J.C.MacSwell

My guess (haven't worked it out either) is that the vertical component cancels out exactly, and because there is an additional horizontal component to the force, always adding to the tension except when the bucket is at the bottom of it's swing, then it would, on average, have more tension and therefore empty faster.

If it is proportional to the force, it would be faster for the swinging pendulum, since on average the vertical force will be the same, and there are additional components to the force in that case.

Add to CP's remarks, how does the water move, or slosh, relative to the bucket? It is unlikely to be as regular or in sync with the pendulum swing, so it is quite a complex problem. If you swung it in a circle at 45 degrees it should empty faster, but that would not be the same thing.

Lift is by definition at right angles to the overall flow (not the orientation of the blade or wing, though they are often close to the same) The direction of the flow can be relative to the turbine, or relative to the blade, in which case it would change direction from hub to tip, so there is probably a convention of taking it as relative to the turbine as a whole unless otherwise stated. Drag is in the direction of the flow, at right angles to lift. You can get a turbine to turn with drag alone, usually with the axis of rotation at right angles to the flow, almost always vertical, but they are generally less efficient. Note: if you squeeze a pea (pip) it will take off much faster than you squeezed it.

Can you use a known weight and a fulcrum point?

Can you provide a link to one of the more promising ones that you patented? Or did you only patent the wrong ones?

It does seem like a credible source. But for the reasons you mention it sounds implausible unless it somehow improved the timing of the combustion as well, where the timing was off. (grasping at straws here)

cause also be

If I dropped you in space and you extended (threw) a rope toward a black hole you would be "towing" it until the rope broke. Unfortunately it would be towing you as well, in the opposite direction, only faster (assuming you are not more massive than the black hole). Rope or no rope, by the time you enter the black hole and become part of it you will have displaced it from it's original path.

Correct me if I'm wrong but light curves as it is affected by gravity and therefore undergoes constant velocity acceleration (maintains c while changing direction) So what is the smallest possible radius of that curvature?

But it is "Rock it" science!

More like 500 seconds.

Even a light touch will put it through in that case... ...so you need the speed as well. Also note that the force will not be directly in the line of travel and there will be a torque as well. Can you do an experiment?

The moon would still throw you off course.

What's the rush? The heat will dissipate into the rest of the kitchen eventually.

I agree with what you are saying overall but generally it is when the wing is in stall that the lower part of the wing provides most of the lift. This is true whether the wing is inverted or not, and while a non symmetric airfoil will stall sooner when inverted there is no reason the top of the wing cannot provide the majority of the lift for inverted flight.

If he simply stated that it wasn't a singularity, how would that change any of the observable or predictable aspects of a black hole?

Assuming equally symmetric riders of the same density the heavy guy wins. The drag coefficient is probably the same or very close and the volume of the riders is proportional to their weight. The frontal area of the heavier guy is, however, proportionally less. Advantage heavy guy!

1. No effect on the axis, but the further from the axis the more time slows down. 2. 3. 4. Hmmm...wonder if any of these resemble "quantum spin" in any way?

All other things being equal cold temperatures should speed the process up a slight but predictable amount, as per time dilation effects. (Two identical "twin" samples the warmer "twin" stays younger)

Don't feel bad. I'm heading back now to give your idea away to the person who will get the credit for it. Neither he nor I are original thinkers but we manage to pilfer lot's of ideas with our time machine (we stole the design for it also)

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!

That's the idea. No atmosphere would amount to 2.7 K more or less depending on the direction. I want to include the radiation component of the atmosphere (not any conduction / convection contribution) which should be greater than the contribution of the CMBR.

To get an intuitive sense of this, picture yourself as one of the asteroids, and your twin brother in the same orbit right beside you. If you reach over and grab him nothing much changes. You don't both go plummeting toward the sun.

Nova Scotia, Canada, sea level, temperature at ground level 0 degrees Celsius, typical temperature gradient/distribution above that, say 75% (average for a clear night?) relative humidity, typical relative humidity distribution above that. Midnight on a typical night in early March Anything else anyone could think of being typical values. Botswana or anywhere else in other conditions would make interesting comparisons.