Overunity.com Archives

I would like to start this thread to once and for all lay to rest, whether or not Bessler was a fraud, or was he the real deal, and did he in fact have a working gravity wheel!! Please feel free to give your opinion, PRO or CON! Thanks to a man by the name of John Collins, who has given over thirty years of his life in research of Bessler, we have a large pool of information to look at!

Quote from: Dr on July 31, 2011, 11:01:33 AM
I would like to start this thread to once and for all lay to rest, whether or not Bessler was a fraud, or was he the real deal, and did he in fact have a working gravity wheel!! Please feel free to give your opinion, PRO or CON! Thanks to a man by the name of John Collins, who has given over thirty years of his life in research of Bessler, we have a large pool of information to look at!

Dr

Only a running wheel will ever put to rest the story of Bessler. Then and only then will Bessler be fully vindicated and a new understanding.

Alan

Hi Alan, I know you think Bessler was for real, but can you give me your single most convincing argument as to why? ???

Quote from: Dr on July 31, 2011, 12:07:27 PM
Hi Alan, I know you think Bessler was for real, but can you give me your single most convincing argument as to why? ???

Hi Dr

At the time of transaction and review of how his device worked. Bessler offered his head and to have the axeman there, if it was not what he claimed. Since my life is dealing with history. You can get a good understanding of what is serious. In the time of Bessler, you didn't make such offers lightly. You would in deed loose your head for fraud. There are plenty of documented witnesses as well that give even more positive belief of his success.

Even though a working wheel will not be able to be proved one way or the other as Bessler's. But a working wheel can and I believe will vindicate of the fraud name that modern science and some historians like to give him.

Alan 

Yes Alan, I think they would have taken off his head if he was found out to be a fraud. He was asking for 100,000 Thalers ( how big a coin and what was it made of) in 1712, if a KIng paid that much and Bessler was indeed untruthful, he would be hunted to the ends of the earth, and wish all he got was a beheading!!!

 This is my kind of topic ! Ok ,the evidence says that Bessler's wheel hands down was the most likely candidate in history to be authentic .
By the same standards even today the tests that the wheel was put through would convince  almost everyone that it was true Perpetual Motion . The problem as I see it is our imaginations can't quite put the same finger on the process that Bessler's did .Perhaps he had an advantage that we can't have . Perhaps his principle came from some place other than mere man . I have an idea that Bessler had more than one reason ... three to be exact for tying his principle to God .

P.S. I have promised in the near past that if I can get this idea of mine to work it can be tied to Bessler , actually in more ways than two. So to me statements like ABhammer just made are still assumptions , although logical and likely or even probable ,assumptions nonetheless and should not be taken as fact .

A surprising number of people on this site are fans of Bessler. So I tread carefully when I say he had a background in watchmaking.

The problem I have with Bessler (leaving aside for the moment that his machine or something similiar has not been replicated) is that no-one has been able to demonstrate mathematically (theoretically) how such a machine is possible.

Ok. So they may be difficult to build. Fine. In that case show me a mathematical model indicating viability. A model showing anything other than net torques and forces adding up to zero.

When one considers powerful financial motivation and a background in watchmaking, fraud remains a real possibility.

When considering why an inventor would destroy their invention (for reasons of secrecy or because they were worried about being eviscerated and hung) all I can say is that 'evisceration' trumps 'patent infringement' every time.

Even if my view is wrong (it is after all only an opinion, based on the same facts available to everyone else), we have to ask ourselves what 'use' a perpetual motion machine would be...even if someone had managed to build one (sometime in the two most recent centuries of intense scientific progress).

Perpetual motion machines, even if they functioned as intended, would not in most cases be capable of performing useful work (I use 'work' not in the sense of moving something from one place to another, or the 'term of art' scientific sense, but in the sense of doing something useful for human beings aside from spinning aimlessly around).

That is why the United States Patent Office automatically rejects applications claiming perpetual motion. Because even if they worked and generations of nobel prize winning physicists were all fools, they would still be useless.

Perpetual motion machines attract scientific nutters like a powerful magnet (I include myself in this category as I find them fascinating). Accordingly, Bessler was one of us. For that, even though skeptical of his machine, I still love him.

Quote from: quantumtangles on August 05, 2011, 08:12:53 AM
Perpetual motion machines, even if they could be shown to work, would not be able to perform useful work.

what evidences do you have to support this?

The atom has electrons that orbit without slowing down.  Even your keyboard is made of them.  Are they not perpetual motion?  If not, why not?  Do they slow down over time?  If so, how much time?

I have no idea if Bessler was for real or not...from what I think I know, gravity is a closed system and therefore can't be made to do any OU work.  But, I am the first to admit I don't know everything and have an open mind.  But again, I ask about the atom.  I have argued this with my old college physics profs way back when and never received a decent answer.  Do electrons slow down?

Bill

Bill electrons are funny things, everything under quantum mechanics is.
first the electron dose not loose energy as it "orbits" so of course the orbit will not change.
more important its orbit is nothing like the orbit of a planet around a star.
your prof should have been able to explain some of this.
I know enough about QM to know i am not qualified to explain it.
may i suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics for a start.
the wave particle nature of sub atomic particles is a real mind blower.
fritznien

a

Good point about electrons. But their motion depends on heat.

If absolute zero were possible, electrons would stop moving.

The closest anyone has come is the Bose Einstein condensate. Matter breaks down (a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero). It begins the transformation into 'no thing'.

Slightly off topic though.

I have explained thios many times however go to 1.15 on this video and it explains why newton was wrong even in his own math and explains how a 5 year old can prove fall is not equal to lift and the bicycle wheel is what bessler must have seen as i did and simply configured that extra energy into his machine, forget the magnetic drive afterwards, this comment relates to the bicycle wheel comments in the film as relating to bessler

remember nothing you can say or do will change what the wheel does to defeat newtonian bullshit, in fact the wheel would have to stop suspended with the weight at 9 oclock falling back defying gravity for newton to be correct


  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEwzalCFdKw

  I have not just been sitting around twiddling my thumbs all this time . I am almost to the point of  being able to take bets on this subject .  I have not made any friends but that was never my goal anyway . Some of you will be glad to hear that Bessler was for real , and the problem with accepting that lies in a lot of grey areas .  All the time I hear people talk about fraud and i realise how safe a bet it must seem to be from where they stand that Bessler was insane enough to pull this one off and deceive the whole world.But from where i stand it is very clear that he was exactly who he said he was and that probably was very honest in what he wrote and said.To begin with you have to realize that this was Bessler's CAREER and not just a hobby . Soon enough all this talk will come to an end and those who spoke out against Bessler and this possibility will have to shut their mouths and listen for a change...no matter who they might be . The time is now very short . PUT YOUR MONEY ON BESSLER and to a lesser extent,me.

I would love to place money on Bessler and considerably more against you!

It is really sad that so many have chosen to hate on little ol' me . My design and Bessler's are one and the same . I understand every clue the man ever published and mine eyes have seen what you wish yours had. Bessler will be vindicated sirs simply because I say so and you guys will still be sitting here trying to act like someone you're not . if you only knew . I have a suggestion : Why don't you use that brain of yours for something other than a burden on your neck muscles and THINK of something that will rotate ? then you will be as smart as you think you are . So to answer the OPs question . Yes, definitely , Bessler was for real ! I dunno where these guys think the solution will come from when I've been trying to hammer it home for some time now . I can't really blame them though but don't I seem awfully persistent and awfully LOUD ?  ???

Many people say that because bessler was a watchmaker, that his wheels were kept running via a spring. It is a fact , the wheel at kassle ran for 54 days nonstop. It has been estimated that the wheel weighed about 700 lbs. The spring mechanism would most likely hang below the axle, which was 8 inches thick. This would leave about 5 1/2 ft. of space for this mechanism. The spring would have been like the kind you would find in a pull out tape measure, only wider and thicker,,,,, and a great deal longer. I did some rough estimates, and to keep that wheel turning for 54 days nonstop, that spring would need to be 12 inches wide 3/16of aninchthick and over 300 ft. long. First of all it would not fit and second in 1716 they would not have been able to make it!!

Many know the facts and have seen all the clues and read all of the books . Bessler has many believers all over the world . Only I am implying a direct connection to Bessler's work . It stands to reason that if Bessler wanted the world to know his secret then surely someone would come forth in what is now the future to make such claims as I . Whether they would be accepted or not is another matter altogether and actually one of little consequence . i will continue with what I am doing regardless of anyone's objection . What I do expect and am only occasionally getting is encouragement from those who know that sometimes it is want that leads people to greatness and that I, no matter how I'm perceived or received for that matter could possibly be speaking with authority and a knowledge and insight that others simply do not possess . I do not blame you in the least for believing in Bessler . But my challenge sir is for you to get beyond trying to convince people and believe it yourself ,apply your own brilliance to the problems with creating it . As soon as Bessler stepped down off the shoulders of the brilliant men who attempted PM in the past and applied his own brilliant mind,heart and soul to the problem he got his answers ,answers to the same questions you are asking . So carry on.

This thread caught my eye when I was looking for somewhere to weave-in my contribution and I note the comments it contains. 
I have ‘laid to rest’ once and for all the argument that Bessler was a fraud, and I have proven that he was ‘the real deal’.  It is not true to say that ‘only a running wheel will put to rest the story of Bessler’, nor is it true that ‘a working wheel will not be able to be proved as Bessler’s’, just as, it is untrue to say that his machine rediscovered ‘will not be able to perform any useful work’, and, I can assure you, he never worried once about being beheaded for being untruthful.
A simple drawing would suffice to disprove all of these erroneous claims, this is why Bessler ‘burned or hid all the woodcuts that prove the possibility’ as he says on the front cover of his unpublished manuscript; Further demonstrations regarding the possibility and impossibility of perpetual motion, or Maschinen Tractate by Johann Bessler, edited and published by John Collins (Leamington Spar: Permo Publications, 2007) as we now know it.
I have taken things several stages further than a simple drawing, and, having solved Bessler’s Clues (well enough of them anyway to solve the problem), have made and photographed The Armature: The Essential Element of The Bessler Wheel.
You can see The Bessler Wheel and how it works on my website, the link is; http://factumpoetica.org/

JW, I don't mean to insult you but IMO that thing on your site will not run and furthermore I have some clues to Bessler's work that other's don't . I guess with people like JC and AP and now you,people like me who profess the truth and keep the device a secret will get lost in the shuffle . But that's okay . :-X

Quote from: Dr on August 21, 2011, 09:48:54 AM
Many people say that because bessler was a watchmaker, that his wheels were kept running via a spring. It is a fact , the wheel at kassle ran for 54 days nonstop. It has been estimated that the wheel weighed about 700 lbs. The spring mechanism would most likely hang below the axle, which was 8 inches thick. This would leave about 5 1/2 ft. of space for this mechanism. The spring would have been like the kind you would find in a pull out tape measure, only wider and thicker,,,,, and a great deal longer. I did some rough estimates, and to keep that wheel turning for 54 days nonstop, that spring would need to be 12 inches wide 3/16of aninchthick and over 300 ft. long. First of all it would not fit and second in 1716 they would not have been able to make it!!

@ Dr

Your argument seems to be as follows:

"Bessler could not have invented and built a 300 foot spring in 1716.
Therefore Bessler invented and built a perpetual motion machine in 1716".

Interesting  ;D

I cannot decide (ad argumentum...) precisely what type of fallacy this is.

It reminds me of the fallacy 'Ad argumentum a priori', an example of which is as follows:

"The bible tells us of the existence of God, therefore God exists because the bible tells us so"

Hi John Worton: Welcome to the forum, you have some very interesting drawings on your website, how much progress have you made towards a working gravity wheel?

@quantumangles; there is no way you could have researched Bessler  completely, with a come back like that, i suggest you barely skimmed the surface and made a judgement call, and no those were not my words but yours!! :D

John Worton

Welcome to the forum. Your drawing is very interesting, and the design is similar in some ways to several systems I have built. Is it a possible? could be. But Only a build will prove its true worth. Without a build there will still be doubt due to claims without proof have been way to often. But for sure it is worth a build and test. IMO

Alan

Hi Dr,

Thank you for your friendly welcome to the forum.

I know I have made very significant progress towards a working gravity wheel and so does John Collins with whom I have been corresponding for several months.   Please see John’s last posting dated 5th August at johncollinsnews.blogspot.com

I have for the time being stopped constructing wheels (or elements thereof) for reasons I hope I have made clear on my website.  I am happily standing aside for John to claim the prize of ‘the one that goes around’: a prize I feel he richly deserves after his many decades of work on The Bessler Wheel.  I am certain I would never have known anything about this subject if it were not for his publications.

I have progressed as far as a complete understanding of what The Bessler Wheel is and how it works.  The Bessler Wheel is simply a simple system of falling and rising levers and weights.  The essential element of the system is the armature: several identical armatures comprising a wheel.  The armatures are most profitably arranged back-to-back in pairs to form overbalancing beams.  Each armature folds up and in at the bottom and light side of the wheel, and up and out at the top and heavy side of the wheel, thus causing a permanent imbalance and thereby rotation.  Each armature has two weights on it: a large heavy weight close to the axle, sufficiently heavy to raise the armature, and a small weight at the end of the armature which is sufficiently heavy to raise the heavy weight over the axle.
The axle is the pivot point for the levering in and out of the armatures.  When a heavy weight is on the heavy side of the wheel it is ‘in freefall’ and pulls its armature in on the light side.  When a heavy weight is on the light side of the wheel it is a ‘dead weight’: the thing that the weight of the other extended armatures levers against to raise and extend each other in turn.

I have progressed as far as making the template for the armatures of a Bessler Wheel with a radius of 1.7m.  You can see this template on my website.  I have photographed this template in several positions and then combined the photographs to show how a working wheel works and what it will look like.  I would like to point out that because these images are composites of several static pictures they rather ‘underplay’ the extent of the overbalancing effect in a running wheel.  For example, in the picture of the eight-arm version, the small weight at approximately ’10 o’clock’ does not actually ever get out as far from the centre, and the small weight at approximately ’12 o’clock’ has already ‘fired’ further out and around.  Therefore, the overbalancing effect in a working wheel will be even better than my images suggest.

John

The link to my website is; http://factumpoetica.org/

Hi Alan,

Thank you for your friendly welcome to the forum.

Yes, of course you are right, ultimately only a full build and test will prove the true worth of my design.  I am happy enough for now with your immediate response that my design is ‘a possible’ ‘a could be’ and ‘for sure worth a build’. I am used to so much more negativity from people!
Lets see what John Collins returns with from his mysterious disappearance.

John

The link to my website is; http://factumpoetica.org/

Hi John Worton: I was back looking at your website, and trying to figure out your leverage ratio. I mean how far away from the axle does the large weight travel, compared to the small weight? And does the large weight have maximum power below the axle? Thanks in advance John.

Quote from: Dr on August 24, 2011, 09:51:33 PM
Hi John Worton: I was back looking at your website, and trying to figure out your leverage ratio. I mean how far away from the axle does the large weight travel, compared to the small weight? And does the large weight have maximum power below the axle? Thanks in advance John.

Dr / John and John Worton

I have the action all mapped out, for a metal version and my test of it will be for adjustable weights due to possible effects in balancing. In regards to Dr's question. What is your suggestion of weights to start with. 1 to 4?

I do most my work with metal due to I am a blacksmith, but due to the design Aluminum may be the best choice for now due to balancing. My goal is a single arm set for the first test. This will confirm actions and action timing. This is to see if it can go further for further test after all weight adjustments. I have built so many wheels I have learned what to look at. Since you have been in contact with John Collins, I will keep him posted as well.

Alan

John Worton

There is one other thing I forgot to mention. Negative leverage. There is a possibility that the longer arm may have this problem. Meaning that the small weight may control the larger weight.  It is the same with Scissor jacks when people try to get length with them. The design is simple enough and this is one of the test I put some types of design through. Just an early warning of one of the noted possible problems.

Alan

Hi Dr / John,

The leverage ratio is 1:7

I always considered 1717 to be one of Bessler’s Principle Clues.  When trying to work out what this number might refer to I could only ever think it was either an angle or a ratio.  In the end it turned out to be both.  Please see my drawing ‘A Slinking Cat’ on my website.

The large weight does not travel nearer to or further away from the axle: it always stays exactly the same distance from it.  This is because it is a short ‘fat’ pendulum swinging directly from the axle itself: rotating on a large bearing that the axle passes through.  Please see my drawing ‘A Heavy Pendula with Hook’.

It is the small weight that does all the travelling.  On my template for the armatures of a 1.7m radius wheel, when the armature is fully extended, the distance from the centre of the axle to the centre of the small weight is 1.65m, and, when the armature is fully closed the distance from the centre of the axle to the centre of the small weight is 0.6m.
The distance from the centre of the axle to the centre of the large weight is 0.24m.
The small weight weighs 0.5kg and the large weight weighs 6.5kg.

As far as maths and The Bessler Wheel is concerned, you or someone like you will have to tell me what is going on; I have no idea!  Apart from some very basic arithmetic I have no maths skills or knowledge.  Please remember that I am an Artist (a Fine Art Painter) and I have arrived at the solution to Bessler’s Clues via poetry and drawing, worked together with a very laborious process of ‘on the bench’ testing.  I am however sufficiently ‘with it’ maths-wise to realise that the figures I have given you mean my template has a leverage ratio of 1: 6.875 and not 1:7.  I do hope no one is going to respond to me saying pedantically that my figures are in error by 0.125!
Before they do they might like to look again at title page of Apologia Poetica and see how Bessler has very boldly placed 1716. - - 1717 on it.  (He does like to stick his clues right in your face!)  He wasn’t saying it took him a whole year to write the book!  He was saying that a leverage ratio of 1.6  - - up to 1.7 is good.

Does the large weight have maximum power below the axle?  Yes; it develops its power in freefall on the heavy side of the wheel (whilst at the same time pulling in its armature on the light side), and it delivers its (small) ‘push’ from approximately ‘6 o’clock’ to ‘8 ‘o’clock’ on the light side through its continued swinging.  Additionally it acts as a kind of ‘dead weight’ against which the other armatures ‘pull’ to open each other.

John


The link to my website is; http://factumpoetica.org/

Hi Alan,

I am very pleased that you are going to test-build my design.  I will do everything I can to help you.

I have answered your question regarding weights (and leverage) in my answer to Dr / John’s question, and given more information which will be of use.  I am concerned that Dr / John got the idea that the large weight moves in and out from the axle: it does not.  Only the small weight moves in and out.

Aluminium would be my first choice for building my design, but I don’t have the facilities or the money.  I am a woodworker and have a reasonable workshop, which is why all my designs are made in wood.  I used nylon bushes and stainless steel pins to create plain bearings.  I think wood is not the best thing to use. The main problem has been to have enough strength around the bearings for the wood not to split. This is why my designs got so big.  Also, because the wood might split I have had to laminate and cross-grain it to give it extra strength; this takes a lot of time.  It would take me months to build my 1.7m radius wheel from my template.  A look at my static wheel ‘Eurydice Returning’ on my website will give a good idea of what is involved for me!

I too have ‘built so many wheels I know what to look at’ I know exactly what you mean by that.  That is why I stopped building wheels and concentrated on the armature alone: I realised that when the armature is correct, that’s it!  I would only need to make copies of it.  It should only be necessary for you to build one overbalancing beam to prove the worth of the design; that is, two armatures back-to-back (or 180 degrees apart).  This should revolve very slowly as Bessler makes clear in Apologia Poetica Verse XXXIII.  When the overbalancing beam (or crossbar as Bessler calls it here) is correct then more can be made and added to make a proper wheel with some power.

Verse XXXIII
“If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw Wagner’s calculations clean out of the window!”
Johann Bessler, Apologia Poetica (Kassel: self published, 1716-1717), Part One, Chapter Two: The Rebuttal, verse XXXIII, as translated and reproduced in John Collins, Poetica Apologia by Johann Bessler (pseud. Orffyreus) Edited and Published by John Collins (Leamington Spar: Permo Publications, 2005?), p.340 and 341

I did not understand your point about how ‘negative leverage’ might apply to my design and it concerns me that you may not quite have ‘got it’. The small weight on the longer arm does control the large weight, from approximately 1 o’clock to 5 o’clock, and the large weight controls the small weight from approximately 1 o’clock to 8 o’clock.  The big weight and the small weight take turns to control each other; that’s how the wheel works.  All weights, whether large or small, are ‘in control’ when they are on the heavy side of the wheel.
Perhaps you, and perhaps Dr / John have slightly misunderstood what is going on for the exactly the same reason that I got stuck for ages; you think that it is the large weights that are driving the wheel?  This is not the case; it is ‘the revolving mass of everything’ (of which the large weights are only secondarily a part) that delivers the power we will be able to use at the axle.  It is the small weights that are ‘in control’; it is the small weights that are ‘The Drivers’.  Cute: isn’t it!

John

The link to my website is; http://factumpoetica.org/

Hello again John Worton: I read your response and thanks for clearing that up about the heavy weight. So the way I see it you have a weight ratio of 13:1, and a leverage ratio of approx. 7:1. Please forgive me for being dense, but today I woke up with a splitting migrane, and I still have the blasted thing! Im having a hard time vizualizing at what point your weights make contact with the wheel to make it turn. You made it sound like the complete mechanism, (large weight, small weight and levers are all on the same bearing) At some point they have to come into contact with the wheel to make it rotate.

Greetings John Worton

QuoteI did not understand your point about how ‘negative leverage’ might apply to my design and it concerns me that you may not quite have ‘got it’. The small weight on the longer arm does control the large weight, from approximately 1 o’clock to 5 o’clock, and the large weight controls the small weight from approximately 1 o’clock to 8 o’clock.  The big weight and the small weight take turns to control each other; that’s how the wheel works.  All weights, whether large or small, are ‘in control’ when they are on the heavy side of the wheel.

I understand the intent very well. I have designs that for instants do this. 1lb moves one inch down and lifts 4lbs four inches up. This is also what Bessler said you should be able to do. Then you have to consider CF effects can neutralize all actions until it slows to a craw. I will admit that I do not show all what I know until the time is wright. But if I work with something that is open it will remain open. So like you have shown your design so I work openly with the understanding that as it is drawn it is yours. The similar ones that I have done and designed are similar in the intent but not in the execution of the design. This will be true with many inventors who have worked on this goal on this track of thinking. Credit will always be given by me to whom it belongs. The wheel is bigger than all of us.

Alan

My wheel is only 4' 7" :'( . Seriously if the weight that's hanging at the bottom (in the photo at the above mentioned website ) can be lifted then the thing will rotate . Let's not forget that it takes leverage to do work . If you are claiming Bessler's design/secret you will have to come up with something a lot more revolutionary/innovative than this to convince me. I have done exactly what I am asking you to do or I wouldn't ask it . I don't down you for your effort but there are wheel designs posted galore that won't work and NONE posted that will ...not like Bessler's . So go back to the drawing board . I don't show anything because what I know is VALUABLE and VALID. Why should I give it away so people can forget who I am like they did Bessler. I realize that things are going badly because of oil and such but if the technology is valid then it will find it's way into your hands , maybe just not for free,maybe cheaper than anything else .

Hi Dr John,

Sincere sympathies with the migraine thing: I had that real bad in my teens and early twenties, so I know what it’s like.  Fortunately, I ‘grew out of it’ as they say and now only get one mild one about every five years.

Yes, leverage ratio of 7:1; that’s pretty straightforward.  However, the lead weight ratio of 13:1 is not, this is obviously influenced by the weight of the armatures themselves; how you have constructed them and what you have made them out of.  There is for example a good deal of ‘leverage weight’ in an extended armature with no lead weight in it.  It is interesting to note in this context that Bessler says that in a correctly constructed working wheel “ an odd extra pound added here or there makes no difference” and even more interesting to note that he says in AP XLVI that it “runs around whether laden or empty”.  I have dealt with the latter point in my drawing The Crab on my website. In an un-laden wheel there is no ‘firing’ up and out of the small weight on its armature and the motion resembles the human gait: “A runner runs”: as Bessler also says in AP XLVI.

Words are slippery difficult things, but they are the best things we have to communicate with.  For my part I am doing my best with them and I am very aware of their limitations and the possibilities for misunderstandings.  You may have noticed for example that I do a lot of quotation marks around words in recognition of the potential ambiguity that my choice of word may contain.  If we were discussing the internal combustion engine and I said piston ring or big end we would all know we stand.  Discussing the Bessler ‘engine’ (see I did it again!) is a bit trickier.  None of the parts have yet been named and the process not understood.  I am sure you are not dense and assume you have not awarded yourself a phd or an MD.

You say you are having a hard time visualizing “at what point (the) weights make contact with the wheel to make it turn”, and that “At some point they have to come into contact with the wheel to make it rotate” Do they? Why?

John

The link to my website is; http://factumpoetica.org/

Alan,

Thank you.

I agree that the wheel is bigger than all of us.

John

I have an announcement to make : Today September 5th 2011 I solved the Bessler wheel . It is no longer a question of whether or not he was for real . Thank you all for your support .

Quote from: christo4_99 on September 05, 2011, 02:03:26 PM
I have an announcement to make : Today September 5th 2011 I solved the Bessler wheel . It is no longer a question of whether or not he was for real . Thank you all for your support .

And?

Bill

and it's exactly as he said it was  ;D ....the wheel revolved because he arranged things so that it couldn't stop .

if the mods will unleash my posts you guys can be the first to see the wheel .  :-*

Take a video, post it to YouTube, and send us the link. It's that easy

To all it may concern . All of my rantings thus far on this board and others admittedly can be likened to putting the cart before the horse. In my belief that I would be the one (destined ) to discover this much discussed principle i openly admit that up until just recently I have been delusional and that I may have offended some people involved in this pursuit for which I apologize. But recently I have gotten as it were to the heart of the matter . Just as Bessler once did, I sat humbly down and applied my mind to not just the problem of P.M. itself but the solution . I have found in my search during my delusional state certain clues which thus far nobody else seems to see ... some of them blatantly ignored in the name of  "reason" and "scientific protocol " and "shaking off your boots at the door." I am not knocking science or logical reasoning but merely suggesting that nothing has ever came into being without some kind of basis in principle ...ironically , in this particular case, since it is unknown otherwise presents within itself it's own solution . This path is roundabout to such an extent that what we end up with hardly resembles what our overachieving minds tend to dream up . At this point it is enough for me to say that what science has to say in general about   " energy creation " , " closed systems " "gravity as a conservative force " and such like has nothing much to do at all with simple weight and motion and has been taken way out of context simply because the problem itself and it's related solution has never been creatively and imaginatively dealt with properly .

Achtung :o 8) ! Fellows...I finally really have the solution although I will admit that it was not easily gained . So to the question of the OP I must gleefully reply " Bessler was not only for real but was all that he claimed to be and his enemies...no matter what they thought of themselves were like " swordsman leaping on the wrong foe " just as Bessler described them . I hope Ralph and John will be glad to know that the legend will finally be put to rest by my hands. Also as far as Bessler never selling it and leaving us without a way out of the wilderness I can't say I blame him because after all neither the public or any rich man stepped forward to possess it and history has treated one of the great geniuses of all time like a chump. When this began I promised myself that I would give it my all to find the solution and that's what I have done. I never tried to make my many vague notions known to anyone . I didn't make websites claiming to expose people to something I knew nothing about . But others have and it's just simply not right to mislead folks .Say hello to the man who had the fortitude , time and mind to solve this great mystery.

Every new idea you come up with,  you think is the answer to the Bessler wheel!!!!!!!!

You have cried wolf way too many times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Instead of saying hello,   I would love to say GOODBYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is some but  not much truth in your post . Note that at any given time you people are willing to post bad remarks and criticize ... but seldom if ever encourage . If it were up to you and those like you the thing would never come to fruition . You are ungraceful and pompous . The wolf that I cried about has arrived just like the one in the story, but no sheep are in danger . The only thing that is in danger are all the lies that people have been willing to let carelessly spew out of their mouths and display publicly . What are you working on ? It seems that people have lost the ability to see the truth . Just like in Bessler's day " you have hand grabbed signs/gestures " and they do not serve you because your ears are clogged with wax and your eyes are closed . That is to say: as long as you do not see the details you will not accept the truth . So my message is to the few who are lighthearted and actually give a shit about Bessler and his wheel . I wish all the other careless carousers and such would just keep their opinions to themselves .

P.S. I have made an animation of the design using the blender application. The principle is valid and it helped me to understand why it will work . Again this is not a test . Regardless of the past , surely, regardless of anyone's opinion of me the fact remains that i am the only person legitimately working on the kind of PM that Bessler envisioned...not merely something that will move but also do useful work . Let it be known that all the pretenders and speculators can cease with their misleading tendencies and face facts once and for all and note that Bessler as the one and only true Petpetual Mobilist ( a man who chooses the pursuit of PM as a career and succeeds ) who's work and publications to the world were not in vain and have not fallen on deaf ears and been shown to blind eyes, let it be known that all is not lost .

There are MANY, MANY people who truly want you to be successful, and millions who desperately NEED you to be successful and give this information out to the people. What we don't need is constant claims that you have something without ever showing us a working device. I for one would bow down and acknowledge your greatness if you truly came up with an answer. However, until such time as you demonstrate a working model, you somewhat resemble a large bag of hot  air.


I myself have built devices that are able to raise a weight from the bottom half of the wheel to the top half of the wheel, making the top half continuously heavier than the bottom half, but this does NOT mean I have been able to sustain rotation. You have a working device when you actually have A DEVICE THAT WORKS, and not until. We will sing your praises when you finally demonstrate that you do. Until then, silence is golden.
David

Hello

Quote from: quantumtangles on August 05, 2011, 08:12:53 AM
A surprising number of people on this site are fans of Bessler. So I tread carefully when I say he had a background in watchmaking.

The problem I have with Bessler (leaving aside for the moment that his machine or something similiar has not been replicated) is that no-one has been able to demonstrate mathematically (theoretically) how such a machine is possible.

Ok. So they may be difficult to build. Fine. In that case show me a mathematical model indicating viability. A model showing anything other than net torques and forces adding up to zero.

When one considers powerful financial motivation and a background in watchmaking, fraud remains a real possibility.

When considering why an inventor would destroy their invention (for reasons of secrecy or because they were worried about being eviscerated and hung) all I can say is that 'evisceration' trumps 'patent infringement' every time.

Even if my view is wrong (it is after all only an opinion, based on the same facts available to everyone else), we have to ask ourselves what 'use' a perpetual motion machine would be...even if someone had managed to build one (sometime in the two most recent centuries of intense scientific progress).

Perpetual motion machines, even if they functioned as intended, would not in most cases be capable of performing useful work (I use 'work' not in the sense of moving something from one place to another, or the 'term of art' scientific sense, but in the sense of doing something useful for human beings aside from spinning aimlessly around).

That is why the United States Patent Office automatically rejects applications claiming perpetual motion. Because even if they worked and generations of nobel prize winning physicists were all fools, they would still be useless.

Perpetual motion machines attract scientific nutters like a powerful magnet (I include myself in this category as I find them fascinating). Accordingly, Bessler was one of us. For that, even though skeptical of his machine, I still love him.

  Read my last post in FYI. I give a basic description of how hydraulics easily accounts for one of his wheels.
Unfortunately, AB Hammer has continuously psoted I am a fraud for that concept. It could be his lack of schooling and experience in engineering. This is why I do my best to be patient with him.
  What does need to be remembered is that what Bessler knew is not currently an accepted principle in engineering in the fashion he used it. But then, when has a fluid been used to perpetuate the motion of a wheel. I believe this is what most people fail to consider, it is not what we know now, but what Bessler knew then. And as for myself, the concept of using fluid and pumps is found in his drawings if a person has schooling and/ or experience using mechanical drawings to work from in building components for machines. I myself have plenty. Both school and work.

                                                                                                                    Jim

edited to correct spelling

It is a wonderful thing to know that somehow, somewhere you made a choice that nobody else ( or very very very few ) have made .

i will put my two cents in here
use deductive reasoning
cancel out that which can not be
let all that was seen to be be reflected in your speculation; every effort was made to document truthfully
let all that was described be understood deeply; be honest with yourself when evaluating your guesswork
moreso than anyone else you yourself can lead yourself astray and thereafter you yourself are a defacement of truth;
be quick to identify errant thought, errant logic, errant insight
having a true understanding of german cultural history is probably essential to unraveling the data
two essential points; springs had first been added to clocks little more than 50 years before the first wheel
understanding how weight was measured can give a needed insight
the german history describes an investigation with all the rigor of a modern investigation with the one caveat; that none view within
i solved it five days after finding that it existed
several of the days were spent in the effort of determining if enough data existed to determine what was within
it does
on a seperate note
here in this image is the work of airy detailing the mathematical foundation it is built upon

Circle,
Can't wait to see what you have built. When will you be showing us?
David

Yes! please do show us so we can all get it over with and I can retire.

Ralph E. Lortie
CEO  'Arrache'

I had asked at some point to be banned and since then all my posts have to be approved by a moderator . I recently conceived a design that lends understanding to 100% of Bessler's clues and 100% of the eyewitness accounts so I feel that it is imperative that my voice be heard on this subject . As far as the build is concerned I am reluctant because I have no privacy as I am working on the back patio of my home and friends come and go also acquaintances . My reason for wanted to post at all is that I want to give credence and some validation to those who have searched for PM and not found it , assuring all that it is not a waste of time as is commonly thought . In the light of my understanding it irritates me to see people pinning Bessler's name to everything just to draw attention to invalid ideas . It seems that any given person gets more attention for sharing bad ideas than say someone like me who has been on the true path for some time and has finally arrived at a valid and hopeful concept but is not willing to share it per se as far as technical details . What I am willing to share is the refutation of the untruths commonly held on this particular subject . If I were a very religious man I would be claiming that as far as the PM principle is concerned God has blessed Bessler and I exclusively with this understanding . But since I am not religious I will just say that I have arrived here out of luck and deliberate seeking of the truth . The fact that I strongly believe that Bessler was sincere was no small influence . I cannot stand to see anyone doubting him ... for he tells us in very specific terms that it is in our own interest that we beware false teachings of men . Fletcher on besslerwheel once said to me that Bessler left us no way out of the wilderness but I say yes he did ! Best of luck to all who seek PM !

Quote from: johnny874 on December 05, 2011, 07:07:29 PM


Unfortunately, AB Hammer has continuously psoted I am a fraud for that concept. It could be his lack of schooling and experience in engineering. This is why I do my best to be patient with him.
 
                                                                                                                    Jim

Jim Lindguard/P-Motion.......

Your frauds where your untold number of sign ins even after being banned, breaking forum rules, and the things you say about myself and others.

Go on with your talk on the ideas and leave myself and others out of your petty attacks. I am building, not talking. Even when I made a statement, was due to those who PMed me with questions on what you where saying.

Alan

    Alan,
Most everyone knows what I have built. Not sure you can consider open building
to be fraudulent. Have never seen you build anything nor have I seen you discuss engineering.
Yet you claim the work I have done and am doing as fraudulent based on what ?
Based on nothing. Myself, I believe your accusations about myself are personal. Those are the only
comments you make. And as I have mentioned before, if you believe you can do better, show everybody.

                                                                                                Jim

edited to add; Alan, I remember when you started with all this crap about my login's. I used wh0wants2kn0w on youtube and Jim65 at museum of hoaxes. Why would that be cause for you to attack me ? And you've never stopped.
And not sure why you would try and prevent me from finding someone who would be willing to help build Bessler's water wheel. Someone with a router would have an easy go of it. And you know I don't have a place to work. And everybody knows that if the bucket on a water wheel closes, it would pump the water up and out.
Of course, it could be you want attention but do nothing to deserve any. After all, you are a private builder that can not contribute anything lest you give away your secrets.

   Dr,
  Myself, initially I thought he was a fraud. But when I heard a few of his clues like his wheels had many cpmartments, I started taking him more seriously. One reason for this is that many compartments suggested to me that his wheels did not carry dead weight, like a flywheel.
Also, they were covered with a cloth. Then while waiting to build, Alexioco got me more interested in his drawings. The intelligence they demonstrate is admirable. I have been told by some respected members of bessler wheel dot com that there are no runners in his drawings. Yet even Bessler said you should pay attention to detail.
I think what Alexioco made me aware of is Bessler connecting diferent parts of his meachincs with modern bloack and tackle.
And recently I found out that Liebniz signed off as someone who supported Bessler's claims. With someone like Liebniz supporting his efforts, there would have been no reason for anyone wanting to take his head off. For those who are not familiar with Liebniz, he co-invented calculus with Newton. Also, he noticed that Newton's work did not account for all of the properties that matter has. This observation lead to his famous mv^2 which is momentum and what is considered to have lead to modern science as we know it today. Liebniz had much to lose if he were supporting a fraud.
I have heard that only a working wheel is proof. This is not the case. Even with a working wheel, there will be those that doubt someone could have done it 300 years ago because of prejudice. Simply put, they think people back then weren't as smart as we are today.

    @All, what got me into perpetual motion was my hearing loss. It's sufficient enough to where people think it's a learning disability. It makes things more difficult than necessary. Yesterday when I was being prepped for surgery, a nurse remembered me and told me about her son. He is deaf in one ear and because of this, some students will tell him to focus. One of his teachers thought he wasn't paying attention like he should in class. But with a hearing loss, often is the case that being able to see someone speaks makes a difference. And this is one of the reasons why being successful with Bessler is important. It will give me an opportunity to make known some of the problems people with a hearing loss have to endure.
Because of the extra time I have, I have studied trigonometry with emphasis on rotation and leveraging. With a perpetual device, the energy it develops will initially need to be turned inward. And when you look at Bessler's drawings, they show such a design. A few even show what I believe to be a piston. I'm not sure if pistons had much use in the early 18th century. But his work suggests to me that he knew of quite a few things which we take for granted today as we see them all the time.
And sometimes when considering someone's work like Bessler's, sometimes what is obvious is what is missing. Everyone is aware he built windmills. What I wonder is why no mention of water mills which performed the same work. Hitting to close to home ? Maybe.
I also like his clue, if you can make 2 stones fly as one. I've often believed this was in reference to something like a trebuchet or catapult. Of course, when you are throwing the weight from a catapult, it is at the end of a long lever. And in numerous drawings numberd in the 30's, he shows levers that span the diameter of his wheel.
Even so, since Dr wants to put to rest if Bessler was indeed successful, I would say yes. And this is one reason why I am doing what I can to demonstrate some of his engineering.
At present, I have started doing blueprints for the build I will start after Christmas. There were some details I have not been comfortable with but have found solutions. I would post them, but I think unless someone finds schematics interesting, they would be bored by them. Still, not sure how well my rotary tool will hold up. It really is under powered for something like this.
Almost forgot, I think one of his clues had something to do when levers/weights fall and threshing. In the third drawing down, http://www.besslerwheel.com/drawings.html (http://www.besslerwheel.com/drawings.html) , if you notice the 4 wood beams that are numer 6 are what is used for threshing wheat. If memory serves me right, it is for removing the husk. Also, they work one at a time. In considering a water wheel, 2 on each side would be needed. One would close the top of one pump while other would close the bottom of the next pump. And by having them work similar to the drawing, one can be higher than another, it would allow for the pumps to be closed without  interfering with the operation of the next one. This is because the pumps when moving inward would be like a wheel collapsing in on itself. But allowing one pump to be over the other, they can be closed at the same time by using a lever or scissor. You see, as they close, they would move away from each other. One of the tricks neceassary for a wheel.
If anyone is interested, I have the cost for wood at under $50. Something I will be able to afford once I start getting my disability checks  :-)   As for the weights, those are something I can make as I have sufficient lead and a ladle. Making a mold won't be that difficult. Have some experience working with bearings and pouring them. It's called rebushing.
                                                                   
                                                                            Jim 

   @All,
Thought I would show a little of what I'm talking about.
At the top is the top view and there is the side view.
In the pic, A is a ring that goes around the outside of the wheel.
There would be 2 of them. With 4 full spokes and 4 - 1/4 spokes, there
would be 8 locations for fulcrums. Both for a lever and a scissor. With
scissors, 12 ounces (336 grams?) could generate 4 times the force.
This would easily pump 12 to 24 ounces (672grams?) of water or oil.
As you can tell by the drawing, there isn't much to the wheel.
There is a some what simple way to warp boards. Having a decent fixture
would make it something most anyone could do. What is needed is something
to boil them for 2 or 3 minutes. Then when they are set on the fixture, they
can be "stretched" to the form of the fixture. Clamps would have sufficient
force to fit them to the fixture. It would take a couple of days
of keeping them warm to cure them. This would allow them to keep their shapes.
This design is for about 20 inches (1/2 meter) in diameter. All 8 spokes
would have a dowel connecting them to the spoke on the opposite side
of the wheel. Support for the mechanics.
With development in mind, the levers that work the pump would need to
be removeable. This would allow for their configuration or the water/oil tubes
to be modified.
While oak is a good solid wood, pine is much lighter. And who knows, for how
flimsy pine might seem to be, with stress properly accounted for, it might be
found to be quite durable.

                                                                Jim

edited to add, pic didn't show for me but did open by clicking on the link for it. Was p.c. I am on.
And one important detail is the space between the spoke and the outer ring. A
block would need to be placed there to give the spoke a solid placement. This
is shown in the top view.
Not sure Alan, but this type of building is very different from anything you or your friends have tried.  I guess if you and your friends can't keep up, attack. What a motto.
Ken, this would be the most likely way Bessler built his wheel. And he did use warped boards. Why ? Because wheels are round and it makes for efficient pumping.
It's like when John Collins asked about the number 5 appearing a lot after I told him Bessler saw himsel as Hermes. And Bessler being religious gave it 2 meanings it seems. For those who looked for symbolism, they would find religion. Jesus said symbolism was for the devil would be why. And the other ? Only 5 planets are visible with the naked eye. And the only interesting things is mars retrograde motion which would be some what mimicked by a water wheel. The religious 5 possibly was a reference to the pentagram in the rosicrucian which has to do with the freemason's altar.
I guess when you consider Bessler, the times he lived in, etc., it does seem to make sense.
And myself, I doubt someone who uses the Freemason's symbol in some of their drawings would lie. It's to clear what that is.

I believe he used eccentricity, i'm waiting for some magnets to come in for experiments for my vertical gauss rifle idea and i am looking into the Minato principle and i thinks eccentricity could work there too.
Will post a drawing later to show exactly what i mean.  :)


I believe i read somewhere that the people that witnessed the machine said they heard thing falling inside the machine, i believe it weren't weights falling but the whole wheel itself falls.

there are too many people attaching "Bessler " to everything they do including me in the past but notice that I have only posted one proposed design in all that I have authored . The only other thing i posted was images of a "mirrored" apologia wheel . I must be clear that I do not intend to publish my ideas anywhere . I am fed up with people who mislead others with stupid ideas and I simply refuse to join in on the hoopla .  I got tired of that a while back and turned to the man himself for inspiration . Bessler knew how difficult it was for him even as a mechanically minded practiced individual to arrive at the PM principle . It is my opinion that his clues are not so vague as most think and his intentions were never so calculated either . It's just our understanding that is limited . I am relentlessly pursuing this quest . Nobody in my family nor my friends  have disowned me for claiming that I have discovered Bessler's principle at least 100 times ! but these online communities have . For me it was a part of the learning process and it has served to express my belief in Bessler as well as the possibility of PM . Inasmuch as I can apologize publicly  I hope that everyone will understand it is not for a lack of integrity that I make claims, rather it is my enthusiasm and full heart which spills from my lips . I can hear the PM gurus chiming in on that one but i am sorry... that's all you get . It occured to me that if the PM principle is discovered ( ;) ) that a lot of people's bullshit will be seen for what it is , all those who even recently are content to add insult to injury by continuing to heap scorn and ridicule on Bessler will be silenced once again . the principle for the reception of which Bessler felt that he owed  God will be attributed rightly so to Bessler ... and not me or any of these who pretend and create pretty websites and such instead of seeking PM. I have nothing against pretty websites but what really is the point if you have the same information as everyone else and top it off with lies and superstitious nonsence ( or useless ideas) ? Folks at Besslerwheel decided on their own that I was Autistic , Narcasistic , delusional , rude , unlikely to find the principle , a newb among other things , a liar and some guy even said something about my hair ( or lack of it ) and my sunglasses ! But don't you see Bessler himself was a fellow somewhat like me ? He was trying to get through to you people that this thing can be done . And that's all I've actually been trying to do . I feel pity for some of you old guys who have spent your whole lives looking at this "information " and getting nowhere . I think God should have pity on you via yours truly ! Everything seems impossible until it's done . From where I stand right now I believe that everyone who has ever believed in Bessler (or PM) should be prepared to feel some tears of joy swelling up in their eyes some day soon ...and if they don't they  just have  not been listening . In closing :Spare me the insults ...they don't bother me anyway . " Grasshopper : I have snatched the pebble from the master's hand . "Master : It was not the pebble which you snatched that was important but the calm spirit by which you concealed you true intent . "

Quote from: pinobot on December 11, 2011, 07:29:18 AM
I believe he used eccentricity, i'm waiting for some magnets to come in for experiments for my vertical gauss rifle idea and i am looking into the Minato principle and i thinks eccentricity could work there too.
Will post a drawing later to show exactly what i mean.  :)


I believe i read somewhere that the people that witnessed the machine said they heard thing falling inside the machine, i believe it weren't weights falling but the whole wheel itself falls.

  pinobot,
I believe something like this. I once told Alan the only reason I was working on this is because of medical problems. The surgery I had Friday should take care of them. Other things more important to me right now.
With the long levers, they weights would land on warped boards. They are attached to the pump to help hold it's shape. One clue was weights landing on warped boards. This would be to keep the mechanics and levers from breaking. Why the weights would also be tethered.
After one weight/lever pumps, it creates a seal. Then when the next lever pumps, the flow will be in one way.
alan, you always wanted a working design, here it is.
The pictures are color coded so the levers can be matched from one drawing to the other. The levers would have been nested. This happens by attaching one to each side of the wheel. This will allow the weights to be in the center of the wheel. Leverage on the long lever is caclulated from where the scissor attaches to it to the weight. This distance is compared to the length of the pump. The scissors is comparing distance A to distance B.
With water, if a 1 pound weight is 12 inches from where it pumps, this is 12 inch pounds of force. This will allow 1 pound of water to be pumped vertically a distance of 1 foot.
The basis of this design.

                                                                                Bye
                                                                                 Jim

edited to add; to try for 60 rpm's, the pumps/weights moving across the top can use vacuum. Think of the bellows found in a black smith's shop, when they open, the siphon, when they close, they pump. I think Bessler forgot to mention seeing them when he was in a black smith's shop. But combine that with a water wheel. Of course, if he saw a water wheel by the river, it might have been the rivers flow that propelled it's wheel, not water from above. If so, then the wheel would have been in water. It might be what he saw in nature, a literal and figureative expression. You know, 2 meanings. Either way, it would have been the flow of water around the wheel, just as I belive he used.

Jim

Why do you keep talking to me or about me? Not to mention that the idea you are proposing was suggested to me by Pese back in early 2008 but we where talking about quick silver. But I will pass on a little advice that came from Pese. If you can't find quick silver/mercury? You can use alcohol for it moves faster. Oh yes! In you color drawings you have a mechanical problem. You may have addressed it in your build in process but for others reading. You are going to need a slide to get your lever to compress.

But good luck

Alan

Quote from Cristo:

Nobody in my family nor my friends  have disowned me for claiming that I have discovered Bessler's principle at least 100 times ! but these online communities have .



Wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf......

Quote from: AB Hammer on December 12, 2011, 06:42:54 PM
Jim

Why do you keep talking to me or about me? Not to mention that the idea you are proposing was suggested to me by Pese back in early 2008 but we where talking about quick silver. But I will pass on a little advice that came from Pese. If you can't find quick silver/mercury? You can use alcohol for it moves faster. Oh yes! In you color drawings you have a mechanical problem. You may have addressed it in your build in process but for others reading. You are going to need a slide to get your lever to compress.

But good luck

Alan

  Alan,
please show the link as you are claiming you originated this idea. In essence, you are accusing me of plagiarism.
Quicksilver is not necessary. If you knew anything of history, you would know that Bessler would have most likely used suede for his tubes. This means that water and / or oil could help maintain the seal and the conditioning of the leather.
as for a slide, not needed. It would create unecessary restence as you know, or don't know. Merely allowing allowing a link to rotate by pins is a much better answer. and it also allows the warped board to be locked into position on one end.
I wish at some point you would learn more than armoring. And no, I'm not building. As much as you claimed my medical problem was not a problem, I am off work because of surgery you did not think I needed. Your self importance is tiresome. Why not show something ? I would find that more credible.

                                                                        Jim

edited to add; Alan, bluestiger44 @ besslerwheel.com also discussed using mercury. But like you and Pese, he probably had no idea how it was used. And in considering engineering, something like mercury would not be able to displace it's mass over a distance as well as oil or water. By having pockets of it, it could have the strength (density) to damage the engineering. It seems the structures durability was never seriously considered.
Could be why your refrain of Build Jim, build. You wish to say you are the man behind my ability. you have said as much before. And as I said then, I am not your employee. If I wish to talk wheel with others, not sure why it would bother you when there is no proof of your building anything. Only claims. But thanks for wishing me well on my recovery.

Quote from: overtaker on December 13, 2011, 10:16:29 AM
Quote from Cristo:

Nobody in my family nor my friends  have disowned me for claiming that I have discovered Bessler's principle at least 100 times ! but these online communities have .



Wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf,  wolf......

  overtaker,
Your part of the infamous Arrache build group, right ? I wonder, when is your group going to do more than taunt others for what your group does ?

                                                                          Jim

edited to add; this is an idea that rlortie posted in this froum with permission from Dr. Lindemann.
I'm not sure, but I do believe Mt 20 was better engineered. When the over balanced weight moved outward, it stayed there until the wheels rotation allowed it to reset itself.
The video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEsqipy5ik0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEsqipy5ik0)
The thread
http://www.overunity.com/6735/peter-lindemann-the-mechanical-engine-a-re-evolution-of-besslers-wheel/msg155847/#msg155847 (http://www.overunity.com/6735/peter-lindemann-the-mechanical-engine-a-re-evolution-of-besslers-wheel/msg155847/#msg155847)

@AB Hammer, when referencing something, this is the proper way to do it.

Jim,  No I am not part of Arrache .  I am not even part of their private forum.

Jim

What I was referring to, was in private mail with Pese and it was about fluid and tubes. I never claimed what you have drawn was my idea either, as you are so quick to accuse. Flexible tubes was a suggestion from Pese. The basic concept but not the exact same design as in every little detail, as you have been pushing for a couple of years now. Since you keep bringing me up, I  posted to let you know that I am very familiar with the basics of your wheel.  The problems you have is reaction of weight placement counter acting, and fluid retention to keep from flow back. One of my very first ideas I had was fluid movement as well but it was hard tubes and pistons.

I am not here to fight with you or anybody, so lighten up. Here is my original from Aug. 2007.  Another thing is I am no longer a direct part of Arrache either but am ready to work with, if the need is there.

PS When are you ever going to finish it so you can learn and move on? Talking don't build wheels. It's been 2 years on the same idea.

Quote from: AB Hammer on December 13, 2011, 12:23:10 PM
Jim

What I was referring to, was in private mail with Pese and it was about fluid and tubes. I never claimed what you have drawn was my idea either, as you are so quick to accuse. Flexible tubes was a suggestion from Pese. The basic concept but not the exact same design as in every little detail, as you have been pushing for a couple of years now. Since you keep bringing me up, I  posted to let you know that I am very familiar with the basics of your wheel.  The problems you have is reaction of weight placement counter acting, and fluid retention to keep from flow back. One of my very first ideas I had was fluid movement as well but it was hard tubes and pistons.

I am not here to fight with you or anybody, so lighten up. Here is my original from Aug. 2007.  Another thing is I am no longer a direct part of Arrache either but am ready to work with, if the need is there.

PS When are you ever going to finish it so you can learn and move on? Talking don't build wheels. It's been 2 years on the same idea.

  Alan,
When you posted that you and Pese had already discussed it, what can I say it sounds like ?
Also, why not call mercury by it's common name ?
And you are right, talking doesn't build wheels, visit Besslerwheel.com where you are a highly respected member. Yet no one is discussing a build. Except for myself, and I was banned for it.
You should remember Alan, if I am not capable of working to earn money to build with, then how can you expect me to build ? I think it is your reluctance to allow me to discuss engineering with other opend minded people that has been the failure.
After all, it is by open discussion that has helped me to learn and better understand how Bessler's wheels might have worked. I can only believe this bothers you because you have not taken the time nor had the interest to learn as myself and others have done.
And if I wanted, I could take the time to find the thread at besslerwheel.com where you discredited this very idea I am working. Haven't you tired of calling me a fraud ? After all, there might be a family in this for me. And if not, don't need it.

                                                                                   Jim

Oil, water and Mercury cannot be compressed and seeks it own level. Air can be compressed and seeks equalization of density, and yet you believe this will work.  It did not work 300 years ago and it will not work now.

I confirm that ABhammer is no longer affiliated with 'Arrache' and I refute in its behalf as being called 'infamous'... 'Arrache's track record is free of any blemishes and integrity stands tall.

I consider the 'infamous' claim as slander and is legally worthy of a civil tort for deformation of character.  That is unless you can prove otherwise backing up your claim.

Ralph Lortie
CEO 'Arrache'   

Quote from: rlortie on December 13, 2011, 01:10:00 PM
Oil, water and Mercury cannot be compressed and seeks it own level. Air can be compressed and seeks equalization of density, and yet you believe this will work.  It did not work 300 years ago and it will not work now.

I confirm that ABhammer is no longer affiliated with 'Arrache' and I refute in its behalf as being called 'infamous'... 'Arrache's track record is free of any blemishes and integrity stands tall.

I consider the 'infamous' claim as slander and is legally worthy of a civil tort for deformation of character.  That is unless you can prove otherwise backing up your claim.

Ralph Lortie
CEO 'Arrache'   

   Ralph,
Sometimes with your temper and attitude, you and Alan seem so much alike.
What can you sue me for, stating my opinion ? The 1st Amendement gaurantees my right to freedome of speech.
It is not like when you ask Scott Ellis to ban someone who is building for having 3 red dots.
And this because you are asking to to show who donates the most money to his forum.
What does donating money have to do with banning someone who is putting out obvious effort ?
And as you just posted, the idea I am proposing did not work 300 years ago. I disagree with you as engineering supports it rather easily.
If the lever is longer than the pump, then a mass equal to the weight can be displaced for the distance of the pump. Bessler realised this but no one you've been associated with has. That is why in my opinion, your group is infamous. Other wise you would not have bothered with an open source builder as myself. But you have. It can only be because you are afraid that I am right. This would make your efforts worthless or come to naught.
And as a businessman such as AB Hammer is, you like a return on your investment.
It seems if anyone is entitled to a return on their investment, it would be Stefan for giving people the opportunity to discuss ideas in an open format.
Ralph, can I say Hi to Ken ? He's okay   ;D

                                                                             Jim

Jim,  How fast would you have to pump the water in an wheel turning at 40 - 50 rpms in your design?  I challenge you to set up an experiment and show how long it would take to pump the water in your design. 

Quote from: overtaker on December 13, 2011, 02:33:39 PM
Jim,  How fast would you have to pump the water in an wheel turning at 40 - 50 rpms in your design?  I challenge you to set up an experiment and show how long it would take to pump the water in your design.

  overtaker,
First I need to retrun to work. That might not be until the middle of January.
If my surgeon says I am not able to work, then all I can do is talk wheel.
Secondly, the first wheel using this concept would probably rotate slowly.
That would be okay as any idea would need to be developed. Even the build
design I have been working on for the last couple of years has been reviewed by myself many times. I have also done partial builds to learn what it does take to make a build like this work. And when I say work, I mean to do a quality build. Maybe something Bessler would be proud of.
I also know there are people other than AB Hammer and his friends and rlortie and his associates who might be interested in working with me on this. You see, the third things is I have found no place to work.
It seems credible builders would understand these things but both Ralph and Alan seem to have little understanding of them.
Until then, who knows, maybe they will leave me alone. Other wise, they would be preventing someone from being willing to work with me.
By the way, something they both missed, if mercury is used, because of it's density, it could be low in the pump. This would create a weak point which could cause the pump to break. If the force of the pump is spread over a greater area which light oil or water would require, then the stress on the pump itself would be over a greater area resulting in a better chance of it performing it's job over a long period of time.

                                                                              Jim

forgot the word area, oops. It's just that the surface pressure on a warped board needs to be considered.
                                                                               

Jim

  How many times do I have to say that I don't want anything you are talking about. But you still keep bringing up my name and if I reply, you misrepresent what I say. All the information I have given you, is old well known information because that is what you are working with. I do not support that you have anything that can or will work for most of what you have come up with has all been tried before. Just slightly different in the details.

I remember about a year or so ago, I offered to build it for you, so you would see it won't work and shut up and try to move on to better ideas. But you rather attack me and claim I am trying to take it from you, or take some credit. You sometimes remind me of a drunk who won't let go his bottle for he thinks there is one last drop in it, thinking that someone else wants to take it from him. 

I don't care what you talk about as long as it is not about me. But I doubt you ever will be able to do that, for you seem to be so fixated on me.  I don't like it, but that is most likely the reason you do it.

I still wish you the best and if you really going to get operated on I wish you good heath.

Alan

PS I don't recommend anybody to build my #2 fluid design for I don't believe it will work.

   Alan,
You have never offered to build this for me. And no, it has not been tried before.
What you and Ralph can not accept is that Bessler knew something that you two do not know.
It is as Bessler said, he wished to start a school. As for, you have offered to teach me but I refused.
I told you that I would let Bessler teach me. Both you and Ralph claim there is not a running wheel in his drawings. Yet Bessler said there was. You and Ralph both support the Keel Effect. Count the weights above and below the axle.
With Besslers Mt 67, http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_067.gif
If a person considers that water or oil is being used, then most would consider it would rotate clockwise, even if the top and bottom postions were reversed. You know, the top empty. This is because there would be a volume of water or oil on one side of the wheel and none on the other. I am not sure how you and Ralph missed this. Would either of you care to explain ?
Also, Mt 66 shows pistons. They are usually known for pumping and have what is called positive displacement. This is if either of you have any experience working with pumps. Doubt either of you do.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_066.gif
And did either of you notice those long levers ? If the pump is linked in the middle of the lever, then it is a 2:1 ratio. Pretty simple if you ask me. And theoretically, this could work. Actually, as crude as it is, if it rotated slow enough to allow the pumping of water or oil from bottom to top in succession, it would work. But Alan and Ralph, as the 2 of you have often stated, there is not a working wheel in Bessler's drawings.
I disagree with both of you. I believe there is much to learn from his drawings. This is why I have continued working while you 2 try to discredit me.
But since I am in opposition to the both of you, you 2 can discredit what I just posted about 2 of Bessler's drawings that are next to each other. There are other drawings which demonstrate a more efficient approach. But what Bessler wanted was someone willing to learn from his work. After all, if someone learned from him, then they would understand how his directions lead to his working wheel.
But I believe to learn from someone else requires patience. and while I thought I have been impatient, I haven't been. I have been willing to take the time necessary to understand his work.
 
                                                                                                                                                     Jim
                             

Jim

I am not going to try to show where I said that, for you had your P-Motion strings deleted.

I never said I would be your teacher but I did say I teach armoring.

The rest is just your imagination of the meaning of what you read.

What is funny is, you keep saying I don't believe in Bessler. You must be out of your mind for I wouldn't be doing this as long as I have if I didn't.

I believe Bessler did it. I don't believe you have any idea, but you seem to be trying to be the teacher. 

My lunch is over and I have to get back to work.

It has been said something like : The main mechanism was so simple that a carpenter's apprentice could build it after studying the inside of the wheel . It has also been stated something like : all this fuss over a simple tool that scholars of the day have seen but not in it's complete form . Taking these notes together it is apparent to me that they are related and describe a simple mechanism but not necessarily a simple construction .

P.S. I actually built something similar to the above drawing ... the problem is the weight of the water columns , it keeps the cylinders/bladders full at the bottom , you are better off trying to pump the fluid up the descending side of the wheel than you are expecting it to go straight up . If you are going to build a pump/wheel try putting your reserve fluid at the axle and pump it sideways to the overbalance whereby you will still have to pump up the fluid from the bottom . You see , I am not an empty husk as some would have you think . Most times , in our designs we create an abundance of problems for ourselves in addition to the PM problem .

Quote from: christo4_99 on December 14, 2011, 02:10:39 PM
It has been said something like : The main mechanism was so simple that a carpenter's apprentice could build it after studying the inside of the wheel . It has also been stated something like : all this fuss over a simple tool that scholars of the day have seen but not in it's complete form . Taking these notes together it is apparent to me that they are related and describe a simple mechanism but not necessarily a simple construction .

P.S. I actually built something similar to the above drawing ... the problem is the weight of the water columns , it keeps the cylinders/bladders full at the bottom , you are better off trying to pump the fluid up the descending side of the wheel than you are expecting it to go straight up . If you are going to build a pump/wheel try putting your reserve fluid at the axle and pump it sideways to the overbalance whereby you will still have to pump up the fluid from the bottom . You see , I am not an empty husk as some would have you think . Most times , in our designs we create an abundance of problems for ourselves in addition to the PM problem .

  Hi Christo,
It will work just fine. I have gone to school for Propulsion Engineering which is not accepted by the experts.
I believe my schooling and work experience are well suited for this. And because of this and my studies in mathematics, I am quite certain it is what everyone seeks.
What allows me to be so confident is the time I have spent reviewing this design. Unlike other people, I allowed math to be my friend in understanding the nuances of how this concept works. Without math, I would be like everyone else.
And what I love about it from an engineering stand point is the potential it has. Of course, Bessler did say he had it rotating at 60 rpm, not as fast as Alan's 66 rpm over balanced wheel ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhskB-0SjKI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhskB-0SjKI) ), but it did power itself.
It is something that will demonstrate that all of Bessler's claims are valid. What does amaze me is the resistence I have met in here and at besslerwheel.com by people who claim to support Bessler.
By the way, if you notice, Mt 66 has an empty bladder on botton and the shaft connecting the top and bottom bladders appears to be a tube. and if anyone notices Mt 67, it seems to use the same mechanics.

                                                                                                                                     Jim
                       

Quote from: AB Hammer on December 13, 2011, 12:23:10 PM
Jim

What I was referring to, was in private mail with Pese and it was about fluid and tubes. I never claimed what you have drawn was my idea either, as you are so quick to accuse. Flexible tubes was a suggestion from Pese. The basic concept but not the exact same design as in every little detail, as you have been pushing for a couple of years now. Since you keep bringing me up, I  posted to let you know that I am very familiar with the basics of your wheel.  The problems you have is reaction of weight placement counter acting, and fluid retention to keep from flow back. One of my very first ideas I had was fluid movement as well but it was hard tubes and pistons.

I am not here to fight with you or anybody, so lighten up. Here is my original from Aug. 2007.  Another thing is I am no longer a direct part of Arrache either but am ready to work with, if the need is there.

PS When are you ever going to finish it so you can learn and move on? Talking don't build wheels. It's been 2 years on the same idea.

  Alan,
Did I mention mercury ? I didn't.

                                      Jim
                                                                                               

Jim

No you didn't mention mercury, I did, and for a reason you missed as usual. Mercury is a dense fluid/metal. You would be able to use a lot less amount/volume and your squeezing of your pumping would have less flow back problems due to its density and less amount/volume of fluids being moved.  In a simple way to describe, you will use a lot less and have the same weight as well.  If for some reason you are right, which I doubt but there is no proof until a wheel is built. It would allow a faster moving wheel.

Also! quit sending me personal messages.

Alan

Quote from: AB Hammer on December 15, 2011, 08:17:42 PM
Jim

No you didn't mention mercury, I did, and for a reason you missed as usual. Mercury is a dense fluid/metal. You would be able to use a lot less amount/volume and your squeezing of your pumping would have less flow back problems due to its density and less amount/volume of fluids being moved.  In a simple way to describe, you will use a lot less and have the same weight as well.  If for some reason you are right, which I doubt but there is no proof until a wheel is built. It would allow a faster moving wheel.

Also! quit sending me personal messages.

Alan

  Alan,
I do not consider you as a credible builder. For me, this requires someone to build openly and explain what they are trying to accomplish before hand.
It would not take a build to understand why mercury is a poor idea. I have already explained this. I believe this is the reason I am building and you are not.
And as to what you posted (the design), it is your own invention which only you and Pese can patent. With what I am working on, it does stay on topic. It is about demonstrating what Bessler did.
By the way, I will throw the dog a bone to show I am not without conscience. The cost of mercury would have prevented Bessler from having used it. In this reply on yahoo answers, they say it is pretty cheap. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061217080620AA0ZmoY (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061217080620AA0ZmoY), Only $36 per 100 grams. If Bessler used 3 or 4 kilos of weight, we'd be talking $360 times 3 or 4. And this is what you and Pese would use. So I do have to ask, are you being serious ?
Myself as a builder, I do have to consider costs.


                                                                              Jim
             

Quote from: johnny874 on December 16, 2011, 11:22:35 AM

  Alan,
I do not consider you as a credible builder. For me, this requires someone to build openly and explain what they are trying to accomplish before hand.






                                                                              Jim
           

Jim

So you are the judge for credible builders as yourself an example.  :o

So a credible builder  has to give away all they know. Most would consider that person to be a fool, and Bessler was no fool.

I am so glad it is only your opinion.

As for Pese and I patenting? I wouldn't waste my money. I will only patent my running wheel or the team if a team? We will patent it as a team.

I haven't heard from Gustav Pese for a while. But I received a message that he was sick and in the hospital, not in good shape. I pray for his recovery.

Quote from: AB Hammer on December 16, 2011, 12:47:13 PM
Jim

So you are the judge for credible builders as yourself an example.  :o

So a credible builder  has to give away all they know. Most would consider that person to be a fool, and Bessler was no fool.

I am so glad it is only your opinion.

As for Pese and I patenting? I wouldn't waste my money. I will only patent my running wheel or the team if a team? We will patent it as a team.

I haven't heard from Gustav Pese for a while. But I received a message that he was sick and in the hospital, not in good shape. I pray for his recovery.

  You're not to bright Alan. You are always telling other people to prove to you. It's a 2 way street. And with Bessler, what is the need to keep secrets ?
And considering Bessler was bitter until he died, and to keep his wheel a secret ? It seems he lost much by not making known what he had discovered. he also was not recognized for his understanding of engineering concepts. In some things, he was ahead of his time. But if he would have made his work known, he probably would have inspired many people with his engineering. But this did not happen, did it ?
And that is why I am working openly. I do not wish to make his same mistake.
And I also happen to think a lot of people might find it interesting what it takes to make a wheel such as his work. It seems you and your friends have no such desire or merely wish attention for how you percieve yourselves. Either way, I think you and your friends are the fools. Look at how few people post in besslerwheel any more. It seems experts like you do more damage than skeptics ever have.

                                                                        Jim

edited to add; maybe you're just not up to a decent challenge. It is a lot of work. But I believe it will be worth it in the end.
                       

   @All,
I will be able to return to work Dec. 26th.
This will allow me to prepare for my build. Until then,
per Alan's request, I won't talk wheel. Since
I have a specific design I believe will prove Bessler's
claims are within reason, it would be difficult to consider
something else.
Of course, I happen to like discussing how what I believe
I have discovered is supported by various descriptions of
his wheel. I think it is something everyone who supports
Bessler like myself would find interesting. But Alan is one man
who believes people should do as he would or they are fools.
I'm glad I'm not him. And when I get started on the build, I'll
post it.
  And then everyone can decide for themselves what they think.

                                            Jim

Quote from: johnny874 on December 16, 2011, 03:56:32 PM

  You're not to bright Alan. You are always telling other people to prove to you. It's a 2 way street. And with Bessler, what is the need to keep secrets ?
And considering Bessler was bitter until he died, and to keep his wheel a secret ? It seems he lost much by not making known what he had discovered. he also was not recognized for his understanding of engineering concepts. In some things, he was ahead of his time. But if he would have made his work known, he probably would have inspired many people with his engineering. But this did not happen, did it ?
And that is why I am working openly. I do not wish to make his same mistake.
And I also happen to think a lot of people might find it interesting what it takes to make a wheel such as his work. It seems you and your friends have no such desire or merely wish attention for how you percieve yourselves. Either way, I think you and your friends are the fools. Look at how few people post in besslerwheel any more. It seems experts like you do more damage than skeptics ever have.

                                                                        Jim

edited to add; maybe you're just not up to a decent challenge. It is a lot of work. But I believe it will be worth it in the end.
                     

Jim and anyone reading

First off when I say show your proof it is to everyone, when they claim a running wheel. Jim like to twist this as we see in what he wrote. Then he praises himself. while trying to slander what I do.

Quote from: johnny874 on December 16, 2011, 04:09:19 PM
   @All,
I will be able to return to work Dec. 26th.
This will allow me to prepare for my build. Until then,
per Alan's request, I won't talk wheel. Since
I have a specific design I believe will prove Bessler's
claims are within reason, it would be difficult to consider
something else.
Of course, I happen to like discussing how what I believe
I have discovered is supported by various descriptions of
his wheel. I think it is something everyone who supports
Bessler like myself would find interesting. But Alan is one man
who believes people should do as he would or they are fools.
I'm glad I'm not him. And when I get started on the build, I'll
post it.
  And then everyone can decide for themselves what they think.

                                            Jim

Now here we have Jim saying a LIE about per so called my request. When I said that he can say what he wants. Just don't talk about me.  Now I see he is setting up his own private forum for the second time on this same project for years. Here is the string link where he is announcing it.

www.overunity.com/11787/my-forum/ (http://www.overunity.com/11787/my-forum/)

I wonder what happened to/with the first one? :o


I have posted more of my build test in this one string than Jim has posted in the forums. I did misname it IMO. I should of added Test in front of the word wheel in the description.

www.overunity.com/9301/how-to-build-a-gravity-wheel/ (http://www.overunity.com/9301/how-to-build-a-gravity-wheel/)


Yes everyone will decide what they think, for it is their free will to do so.

Alan

  Alan,
Since this is the gravity section of Stefan's forum, why don't we discuss how gravity effects engineering ?
Watched a show about the ancient Greeks. What was interesting is what they missed about the Parthenon. The 4 corner columns they thought were tilted inward only to give the illusion of straight lines from a distance.
What they missed was that when the load from the roof was placed on it, if it had a peak or elevated center, then it would push outward. Much like the peak of columns in mideival cathedrals. By having the cloumns tlilted inwards, this would cause the roof to have to lift them to spread outward and colapse.
Something mideival engineers missed. Of course this is before the time of the Romans.
With the cathedrals, some have had to have modern reenforcements to avoind interior walls from collapsing. They thought building them wider with more arches would have taken care of this problem. In the short term yes. But in the long term, stress wins out.
What they could have done was to make the archways thicker. This would have allowed the base of the arch, the point in which it moves in a straight line downward to have been supported by a tilted column. Then a facade could have been built on both sides of the archway and to the ceiling and have given the cathedrals a more dramatic look.
By the way, it was Germanic tribes who caused the fall of Rome. They realized by destroying their aqueducts that Rome would not have water for daily use much as we use it today. As a result, it's population of 1 million people could not be supported. As a result, Rome's population fell to 12,000 people. It's the little things people seem to take for granted.
And I have sent pese a pm wishing him well.

                                                                            Jim

edited to add; Alan, just becaue you own your own business and can afford expensive materials like Mercury to work with is no reason to brag about.
Myself, I work for a living. I don't think you should expect me to have deep pockets like you and your friends have.

                                                                            Jim

   @All,
This is where being able to post and think through idea's has helped me.
The drawing shows how Mt 20 can work.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_020.gif (http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_020.gif)
The drawing I am attaching shows how with the description of warped boards
and a weight landing on a warped board or short plank can work.
The short lever or scissor would have a pulley at the end of it. This would allow it
to roll on the back side of a warped board. as the wheel rotates, the long lever would
exert more pressure on the scissor. When the point where the pulley is has closed the
warped board, the weight would land on a short board extending from the warped board.
The short warped board would reinforce the shape of the warped board, structural support.
This basic design would be for a small wheel such as I might be building. Unlike Alan, I do
not need to build to know. I accept that Bessler was successful.
There would be a short post such as the one at the 3 o'clock position. This would be for
guides attached to the warped board. This would help to keep all the mechanics in alignment.
The drawing I did shows about a 1.5 to 1 ratio. If the weight on the lever were 1.5 times as much as the water, then it would be a 3 to 1 ratio. Bessler said to make 3 stones fly as 1 and then go lightly.
Be it as it may, rlortie and Ab Hammer have criticized me for bilding some of Bessler's drawings as they do not believe there is a working wheel in them. And this last statement contradicts what Bessler himself is quoted as saying. And of course alan will say I am lying.
I can link to my account at photobucket.com that shows some of my work which was open source. It's what has helped me along with my schooling and work experience to understand this. It is not by accident that I happened to learn how Bessler's wheel worked.
And water or light oil would work better than mercury. With something like mercury, it could create a fracture point in the warped boards which could eventually cause it to break.
Hope you all have a Merry Christmas.

                                                                              Jim

p.s. the drawing is about 1/2 scale for a 20 inch in diameter or about a 58 cm wheel.
it's designed to use about 12 ounces of water or about 21 cubic inches.

edited to add; as the warped boards close, the water is pumped upwards. As a result, the wheel rotates making the next weight to put more pressure on the warped board it's scissor is pushing against. And then it repeats again and agian and again and agian. Rather boring if you think about it   :o
And Alan, if you and Ralph want, you guys can build it. After all, it is Bessler's wheel and Germany would probaly have the rights to it. Historical artifact and all that. Your a lawyer, you should know this stuff.
But will it make us friends ? Nope. It just depends if you guys dislike me more than you like Bessler. Only building will tell.

                                                                             Bye

   @All,
Almost forgot, in Mt 20, Bessler said to tether your horse in front (the direction
you want it to go).
With this design, the weight on the long lever would be tethered.
Prevent breakage, etc. When it goes over top center, it would fall towards the hub.
This is where tethering it would limit it's motion and possibly help maintain the imbalance of the wheel.

                                                                         Jim

Quote from: johnny874 on December 17, 2011, 03:49:07 PM

And Alan, if you and Ralph want, you guys can build it. After all, it is Bessler's wheel and Germany would probaly have the rights to it. Historical artifact and all that. Your a lawyer, you should know this stuff.
But will it make us friends ? Nope. It just depends if you guys dislike me more than you like Bessler. Only building will tell.

                                                                             Bye

I see you changed your lever since I said something about your picture in post 59 on page 4. What I said was on page 5 post 60 about it. But now your change needs a roller on the short end to lessen the friction. But a good change.  ::) Just some advice from a real builder.

First off with this quoted statement of yours make no since except highlighted in red. But make us friends?? where did that come from? What little early friendship died a long time ago when you couldn't follow reasoning and got nasty on Bessler wheel forum.  And when I tried to be nice you on forums, you told stories about me and you will never stop. This I have accepted and most everyone else has as well I believe.

Quote from: webby1 on December 17, 2011, 07:23:53 PM
I am not up on all the gravity stuff that is being tried, and well I probably never will be but I have not heard of any person making a very simple observation about mass falling under the influence of gravity, never making the observation that even when the mass is moving up it is applying a force down that can be used while you are lifting the mass back up, pulling it up by it's own bootstraps if you will.

Lets say you have a chain loop running over a sprocket, on this chain you hang a mass, as gravity pulls down on the mass it also pulls the chain turning the sprocket, now if you have a lifting device on the mass which reaches up the chain and grabs hold and lifts the mass back up you have allowed for two things to happen, first is that the input value from the mass is continuous, no stop in applied force, and second you have opened the system up to allow for an outside force to enter the system.  So the lifting mechanism is something like a spring loaded arm that is stretched up and the spring pulls the mass up, the force the spring needs to apply is the same force that the mass gives while it is falling, an even trade but the mass is still pulling and falling while you are lifting it back up, maybe something extra can be had there?

If this has been talked about then excuse my interuption and ignorance.

Tom Webb

Greetings Tom

To have a wheel seam to power its self, by using the effect of gravity is the goal. What we find is anything that has to be use to make these movements ( the falling weight) have to be more powerful to make the second of shifting movement of like weight. The weight's value tend to cancel each other out. That is why the quest is so hard and called impossible by science. There has to be something else that we have missed. Bessler did it back in the early 18th century I fully believe. That is why the study of Bessler is part of our quest. It is impossible to prove a design is Bessler's but a running wheel will validate Bessler's success for his time. The quest in its self is fascinating and you always want to keep in mind. It is not always the journeys end but what you learn on the way.

Alan

Quote from: AB Hammer on December 17, 2011, 06:28:49 PM
I see you changed your lever since I said something about your picture in post 59 on page 4. What I said was on page 5 post 60 about it. But now your change needs a roller on the short end to lessen the friction. But a good change.  ::) Just some advice from a real builder.

First off with this quoted statement of yours make no since except highlighted in red. But make us friends?? where did that come from? What little early friendship died a long time ago when you couldn't follow reasoning and got nasty on Bessler wheel forum.  And when I tried to be nice you on forums, you told stories about me and you will never stop. This I have accepted and most everyone else has as well I believe.

  Alan,
>> But now your change needs a roller on the short end to lessen the friction. But a good change <<

Read what I posted. I said it did.

>> What little early friendship died a long time ago when you couldn't follow reasoning and got nasty on Bessler wheel forum. <<

I think when you post I am the ultimate fraud would show I was never your friend.
http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4656 (http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4656)

and someone posted this thread. Doubt it was your wife Alan.
>> There are few individuals that get me irate on this site when they abuse my husband's intelligence for those people your not allow to do that, only I am, it is in my marriage contract so unless you want to marry my hubby back off. << 

   I mean really, you will openly call someone who has openly built a fraud.
Using staionary arms;
(http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/Picture0121.jpg (http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/Picture0121.jpg))
Using moveable levers/arms
(http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/23levers.gif (http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/23levers.gif))
Bessler's clue of the child's toy
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_138-141.gif (http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_138-141.gif)
(http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/Mt24mod1.jpg (http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/Mt24mod1.jpg))


As you just mentioned, a real builder would put a roller at the end of the lever.
What I posted, lines 6 & 7.
>> The short lever or scissor would have a pulley at the end of it. This would allow it
to roll on the back side of a warped board. <<
I think this is why I do not like you.
Be it as it may Alan, I have never seen you build anything. NEVER.
Yet you criticize my efforts because openly building gives me something to talk about with other people. And as you told me and whorton both, you will build our ideas, but you will also show they won't work. You always have that caveat in it for yourself.
Don't need your help Alan as you do not recognize my education and work experience.

                                                                           Jim

edited to add; Alan, when I was being treated for cancer, you would not allow me to discuss the build I was working on. Why we will never be friends.

Quote from: webby1 on December 17, 2011, 07:23:53 PM
I am not up on all the gravity stuff that is being tried, and well I probably never will be but I have not heard of any person making a very simple observation about mass falling under the influence of gravity, never making the observation that even when the mass is moving up it is applying a force down that can be used while you are lifting the mass back up, pulling it up by it's own bootstraps if you will.

Lets say you have a chain loop running over a sprocket, on this chain you hang a mass, as gravity pulls down on the mass it also pulls the chain turning the sprocket, now if you have a lifting device on the mass which reaches up the chain and grabs hold and lifts the mass back up you have allowed for two things to happen, first is that the input value from the mass is continuous, no stop in applied force, and second you have opened the system up to allow for an outside force to enter the system.  So the lifting mechanism is something like a spring loaded arm that is stretched up and the spring pulls the mass up, the force the spring needs to apply is the same force that the mass gives while it is falling, an even trade but the mass is still pulling and falling while you are lifting it back up, maybe something extra can be had there?

If this has been talked about then excuse my interuption and ignorance.

Tom Webb

  Hi Tom,
Could you post a drawing ? I think it would help to understand what your thinking a little better.
You know, in Besslerwheel, someone actaully took the time to build something similar to what I think you are describing. What surprised me was when someone who hadn't built criticized it, he quit discussing his work.
There actually might be a way to use a secondary system to allow a chain lift to work. If I understand correctly, the weights dropping need to act as a whole, seperate from the rest of the system while still being the motive force.
What the undeserved criticism was is this, that the basic premise of the math will show all things to be equal and they will. The argument against perpetual motion is that if a weight drops one meter, it can only lift another weight one meter. This is all that needs to happen.
What I understood by considering math is that if 1/2 of the weights move 1/3 the distance, then the other 1/2 of the weights will move 2/3's the distance.
Where extra energy is gained is the point above and below the 1/2 that is the motive force.
The weights on the left and right side would cancel each other out. This means that about 1/4 of the weights would actually be creating resistence. And 1/4 is less than 1/2.
The orange weights would be the motive force. If you notice, there 7 of them and 5 on the other side of the chain. all the other weights would cancel themselves out. It would need a secondary system that supports the 7 weights and then drives the primary chain belt.

                                                                         Jim
                                                                           
edited to add; Tom, the journey's end can be much better. This is what has kept me motivated and it is why I build.

Quote from: johnny874 on December 19, 2011, 11:13:56 AM

  Alan,
>> But now your change needs a roller on the short end to lessen the friction. But a good change <<

Read what I posted. I said it did.

>> What little early friendship died a long time ago when you couldn't follow reasoning and got nasty on Bessler wheel forum. <<

I think when you post I am the ultimate fraud would show I was never your friend.
http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4656 (http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4656)

and someone posted this thread. Doubt it was your wife Alan.
>> There are few individuals that get me irate on this site when they abuse my husband's intelligence for those people your not allow to do that, only I am, it is in my marriage contract so unless you want to marry my hubby back off. << 

   I mean really, you will openly call someone who has openly built a fraud.
Using staionary arms;
(http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/Picture0121.jpg (http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/Picture0121.jpg))
Using moveable levers/arms
(http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/23levers.gif (http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/23levers.gif))
Bessler's clue of the child's toy
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_138-141.gif (http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_138-141.gif)
(http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/Mt24mod1.jpg (http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae278/bessler_supporter/Mt24mod1.jpg))


As you just mentioned, a real builder would put a roller at the end of the lever.
What I posted, lines 6 & 7.
>> The short lever or scissor would have a pulley at the end of it. This would allow it
to roll on the back side of a warped board. <<
I think this is why I do not like you.
Be it as it may Alan, I have never seen you build anything. NEVER.
Yet you criticize my efforts because openly building gives me something to talk about with other people. And as you told me and whorton both, you will build our ideas, but you will also show they won't work. You always have that caveat in it for yourself.
Don't need your help Alan as you do not recognize my education and work experience.

                                                                           Jim

edited to add; Alan, when I was being treated for cancer, you would not allow me to discuss the build I was working on. Why we will never be friends.

Jim

Do you have a problem telling the difference between a roller and a pulley?

A roller is more of a wheel with no rims.

A pulley is with rim like sides to allow a rope in place, but can be used as a track roller. But having your arms fall from the device to pump it could cause it to catch on the edge and give you trouble. This is my point of only a roller. Your drawing didn't show either. 

The fraud string is of how you play on forums in a fraudulent fashion. Your actions earned you this title as you are starting to show again. Please stop the lies and play nice.


To all


Now the Fraud strings was posted. Please read it through so you can see for yourselves. But note how many names Jim has posted under and the links I posted of his different names. The evidence is clear. Case closed. Jim was banned again, and again, and again, ....


Also Jim said I was posting as my wife. FDROLMAO  I treasure my nuts. My wife speaks for herself.


What Jim said that I highlighted in red is a big Lie. But he wants me to post more everything I have done, and He is the biggest reason I don't. As much as he attacks me I wonder if he is getting paid to antagonize.  Or it is just his obsession to try to destroy my name if at all possible, IMO.


PS It is simple Jim. Don't use my name and I will never post directly to you. Is this so hard for you to understand. It sure seems so. So what are we come up on now? 3 years plus of dealing with your slander.

Quote from: webby1 on December 19, 2011, 02:46:34 PM
I have attached a bad drawing of what I am talking about.

So we have 2 sprockets, one up and the other down, we have a scissor lift mechanism that is spring loaded so that it has just enough force to lift the mass and finally we have the mass.

When the mass has fallen to a predetermined point the scissor lift mechanism is operated lifting its end up above the start point of the mass holding onto the chain and lifting the mass back up.

I understand that this system as described is a net zero system, meaning that the force to lift still equals the force from the fall but what I am allowing for is the introduction of an outside force that the system may be able to amplify, a constant force being applied to the chain and a means to allow for different rates of applied force.

For some reason when I see some of the drawings of Bessler's device I do not see a Gravity wheel per say, but rather a gravity powered mechanical amplifier, so I think that a small force is being added to the system at the appropriate time and the system is adding that input to the force of gravity changing the static start conditions of the system and maybe allowing for a change of velocity during certain phases of operation and that higher rate of applied force is where the gain comes from.

One of the things that popped out when viewing it as an amplifier is that the mass should not be pulled up the other side, when the mass is moving up the other side it is a total loss to the system but when you have itself lifted up by the chain it is still a loss but at the same time the loss is occurring the mass is still applying a positive force into the system.

   Hi Tom,
Just going off the top of my head here, but if you had a swinging pendulum, then you would have an efficient force that could be recgarged to keep your wheel spinning.
What I'm thinking is the pendulum could lift your scissors which lifts your weight. And when the weight's allowed to drop again, it creates more force. The difference between a straight line and a curve. Or simply put, when you close one scissor, they all close. This would use less energy lifting the weight than the energy being generated when the weight drops  causing your wheel to spin.
Like I said, just a quick thought but what you're showing is something new I believe. But I like it.

                                                                       Jim

edited to add; Tom etal, this link is for how grandfather clocks work. They are not as simple as some would believe. And in knowing that Bessler built them would help to demonstrate some of his knowledge.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/clock.htm (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/clock.htm)

Quote from: webby1 on December 19, 2011, 02:46:34 PM
I have attached a bad drawing of what I am talking about.

So we have 2 sprockets, one up and the other down, we have a scissor lift mechanism that is spring loaded so that it has just enough force to lift the mass and finally we have the mass.

When the mass has fallen to a predetermined point the scissor lift mechanism is operated lifting its end up above the start point of the mass holding onto the chain and lifting the mass back up.

I understand that this system as described is a net zero system, meaning that the force to lift still equals the force from the fall but what I am allowing for is the introduction of an outside force that the system may be able to amplify, a constant force being applied to the chain and a means to allow for different rates of applied force.

For some reason when I see some of the drawings of Bessler's device I do not see a Gravity wheel per say, but rather a gravity powered mechanical amplifier, so I think that a small force is being added to the system at the appropriate time and the system is adding that input to the force of gravity changing the static start conditions of the system and maybe allowing for a change of velocity during certain phases of operation and that higher rate of applied force is where the gain comes from.

One of the things that popped out when viewing it as an amplifier is that the mass should not be pulled up the other side, when the mass is moving up the other side it is a total loss to the system but when you have itself lifted up by the chain it is still a loss but at the same time the loss is occurring the mass is still applying a positive force into the system.

I will look up some of my videos where I tested for another member where a weight and a spring was use. This should help you out to see what action you most likely will get. Resiting springs tend to be problematic. But what you have posted need something else to be evaluated correctly.  I will send you some links in private messages for these test in a few days.

Alan

   Alan,
Why don't you just post the videos ? Maybe someone might spot something you're missing.
Just a thought you know, this being an open forum and all.

                                                                            Jim

Quote from: webby1 on December 19, 2011, 06:27:25 PM
The mechanism for lifting the mass back up can be done in many different ways, how that is done is not the observation I have attempted to convey, what is is that if the mass is lifted from the "chain" by something attached to the "chain" then the mass is always giving input to the system whereas  when you allow the mass to go over to the other side of the system it can no longer add to the system while it is being lifted, the mass can multitask if you allow it to.

   Hi Tom,
In the thread "Bessler's Other Wheel ?", the idea of 2 levers at 90 degrees is something that can gain extra force with the use of a spring by it pulling laterally.
With 2 pendulums, one could be lifting one weight while the other weight is powering your wheel. How ever you consider it, it does need to start as a closed loop system that feeds itself.

                                                                                    Jim

Most people have "reason" to believe that Bessler was a fraud . You are on the well beaten path . If you can achieve little in addition to making a turd from your regular meals you have"reason" to believe that Bessler was a fraud . If you hope to achieve something rare you must yourself have something rarely seen in these circles . It is obvious to anyone following Bessler that one aspect in which he could be considered a rare type of person is his articulation of written word . This points me toward his authenticity , that is , among many other things . The reason you are not willing to accept what the man has claimed and written about is you know very little of the subject which you are so opinionated about .

Quote from: webby1 on December 20, 2011, 01:07:18 PM
I love playing with mechanical devices and setups.

I have reason to believe that Bessler was a fraud, not in that his device did not work but rather in the actual wheel and what it did.  I am feeling that the wheel itself was deliberately over hyped to help hide what he was doing.

I need to play more with what I think might be the trick before I say much, usually when I get like this I am wrong due to missing something really stupid, but I am thinking what I have already said might lead to the answer.

   Tom,
I hope you don't mind if I took some liberties with your concept.
It is well known that Bessler built clocks as well as mills. What you
might find interesting is how your idea could fit in with what is
known about Bessler and his work.
Pendulum clocks have a line wrapped around a drum. The line
supports the weight that powers the clock. If the bottom point
of scissors were attached to the line, then if a point on the scissors
were lifted 5cm's, the total lifted with 2 sections would be 20 cm's.
By having a spring help to reset the drum, the counter weight would
weigh less. This would allow for more net force. I am not sure if a
second pendulum would be necessary. But just as a falling weight
powers the movement of the clock, like wise it could power a wheel.

                                                                    Jim

p.s. usually when someone makes a stupid statement like "I think my idea will lead to a Bessler Wheel", it is stupid. In your case, you might be right.
And no, I don't think you missed anythng. Idea's take time to get them right.

edited to add; the hoist might be able to be located next to the drum. The drawing is just
a basic concept trying to advance Tom's work a little bit.  Jim

Quote from: webby1 on December 21, 2011, 02:35:23 PM
Please feel free to modify anything I may posit for consideration, things are often better with more eyes and thoughts working together.

the hoist could be located anywhere except inside the wheel.

I am the first one to admit that 90% of what I come up with is flawed or incorrect, but then those missteps lead to another observation that I might not of made without them :)

  Ya know, with what I'm working on, I'm still learning how to build it. Then again, when's the last time someone did something like this ? Bessler would be it.
I figured out what the spring is for, it's for tension. This way, when the weight is allowed to drop, the line is already under load.
Other wise, when the weight drops, it might fall some before the line becomes taught.

                                                                                                                        Jim

Quote from: webby1 on December 21, 2011, 07:51:05 PM
For me the idea is the easier part, I mean coming up with something to try is not so hard but then I have to think not just *how* to build it, but how *I* can build it with the things I have available.

Here is a trick I learned decades ago for when you take the belt off of the water pump before you undo the bolts that hold the pulley to the water pump, it is simple but only works within a discrete angle:

Put your wrench or socket on the bolt and bring the handle across the center shaft now the force you are going to apply is at 90 degrees to the handle, not in an arc as in trying to apply the torque to the bolt.  The applied force from you attempts to rotate the center shaft in the opposite direction and that creates the torque in the correct direction to deal with the bolt, you can also use this to undo lug nuts when you have already jacked the car up and taken the tire off of the ground.  You will need to play with the exact offset angle relative to the center shaft to make it work best, I do it without thinking about it and so when I do try and think about I just confuse myself :)

   Tom,
That's kind of why I'm glad we have serpentine belts now. And they use a spring loaded tensioner.
  Right now, I am working on a board warping fixture. I think it could take me a couple of months to warp boards so will start with that.
With your idea, I have thought of something. I call them half moon gears but they might have a proper name. It's gears that are not a full 360 degrees. This could allow them to engage another gear and when desired, move free of it. This could be the trick to lifting a scissor and then releasing it.
The idea would be to lift the scissors/weight at the start of the downward swing. Then the pendulum could swing free. And of course, since the weight is rotating the drum, it could be seen how much extra force it can generate.
And what works in one direction should work in the other direction as well.
                                                                         Jim

Quote from: webby1 on December 22, 2011, 11:49:17 AM
A lot of new cars still have the water pump pulley bolted on :)

Maybe I was being too cryptic, what the trick shows is that there is a small angle of interaction between a lever a force and a pivot with resistance where the reactionary force is in the opposite direction to what you would call normal, so push down on the lever and turn the pulley in the opposite direction to where you are applying the force from, aka push down on the left side and the left side of the pulley goes up, now when this angle is not correct then the force will move the pulley in the same direction aka push down on the left side and the left side of the pulley goes down.  With this setup it is possible to have a spring resistance at the pivot so that when you push down on the lever on the left side the pulley moves up and you load the spring resistance, then with a change in the included angles relative to the force the spring will unload and pick up the lever and apply a force that turns the pulley in the same direction as when the force was first applied, kind of like a rectifier.

This setup so far as I have played with it is not overly efficient, but I have only tinkered with it and have not tried very many ways of going about it so it may be of use or it may just be an useless curiosity.

   Lmao  ;D . between that and Mt 20, it kind of opened my eyes to what I'm doing now.
  it's something everybody has missed. With Mt 20,
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_020.gif (http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Mt_020.gif)
if the short lever rotated counter clockwise, that is essentially what it would be doing.
What they have failed to consider is that as it rotates counter clockwise, the upward or outward force it exerts is equal to the force being applied to the lever.

                                                                             Jim

Quote from: webby1 on December 22, 2011, 05:29:37 PM
Got sidetracked looking at 140 pictures.  So many of those devices actually seem to use the same force functions in the same way that they have always been used, if that worked it would of been done long before the time of Bessler.


One of the things I look at is direction of applied forces and what the actual reaction from the system is and I mean all of them including the systems reaction from an outside refrance frame view.


I know my little trick works, how well ??? ?? but as I see things if *I* can find it, some other person smarter than me already has so the things I play with I always assume have already been done.

   Tom,
  Bessler wanted to start a school, didn't happen.
One of the difficult things to say is what Bessler actually did. In the thread, Bessler's other wheel is one way swinging weights can work. And with what we've been discussing is another way. So did he only do it one, more than 2 ways ? He was never really clear on this.
I also thought of another way scissors could be used. It's using levers that cancel each other out while performing work. Might not work though because with scissors, the more sections you have, the more resistence, etc.
What you described is a part of a system. It's getting the whole system to work is what matters.

                                                                             Jim

                                                                          Jim

Quote from: webby1 on December 22, 2011, 06:46:16 PM
Indeed, something that works has value.


My gut feeling is that what Bessler understood could be transormed into using whatever was available, it was not so much a specific thing but a relationship of forces in motion, like the bootstrap idea, the methodology can vary but the goal has to be the same ie: reset the mass with the needed force by applying that force between the mass and the thing the mass is moving.

   Tom,
You know I got to thinking about something funny last night. Over at besslerwheel.com, one member did say they are their own sect and even have some of their own words.
That is one thing about Bessler, because he didn't prove his work himself, there will always be different opinions about what he did or did not do. And with engineering, levers and wheels have been around for a long time. It's the unique ways of using them that allows for people to be ingenious.

  Hope you have a nice Christmas.

                                                                          Jim

Quote from: webby1 on December 23, 2011, 02:23:57 PM
Hey Jim,


I hope you have a good christmas and new years.


A commercial comes to mind where, I think it was Dow, said, that invention is important but it is innovation that makes changes

  Tom,
So true. I'm going to have to remember that  :D
See ya'all Monday  :D

                                                  Jim

  Tom, Thanx  ;)   I have promoted your idea in 12x's thread. Had a thought. If it works, then with what Vjelko has been working on could help those who need it the most. Running water that is. Not everyone has it but it is the first step in fighting disease.
                                                                                                                 Jim

   Tom,
I'll post a simple diagram showing how a pendulum develops power.
What might be a thought is to let the weight drop right after it's lifted.
Then because the pendulum would swing further than it should, a
block could stop it and then let it swing back the other way. Something
like this would only need one ratchet type movement to work.

                                                                                             Jim

   Tom,
The drawing I did shows a single oscillation pendulum.
When the pendulum starts to swing, it lifts the scissors on
it's 2 outer points. The fulcrum acts as a hoist lifting the
scissors closed.When the fulcrum releases the weight, it
rotates the drum which also causes the fulcrum to rotate
quicker.
In theory, if the scissor is lifted 5 cm's (2 inches), it will
close twice that height. Since it is mechanical, even a 1.5:1
ratio should keep it swinging.
Where the 2 lines curve to the right from the scissor would be pulleys.
And also when the line turns up to the fulcrum. And by knowing when
something needs to engage and disengage, it will help to fill in the details.
Also, a stopping block may be needed. The pendulum will only need to
swing so much to work. And what might be missed is that acceleration is
caused by the vertical drop. That's gravity for you. And with it's path from one
side to the other is time. And when both are used together, then an idea can be
had how long it will take for the weight to drop and accelerate the pendulum to
it's velocity. Classical Newton if ever I saw it. His Laws of Motion do come in
handy.
As it is, if anything, because the lift of the scissored weight is greater than the
lift of the 2 points on the scissor, the pendulum might be slowed relative to real time
as well. But this would be okay because the resulting acceleration would hopefully
be more.

                                                                                Jim

edited to add; if the pendulum is 1 meter, then at 30 degres, it would have a 13.4 cm drop
and a 50 cm horizontal movement to reach bottom center. This is important as in lifting
the scissors would need to be factored into or subtracted from this in determining the over
all motion.   Jim
                       

   Tom,
I think this might be our own invention. One thing about scissors is
that they are made up by a group of levers. And Bessler said that when
he saw his wheel rotated some, he built more pulleys and levers. There
might be a way that when one lever in a scissor is rotated up or down, all
the other levers move upwards or downwards with it.
It's possible we realized a slightly different way of doing what he did. If so,
then yes, it is our invention because it is different than the way he did it.
I'll try to explain how pulleys can be used as gears to work levers in a
scissor type fashion. Give me a day or 2.

                                                                                                      Jim

   @All,
With what I was working on and with what Tom was discussing, together they work quite well.
Mt 26 is the drawing that came to mind yesterday. If you follow the link, Bessler tells us there
is something missing. Levers and pulleys. I was talking to a gal I know at work. I was surprised when she remebered I was working on Bessler. I had to tell her I've had to stop working on it until I can get back to normal health.
What I am going to do is detail how Bessler's wheel would have worked. And who knows, maybe Tom, gdez or Neptune might give it a go.
The secret behind would be that when the pendulum swings, it rotates a pulley. This in turn rotates a lot of other pulleys that go from the outside of the scissor, to the middle, back to the outside, back to the middle. Basically. like a serpentine belt on a newer motor.
What happens is that the pulleys in the middle of the scissors alternate the direction they rotate. This causes them to wind in another line that goes down the middle of the scissors. They open as one and close as one. And with the line powering the pulleys going from outside to middle, etc., when the scissors close, the line stays the same length, so that is not a problem.
I'll post a drawing tomorrow. I think everyone should have a good idea of it. And if not, by all means, ask questions. This way everybody can have the same level of understanding. After all, we are talking about Bessler   ;)

                                                                                                                                  Jim
p.s., if you want, go out to your car or someone elses and look at the pulleys and belts.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=MT_21-40#MT_026 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=MT_21-40#MT_026)

edited to add; I decided to add a drawing of Mt 26 rotated 90 degrees. If a pulley is at A and rotates clockwise and a pulley is at C rotating counter clockwise, then the red line would be reeled in by both pulleys. The tan line that goes from a to b to c would be the line that converts the swing of the lever into the power that operates the pulleys. The rotation of the pulley would depend on how the line approachs it.
Something to think about and hopefully someone might give it a try.  Jim

   @All,
This drawing shows more levers. There are a couple things I am mindful of.
One of them is that Bessler built a wheel 4 inches thick. That's not much room
to work with. This concept could fit in such a small space. The weight on the
pendulum could swing underneath the weight that hangs from the drum.
This just means the connecting rod would be on both sides of the scissors.
It is possible to use an off set pulley on top. This means that the axle would not
be in the center of the pulley, but lower down. This would allow the swinging
pendulum to rotate the drum counter clockwise, lifting it's weight. When the
pendulum releases the drum, then it's weight would start dropping putting it's
enerhy back into the system.
One thing I have wondered is if the drum's rotation could be slowed to allow
the pendulum to swing back to it's starting position. If so, then the wheel would
be under almost constant power. And one last thought, the drop of the pendulum
and it's distance from the center line would be how it's potential for leveraging the
lift of the drum weight would be considered. It might be lighter than what it would
seem to need to be.
  As time goes by, I'll get into the math. Then it could be better understood what it
would take to build a working model.

                                                                                                      Jim

edited to add; the basic numbers for what I drew is the CoG of the pendulum's weight
is 13.5cm from center. The scissors are 1 cm from center. That's an amazing 13.5:1 ratio.
I think I have the pendulum at a 30 degree angle. And FYI, because metric can work well
with trig, the math I will be showing will be in metric. An example of this is 1 meter @ 30 degrees
puts a weight 50 cm from center with a drop of 13.4 cm's (1m - 86.6 = 13.4). From this, we can figure
out how quickly the pendulum needs to lift the drum weight (degrees of rotation).
for SAE, 2.5cm = 1 inch (close enough  :D )

           

Quote from: webby1 on December 30, 2011, 02:35:29 PM
Hey Jim,


Strange thought I have been having, now do not read anything into this it is just a thought thing I am playing with.


So, you have two identical masses connected together by an ideal string, aka no mass no resistance and it will not stretch, and this string is hooked over an ideal pulley, no mass no resistance, alright, now if you come from underneath one of the masses and apply an impulse hit upwards the mass accelerates is if there is no gravity and turns the impulse hit into inertia, right? anyway so now when you stop *that* mass from moving you should be able to recover the input force, so what about the other mass.


Like I said it is just a strange thought, I am not sure if the input would be applied to just the one mass or if it is split between the two,, but the string can not transfer that force,,,


This came from asking myself what if I had a 2:1 lever but I only wanted to lift the heavy mass 1\2 the distance I could, say a 1 pound mass lifting a 2 pound mass, the one pound mass moving 2 feet and the 2 pound mass only moving 1\2 foot?

   Tom,
What you're describing is Newton's Cradle. They sell those. One bearing drops down at strokes one at rest.
The inertia travels through a few bearings and the last one swings upward. When it swings down, it repeats the process.
What you've thought of is better than that. I've been trying to think of a simple test to help demonstrate it's potential. Basically, how fast it could cause a wheel to spin.

                                                                                                           Jim

Quote from: webby1 on January 02, 2012, 12:20:01 PM
I actually was running with many variants of this in my head and remembered an older setup I was playing with for something completely different but it had two masses a string a pulley and a spring holding the pulley up in the air and I remember taping on one of the masses with the end of a pencil and watching all of the movement the little pencil hit could create.

  inertia is something, isn't it ? there are probably a lot of ways this can be tried.
I think what you posted was one of the better ways.

                                                                    Jim

Quote from: webby1 on January 03, 2012, 07:04:41 PM
Tesla found out what a little bit of resonant inirtia can do :)

  That's something I've thought about for a long time, reading more about his work.
If it wasn't for working on gravity power, I'd probably build something he did just to see sparks fly.
Have you ever made any videos of your energy experiments ?

                                                           Jim

Quote from: webby1 on January 04, 2012, 10:33:16 AM
no videos, I have only recently started posting pictures of some of the stuff I have been playing with, well the stuff I have enough left of to take a picture, I tend to use my old test beds as a parts store for new ideas.


Simple things has some stuff and some thoughts.


http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11149.new;topicseen#new (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11149.new;topicseen#new)

  Tom,
I read some on your work. I had a friend years ago who went to school for computers. I never understood how he understood how gates worked so easily. I think for me, could be why I do what I do.
I am going to read some more of what you've done. I'm not sure if I'll understand it as well as you, but even if I don't learn something because it's beyond my grasp, it will help me to appreciate more what I can do even if I'm only a grease monkey  :D

                                                                                                                                 Jim

Quote from: webby1 on January 04, 2012, 07:16:22 PM
Don't  know how much stuff I "know".  I have been playing with different ways of looking at things for decades, some worked most didn't but they all showed me "things" of sorts.  I have been playing with Bloch wall gates for so long it never occurs to me that some people may not know how to turn off the local area field effect as such, it is not anything new and nothing I do with it is new, well as far as I am concerned.


I do it all for the fun of it, I get a thought and I try and find a way to see if it is valid or not then take the info I get and incorporate it into my daily view on how things work and come up with something else.


I was a "papered" mechanic, spent a lot of time fixing computers, building houses and buildings, making cabinets,,,, a lot of things so don't cut yourself short, you may understand my stuff better than me.

   I have a varied background as well. I've have built a few wheels over the last 5 years or so. They're what helps me with mechanics. With your idea, I'll probably build it. I have considered a couple of different ways to build it. It'll most likely be the end of the month before I could start working on it. But I really do think it could work. Could try explaining it all, but as they say, the devil is in the details.

                                                                                                                                  Jim

Quote from: webby1 on January 05, 2012, 01:26:33 PM
Jim,


I have an observation that I will share but it will be left vague, if the observation holds true for many things it would be a shame to hide it with a single value.


Sometimes and in some conditions an interactive system that becomes a net zero interaction will allow for a change within the interactive potential without reacting to the change.


I think this is the observation Bessler made but it does not stay with just masses and gravity, it should be able to used in many systems.


This is the thing I need to play with more to see if it works, if it only works on paper and in my head it is useless, but I have a strong feeling that it is valid.

       Tom,
I think one thing Bessler did was to not over analyze what he realized.
I think this is a common mistake everyone makes. I used to do this as well.
The different ideas I have posted all have a common theme, something performs
work more efficient than previously thought possible.
With what I will be demonstrating, it is a simple design. And this allows it to realize it's potential.
And who knows, maybe those in the 12X's thread might consider5 approaching math from a little different perspective. Until I get it built, really isn't much to discuss.

                                                                 Jim

Looks like the admin here has removed the restriction from my posts ! Thanks for that .

I talked to Ralph about building my design and the conversation did not end well . It doesn't matter why ... nothing against Ralph , btw . Although he is fond of insulting people I am not . Also , from my point of view and what I'm looking at lately most people could not intuitively grasp how this thing works . Only after looking at it for days and days in an animation/simulation did I grasp the secret ( spare me your opinions about animations because they are great for learning and "feel" ) . So , that being said I am confident enough in my design to actually spend the money and build it myself . Bessler was so much more clever than a lot of people give him credit for . Everyone wants to think that he some how came up with this thing by accident . I beg to differ !

P.S. I know this is a free energy forum and all but some of you guys actually seems to be very imaginative with your ideas and frankly you may some day lose something of yours that's valuable all in the name of impressing people you don't even really know and have never met. I'm all for free energy but free in a sense that it's cheap or minimal cost , not " toss my accomplishments and ideas in you lap" kind of free . Just words of advice .

WOLF!!!

Quote from: overtaker on January 12, 2012, 08:53:09 PM
WOLF!!!

Crying a little louder these days . But as of late not really bothered at all by snide comments and such , not really bothered by much at all .

Since this topic has slowed I would now like to take the opportunity to let some of my thoughts be known . Bessler was a Christian who succeeded because of his belief in God and the ideas that inspired his device came from the Bible . He is known by history to be ill tempered among other things , but we must all admit at some point that as far as history is concerned we make men what they are . So Bessler had enough information printed to insure the preservation of his honor and his mobile . All of this speculation and endless sharing of ideas and/or bickering may or may not contribute to the eventual solution . To me , in the event that someone (including myself ) is successful in building a mobile the first person who must be honored is Bessler because without his example,well let's just say that the P.M. argument would be somewhat one sided . It would simply be seen as an impossibility with no real explanation required ...pretty much what we already have . So at this point I would like to say that the device which I am presently building is in honor to Firstly : God in whatever form he reveals himself to men and Secondly : Johann Ernst Elias Bessler (Orffyreus) who I think should be considered a prophet or at the least very close to God . I urge all of you to hold your tongue like the good people I know you are and have just a little more patience awaiting the very drawn out (as it were ) conclusion to this most interesting story .

Now more than ever I must reiterate to all of those who have ridiculed this noble search , website after website , column after column they have boasted that they " know " that our efforts will be without fruit ! Well just as Bessler warned nearly 300 years ago , you should hold your tongue ! You should patiently await the outcome without becoming hastily opinionated or swayed by false teachings . To opponents : (Wash your hands before you eat but let all ill intent issue from the heart out of the mouth and into the wide world ) . I tell you with all my heart that this subject is far from dead ! So celebrate with me the strength of the human resolve . Celebrate with me that Bessler was not content to let a true wonder and (supposed) impossibility fall to the wayside and be forgotten .

Of course he was for real... Doing my researches on Bessler I met some suggestions that wheel needs apart from weights also the counterweight and some ratchet mechanisms. We remember that Bessler worked as a watchmaker and I am pretty sure he brought some ideas from cloock mechanisms to his wheel. And what I realized yesterday... using a counterweight on one side in opposition to weights on other side plus ratchet mechanism is a reliable solution, or just one of many. I say many, cause this one will give a pulse movement of the wheel, not exactly as Bessler one.
Also believe that wheels operating on moving weights only can do a work too, but the key is a proper tuning, precision and elimination as many 'dead patchs' for weights as possible. The 'dead patch' is a path the weight goes on not doing any work under force of gravity or doing a very little.
I'll try to ilustrate these ideas soon... if I find any simple program to do it :D

Raf

P.S.
I am wondering why did Bessler hide his mechanism from the entire world. Perhaps there was no Patent Office at that time? 8)

Quote from: Rafael Ti on January 31, 2012, 08:56:19 PM
Of course he was for real... Doing my researches on Bessler I met some suggestions that wheel needs apart from weights also the counterweight and some ratchet mechanisms. We remember that Bessler worked as a watchmaker and I am pretty sure he brought some ideas from cloock mechanisms to his wheel. And what I realized yesterday... using a counterweight on one side in opposition to weights on other side plus ratchet mechanism is a reliable solution, or just one of many. I say many, cause this one will give a pulse movement of the wheel, not exactly as Bessler one.
Also believe that wheels operating on moving weights only can do a work too, but the key is a proper tuning, precision and elimination as many 'dead patchs' for weights as possible. The 'dead patch' is a path the weight goes on not doing any work under force of gravity or doing a very little.
I'll try to ilustrate these ideas soon... if I find any simple program to do it :D

Raf

P.S.
I am wondering why did Bessler hide his mechanism from the entire world. Perhaps there was no Patent Office at that time? 8)

  Hi Rafael,
I think one reason why Bessler might have kept his design secret initially was because of his friend. It was about money. But after his demonstrations were not recieved the way he hoped, he chose his writings.

@Christo, while Bessler might have been very religious, I do not think I would go so far as to call him a prophet. To say that machines could make our lives easier was already known.
The British had gone to spinning 10 bobbins of thread. This allowed them to import cotton from India and export thread back to India and sell it cheaper. Money is a strong motivator  :)

It's not that I am saying he was a prophet because of his ability to see the future or something like that , I'm saying that he "saw" the mobile and this he received from God . Don't take the things I say out of context and add your own interpretation please . A prophet can be anyone who sees things that other people can't see . Obviously , in this sense , Bessler , if he was genuine , is the ONLY person to ever realize such a thing as he invented .Half the time all anyone wants to do is argue or correct what someone else says . If you're so damn smart as to assume to correct the things I'm saying then I leave it to you my friend , to solve the mobile and let all these fine people in on the news of it's arrival .

Quote from: christo4_99 on February 01, 2012, 12:02:59 PM
It's not that I am saying he was a prophet because of his ability to see the future or something like that , I'm saying that he "saw" the mobile and this he received from God . Don't take the things I say out of context and add your own interpretation please . A prophet can be anyone who sees things that other people can't see . Obviously , in this sense , Bessler , if he was genuine , is the ONLY person to ever realize such a thing as he invented .Half the time all anyone wants to do is argue or correct what someone else says . If you're so damn smart as to assume to correct the things I'm saying then I leave it to you my friend , to solve the mobile and let all these fine people in on the news of it's arrival .

>>   If you're so damn smart as to assume to correct the things I'm saying then I leave it to you my friend , to solve the mobile and let all these fine people in on the news of it's arrival .  <<

  Have done it and have been looking for a professional wood worker to build it.

                                                                                                    Bye

Good luck with that ....

Quote from: christo4_99 on February 02, 2012, 12:55:52 PM
Good luck with that ....

  Thanks.
I am going to talk to a wood worker tonight. I am hoping to have it built for under $500 U.S. dollars.
That is the price of not having a place to build  :)
There are reasons why I tone down the religious aspect of Bessler. He did seem to be quite religious.
But in my own life, people tell me I have the Lord in my life. This is why I was almost killed by a van and then had cancer and Bessler for icing on the cake. And all of this with no family or friends.
There was a time I did like pursuing Bessler but another poster wanted to put a religious spin on things by making false statements.
One clue that everyone has missed is the attached drawing. Those are not pendulums but are crosses. Bessler's way of saying have faith. The one in front of the wheel has a dual meaning. The other reference is to trigonometry. It is one reason why I perservered even though everyone seemed to be against any demonstration of what Bessler actually knew and did accomplish.
I did exchange a couple of e-mails with John Collins about Bessler using Orphyreus. John told me Bessler was questioned as to him believing he was like Orpheus to which he answered no. I told John he gave the correct answer. He is not like Orpheus but was like Hermes who invented the lyre which Orpheus made sing for a woman. Yep, there always seems to be a woman that motivates a man more than any God can, can you believe that ?
I can't wait to meet her  ;) ;)

Gravity is a one trick pony. The only trick it can do is to convert potential energy to kinetic energy. But you always have to supply potential energy in the first place in order for this conversion process to happen.


Accordingly, as gravity is merely a converter, where does the potential energy (to run your PM pendulum machines) supposedly come from? How is gravity supposed to convert potential energy into kinetic energy if there is no continuous supply of potential energy to begin with?


How in the world are your machines supposed to work 'perpetually' if you do not 'perpetually' supply gravity with potential energy? Permit me to explain why these machines cannot possibly work. Imagine a water pipe. You can never get more water out of the bottom end of the water pipe than you supplied to the top end of it. An uncontroversial matter of fact if ever there was one. But when people think of energy, they get hopelessly confused, so I will clarify things in terms you can understand.


Giga-electron volts are used by the world's best physicists in CERN (at the Large Hadron Collider) as a unit of MASS. This is because of the mass/energy equivalence principle established by Einstein.


Accordingly, just as you cannot hope to get more water out of the bottom of a pipe than you pour into the top of it, so too, you can never get more energy of any sort out of any system than you supply to it in the first place.


And for the avoidance of doubt, this applies to 'PM' gravity devices as well. You must always supply potential energy to enable the force of gravity to take effect, but you can never get more energy out of a so called PM machine than you put into it in the first place. Even an ideal machine with 100% efficiency cannot exceed 100% efficiency for this reason.


