On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:55:38 -0700, Ian
wrote:

On 15 Oct, 14:27, (Richard Casady) wrote:

Why wouldn't it accellerate indefinitely with no friction anywhere in
the system.

Kelvin-Froude actuator disk theory is your friend.

Not needed. The assumption of no friction, remember. The energy has to
go somewhere. Do extremely simple arithmetic.

Casady

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:01:24 -0700, Ian
wrote:

On 15 Oct, 14:19, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:31:30 -0700, Ian
wrote:

What force do you think does work against gravity to allow aeroplanes
to ascend?

Thrust from the engine, of course.

Nope. How many aircraft do you think are capable of vertical takeoff?

Handwaving. The only possible source for the increase in the
gravitational potential energy is the engines. Wings impart no energy
that is not their function. There is drag that goes with lift, and
engines have to impart energy to overcome it. I have had a commercial
pilots license for more than forty years, if you want more handwaving.

A Boeing 747-400 has a take off weight of 875,000 lbf and a total
thrust of 4 x 63,300 = 253,200 lbf.

My own aircraft has a take off mass of 370kg and no thrust whatsoever,
and yet I can get it to go up.

Not in still air. You can get it to sink into a mass of rising air.
Or do you have a balloon. Those burners suck fuel like an engine, the
chief concern is having a source of energy same as with an engine.

Casady

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:34:01 GMT, You wrote:

Yep and I took a ride on a Steam Powered, Gear Driven, Railroad Train
that operates out of Tillamook, Oregon, just two months ago...

In 1988 the chinese were still producing steam locomotives. A tourist
railroad in Boone Iowa has one of the last dozen produced at the
Datong locomotive works. The did keep making parts for the ten
thousand in service.

Casady

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:48:32 -0600, "Bill" wrote:

I have a scheme for tapping into the power of the rotating earth. I even
built an apparatus that worked for several years. Michael Faraday built a
small scale device working on the same principle. It is not perpertual
motion or any crackpot scheme. It does slow down the rotation of the earth a
little and causes local weather changes (on a very small scale).

They already have these power stations that slow the earth's rotation.
Its called harnessing tides. The rotating earth doesn't have power, it
has stored energy, same as a charged battery that is just sitting
there. Windmills cause weather change by subtracting wind speed.

Casady

On 2007-10-15 11:14:20 -0400, "Bill" said:

Gravity always exists. At a LaGrange point, the gravity of one mass is
cancelled by the mass of another. So gravity has no effect on free
bodies at a LaGrange point, but gravity still exists.

How does one know it exists there? By measuring it?

By using it. There are a few satellites sitting in the vicinity of the
various Lagrange points.

Even there, the gravitational forces aren't exactly cancelled, but
exist in a dynamic balance.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

In article . com,
says...
On 15 Oct, 14:19, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:31:30 -0700, Ian
wrote:

What force do you think does work against gravity to allow aeroplanes
to ascend?

Thrust from the engine, of course.

Nope. How many aircraft do you think are capable of vertical takeoff?

A Boeing 747-400 has a take off weight of 875,000 lbf and a total
thrust of 4 x 63,300 = 253,200 lbf.

My own aircraft has a take off mass of 370kg and no thrust whatsoever,
and yet I can get it to go up.

Jeez you must be strong!

--
Duncan

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:57:37 -0700, wrote:

Please provide more details on your machine for using the Earth's
rotation as a power source. Sounds like a great idea as long as we can
keep it a secret from Al Gore.

I like a dam with a gate to let the high tide in, and a turbine in the
path when you let it out at low tide. Bay of Fundy has about a sixty
foot rise and fall. Regular hydroelectric plant, not tiny at all.

Casady

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:43:24 -0600, "Bill" wrote:

oscillation velocity of a photon in a gravitational free fall even though
its translational speed remains constant

Does it not just get bluer falling in gravity. The higher the
frequency, the more energy a photon has.

Casady

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:18:20 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote:

Yes, the steam would make the water move in many directions but the
point is that it's not RUNNING uphill. It's being propelled uphill.

True. However steam, water vapor is less dense than air and tends to
rise, causing thunderstorms, where rising moist air can carry liquid
water upward. The steam runs uphill, like a balloon, but the liquid
water does not, it is carried.

Casady

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:40:23 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote this crap:


Does it not just get bluer falling in gravity. The higher the
frequency, the more energy a photon has.


You people are ****ing nuts. You don't have any idea of physics.






I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.