Notices
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: The vacuum cleaner, structural engineering

  1. #1 The vacuum cleaner, structural engineering 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    How it works, enc. of machines 1972, a graph of millimeters raised on the y-axis (barometer set up right on the nozzle end of the cleaner I suppose) and velocity of flow in meters cubed a minute on the x-axis. What you get is a straight line that slopes from right to left, and is steeper if a thin nozzle is used.

    In other words, the cleaner does less work if the velocity is higher than if it is lower -- counter intuitive dont you think? What is happening here and why?

    The nest can explain this if we see a nest of fewer rings at low flow and nest of more rings at high flow.

    So we ask questions and seek answers, and we find that the higher vacuum is actually doing more work than the lesser. because the higher vacuum is depressing the barometer and raising liquid against air pressure on the barometer dish.

    You see the more rings want to absorb power and occupy more space and the fewer rings want to radiate power and occupy less space?

    Put your trust in the nest if you want to help me in this work. Why should I have to do it all alone -- its like reinventing the theories of science all over and others should help too.
    I know I did not explain electric theory quite properly recently. perhaps the simplest explanation for the series and parallel batteries experiment is that they both cram the outer wire in different ways, but equally: the parallel in the same time and the series cram the wire by the same amount due to increased speed of delivery. So in this model the meter reads the same conductance level. So the crammed wire has LESS order and the meter in series therefore indicates a higher order-conductance.

    I came here looking for friends and I seem to get attack instead.

    The vacuum cleaner results are a cse in point: look at the world a different way and the same results-experiments give different answers. keep looking, keep asking and take nothing in this world for granted.
    Learn to design like an architect or industrial designer -- thats where its at.

    The structural engineering inertia of cross-section analysis can be done differently.
    Where each area stands for power and we sum the areas. each area as power is therefore mv-squared, where v becomes the distance to the centroid of the area say 'r'. Now the total area we can say is half the beam height times the sine of 45 degrees all squared. Then we can solve for the unknown total mass.
    oddly the higher beam has less mass and so the equation is saying it resists bending least? No what were seeing is that mass is lethargy and the opposite or inverse of mass is electric charge is vitality. hence we inverse the masses gained and we get that the higher beam has more vitality and it is this exclamation-mark deployment that sustains the higher workload: a strong man does more work not fat lazy man. It was our indea that inertia is a stiffness that is wrong. Invariability or 'momentum' in projectile physics is actually the inverse of mass as well: transformation capacity, conductance, precision, electric charge, vitality, are some of its names -- esoteric names: resurrectrion power, kundalini, chi, 'personal power' and maybe others.
    The nest is just concentric circles of sine 9, 18, 27...90 radii. But the inertial capacity of each ring makes it useful : IC = 4 Pi area / c- squared. So we obtain the maximum power transfer curbve of electrical engineering theory from it and the standard or mean distribution curve of statistical theory from it.
    Why be worried about mere ideas? You could learn to look at the world in the precision way and the power way for example. Then see which you think is the better world-view. You scientists are the real leaders of society, not pop stars or movie stars, people look up to you for guidance , so it is good to give them proper guidance.
    An idea believed in has inertia and the more its inertia the more that believe in it. Therefore we kill the inertia of the idea whose time has come by asking questions relentlessly. We should be terminators of obsolete ideas.
    However there should be no push to change science if science does not want to change. if the majority do not want to believe then that is their choice. Or if I am written off as charlatan then so be it.
    I dont want fame nor money. Im not interested in power or prestige.


    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Joshua,
    unfortunately, in the absence of drawing or equations, it is very difficult to follow what you are saying. Perhaps if you presented your thoughts in smaller bites, accompanied by diagrams or maths if possible, then we could properly evaluate your ideas.

    If you have come here looking for friends it might be better to establish your credentials through discussion on other threads first. Leaping into a confusing presentation of the ideas that are very important to you before other members get to know you will likely result in frustration on both sides.

    Just some thoughts that may help.


    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •