheel by the springs ). This GSU URL will guide you through bigger concave speed bumps "Potholes". with the free fall and trajectory calculators. (spring-shock absorber contribution not included) it covers it all. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html KinergyPower is coming from your gas tank-wallet. The oil interests will endorse it too. :-) Fred > > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > > Glad you're finally getting through, Michel. > > > > BTW. Harry tends to lay down on the job so to speak, hence > > assumes what WalMart calls their "entry level" position. > > > > OTOH, I hear that missionary positions abound in Amsterdam > > if you tend to have a religious bent. > > > > Fred > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: > >> Date: 11/24/2006 2:54:25 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > >> > >> LOL > >> > >> BTW my posts to Vortex are getting through again since I swapped ISP's, I > > am quite glad. Maybe the list server is equipped with some whimsical > > antispam software blocking all posts from my previous ISP's smtp server? > >> > >> Michel > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: > >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:20 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > >> > >> > >>> Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience > >>> moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. > >>> > >>> Fred > >>> > >>>> [Original Message] > >>>> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> To: > >>>> Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM > >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > >>>> > >>>> I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight > >>> minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at > > the > >>> right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people > > in > >>> orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they > >>> obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction > > (weight). > >>>> > >>>> Michel > >>>> > >>>> - Original Message - > >>>> From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> To: > >>>> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM > >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 > >>>>> -0500: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> [snip] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when > >>>>>> moving in a horizontal plane. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the > >>> less > >>>>>> you weigh. > >>>>>> Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. > >>>>>> Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Harry > >>>>> > >>>>> Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of > >>>>> them. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Robin van Spaandonk > >>>>> > >>>>> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Competition provides the motivation, > >>>>> Cooperation provides the means. > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 > -0500: > Hi, > [snip] >> >> >> >> If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when >> moving in a horizontal plane. >> >> Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the less >> you weigh. >> Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. >> Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. >> >> Harry > > Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of > them. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk Obviouslybut then again maybe free electrons and protons have no weight. Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:16:15 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating >electricity. > >http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm > This device falls in the "not even wrong" category. Essentially it is an extremely inefficient means of converting the energy in gasoline into electric power. Note that because it makes the surface rougher, the vehicle consumes more gas. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:40:25 -0500: Hi Harry, [snip] Is it possible you are confusing weight and mass? (You're certainly confusing me ;) >Michel, > >This time I am being serious. > >If one begins with the postulate that that all weight is >apparent weight then it is easier to understand how >and why weight anomalies might arise. > >Gravity is the tendency of a body to accelerate. >Weight is only a _measure_ of this tendency, and it is >a relative measure at best. A true measure of gravity is 'g'. > >Weight is also used as a measure of inertia, so there >is tendency to confuse inertia and weight. Mind you, in >applied mechanics, one treats weight as if it were >an inertial force. > >Einstein went further and turned the treatment >into a principle of nature, and the theory of general >relativity was born. > >Harry >PS On a half serious note. The condition of >of being over-weight is really the condition >of possessing excess inertia. > >Michel Jullian wrote: > >> I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight minus >> centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the right >> velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in orbit or >> in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they obviously still >> experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). >> >> Michel Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Harry Veeder wrote: > Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating > electricity. > > http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm > > > Harry > follow-up the piezoelectric freeway... http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/piezo_20motorway_20(freeway) Harry
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating electricity. http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm Harry Frederick Sparber wrote: > Glad you're finally getting through, Michel. > > BTW. Harry tends to lay down on the job so to speak, hence > assumes what WalMart calls their "entry level" position. > > OTOH, I hear that missionary positions abound in Amsterdam > if you tend to have a religious bent. > > Fred > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Date: 11/24/2006 2:54:25 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge >> >> LOL >> >> BTW my posts to Vortex are getting through again since I swapped ISP's, I > am quite glad. Maybe the list server is equipped with some whimsical > antispam software blocking all posts from my previous ISP's smtp server? >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Original Message - >> From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:20 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge >> >> >>> Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience >>> moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. >>> >>> Fred >>> >>>> [Original Message] >>>> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: >>>> Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge >>>> >>>> I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight >>> minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at > the >>> right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people > in >>> orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they >>> obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction > (weight). >>>> >>>> Michel >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge >>>> >>>> >>>>> In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 >>>>> -0500: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when >>>>>> moving in a horizontal plane. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the >>> less >>>>>> you weigh. >>>>>> Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. >>>>>> Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. >>>>>> >>>>>> Harry >>>>> >>>>> Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Robin van Spaandonk >>>>> >>>>> http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ >>>>> >>>>> Competition provides the motivation, >>>>> Cooperation provides the means. >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Michel, This time I am being serious. If one begins with the postulate that that all weight is apparent weight then it is easier to understand how and why weight anomalies might arise. Gravity is the tendency of a body to accelerate. Weight is only a _measure_ of this tendency, and it is a relative measure at best. A true measure of gravity is 'g'. Weight is also used as a measure of inertia, so there is tendency to confuse inertia and weight. Mind you, in applied mechanics, one treats weight as if it were an inertial force. Einstein went further and turned the treatment into a principle of nature, and the theory of general relativity was born. Harry PS On a half serious note. The condition of of being over-weight is really the condition of possessing excess inertia. Michel Jullian wrote: > I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight minus > centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the right > velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in orbit or > in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they obviously still > experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). > > Michel
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Glad you're finally getting through, Michel. BTW. Harry tends to lay down on the job so to speak, hence assumes what WalMart calls their "entry level" position. OTOH, I hear that missionary positions abound in Amsterdam if you tend to have a religious bent. Fred > [Original Message] > From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 11/24/2006 2:54:25 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > > LOL > > BTW my posts to Vortex are getting through again since I swapped ISP's, I am quite glad. Maybe the list server is equipped with some whimsical antispam software blocking all posts from my previous ISP's smtp server? > > Michel > > - Original Message - > From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:20 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > > > > Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience > > moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. > > > > Fred > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: > >> Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > >> > >> I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight > > minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the > > right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in > > orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they > > obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). > >> > >> Michel > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: > >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > >> > >> > >> > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 > >> > -0500: > >> > Hi, > >> > [snip] > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when > >> >>moving in a horizontal plane. > >> >> > >> >>Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the > > less > >> >>you weigh. > >> >>Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. > >> >>Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. > >> >> > >> >>Harry > >> > > >> > Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of > >> > them. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Robin van Spaandonk > >> > > >> > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ > >> > > >> > Competition provides the motivation, > >> > Cooperation provides the means. > >> > > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
LOL BTW my posts to Vortex are getting through again since I swapped ISP's, I am quite glad. Maybe the list server is equipped with some whimsical antispam software blocking all posts from my previous ISP's smtp server? Michel - Original Message - From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience > moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. > > Fred > >> [Original Message] >> From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge >> >> I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight > minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the > right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in > orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they > obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). >> >> Michel >> >> - Original Message ----- >> From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge >> >> >> > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 >> > -0500: >> > Hi, >> > [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when >> >>moving in a horizontal plane. >> >> >> >>Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the > less >> >>you weigh. >> >>Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. >> >>Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. >> >> >> >>Harry >> > >> > Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of >> > them. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Robin van Spaandonk >> > >> > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ >> > >> > Competition provides the motivation, >> > Cooperation provides the means. >> > > > >
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Harry wasn't kidding Michel. He knows this from his experience moonlighting as a speed-bump at WalMart. Fred > [Original Message] > From: Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 11/24/2006 2:00:09 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > > I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). > > Michel > > - Original Message - > From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > > > > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 > > -0500: > > Hi, > > [snip] > >> > >> > >> > >>If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when > >>moving in a horizontal plane. > >> > >>Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the less > >>you weigh. > >>Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. > >>Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. > >> > >>Harry > > > > Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of > > them. > > > > Regards, > > > > Robin van Spaandonk > > > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ > > > > Competition provides the motivation, > > Cooperation provides the means. > >
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
I guess Harry was teasing us by referring to apparent weight = weight minus centrifugal force. This obviously can be zero when traveling at the right velocity over the surface of the Earth, in the same way as people in orbit or in free fall are weightless, but only apparently since they obviously still experience the Earth's gravitational attraction (weight). Michel - Original Message - From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 > -0500: > Hi, > [snip] >> >> >> >>If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when >>moving in a horizontal plane. >> >>Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the less >>you weigh. >>Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. >>Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. >> >>Harry > > Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of > them. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ > > Competition provides the motivation, > Cooperation provides the means. >
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:25:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] > > > >If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when >moving in a horizontal plane. > >Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the less >you weigh. >Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. >Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. > >Harry Charged particles obviously have weight. Everything is made of them. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
[Vo]: weight and charge
If charged particles have weight then they would weigh less when moving in a horizontal plane. Why? Because the faster you travel over the surface of the Earth, the less you weigh. Weight is maximum when you are not travelling. Weight is minimum ( ~ zero ) when you are travelling at ~ 17000 mph. Harry