If you still think PM machines are possible after reading this, you might seriously consider having an independently administered IQ test. Independently verified confirmation of a low IQ on your part may save you thousands of dollars in equipment and materials, and vast amounts of time.

q n a
think i,mdone with this,
hae heard the saint christo knows the answer,
my ignprant resppnxe would be bessler lnew a differebt applicationbof what we
know to b tru today, unvrtunately, it seems no one understands hydraulic theor,
typps bcause on a three inch scrern and need glsssex

@QT,

I suppose you believe all the other explanations of everything that science has to offer like how if you go far enough back in time ( which actually might not even exist ) that somehow everything came from nothing . The fact is there has never been a man like Bessler to make such a total and fearless search for the P.M. principle . He found it and you can only run your mouth about something that actually happened because he never sold it . Now while you run your mouth , although you never founded any scientific laws yourself ...I am planning on building the very device that Bessler displayed in his time . What loophole are you gonna jump through in the event that it does work ? Seriously ... you cannot disprove anything based on ignorance . You cannot say that something is impossible because YOU DON'T KNOW . And if I say I DO know then what ? I suppose no one can have more information than you do ? All learning and experimentation leads to nowhere ... is that the most of it ? Bessler really shredded his opponents . That's what you fail to see . They were silenced by a 54 day run in a castle . Ever notice there's no Wagner Critiques after Bessler moved into the castle . This kind of ignorance , the kind that is inherited and unfounded is what Bessler had a problem with and probably the real reason that he never sold his invention . I have thought about the law of coe and gravity being a conservative force and what a device like this would have to say about that .  I think that it comes down to whether or not a force can be created initially ...and I say it can . If the information that I have is wrong , and I really don't think it is , then I'll give up . But I will never listen to someone like you who doesn't realize that great men err too and then people follow them  making their errors the incontestable "truth" .  Many an inventor has surpassed a so called scientist in their achievement and many a (just one actually ) scientist has caused more damage by tinkering with fundamental particles than we can ever undo . As far as cern is concerned I dare to speculate that there is no higgs and things ( constituent parts of matter ) are infinitely smaller and infinitely undetectable ... just as there is no limit to how large something can be . Cern is a waste of money and time .

P.S. I just thought of a perfect way to end this argument or whatever it is . If you were to see a working device such as the one I am planning I know what you would say :"THAT'S CHEATING !!! :'(

Quote from: christo4_99 on April 15, 2012, 11:08:19 PM
@QT,

As far as cern (sic) is concerned I dare to speculate that there is no higgs (sic) and things ( constituent parts of matter ) (sic) are infinitely smaller and infinitely undetectable ... just as there is no limit to how large something can be . Cern is a waste of money and time .

Never wrestle with a Pig. You will both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it. By the same token, always avoid 'scientific arguments' with people who only express 'opinions'. They never allow their opinions to be contaminated by trivial considerations such as data, equations or empirical evidence.


The point here is that facts are more much more important than opinions when discussing matters of science. For this reason, I have not responded to the majority of your 'opinions'. What would be the point? I will get muddy and you will enjoy it. However, your last sentence (another opinion) went beyond the pale. It was a blow below the belt and in that sense a response may be justified.


Newton identified and explained the force of gravity in terms of its effects. But before Professor Higgs and others came along and published papers in the 1960s, the question...'what makes particles have mass' remained unanswered.


CERN is vitally important, inter alia, because discovery of the Higgs boson (somewhere in or about the 125 Gigaelectron volt range), would constitute the first reliable experimental evidence in support of the hypothesis that particles are imbued with mass in consequence of the presence of this boson. This is really important science, which could have widespread theoretical and practical implications (should the Higgs Boson be confirmed with 5 Cigma probability). If the particle is confirmed, it may then be a matter of time before these bosons can be separated in a magnetic field or Bose Einstein condensate of some sort. The implication just might be that the mass of a particle could then be manipulated using these bosons. Real science.


On the one hand, you support 'research' into PM machines (which cannot possibly work for reasons I had to lower my IQ to explain), and on the other hand you oppose serious research that could and probably will change the way we view the world and also enable us to build marvellous machines that actually work (such as, for example, the computer your luddite views were expressed on).


The upshot is that you advance quackery whilst opposing serious science, the most likely explanation for which being egoic. Which is to say, you wish to be 'the one' who makes a working Bessler wheel, and if you cannot do so (which of course you will not be able to do), in the meantime you would like a coterie of acolytes to marvel at your every enigmatic word during the great Delphic process of building the machine to end all machines. A trillion dollar masterpiece which your oracular genius has finally enabled the world to understand.


Ghastly.

Quote from: christo4_99 on April 15, 2012, 11:08:19 PM
@QT,
YOU DON'T KNOW . And if I say I DO know then what ?

   Christo,
Why not use your real name which is Chris ? As to that statement, IF is a mighty big
word when you have NEVER shown anything. Posting claims is proof of nothing
but your desire for attention.

@Quantum, gravity is not the converter but the force to be manipulated/converted. it does
need a medium. I'll let blow hard know it all Christo explain this unless Christo really
doesn't know anything about engineering and/or basic science.
And what he missed, Bessler built things besides perpetual wheels. Doubt they were a die hard quest for
him but he found engineering interesting. Also, gravity in 1687 (when Bessler was born) was a newly discovered idea than many people experimented with. And today ? A lot of people just post without taking the time to learn. Not sure how much interest you've had in science or engineering but it does help to have read up some on it. As such, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not the issue. One reason is if a wheel can sustain a sufficient over balance to continuously generate force, then any energy loss due to entropy or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would be accounted for.
Myself, I think Christo might be like AB Hammer and wanting to use religion or a connotation there of to make their views seem more important than the reality of Bessler merely being a man ahead of his times. And in the early 1700's, mechanical engineering was in it's infancy so little use to for such talents.

edited to correct year Newton published his book, En Principia. At the time, Bessler was a lad of 7 years.
The industrial revolution was just starting in England. It's start ? They spun 10 bobbins of thread at one time.
Before this, spinning ginnies were used to spin it one bobbin at  a time.

I'll just build it . Nuff said .

So over 10 years later, how did the build go?

quantumtangles

QuoteGravity is a one trick pony. The only trick it can do is to convert potential energy to kinetic energy. But you always have to supply potential energy in the first place in order for this conversion process to happen.

It's debatable, the force of gravity is proportional to the mass of an object and the mass is dependent on a property of mass called inertia. However nobody knows what inertia is and whether it's a property of mass or the space a mass occupies.

I read through the Bessler literature and did some experiments a long time ago with no luck. However I have learned quite a bit since then and may take another crack at it. I have come to understand that the laws of physics always apply however how we apply them in reality matters. The way Bessler was talking he wasn't just using the weight of objects, mass displacement or leverage to move them as most assumed. As we know that cannot work however what Bessler actually implied was that he was using the weight of an object against itself in some way.

This is a good website...https://besslerwheel.com/
The clues section is interesting...https://besslerwheel.com/clues.html

I think it's funny, a few hundred years later nobody has any better idea what the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, Gravity) and inertia are than in Bessler's day. It's a black hole of knowledge few seem intelligent enough to crack.

AC

Clues to the Wheel's Design
   

    Machine was set in motion by weights.
    - Bessler

    Weights acted in pairs
    - Bessler

    Weights gained force from their own swinging.
    - Bessler

    Weights came to be placed together, arranged one against another.
    - Bessler

    Weights applied force at right angles to the axis.
    - Bessler

    Springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested.
    - Bessler

    The machine's power was directly proportional to its diameter.
    - Bessler

    Weights may have been pierced in the middle and attached by connecting springs.
    - Acta Eridutorum, An Account of the Perpetuum Mobile of J. E. E. Orffyreus, 1715

   

    Weights were heard hitting the side of the wheel going down.
    - eyewitness accounts

    Machine made scratching noises, as if parts or poles moved over one another.
    - eyewitness accounts

    Weights may have been attached to movable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel.
    - Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account

    Weights may have landed on slightly warped boards.
    - Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account

    Weights were cylindrical.
    - Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account

    About 8 weights fell during each revolution of the wheel, which took about 3 seconds. (wheel diameter ~ 12 feet)
    - Joseph Fischer, eyewitness account

Quote from: onepower on March 06, 2023, 08:16:50 PM

...
This is a good website...https://besslerwheel.com/ (https://besslerwheel.com/)
The clues section is interesting...https://besslerwheel.com/clues.html (https://besslerwheel.com/clues.html)

I think it's funny, a few hundred years later nobody has any better idea what the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, Gravity) and inertia are than in Bessler's day. It's a black hole of knowledge few seem intelligent enough to crack.

AC

Black hole indeed.


You might be interested in the BesslerWheel thread by Senax entitled Terragravitic Induction (https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9115)[/font][/size][/b]

There's no doubt that Bessler built several wheels (Testimonies, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, one of the greatest scientists of his time).
Hasn't anyone figured it out yet? According to you!


Why would Bessler have given clues? I think the opposite, just truisms (the sky is blue, the earth is round).
Can gravity keep an object in motion, falling continuously without any known energy?
On paper, no, and that's to be expected. We still doubt we'll ever be able to ride a bike, we're not even on the draisienne yet.

thx4

QuoteWhy would Bessler have given clues? I think the opposite, just truisms (the sky is blue, the earth is round).
Can gravity keep an object in motion, falling continuously without any known energy?
On paper, no, and that's to be expected. We still doubt we'll ever be able to ride a bike, we're not even on the draisienne yet.

It's an interesting story which still applies today...

Bessler was a genius, scholar, philosopher and a true craftsman similar to Leonardo Da Vinci. He invented all kinds of things and eventually found a way to harness the force of gravity with a machine. Then he tried to sell his gravity machine and the secret for a rather large sum of money. This is when the problems started.

Like many inventors today including FE inventors Bessler found almost all the wealthy people who could buy his machine were psychotic and would rather try to steal his work. Countless people could have bought the tech and helped humanity but they were psychotic and only wanted to help themselves. After being gaslighted and cheated on countless occasions Bessler finally lost faith in humanity and went into seclusion like many other geniuses. In fact, Leonardo da Vinci was also persecuted and received harsh treatment similar to Bessler.

We have heard this story countless times. Inventor gets cheated then stalked by psychopaths, goes into seclusion giving some hints as to how a technology works to help people then disappears. You see most wealthy people are psychopaths/predators, they don't buy tech they steal it and then try and take credit for it or bury it. It's always the same old sad story.

To answer your other question...

QuoteCan gravity keep an object in motion, falling continuously without any known energy?

Probably not, but your assessment is simplistic, subjective and has literally nothing to do with how the tech actually works.

Here's a clue,
Question to ChatGPT, does fusion from hydrogen to helium change the total mass present?.

QuoteAnswer, The process of fusion, where hydrogen nuclei (protons) combine to form helium nuclei, does indeed result in a change in the total mass present. This change is governed by Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2, which relates energy (E) to mass (m) and the speed of light (c).

QuoteThere are several phenomena and processes that can alter the total mass of an object.

Here we have proof the mass of an object is not constant and under certain circumstances can change. Obviously Bessler did not use fusion however if the mass of an object can be altered in one case then it could be possible to alter it in other cases. In effect, if the mass changed then so does the force of gravity on it and the apparent weight. In effect, some process inside a closed box could make the box appear to get lighter or heavier. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out an object changing weight could perform work.

So the next time some amateur claims it's impossible to change the mass/weight of something inside a closed box all you have to say is that there is a fusion reaction taking place inside it. You see, real science can be fun...

AC

Comment on peut dire autant de conneries au KM,
Visite le clos Lucé pour léonard de Vinci, et ça t'évitera d'être aussi présomptueux sur sa vie. Encore un qui sait tout.
Pour Bessler même combat en pire, plutôt tyrannique le philosophe, instruit surement, génie pas encore et probablement jamais.
Bref post sans intérêt comme pour le reste.


How can you say so much bullshit at KM,
Visit Clos Lucé for Leonardo da Vinci, and you won't be so presumptuous about his life. Another know-it-all.
For Bessler, it's the same battle, only worse: the philosopher is rather tyrannical, probably well-educated, but not yet a genius, and probably never will be.
In short, this post is as pointless as the rest.

For these having not much to do with their time,
- who are interested with more or less verifiable history
it is also good to know that:
No mechanical system ever was approved by  patent office as self powered in entire history of patents.
Name  of a hero is no important to us.
No practical solution for mechanical systems is ever available in energy generation field.
___________________________________________________________
However water wheel is mechanical, works and is open for innovations in Patent Office.
Wind turbine is mechanical system having electrical generator and is open for innovations in Patent Office.
Combustion engine is  mechanical.
Hydrogen motor is mechanical
So only systems converting one source of energy into another  works
in any field and that is  the general rule.
Wesley

Hello Stivep!

I think any giroscope looped by any gear (teeth or belt) will be best and most powerful solution for nowadays knowledge (COP 10-50).

Giroscopes may be found in toys.

stivep

QuoteFor these having not much to do with their time,
- who are interested with more or less verifiable history
it is also good to know that:
No mechanical system ever was approved by  patent office as self powered in entire history of patents.
Name  of a hero is no important to us.
No practical solution for mechanical systems is ever available in energy generation field.

Interesting take but as usual you said nothing of value which moves the conversation forward comrade...

I explained Bessler's history then went on to explain why he didn't disclose his technology. I then added some context and a possible solution based on Bessler's own words. Ergo, a system of levers and mass/momentum transfer seems unlikely however a change in the system properties could work.

For example, imagine the consequences of what would happen if we could hide the "weight" of a "mass" in a system?. You see weight is completely dependent on a field of force we call gravity. Where the mass of an object is not dependent on gravity but a property of mass we call inertia. There is no such thing as "weight" in outer space and everything including all the objects, planets and stars are very much weight-less. We cannot put a scale under anything in space because it would always read zero.

Which begs the question, what if we could reproduce the weight-less properties of space down here on Earth?. Well, all bets are off because now any object could have weight or not depending on the circumstances. All we would have to do is place two equal weights on a lever, remove the weight from the mass on one end of the lever and watch the other end fall performing work, easy peasy.

As Bessler and the people who saw the internal mechanism claimed, it's so simple even a child could understand it. Don't you find that strange, it's so simple even a child could understand it and yet you cannot?...

AC

Philosophy in real everyday life
Here is how the logic is applied.
Use this method in real life  it helps a lot to avoid bad decisions and improves understanding.
example:
step 1: compare analyzed text  to other sources of the same.
                 e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Bessler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Bessler)
step 2: original text was chopped into elements ( building blocks) :

Quote from: onepower on September 03, 2023, 12:40:07 PM

1. It's an interesting story which still applies today...
2. Bessler was a genius, scholar, philosopher and a true craftsman
3. He invented//and eventually found a way to harness the force of gravity with a machine.
4. Then he tried to sell his gravity machine and the secret for a rather large sum of money.
This is when the problems started.

step 3: Than try to make one sentence from it.
example: "Besler inventor had problems to sale his gravity machine."

step 4: Now we build our conclusions about the known information.
step 5: All the unknown looks now more appalling, appealing, neutral etc.

Note: _{the only difference or similarity between you and me is scientifically (socially) recognized level
,used to analyze "the unknown" based on "the known."
Analyze anything you want  from God , spirituality, health, science, fiends, family, law and love, morality, sensual and sexual freedom of choice and action.}

Method of Exclusion: when you exclude the cause _{(a reason for an action or condition )
e.g. excluding God changes your  understanding of science, morality, sensual, sexual freedom of choice and action.}
____________________________________________________
These 5 points  saves you time and money.
far less mistakes in life,  like:
Why I didn't become a licensed electrician in USA, NY who in average here makes almost for certain, not less than $500k per year.
-knowing that I do not need for that any  formal education at all( high school and 7 years of work in electrical company)

Now think about any young guy who reads just that  last  sentence of mine.
How many of them wants to have not less than half of a million dollars every year.
How this few words changes their life?
Emigration, marriage for Green card,  or worker visa, adaptation, your own business.
90% of an average Russian young interested in electricity, would want that now.
_{Electrical engineer  is required 3 years of work in USA NY electrical company.
These with money can open  their own company tomorrow employing  for only ~7 years a licensed electrician who doesn't want to be in business.( for an average salary 140k/year)
Investment required: to become an electrician in NY : few screwdrivers, pliers,  hand tools= $150}
Wesley

 first take look at the comment right above this one  than read what's below:

Quote from: onepower on September 04, 2023, 08:00:35 PM
stivep
you said nothing of value which moves the conversation forward

I'm real - means better than Chat GPT.
I'm nobody till someone see value in me -  how many  people can say that about themselves?
------------------------------------------------------------

"Movement  has a vector that in any direction  always points and  moves forward from its start , and its foreword helps you understand it."
-Try this above sentence in AI it will get lost:
"Hello, this is Bing. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Do you have a question or a topic you want to search? 🤔"

Wesley

Here's a clue about Bessler...
https://orffyre.tripod.com/id16.html
Bessler history, a good read

Quoteyoung Orffyreus was an exceptional student of such things as science, mathematics, languages, and mechanics.  Among his many skills, he knew how to build clocks, watches, mills, and organs. He also understood smelting and casting. Like Leonardo Da Vinci, he seems to have been a man of many talents, and studied theology, medicine and painting as well as mechanics.

In my opinion this is exactly the kind of person who has the skills and ability to discover something new, a genius.

Think of the skills of a clockmaker,
-all the parts need to be precision made and efficient as possible
-all the masses and motions of countless parts fully understood
-countless parts perfectly timed and synchronized with each other

These are exactly the skills and understanding one would need to build the kind of device in question. I would bet nobody here has these skills or even knows someone with them. You think your smart and skilled?, then build me a watch on par with a Rolex from scratch. This is the level of knowledge and expertise Bessler had which may explain why he could do what he supposedly did.

However we do not need to be a genius like Bessler nor possess all his understanding. Bessler did all the hard work and left us many clues on how to proceed.

I found it's much easier to break everything down into first principals and simplify what was said.
1)The device uses the "motion" of "weights" acting on "mechanical parts" like springs, gears and levers.
2)The well known concept of equal and opposite action/reaction dictates that there can be no conventional gain in energy.
3)Ergo, the only option left is a change in the properties of some element within the system.
4)Under what circumstances could a system property change or appear to change?.

Most think this is impossible but it's not that difficult. Suppose we had a weight at the perimeter of the wheel. Then a trigger activated a spring which flung the weight into the air inside the wheel to some other part of the wheel. For as long as that weight is airborne and not touching the wheel it has left the system and cannot act on any part of the wheel. For all purposes the weight has completely disappeared until it comes to rest somewhere else after a time period. Now if one spring expands throwing the weight into the air and when it lands it compresses another spring the energy can be conserved. Here we can see we could make a weight periodically disappear from the system and the loss would be very small. This is only one of countless way to periodically hide a property like weight or mass within a system.

AC

Bessler was hunting nonsense -in terms of today science.
Nonsense has very little lack for any discovery.
These committed to the doable not to the nonsense
must have distinctive  education or  be autodidacts or be just very lucky.
For every upside, there's a downside.
Misfortune - unfortunate or distressing result  is not what you want Dear onepower.
Any activity in any place Bessler had, should  make you aware  that:
- Entertainment  ends when you need to buy some flowers to your girlfriend and than support your future family needs.
We may agree or disagree but my risk of valuable examination, is lesser in the eyes of the educated in this art crowd
and you are trying to exercise a "revolutionist" who lost or who lost big time.
-Intelligent, gifted, but  moving in the  wrong direction.
Wesley

stivep

QuoteBessler was hunting nonsense -in terms of today science.

