Very Useful

FOR POSTING: Section 3 of paper 369

February 25, 2017

These results are full of interest and will attract a large readership. I can see that through the scientometrics. These graphics and analyses are clearly thought out as usual, and the results are interpreted so that the readership will be able to understand them without ploughing through the maths if they want to concentrate on engineering essentials. The results also show the great power of the Maxima code, controlled by the skill and experience of co author Dr Horst Eckardt. A huge amount of new information comes out of a problem that up to a few week ago was only vaguely understood, half understood and misinterpreted. Having understood the problem at last, all kinds of engineering solutions become possible, so we can engineer new kinds of railway systems for example with reduced drag. In the aerospace industry these results can eb used to enginner new kinds of mechanism that will allow aircraft to lift off, helping the wings lift the plane. These mechanisms can also be used in vehicles of all kinds to reduce drag. This is an outstanding section. It shows what can be done with the elegant mathematics of the eighteenth century enlightenment. A large number of possibilities has suddenly emerged.”

Thank you for providing a ‘black and white’ statement to the effect that ‘the Civil List Scientist’ and an employee of a major German company subscribe to an idea which is a sine qua non in the lunatic fringe: the ludicrous idea that spinning-tops truly defy gravity.  That will come in very handy later as a pièce à conviction. It would have been better if the nonsense were actually published, rather than disappearing into the oubliette known as On the rare occasions that loony papers sneak into previously reputable journals, they either trigger a new round of experimentation to check what nobody doubted in the first place (e.g. Hayasaka and Takeuchi), or the journal is thereafter  viewed with suspicion (e.g. Wayte – no, surprisingly not a pseudonym). Of course, there is a bit of a problem with Siemens Stain’s falling gyroscope calculation. If it is in free-fall, it might as well be in one of those vomit-Comets which are used to simulate gravity-free conditions. But, in that case, a spinning object will exhibit its well-known tendency to take up a fixed orientation in space, so why is he still predicting precession and nutation? It is also well-known that any asymmetrical object will always have two stable axes of rotation and one unstable one (try spinning a shrink-wrapped book about each of its three axes in turn). Has SS deliberately chosen an unstable axis? Do they even know what we are talking about?


4 Responses to “Very Useful”

  1. Harry Hab Says:

    MWE previously admitted that gyros do not lift off by themselves, unless aided by an external force, which for a while was going to be provided by the mysterious space-time torsion force, on which he has now gone silent. His language here is vague and barely coherent. What it looks like to me is that he has reverted to some intuitive Aristotelian version of mechanics; he imagines the gyro as giving a bit of much-needed impetus (oomph) assist to these hard-working wings. I notice how of late his big-talking has been getting more and more blunt and also rather repetitive, which suggests to me that even he now senses that he’s been getting out of his depth — for a would-be revolutionary in advanced stuff, he’s sure been sweating the standard stuff, so it has to be the case that nobody ever really understood it.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      The delusion that spinning-tops weigh less is a very old one. One 19th-century school examination board set their weight-loss as a question!

      • Harry Hab Says:

        Agreed; by rights people ought to be more baffled by bicycles than they are! But it seems less and less to me that there is any coherence whatsoever in Ron’s inner representation of the world — if you were to visit him at his stately home (politely refusing any offers of tea) and talk him out of this particular delusion, he’d just slip into another one. He’s an unrelentingly bloviating blowhard, enamoured of this notion of being the greatest scientist ever, and apparently one of those people whose halo of BS is enticing enough to attract a following, not that I pretend to understand how or why. I couldn’t for the life of me talk no 10 into bestowing any kind of undeserved honour on me! (Not that I deserve one, but that’s not the point. The point is his psychopathology, which feels both familiar in some ways and alien in others.)

        • crackpotwatch Says:

          Ah, bicycles. Ever since they were invented, textbooks have been saying that their stability is due to gyroscopic effects. Physicists no longer believe that, but engineers still do. For several generations now, textbooks have been explaining aircraft flight in terms of the Bernoulli effect. Physicists laugh at that. Engineers still believe it. As our friend says, the gap between physics and engineering is almost as big as the gap between arts and sciences. And pseudoscience is very much the ‘god of the gaps’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: