(how is it possible to include a video directly inside the post ?)
Progress in publishing ?
Does this merit a bottle of Scotch? John, when you wrote <<Rodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing >>: the issues I raised are endemic, and known, with inverted pendulums and magnetic dampening. They are not due to scientific controls.
... but the will to log and communicate every possible detail on a stable reference experiment is lacking.
...there seems to be an assumption that Eagleworks or Dr. Woodward have something that could be so easily reproduced that a complete description is all that is needed for someone else to reproduce it.
I think that they are trying too hard to see something, and not hard enough to see nothing. ... If effect is impossible, any progress is illusory.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 09/28/2014 01:52 pmProgress in publishing ?You noticed (at the end of the demonstration) that the presenter was holding for the audience an Antigravity Propulsion book.
Maybe run this thru yer grammar checker, kemosabe? I am using the term "scientific controls" in its plain English sense, which in this case, may not include the stricter scientific sense that you might be referring to. Here's what I think you are saying:The "endemic issues" of inverted pendulums, which include magnetic damping and such should not be confused with "scientific controls" pertaining to differentiating null results from detected results. I just lumped the endemic issues into the subject of scientific controls.Howzabout sharing your definition of "scientific controls"?
Quote from: birchoff on 09/27/2014 11:11 pm...there seems to be an assumption that Eagleworks or Dr. Woodward have something that could be so easily reproduced that a complete description is all that is needed for someone else to reproduce it.
...Having said that, I see that Wikipedia has a different view of the meaning of "scientific controls" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control as <<an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the single independent variable. This increases the reliability of the results, often through a comparison between control measurements and the other measurements. >>, so yes, kernosabe, according to this definition, your use of "scientific control" was well utilized.
What say you to those two devices?
Quote from: Rodal on 09/28/2014 02:04 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 09/28/2014 01:52 pmProgress in publishing ?You noticed (at the end of the demonstration) that the presenter was holding for the audience an Antigravity Propulsion book.Well, of course they're going to try and sell the book.If we can tentatively accept that the stage floor is the "scientifically controlled" equivalent of the conference room table, what made that device hover?The whirly bird thing was converting electrically caused rotary action into forward momentum. He needs to tighten up the mechanism, since it would be a bumpy ride, but it looks like it works.What say you to those two devices?
One of the responders seems to have addressed this as finding "fault" with the experimenter in having made some mistake during the experiments, which is not at all what I question.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/28/2014 02:24 pmThe whirly bird thing was converting electrically caused rotary action into forward momentum. He needs to tighten up the mechanism, since it would be a bumpy ride, but it looks like it works.For the second device I suspect "Dean drive" effect (observe the frictional stick-slip and jumping in the tracks) plus the (unconscious guiding) influence of the cables held by the person.
The whirly bird thing was converting electrically caused rotary action into forward momentum. He needs to tighten up the mechanism, since it would be a bumpy ride, but it looks like it works.
In the ionic wind device, one would be able to feel the "breeze", then.
It does look to be, if I imagine the device to be made to a tighter specification, that he is converting rotary motion into forward motion.Why couldn't this be done?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/28/2014 03:24 pmIt does look to be, if I imagine the device to be made to a tighter specification, that he is converting rotary motion into forward motion.Why couldn't this be done?Think of how you move your body to roller skate.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/28/2014 04:59 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/28/2014 03:24 pmIt does look to be, if I imagine the device to be made to a tighter specification, that he is converting rotary motion into forward motion.Why couldn't this be done?Think of how you move your body to roller skate.Ima good skater on ice and roller blades. The secret is pushing on your blade at right angles to its axis, so that you don't roll or slide. That's the friction. Which you know. As an aside, one of the things I still can't really do is jump into a right angled dramatic brake in either medium. Unless the wheels of the whirly bird device were frictionally directional, it appears to move forward without canting its wheels along their vertical axis, and developing friction in the same way as ice skating or roller blading.