|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:56
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Sandy Kidd |
| Subject: |
Gyroscopic "Catch 22" |
| Question: |
As there is a lot more to this spinning wheel stuff than precession I wonder what Ram will make of this?
I have submitted this posting in the hope that this may help Ram and others understand where some of us are coming from, and contrary to the belief of the “disbelievers”, not necessarily for all the wrong reasons.
I think my findings were of significant enough importance to warrant a repeat submission of the details.
My apologies to the regular contributors..
It is a brief account of my introduction to inertial drive, and why and how, I originally got myself involved in this seemingly impossible quest.
I was going to send this posting to Blaze’s extended thread, but decided against it.
The thread was already long enough without this.
This may help to explain to Ram and his clones why some of us are “angry”, and why we did not all get into gyroscopes just because they behave strangely or that they might impart some sort of magic on the proceedings.
They say you cannot teach old dogs new tricks, although it often seems like you cannot teach some dogs any tricks.
Ram is certainly bright enough, it is just a pity he is standing on the other side of the fence.
In my late teens I gave some thoughts to “antigravity” as it was commonly called then, and knowing that one of the easiest forces to develop was centrifugal force, it concerned me that no bright engineer had managed to alter the direction of output of at least a fraction of it to act in an upward direction.
Later I did realise the futility of this, and that it is not at all easy to arrange.
However about this time in the late 70s I had an idea that if I could arrange for a pair of equal opposed weights tied together with strong string or similar, and rotated rapidly around the midpoint of the string I could generate a useful amount of centrifugal force.
This presented no problem but what was required was some as yet unknown method of raising the weights to about 45 degrees whilst they were being rotated.
At this angle the vertical components would equal the horizontal components and, a great deal of vertical thrust could be generated.
Unfortunately short of using rocket motors to do the job there was no readily available magical method of applying a force at each weight which could do this.
For obvious reasons, that idea was not pursued.
.A few years later I had my attention drawn to a Christmas Lecture being shown on TV one evening.
The program was presented by a person called Professor Eric Laithwaite and many demonstrations of the unusual antics of gyroscopes were shown.
I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing, but my attention was drawn to the large flywheel rotated by the young lad whilst he was sitting down.
I immediately gave thought to rotating the weights in my impossible device in the hope that they could generate enough gyroscopic force to get them to rise up against the prevailing centrifugal force, hopefully to an angle of 45 degrees above the horizon
I searched around for information relating to gyroscopes being forced to rotate considerably faster than natural precession would allow, but could find none
It would appear that it was not a popular thing to do, or maybe just impossible.
I did not have a clue if it could be done.
Seems like I was in unknown territory but what the hell, nothing ventured, nothing gained, besides I was a toolmaker and this would cost me nothing.
After a lot of time and effort, which is quite a story on its own, but being a nice guy I will spare you that much, a tatty (for a variety of reasons) looking device was ready for testing.
320 rpm was the fixed speed which I originally chose for rotation speed of the device, whilst the gyro rotation speed could be varied externally and could run up to about 12000 rpm.
After much clutch burning, bearing seizing, and belt breaking the device began to run consistently, and actually managed to raise its flywheels or gyros to the required angle repeatedly on demand.
What transpired was akin to the opening of “Pandora’s Box”
It was found that there was no centrifugal force present during this action which was more than obvious by the fact that there was not one iota (or milligram if you like) of vertical thrust being generated by the machine
I had previously calculated that there should have been about 25 lbs.
No centrifugal force Ram at 320rpm with a pair of gyros weighing just over 1.25lbs.each.
The rotation radius if I remember correctly was about 7.25 inches.
The whole thing was set up with a vertical offset of 53 degrees not 45 degrees as previously planned..
It was later found that the angle is irrelevant anyway in systems like this as the energy level is the same at any angle above zero.
Pay attention to the level of centrifugal force Ram there is none, not even a tiny bit, none
The “Catch 22”
Ironically, the mathematics department of the local university could find no fault with my original reasoning, and they informed me to that effect, believe it or not, after I had found out that, to the contrary, that my original reasoning had been severely flawed.
Piece by piece it became obvious that understanding relating to mechanically accelerated gyros (or more correctly flywheels) was in need of examination.
I have said before that I do not suppose that any of this matters too much, unless inertial drive is being attempted.
The fact is that this is all much easier to prove on mechanically accelerated systems Ram, and in the final analysis suggests that it is you who are suffering from delusions not this angry old man..
This was the very beginning of my learning curve with mechanically accelerated gyroscopes and this has kept me busy for several years now.
There is no provision for loss of angular momentum or centrifugal force in any rotated system, or more specifically there is no allowance for loss of angular momentum, or centrifugal force, just because the weights are being rotated.
What was subsequently discovered again Ram, by my own experiments was that the angular momentum and centrifugal force developed in any mechanically accelerated gyroscopic system is proportional to the rotation speed of the gyroscopes and in any such system this can be varied from a zero value to a maximum value by simple manipulation of rotation speeds.
In light of all of this, how can I get serious about the minimal attributes of gravity accelerated systems.
I will leave you with a typical example of what I learned to expect when dealing with academics,
In fairness there are a few who are reasonable, even sympathetic, but these ones for obvious reasons hide that fact in order to stay employed.
One of the first of the innumerable negative reactions I have experienced whilst promoting gyroscopic drives was whilst my machine was under examination in Dundee University, in the early 80s
I claimed, as I have suggested here, that I could at will, alter the centrifugal force or angular momentum if you prefer it that way, in a twin opposed gyroscopic system,
I proceeded to demonstrate this fact successfully, but the good doctor in attendance made no comment. He immediately turned his back and walked sharply away.
No comment or feedback relating to the demonstration was ever made.
At that point I knew my presence in the university was going to be very temporary.
He was not a stupid man, so what was going on his mind?
I still think that he was operating under strict instructions from above.
This has gone on for many years Ram, maybe not quite 40, but a bit more than 30.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Date: |
1 July 2012
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/07/2012 02:58:44
| | | Very excellently done, Sandy. If centrifuge had been allowed to act, I see how you would have built very strong and constant lift. You prove your point. I am pleased to know when we were young, we both tried to create extra centrifuge on one side of the wheel. It’s funny now.
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 02/07/2012 22:01:17
| | | Great post, Sandy!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 03/07/2012 21:12:14
| | | “The fact is that this is all much easier to prove on mechanically accelerated systems Ram, and in the final analysis suggests that it is you who are suffering from delusions not this angry old man.”
First off Sandy I don’t believe I ever accused you of being delusional. Really, I think some of you need to learn how to discuss and even disagree with others without getting angry. I mean I admit that sometimes I fall pay to this at times but given the verbal abuse I’ve taken I think it’s understandable. In short if we can keep the level of angry rhetoric down I think we will achieve more.
Next my recent arguments applied mainly to the overhung gyroscope in Blaze’s giant thread. Again the bottom line is in that case I don’t see where the energy is coming from to accelerate mass, so I don’t think it’s possible without ignoring conservation of energy. In addition since the experiment (like most such experiments) was done fixed to the earth, it is not good tests of a reactionless process.
I can’t make specific comments on what you have done except to say that if you truly have a reactionless drive of 15 pounds that produced 5 pounds of thrust it would seem it should be fairly easy to verify with some sort of pendulum apparatus. You would need to put your machine on its side and see if it can hold a pendulum to one side. You can even hook it to two parallel pendulums hinged to your machine to avoid any rotation and help support the weight. I would encourage you to try this test if you still have the means.
My impression is that your device does not work on steady state precession so it is a different animal. While your claim is still not supported by accepted physics, at least there is more wiggle room since it’s not so clear conservation of energy is being broken.
Finally if any laws of physics are to be rewritten, it requires solid proof of their error. Just because you think you have seen something (whether you are correct or not) doesn’t mean everyone else has seen it too. To expect someone to believe you from a rough textual description is too much. I don’t think you are lying about your results however you may be mistaken. There may be factors you have not considered that someone else sees. This is why in the scientific community they have peer reviewed journals. Someone publishes their experiment and everyone with an interest can check the results and either confirm them or discredit them. Don’t take this stuff personally. Even Albert Einstein had to go through this process. Barring this you can always do a YouTube demonstration and let laymen have their say. Again if someone can get a reactionless drive working I’ll be the first to shake their hand. I’m trying to keep an open mind here but their needs to be solid proof. It’s not a contest of who’s right or wrong. I’ll be happy to be wrong.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 03/07/2012 22:56:17
| | | Hello Ram,
Your reply was pretty well as predicted.
However after 30 odd years I am not really angry just sort of resolved to the fact that nothing short of an impending cosmic disaster is going to assist this project and push it forward.
When I first demonstrated a machine, the inevitable question was why?
Never mind “YouTube” Ram my machines have been demonstrated successfully in several universities and in private professional laboratories and have been credited with documented proof, but as soon as I try to explain where physics is wrong, that is that.
Newton is forever getting in the way.
To whom am I demonstrating on YouTube?
That will be to millions of people with limited knowledge of the subject who will declare that anything you like can be proved on television, to which I must agree.
The Australian outfit paid good money for a laboratory test which proved my claims.
Then came the inevitable question of, it works OK but why?
Remember the physicists I was trying to sell the idea to were highly qualified in accepted principles and were therefore correct because they knew they were.
They lost interest when they could not get answers.
Not for a second could the answers be outside Newton’s.
Seems Ram, that the preservation of physics, (never mind momentum) is more important than the ability to build a flying saucer
In fairness I did not have all the answers when previously asked, but in every case the device worked. I thought that would be enough to get some attention.
In 2004 I decided to unload a lot of my findings on this forum for the use of other interested parties.
There is a lot of information to impart but as yet the only people who have shown an interest are those with the capability to build or have built for them test devices or machines.
The whole trouble is that no one is significantly interested enough in my claims to do the experiment, prove me wrong and shut me up forever.
Notice Ram I deviated away from discussing inertial drive devices, and watered down my story to a general and simple but serious misunderstanding in physics, of which there is much more.
However as predicted I am not lying, thanks for that much, but I could be mistaken.
That I will let go Ram but that is very close to an insult.
My son in law Rod who helped me a lot in the early days asked me why I was taking my device to the Imperial College, London to see Professor Laithwaite.
Rod had seen the device produce its 1lb of thrust hundreds of times asked me if Laithwaite had managed to do it.
I replied that he had not, but he was the recognised expert.
Rod replied that surely if I could do it I was the expert?
I told my son in law that it did not work that way.
Unfortunately Ram that is the story of my life and have had to stand in judgement of people who are just not qualified to judge, and if the reasons do not suit them what have they to lose.
Their physics works fine for them but they are unfortunately not attempting anything as unique as inertial drive.
That said, and the real purpose of my posting was I thought that the information I gave relating to my claims were sufficient simple and clear for you to calculate the result of the Catch 22.
Who is right Ram the establishment or me?
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 04/07/2012 06:08:27
| | | “To whom am I demonstrating on YouTube?”
Everyone
“That will be to millions of people with limited knowledge of the subject who will declare that anything you like can be proved on television, to which I must agree.”
Some might have more knowledge than you think and in any case even half the scams out on YouTube have believers. I’m sure it will generate some interest if the demo is good. It certainly can’t hurt your position.
“That I will let go Ram but that is very close to an insult.”
It’s an insult to say you may be mistaken? Everyone can be mistaken. I am often mistaken. The guys who thought they found cold fusion were mistaken. So what? Live and learn. Why be so sensitive?
“Seems Ram, that the preservation of physics, (never mind momentum) is more important than the ability to build a flying saucer”
Not at all. Often formally trained scientists have a hard time accepting something that contradicts what they have been taught, might be true. Unless a test is indisputable they look for, or rather assume other reasons for the results; inaccuracies in measuring equipment, fraud etc. To grab their attention a demo needs to be indisputable. That’s why I always lean towards the pendulum tests since they are hard to fake. You need to go the extra mile to prove it to them and the world. Danny Devito, a short fat bald guy became a movie star by knocking on hundreds of doors. That’s the kind of persistence it takes.
“Who is right Ram the establishment or me?”
Sandy How would I possibly know? I haven’t seen your machine. If I saw a real life dragon and you didn’t believe until you saw it yourself, I certainly wouldn’t be the least bit insulted. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and I am just hearing your side of the story. In addition it does you no good whatsoever to convince me. You need to convince the scientific community at large. According to you, professor Laithwaite a guy would definitely be more inclined to take your claims seriously did not accept them and he even saw your machine. You really expect someone who has never seen your work to accept everything you say unquestioned?
I’m not claiming your machine does not work. I’m just saying since I haven’t seen the evidence or done any tests on it myself I don’t have enough reason to think accepted physics has been overturned. Believe me I worked at intel for 23 years and I know physicist can be hard headed about anything that contradicts what they have been taught. I once had a PHD in physics tell me there was no way a CPU could run at over 50 megahertz. However, the bottom line is seeing is believing. I simply can’t imagine that if you really had a convincing demo that you wouldn’t get any interest from anyone. If you have given up and don’t want to demo your work anymore then that’s the end of that.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 04/07/2012 22:40:35
| | | Ram,
I said that I had watered my post down so as not to discuss machines.
Why would you know anything thing about inertial drive machines, I did not expect you to.
No Ram we will get nowhere discussing I D devices.
I do not really care if you have your ideas about “YouTube” and the way tests can be made, everyone has their own ideas, but in my experience any interested party wants recorded results, which from my point of view helps eliminate the “Ten Day Syndrome”.
The posting entitled “Catch 22” and the Catch 22 itself was put there purposely so that you could comment upon it.
I am trying hard to let you see that all is not as is generally believed.
All I am asking from you is the establishment correct, or are my findings correct?
Some time back I had a lot of sympathy for a chap called EDH who based (as I did) the large output of his device on flawed beliefs.
I informed him of my experiences with this type of setup and warned him that as a result of the aforementioned Catch 22 he would get nothing.
To be more specific that in a system like his with the gyros (in his case spheres) in what is sometimes called precession there would be no angular momentum left to do anything.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 05/07/2012 01:16:02
| | | "All I am asking from you is the establishment correct, or are my findings correct?"
Again sandy I have no clue how you expect me to judge if you are correct. We just had a thread with over 100 posts which included a video and still there was no consensus whether the experiment demonstrated a reactionless process, with harry and I being the dissenting opinion.
This is like telling me you met a ;leprechaun and asking me whether I believe you. While I might believe you think you met a leprechaun, I would have to say no I don’t believe you, even though I might admit the possibility that you did in fact meet one. However If you introduced me to one I would then have to believe you.
If you are going to take the attitude that you are insulted by anyone who questions whether you have defied one of newton’s accepted laws of motion I can see where you are going to get negative reactions. I’m sorry but you can’t just make such a claim and expect people to believe you. Even famous scientists like Stephen Hawking are constantly being challenged and questioned. He must to go through peer review like everyone else. It seems to me you think your experiments are above such review.
BTW I fail to see what you consider to be a catch 22.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/07/2012 04:56:01
| | | I am curious.
Ram if I tell you how to prove to yourself that the overhung gyroscope does not attempt to rotate around its center of gravity, will you do the easy experiment for yourself?
You surely have everything you need at hand.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 05/07/2012 13:02:42
| | | Glen,
If you get an affirmative answer, to that question, from Ram I’ll eat my proverbial hat.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 05/07/2012 17:55:17
| | | First off Glenn I’ll assume you mean center of mass not gravity. Secondly I’m in the middle of moving overseas so most of my stuff is packed in boxes.
However, if this is something I can do with a cheap toy gyroscope I can go buy, I’ll give it a shot. That being said I’m wondering if you will ask me to do some test on which we will simply disagree on the interpretation of the results as so many times before. As I have said many times I don’t consider hanging a gyroscope on a string a good test because gravity is constantly forcing the pivot towards one point. Even with this test a gyroscope will tend to precess around a point close to its center of mass when precession is fast enough and/or the string is long enough and therefor the centering effect is reduced. We saw this clearly at the end of the video posted by Nitro of one of Laithwaite’s lectures. The gyroscope could still hold itself up yet it was not precessing anywhere near the pivot.
In any case I’m curious what experiment you would like me to try.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 05/07/2012 18:15:59
| | | By the way I'm still waiting for Luis' test with a precessing gyro on a lazy susan...
I would be curious on the results. Although I know how the results will (better must) be.
Harry the clone
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 05/07/2012 21:34:05
| | | BTW Sandy there is a website called Kickstarter for getting donations for development of new products. I found out about it because I’m into paper and pencil RPG games. The developer of a game I play (Traveller) wanted to come out with a new version but didn’t have funds to publish it. He asked for donations from fans of the game on his email list and he raised over $290,000.00. Here’s the link.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/traveller5/traveller-5th-edition
If you really think you have a working model I would still demo it on YouTube and get some cash to further develop it. It’s something you might want to look into.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/07/2012 22:26:38
| | | Nitro,
You knew what your were talking about. There is so much BS he can't even say, 'Sure, I'll try it."
No Ram. 'its center of gravity' is correct. Its center of mass is its center of gravity. One of America’s greatest engineers at NASA's in charge of all new ideas used C.G. on my blue prints and in discussion too. Why did you start with that B.S. anyway? You were ask a simple bovine question. Now is it moo yes, or moo no?
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 05/07/2012 23:01:48
| | | Just to put the record straight. Ram
You said
“According to you, professor Laithwaite a guy would definitely be more inclined to take your claims seriously did not accept them and he even saw your machine.
That particular machine was run successfully many times on three different occasions in the Electrical Laboratory at the Imperial College, London.
During the second visit, Laithwaite witnessed the successful operation of my machine as part of a TV documentary, and congratulated me in front of millions of TV viewers. His words were “There can be no doubt.”
Some-time later we parted not too friendly, after a disagreement, at a meeting in his office, which is probably the reason he later denied my achievements.
Also you said:
“BTW I fail to see what you consider to be a catch 22”
All I can say is that, that does not surprise me.
Thanks for the “Kickstarter” advice Ram, but I have already been doing what I think is required for some time now, and as of yet, YouTube does not figure in my plans.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 05/07/2012 23:29:02
| | | Usually center of mass = center of gravity however center of mass is the preferred term and is less ambiguous especially given how a gyroscope reacts. This is the only reason I brought it up. Also as Wikipedia says
“Generally, physicists prefer to use the term center of mass, as an object has a center of mass whether or not it is under the influence of gravity.”
In any case Glenn I'm done with your crap. In fact I'm done with anyone on this board who can't hold a discussion without getting belligerent. I called your bluff and said I would do your experiment and evidently it was just that, A BLUFF. I should have stuck to not replying to you because the second I do you are back to being the old angry geezer.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 06/07/2012 19:01:21
| | | "Thanks for the “Kickstarter” advice Ram, but I have already been doing what I think is required for some time now, and as of yet, YouTube does not figure in my plans."
Suit yourself Sandy. Whatever you do, I wish you luck and hope you succeed. I have no problem being proven wrong and would even welcome being proven wrong.
In fact there are a couple more things I would like to try myse before finally calling it quits. That's why I came back here in the first place to see if anyone had made any progress. I don’t like doing experiments half way. I want to see a definitive working model before I can claim success. If the answer is “It can’t be done” which I think is likely I will accept that. I have given up on steady state precession which I think is a dead end for many reasons I have already covered. My impression is that your machines do not work on steady state precession either. I do have another theory which is likely wrong but I would like to test it never the less. It cannot however be tested with gravity driven precession so I’m going to have to spend a bit of money.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/07/2012 20:00:59
| | | Ram,
You said:
“I have given up on steady state precession which I think is a dead end for many reasons I have already covered”
A wise decision in my opinion Ram, it is good for a bar-room debate but not much more.
You also said:
“My impression is that your machines do not work on steady state precession either”
That is also true Ram, a long way from precession.
Everything that I required to get some level of inertial thrust has been posted in this forum in one form or another. However I take your point that if anyone had believed me someone else would have done it by now.
Consider that it is just as important for all to know that it can be done, as it is to actually carry it out, and from my point of view, it is nice to know that there was indeed, a needle in the haystack.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 07/07/2012 23:24:01
| | | Hi Ram,
My sympathies to you on your problems with Glenn. I have experienced a similar pattern with him, which renders any real exchange of ideas impossible.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/07/2012 16:27:13
| | | Take a look at what happened.
GLENN: Ram if I tell you how to prove to yourself . . . will you do the easy experiment for yourself?
NITRO: If you get an affirmative answer, to that question, from Ram I’ll eat my proverbial hat.
[[[“Answer: Ram Firestone First off Glenn I’ll assume you mean center of mass not gravity.” ]]]
GLENN: Why begin by disagreeing with my choice of words? Why infer that my terminology lacks clarity to the extent you may only assume what I meant? Your very first sentence is an argument and a put-down that has nothing to do with the subject. Why did you do that?
Ram [[[Secondly I’m in the middle of moving overseas so most of my stuff is packed in boxes.]]]
GLENN: Are you off subject again and with a pre-prepared excuse? Why else would I need to know this?
RAM [[[However, if this is something I can do with a cheap toy gyroscope I can go buy, I’ll give it a shot.]]]
GLENN: OK, but why are you writing guesses at what I have in mind? Didn't I tell you I would tell you?
RAM [[[That being said I’m wondering if you will ask me to do some test on which we will simply disagree on the interpretation of the results as so many times before.]]]
