Johann Bessler information

[rlortie]

Air and  Wind have gradient; Changes is atmospheric density attempting to equalize.
Water has gradient; In the form of depth and fall.
A battery has gradient between negative and positive poles.

It is said that anything containing a gradient can supply potential energy.

Gravity has gradient between ground level and free orbiting space. Probably the highest percentage of gradient of  the above mentioned. Yet we call it a conservative force.

Sure somebody is going to say; yes but the sun is responsible for  wind and water usage, Even charging a battery relates to  sun in one form or another. But if it were not for gravity none of the above would exist!

My bottom line is; Gravity has potential, we just have not learned to utilize it yet.

Remember there was once a time when nobody wanted anything to do with that black gooey stuff called oil.  We learned to utilize it and now look at the pickle we are in.

"If someone can write about it, man will eventually build it" Jules Verne science fiction writer.

If you have not figured it out yet; I am a strong advocate of  John Collins beliefs, I  may not totally agree with some of his debating analogy, but I stand behind him and am very optimistic that we will soon discover and build gravity powered machines not unlike the discovery of the internal combustion engine.

Ralph 

[rlortie]

utilitarian

All wind and water can do is bring the object they are impacting to a speed equal to the speed of the wind/water, but no faster.

Ah ha! this is true but Sir Isaac Newton left us a loop hole where as mass can be moved faster.  You seem like an educated man, so I will let you attempt to figure it out. If the Laws of motion is read and part three is scrutinized by the perceptive and discerning one will realize the validity and awaken to the fact that masses can by moved and accelerated) to uncontrollable speeds,

[In the International System of Units (also known as SI, after the initials of Syst?me International), acceleration, a, is measured in meters per second per second. Mass is measured in kilograms; force, F, in newtons. A newton is defined as the force necessary to impart to a mass of 1 kg an acceleration of 1 m/sec/sec; this is equivalent to about 0.2248 lb.
A massive object will require a greater force for a given acceleration than a small, light object. What is remarkable is that mass, which is a measure of the inertia of an object (inertia is its reluctance to change velocity), is also a measure of the gravitational attraction that the object exerts on other objects. It is surprising and profound that the inertial property and the gravitational property are determined by the same thing.}

[Mechanics," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]

I do not state this lightly and refer you to 'sGravesande's  exceptional  writings as well as that ofGottfried wihelm Leibniz.

Ralph   

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

For what it's worth I would like to follow up on the pantograph idea. Amongst the drawings in the Maschinen Traktate there is one  drawing out of character. I am talking about MT 138. This is where he goes into pantographs using children's toys as an example. Picture C and D are toys that use the pantograph idea. Also picture E, what Fletcher calls, quite rightly, a scissor lift. Again we are talking about an antique toy that was known as the Nuernberger Schere ( Nuremberg scisssors).

What puzzled me for a while was the drawing at the bottom, which didn't seem to mean anything, until I remembered an antique toy constructed along a similar vein. There were a number of variations of it.

It uses a pendulum to achieve the same effect as C and D.

I made an animation here of the principle behind the device. I think that Bessler hid some of his clues in this particular drawing. As to the interpretation of A and B, I can only guess. I wish I had access to a good scan of the original MT 138. Perhaps that would tell me something this redrawn sketch does not show.

Anyway, here it is, tell me what you think.

Hans von Lieven

[John Collins]

Wind and water are not conservative forces and do not act like conservative forces.  No offense, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

A force is about acceleration.  It is measured in Newtons, and one Newton is equal to the force required to accelerate the mass of 1kg by 1 meter per second, squared.  Neither wind nor water can do this.  All wind and water can do is bring the object they are impacting to a speed equal to the speed of the wind/water, but no faster.

Maybe Bessler had a working wheel, and maybe he didn't, but your theory is not going to explain anything

Surprisingly I was aware of all that and you are not the first to argue the point.  Oddly, you acknowledge that Bessler may have had a working wheel, so how do you explain it - or can't you even be bothered to try?

John

[Alexioco]

G'day all,

For what it's worth I would like to follow up on the pantograph idea. Amongst the drawings in the Maschinen Traktate there is one  drawing out of character. I am talking about MT 138. This is where he goes into pantographs using children's toys as an example. Picture C and D are toys that use the pantograph idea. Also picture E, what Fletcher calls, quite rightly, a scissor lift. Again we are talking about an antique toy that was known as the Nuernberger Schere ( Nuremberg scisssors).

What puzzled me for a while was the drawing at the bottom, which didn't seem to mean anything, until I remembered an antique toy constructed along a similar vein. There were a number of variations of it.

It uses a pendulum to achieve the same effect as C and D.

I made an animation here of the principle behind the device. I think that Bessler hid some of his clues in this particular drawing. As to the interpretation of A and B, I can only guess. I wish I had access to a good scan of the original MT 138. Perhaps that would tell me something this redrawn sketch does not show.

Anyway, here it is, tell me what you think.

Hans von Lieven

I like this pantograph theory, I think this is on the right track, your mechanism there looks very interesting, I'm not quite sure what it has to do with the spinning top at the bottom though...

When I was younger I used to play with one of them, the bottom of it is heavier than the top part, yet when it is spun the light part lifts the heavier part right up through CF...

There is also someone who went in front of top scientists at NASA to demonstrate how an extremely
heavy weight can be lifted lightly by a man...

The weight was spun on the end of a stick thing then lifted it up, what was happening was that as the weight span, CF through its weight up and the weight become light, but those ignorant scientists told him to basically get lost as its impossible, they stuck with what Newton said and denied this new discovery...

I can't remember much about it, maybe you have seen it?

Ill try to find the footage...