Builds

[MarkE]

Grimer if you think that know principles that would make a working gravity wheel possible, then just publish your hypothesis and your ideas can be tested.  If you are correct, you can prepare your speech for the Nobel Prize that you would surely earn with such a physics changing discovery.

[MarkE]

   Mark,
Considering that you openly ignore what has been engineered, it is a control thing. Why ? It has to be proven to you on your terms.
With something like CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 happens in nature. The science you keep referring to can not explain photosynthesis. Why ?
What you fail to understand is that physics is according to the natural order of things. Engineering is not physics even though physics sometimes is used to explain engineering.
As to your  >> The more extraordinary the claim the more compelling the required evidence must be in order to convince any rational person. <<

The uneducated accept what they do not understand. Consider mag lev trains. They float on air. They are accepted by people who do not understand electromagnetic theory. A rational person will accept something without extraordinary proof, it happens all of the time.
A rational person knows they don't need everything proven to them. Also, there are physicists who believe perpetual motion may be possible. The link is to a video of a machine that operates perpetually. While technically it is a SMOT device, it proves critics like you wrong.

  By the way, Stefan has observed this in person so it is what it claims to be. And as such goes, perpetual motion does not say peform work but merely a system that continuously functions. I hope you enjoy choking on all of your erroneous posts. After all, it will only take a simple demonstration being repeated of how photosynthesis happens. No extraordinary proof, just a basic demonstration of an as yet undiscovered process that is known to happen which allows you to live.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlx2PgESXhs

Jim, what exactly is it that you say I have seen and that I am ignoring?  What does any of this gravity wheel stuff have to do with chemical reactions?

Rather than worry about what I may or may not know, or what I may or may not think, if you have evidence that you can either violate CoE, or that gravitational fields are not conservative, then why not show them in a clear and convincing way?

Your examples of things like Mag-Lev trains do not make extraordinary claims against established physics.  Claims that CoE can be violated do.  Claims that gravitational fields act non-conservatively are also extraordinary claims against established physics. 

Finsrud's artwork has a very large compressed spring.  It is apparent from about :10 to :13 in that video.  He has in essence built a very creative and beautiful clock.  He has not built a working perpetual motion machine.

I see no value in making things personal.  If proof exists for your claims you need only show it.

[j_lindgaard1]

Jim, what exactly is it that you say I have seen and that I am ignoring?  What does any of this gravity wheel stuff have to do with chemical reactions?

Rather than worry about what I may or may not know, or what I may or may not think, if you have evidence that you can either violate CoE, or that gravitational fields are not conservative, then why not show them in a clear and convincing way?

Your examples of things like Mag-Lev trains do not make extraordinary claims against established physics.  Claims that CoE can be violated do.  Claims that gravitational fields act non-conservatively are also extraordinary claims against established physics. 

Finsrud's artwork has a very large compressed spring.  It is apparent from about :10 to :13 in that video.  He has in essence built a very creative and beautiful clock.  He has not built a working perpetual motion machine.

I see no value in making things personal.  If proof exists for your claims you need only show it.

  Mark,
The fact that you ignore engineering makes things personal. And as I let Pirate88179 know, I may not need to build Bessler's wheel.
You see, if what I know is correct, it will be taught in physics classes. Still, I will be broke all the same.

  Jim

edited to add; @Pirate88179, you live in Ky., right ? I have sent a letter to the editor of the Lexington Herald and let them know that there is a simple way for an organic chemist to test my theory. And with Ky. being a coal producing state, it would be some good p.r. if a possible solution came from "the problem".
And as I told one gal, when I have the chance, I will walk away from Bessler's wheel. It is too much work for nothing. That is why only very few people try.

edited to add; @tinselkoala, pirate88179, ab hammer and who ever, in case you guys don't know it, Stefan is an environmentalist. That may be the main reason he has this forum. It might be that he is doing what he can to find solutions for pollution.
Don't believe me ? Why don't you ask him yourself. That could be one reason why I am continuing to refer to Global Warming.
Besides, I told one woman I know that I think I can help those in positions to do something about it. Kind of why I wouldn't profit from it. I'd only be making a principle known and not something that could be patented. Still, some people have families and they might want a future.

[j_lindgaard1]

  @MarkE,
You do have control issues. It was something you kept repeating that was not quite right.
You kept referring to the 1st Law. Anyone familiar with Isaac Asimov knows that the 3 Laws are for artificial
intelligence or AI.
You have been confusing them with the Laws of Thermodynamics which regulate thermal or quantitate energies.
A perpetual wheel could be considered a bound system just as a hydrogen atom is a bound system. And since we know that
an 1/1H system works, we can therefore accept the second system works if the system of physics is accepted within the limits of the Laws of Thermal Dynamics. A body in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by external forces.
Prove me wrong if you like but you can't.

   Jim

edited to add;  MarkE, if you would like to discuss physics, I can do that. I have read the autobiographies of physicists going back to when I was in junior high school back in the 70's. That along with my favorite baseball players like Mantle, Ruth, Cobb and Musial.
But with physics, there was Keppler and Newton, the original Einstein/Schrodinger debate on relativity and quantum theory.
Physics isn't all that difficult really. It's not. With Einstein, he's more about the wave potential like in an electron while Schrödinger was about it's potential as matter. 2 schools of thought.
And yet Planck and his work in black body radiation and heavy metals might be what actual unites the 2 different aspects of physics. If it wasn't for him doing his experiment wrong, Planck would have proven his theory and might not have realized his constant h which allowed for Einstein's work.
And yes, I can prove the mistake Planck made. It has to do with the propagation of thermal energy through a dense body which allows for black light. As things stand, his theory was reconsidered in the 70's of which Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer from Brooklyn, N.Y. proved with math Planck's original work.
needless to say, I am not ignorant when it comes to history, physics and engineering.

[Groundloop]

Jim, what exactly is it that you say I have seen and that I am ignoring?  What does any of this gravity wheel stuff have to do with chemical reactions?

Rather than worry about what I may or may not know, or what I may or may not think, if you have evidence that you can either violate CoE, or that gravitational fields are not conservative, then why not show them in a clear and convincing way?

Your examples of things like Mag-Lev trains do not make extraordinary claims against established physics.  Claims that CoE can be violated do.  Claims that gravitational fields act non-conservatively are also extraordinary claims against established physics. 

Finsrud's artwork has a very large compressed spring.  It is apparent from about :10 to :13 in that video.  He has in essence built a very creative and beautiful clock.  He has not built a working perpetual motion machine.

I see no value in making things personal.  If proof exists for your claims you need only show it.

MarkE,

Your statement: "Finsrud's artwork has a very large compressed spring.  It is apparent from about :10 to :13 in that video.  He has in essence built a very creative and beautiful clock."

should be modified to read: "It is my opinion that Finsrud's artwork has a very large compressed spring.  It is apparent from about :10 to :13 in that video.  It is my opinion that he has in essence built a very creative and beautiful clock."

because the spring you see at the top of the device is not what runs the device. The spring is there to allow the track to
tilt as the steel ball is revolving around the track. What drives the device is a 40 Kg weight in the base of the device. This
weight has magnets glued on, and there is also magnets underneath that weight. The weight is a chaos pendulum because
of the magnets. The three outer pendulums is there to governor/regulate the RPM of the steel ball. The top of the device has
a gear down system from the internal pendulum so the the internal movement of the central pendulum is geared down
a lot before the force is transferred to tilting the track.

You can see drawings etc. here: http://www.galleri-finsrud.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105&Itemid=69
This site has a tread here: http://www.overunity.com/18/finsrud-perpetual-motion-machine/nowap/

I agree that Mr. Finsrud has built a very creative and beautiful artwork.

GL.