GLENN: Two things:
One) you are writing guesses again, instead of waiting to learn what I had in mind.
Two) You give fore warning you are prepared to disagree, based on wondering what you are talking about? You will do a test, but without an open mind?
RAM [[[As I have said many times I don’t consider hanging a gyroscope on a string a good test because gravity is constantly forcing the pivot towards one point.]]]
GLENN: No one mentioned that. Why are you preparing arguments before the subject is introduced?
RAM [[[Even with this test a gyroscope will tend to precess around a point close to its center of mass when precession is fast enough and/or the string is long enough and therefor the centering effect is reduced.]]
GLENN: You are guessing at a set-up again. There is so much wrong in how you say that. But my point was to avoid arguments. You were asked if you would do an experiment, nothing more.
RAM: [[[We saw this clearly at the end of the video posted by Nitro of one of Laithwaite’s lectures. The gyroscope could still hold itself up yet it was not precessing anywhere near the pivot.]]]
GLENN: A continuing argument based against what I might! say.
RAM [[[In any case I’m curious what experiment you would like me to try. ]]]
GLENN: Then you should have avoided all this garbage and said, “I might try it. What is it, Glenn?”
Ram, you are argumentative and defensive and base everything on what you have read of other people's work in establishing physics, while at the same time you ignore yet some people say they have observed and tested. I don't see any originality in your thoughts. Your counter arguments do not follow their arguments, but revert to what has been established with no exceptions possible. That is a perfect definition of closed mindedness. I am sorry, but you should work on correcting this attitude, or you will never have the chance of creating anything new and original. You will just live, playing follow the leader and do what Simon says. I think you are better than that. I can see you are an intelligent man and I hope you don't give in just because your early efforts failed.
Lastly, is there some reason I would not be pzzzz off at your above reply?
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/07/2012 17:57:45
| | | I suppose you want a reply. Here it is.
Ravi, you say about me, “My sympathies to you on your problems with Glenn. I have experienced a similar pattern with him, which renders any real exchange of ideas impossible.”
Ravi, you – have – no – real – ideas.
You never replied to one, single, solitary assessment of logic and reason I told you about -- not - one – time – never. Is that the pattern of which you speak?
To the best of my recollection I haven't written a word to you in over a year and perhaps three years.
I never told you point blank that it was pointlessly to continue rambling on and on about such an abject failure as is the machine. I never accused you of constantly re-inventing high sounding, useless ideas about the thing. I never publicly challenged your assertions of having the team-work and support of a group of scientifically minded people, which few here having seen your presentations could believe. I never questioned your mental capacity and fanatical meanderings. So you see? I was being sympathetic to you the while.
You did not even say in what areas you may, or may not agree with Ram. I'll wait for you to come at me again. In time you will. But it will be a long, long time. I know you.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram FIrestone - 11/07/2012 20:01:18
| | | “Your very first sentence is an argument and a put-down that has nothing to do with the subject.”
To you everything’s a putdown unless I’m happily agreeing with everything you say. Meanwhile you have no problem saying you screwed my mother and I’m your bastard son. Somehow to you family insults aren’t a putdown, but discussing word usage is. Kid gloves are now off. It’s pretty clear you’re a freaking PSYCHO. In any case your experiment is clearly a BLUFF. I called it, you FOLDED. Better find a new game because you suck at poker.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/07/2012 20:26:45
| | |
Everyone can see your motivations from the above illustration of your own words.
It was wonderful visiting you. My very best to you.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/07/2012 04:41:09
| | | Ram, are you in our military and about to ship out? If so, would it be to Iraq or some other bad place?
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 12/07/2012 19:51:00
| | | Krasnodar Russia
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/07/2012 22:16:25
| | | Ram,
It looks like a an extremely fascinating place. I hope that it is safe. If you haven't been in such a cold place in the winter and you are young, you will most likely love it. I did, thought some don't. I know the food, although not much is said about it, is absolutely wonderful. My son vacationed in Russia. Buy and take all the blue jeans you can pack. They will give you anything you ask for them.
Much good luck to you, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/07/2012 21:59:51
| | | Well, keep in touch. The thing can operate around it's center of mass if you want it to. The universe and I will permit this for you without argument. You are important to us and as long as your are over there you will be my ace if you don't never win no race.
Glenn,
signing off at: thementalward@ebpfi.com
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