Yes I got that the first time my Russian troll, after the N'th time it only made you look like an imbecile. As if repeating something over and over and over somehow makes it more true, it doesn't.

Back to the actual topic of this thread, I have a theory about what Bessler may have been doing...

Like any new or advanced technology, even those we currently know of, the premise must rely on some element few ever considered. For example, many people said you cannot fly because your too heavy. Then someone invented an airplane which could fly. It is true that people cannot fly, but they can ride in an airplane which can fly. It's a matter of perspective...

In effect, we should not be looking for an effect most people would have thought of but the last thing they ever would have considered. This is why another brilliant inventor by the name of Victor Schaberger implied we should always do the opposite of what everyone else is doing. I mean, if what were doing is not producing the desired results then why keep doing it?. Why not try to change?, what have you got to lose and what to gain?. Mix it up, try something new...

I don't know, maybe as an Engineer raised on the farm I'm a little rough around the edges. So when someone claims I cannot do something my first instinct is to tell them to go fuck themselves and the horse they rode in on. I will decide what I can and cannot do not some nit wit who hasn't even tried...

AC

Quote from: onepower on September 05, 2023, 05:48:58 PM
//many people said you cannot fly because your too heavy. Then someone invented an airplane which could fly. //
I don't know, maybe as an Engineer raised on the farm I'm a little rough around the edges. So when someone claims I cannot do something my first instinct is to tell them to go fuck themselves and the horse they rode in on. I will decide what I can and cannot do not some nit wit who hasn't even tried...
AC

You have valid point with airplane.
Bird was first , human, replicated  observable phenomena.
No conflict with science was ever present.

- and yes - you decide.. true statement , no questions.
To find the way around you need to find how to fly in perpetual motion area
as a first human in history of human kind...
I do not think it is possible.
Wesley

Hi All,

One thing that really gets me is claims that is over 10 years on this forum.

Has anyone try building a prototype on this forum?

It seem like a Howard Johnson Motor that can be duplicated.

If nobody has try to duplicate this theory, I would be willing to take a jab at building one.

Tom

Maybe a sensible approach would be to find out why wouldn't work, than find a way to overcome ... pure engineering skills

Quote from: TommeyReed on September 06, 2023, 01:50:49 AM
Hi All,
One thing that really gets me is claims that is over 10 years on this forum.
Has anyone try building a prototype on this forum?
It seem like a Howard Johnson Motor that can be duplicated.
If nobody has try to duplicate this theory, I would be willing to take a jab at building one.
Tom

https://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=1064 (https://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=1064)
It is again the same story like with  any perpetual motion machine
or claiming access of energy machine after  a Howard Johnson Motor.
None of that was proven to work or went to production 
-we may  mention: Hungarian EBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wys68tMvh5w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wys68tMvh5w)
They call for money now, looking for investors after 2011 fiasco.
https://www.gammamanager.com/products.php (https://www.gammamanager.com/products.php)

The most energy-efficient electric motors and generators contain rare earth permanent magnets
ERMA has identified 14 projects from mine to magnet (invest volume of €1.7 billion)
which would regain a 20% global production share for the EU
https://erma.eu/app/uploads/2021/09/01227816.pdf (https://erma.eu/app/uploads/2021/09/01227816.pdf)
But none of it  covers self looped, self powered projects.

Duplicating nonsense is waste  of time and money knowing that magnet  can't
give out energy .
If some "magicians"  says it does than think how much of that energy "is there."
1 impulse of 10 000W  in 1second (=0.0002777778 h)  magnetizes an iron.
That means that any load of 1kW/s would work only 10sec using this  energy, and after that - it will never work  again.
What I like about onepower is his  example with  an airplane
-means human animal went around and  applied the same laws for heavier than air birds making airplane fly but  something is powering  it.
Going around magnet  requires energy to be delivered like regular motors using magnets. 
"Lunatic"  may be lucky to win in lotto but not much more than that.

Yo wanna build something?
Than build  A to B energy transfer  machine for $50 of your cost and during one day only.
You have  more that 200 patents for this ready for you to read.
onepower- go around it and make it fly little different and than patent it becoming immediate billiarder/ milliarder

_____________________________________________________
The reason  yo not doing it is that  language used in patents is  not an average Joe friendly.
and for many  it is like reading a Chinese. I explained it in this forum  and gave exact  information about 
winding , structure and testing but even that is too difficult  for many of you to try.
https://overunity.com/17735/kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion/msg562296/#msg562296 (https://overunity.com/17735/kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion/msg562296/#msg562296)
based on practical model in practical testing.
and cheap now  impedance matching measurement devices:
https://overunity.com/17735/kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion/msg579717/#msg579717 (https://overunity.com/17735/kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion/msg579717/#msg579717)
https://overunity.com/17735/kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion/msg581359/#msg581359 (https://overunity.com/17735/kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion/msg581359/#msg581359)
or little more exotic( I do not recommend) 31kW generators powered from regular 110V outlet.
https://overunity.com/17735/kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion/msg574601/#msg574601 (https://overunity.com/17735/kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion/msg574601/#msg574601)
no need to have this:
https://overunity.com/17735/kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion/msg581355/#msg581355 (https://overunity.com/17735/kapanadze-and-other-fe-discussion/msg581355/#msg581355)


FACE  it - THIS IS YOUR LEVEL guys,  you are at .
Humor:
mechanic is likely challenging a screw
electronic engineer  is likely challenging a resistor.
-it is all other people  art.

_{Do you feel humiliated now?
scientist is in everyone  of you .., - you can change it  if you will, but you do not want to.. do you?}
Wesley

Quote from: adrouk on September 06, 2023, 05:42:26 AM
Maybe a sensible approach would be to find out why wouldn't work, than find a way to overcome ... pure engineering skills

There is a better method for this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ)

Quote from: kolbacict on September 06, 2023, 11:54:57 AM
There is a better method for this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ)

Are you a bot? Stefan, is it?

Incorrect statement until someone shows the energy entering the system to hit een COP 1.00001.
It's a lever. No energy is brought into existence.
That oil pump doesn't pump itself and it only bring sup oil and dirt, not electricity or even kinetic energy.

Quote from: Cloxxki on September 06, 2023, 06:11:15 PM
Are you a bot? Stefan, is it?

No. Just wanted to introduce community about excellent method of solution inventor tasks.TRIZ.
I don't think that everyone know it. :)
Altshuller is great. It is the best I saw.

Quote from: kolbacict on September 07, 2023, 01:20:37 AM
No. Just wanted to introduce community about excellent method of solution inventor tasks.TRIZ.
I don't think that everyone know it. :)
Altshuller is great. It is the best I saw.

Apologies, my reply ended up in the wrong thread. Didn't mean to address you at all.

On perpetual motion and machines...

Here's a clue...
Question to AI,
Can atoms ever lose all there kinetic energy?

Answer,

QuoteIn classical physics, atoms cannot lose all their kinetic energy because of the principles of conservation of energy. However, in the realm of quantum mechanics, atoms can approach a state of minimum kinetic energy, but they cannot reach absolute zero kinetic energy.

Question,
Can atoms be destroyed?

Answer,

QuoteIn the context of classical physics, atoms are considered to be indestructible, as they are the fundamental building blocks of matter. According to the law of conservation of mass, which is a fundamental principle in classical physics and chemistry, matter cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be transformed from one form to another.

So, if energy and matter including the atom cannot be destroyed and the atom always has kinetic energy (motion) is this not perpetual motion?.

Let's go further, a machine is a physical system using power to apply forces and control movement to perform an action. An atom is a physical system and it has kinetic energy and applies forces. It has many parts(particles/fields) which perform a useful function which is all the material stuff in the universe. Ergo, the atom qualifies as a mechanism/machine and is perpetually in motion because it cannot be destroyed or lose all it's motion.

It would seem to me the people who claim perpetual motion is impossible don't understand what an atom is or how it works.

So this thing many cannot seem to understand is not all that difficult, in fact it should be obvious. I mean when we learned energy and matter cannot be destroyed this should have raised some questions in our mind. Forget creationism that's a rabbit hole but something which must remain in motion which cannot be destroyed definitely raises certain questions.

AC

Yes, atoms can be destroyed, whole things can be. That is because of the dematerialisation. To achieve this atoms of a body are put into unstable condition. That includes: be in motion (high velocity), be in high grade ether, have contact with dematerialisation acid or black matter, or be radiated by special radiation. This was all known before and used even as a weapon or happens as a miracle. But tell me, if there is not any risk, why in normal conditions may classic physics does'nt work? What for? This can happen in a dream/heavens but shouldn't be in the real world. And free energy? There's a just machines from ou parts. Also we have so much different radiation that zero point energy had raised. It would be a sin not to suck this energy and consume it practically.

Best wishes,

Dxer.

Quote from: Cloxxki on September 06, 2023, 06:11:15 PM
Are you a bot? Stefan, is it?

Incorrect statement until someone shows the energy entering the system to hit een COP 1.00001.
It's a lever. No energy is brought into existence.
That oil pump doesn't pump itself and it only bring sup oil and dirt, not electricity or even kinetic energy.

TRIZ,35 problem definition and problem resolving questions/answers .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)
demonstration :

Experimental demonstration of the butterfly effect with six recordings of the same double pendulum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum). In each recording, the pendulum starts with almost the same initial condition. Over time, the differences in the dynamics grow from almost unnoticeable to drastic.

End-stadium :

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_resonance&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj1y_eN4ZqBAxXvdqQEHUksD-gQFnoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw1aLR5d-O7DpbeT-KJIOLoU (https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_resonance&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj1y_eN4ZqBAxXvdqQEHUksD-gQFnoECAMQAg&usg=AOvVaw1aLR5d-O7DpbeT-KJIOLoU)

resonance disaster or resonance catastrophe

https://www.britannica.com/science/dynamics-physics
Galileo (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Galileo-Galilei), who, by experimenting with a smooth ball rolling down an inclined plane (https://www.britannica.com/technology/inclined-plane), derived the law of motion for falling bodies; he was also the first to recognize that force is the cause of changes in the velocity of a body, a fact formulated by Isaac Newton (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Isaac-Newton) in the 17th century in his second law of motion.
  linear dynamics versus progressive dynamics

wmbr
OCWL

Quote from: onepower on September 07, 2023, 08:56:05 PM

Question,
Can atoms be destroyed?

Certain atoms can be converted into energy in an "H" bomb but if there is an equivalence between energy and matter, how can energy be converted into atoms?

Quote from: Paul-R on September 08, 2023, 06:11:08 AM
Certain atoms can be converted into energy in an "H" bomb but if there is an equivalence between energy and matter, how can energy be converted into atoms?

Related : energy and matter
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19931118&CC=DE&NR=4215818A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19931118&CC=DE&NR=4215818A1&KC=A1#)

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19980305&CC=DE&NR=19637710A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19980305&CC=DE&NR=19637710A1&KC=A1#)

wmbr
OCWL

"... how can energy be converted into atoms?"

Within dematerialisation some information stays in space about the object. And its harder to achieve the body back. Mostly this can be achieve by prayer and miracle (please, don't laugh). Also teleportation has something to do with dematerialisation and getting back. From my best knowledge a body when teleporting goes into another form of mattery that is gas (consisted of bands of isosters particles - Russians got it xD). Most of destroying hard objects and getting them into the gas. Only we don't know how much last in this from a normal body. Sometimes an acid etheric gas is haunting for objects to dissolve them just as black matter gas is doing.

But don't worry sun is shining, classic physics rules, though its lied mostly in energetic/antigravity and that is urgent for us that we don't make wrong things knowing it a bit better - The Mad Scientist effect/UFO builder.

My point was perpetual motion can easily be proven through countless examples found in nature.

If perpetual motion is the norm then it becomes much more likely that countless inventors like Bessler may have found a way to tap into this energy.

AC

Quote from: onepower on September 07, 2023, 08:56:05 PM
On perpetual motion and machines...

So, if energy and matter including the atom cannot be destroyed and the atom always
has kinetic energy (motion) is this not perpetual motion?.

It would seem to me the people who claim perpetual motion is impossible don't
\understand what an atom is or how it works.
//we learned energy and matter cannot be destroyed this should have raised some questions in our mind.
\Forget creationism that's a rabbit hole but something which must remain in motion
which cannot be destroyed definitely raises certain questions.

AC

Any explanation in  memory - _(minus) explanation that is forgotten = some clue.
  Any explanation ignored = 0
    Ignorant :
      -can't challenge the ignored,=0
        -doesn't understand and can't forget, that what was  explained  as he ignored it.
            So you may have some clue if you have  simply forgot  the explanation.
_________________________________________

Ignorant may  never  refresh the ignored as it equals =0
   So for all  others here it is some non  Zero information.
      Atom is not in perpetual motion at all and it was EXPLANED to non-ignorant
        Law of conservation  of matter  belongs to classical mechanics.
            Mass = energy   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence)       
                So mass after conversion is represented in form of pure energy. (gasoline engine, HHO, Hydrogen engine  etc. + leftovers )

QuoteIn reality, the conservation of mass only holds approximately and is considered part of a series of assumptions
in classical mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics)
The law has to be modified to comply with the laws of  quantum mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) and special relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity)
under the principle of   mass–energy equivalence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence) which states that energy and mass form one conserved quantity.
For very energetic systems the conservation of mass only is shown not to hold,
as is the case in nuclear  reactions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reaction) and particle-antiparticle  annihilation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation)  in  particle physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass)
_________________________________________

conclusion:
Most of problems arise due to a reader  ignoring updates.
Every Pioneer is just  making a base:
  e.g.: TESLA evolved to the modern electromagnetism
         science of Mendeleyev evolved to the modern  periodic table.
            science of Bohr atom evolved to the modern model of atom
                 science of Albert Einstein  evolved to Quantum Mechanics of today.
                     Classical Mechanics must  obey  Quantum Mechanics of today. - not reverse.

What non ignorant needs to memorize:
- conservation of mass only holds approximately and is considered part of a series of assumptions
in classical mechanics
Wesley

Quote from: onepower on September 08, 2023, 08:53:23 AM
My point was perpetual motion can easily be proven through countless examples found in nature.

If perpetual motion is the norm then it becomes much more likely that countless inventors like Bessler may have found a way to tap into this energy.

AC

Yes, some things can run indefinitely, but the output will be minute for a large device.

Higher power density is where it's at. A smaller/lighter device for its power output, a continuous rating or average per 24 if relevant. If a device take up a full parking space, say like a 20 foot container, how much should the output be to be worth it, the space it eats on top of the manufacturing cost and maintenance?

A compact device the size of a 20ft container would easily cost €100-300K. Competing with a large solar roof and battery storage which barely takes up space. And then we need to look at annual maintenance and realistic economic life of the unit. 100 kW non-stop would be cool, but not necessarily worth having if it lasts 10 years for a €200K unit with $30K in annualized maintenance. A unit needs to realistically last 15+ years, put out more power at tha 20ft container size and be low on maintenance. Or simply: BE SMALLER.
The higher the power density, the harder to come up with a non-stop runner, even if you throw in a battery buffer.

Are there estimations of Bessler's power output for the large wheel? Was it seen running under load a really long time?

You told perpetuum mobile doesn't exist. It seems me,I know how do one.
It is enough to make one magic wand (or philosopher's stone), and then touch any aggregate, it will become over-unit. We will have a huge number of perpetuum mobile...  :P 8)

stivep

QuoteIn reality, the conservation of mass only holds approximately and is considered part of a series of assumptions
in classical mechanics
The law has to be modified to comply with the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity
under the principle of mass–energy equivalence which states that energy and mass form one conserved quantity.
For very energetic systems the conservation of mass only is shown not to hold,
as is the case in nuclear reactions and particle-antiparticle annihilation in particle physics

Apparently ChatGPT and I think your talking bullshit...

Question: is  particle-antiparticle annihilation common in nature?.

QuoteAnswer:Particle-antiparticle annihilation is a fundamental process in particle physics, but it is not common in everyday or natural occurrences that we observe on a macroscopic scale. Particle-antiparticle annihilation typically occurs in high-energy environments, such as particle accelerators or in the early universe.

Which is exactly the answer I expected based on my knowledge. Nuclear reactions like fission/fusion simple rearrange the geometry of the atom adding/subtracting particles and releasing energy in the process. It does not destroy or annihilate matter which is absurd. I agree particle-antiparticle annihilation can occur in particle accelerators but this is an exception to the rules commonly found in nature.

Question:does fission or fusion annihilate or destroy particles?

QuoteAnswer:Fission and fusion do not annihilate or destroy particles in the sense of particle-antiparticle annihilation, where both particles and antiparticles are completely converted into energy. Instead, fission and fusion involve nuclear reactions that change the structure of atomic nuclei.

Why are you trying to mislead people my Russian troll?, did you think nobody was going to fact check you?.

AC

Back to the actual subject were debating, the Bessler wheel...

I have done countless experiments on mechanical systems in the past most have heard of. Very few panned out although I did learn quite a bit about what can and cannot work. It was only after I did the experiments that I learned were my intuition mislead me. It was most often something obvious, some effect I had failed to consider. Here theory doesn't count and we have to build it to prove to ourselves whether we were right or wrong in our thinking. Facts matter...

If a person does this long enough they begin to get a feel for what can and cannot work.

The basic problem is that if every element of a system like weights, levers, pendulums and such always interact with the system an equal and opposite reaction must always occur somewhere. In effect we cannot move X without the opposite of X occurring somewhere else within the system. We can pretend it doesn't but somehow it always does in some way.

What we need to keep our eye on is not weight but the "momentum" or mass-velocity of every working element. The energy of any given element is based on it's mass and kinetic energy(how fast it's moving). Ergo, heavy stuff in motion has more energy than light stuff at the same velocity. Likewise stuff moving faster has more energy than stuff moving slower if the mass were the same. Common sense stuff we can do basic experiments with to prove for ourselves.

I cannot say I'm obsessed with the Bessler wheel or similar systems but I have been looking at it off and on for about 20 years. I like it because it's really hard to wrap our mind around and makes us think. The harder and more complex the problem the more I like it, it's a mystery, a puzzle. No harm in that, nothing crazy about it, and many people do jigsaw puzzles, crossword puzzles and play chess for similar reasons, it's the challenge which moves us.

With that, a big fuck you to all the critics and to everyone else happy experimenting...

AC

Quote from: onepower on September 08, 2023, 08:54:20 PM
//With that, a big fuck you to all the critics and to everyone else happy experimenting...//
AC

Typically 4 levels of questioning constitutes discussion .
   https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/studystrategizesucceed/chapter/another-approach-four-levels-of-questioning/ (https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/studystrategizesucceed/chapter/another-approach-four-levels-of-questioning/)
       Rhetoric is language used to motivate, inspire, inform, or persuade readers.
           Some readers do not fit mentally and verbally into any level other than "street talk" level.
               https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/street%20talk (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/street%20talk)
                   Wesley   

stivep

QuoteTypically 4 levels of questioning constitutes discussion .
   https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/studystrategizesucceed/chapter/another-approach-four-levels-of-questioning/
       Rhetoric is language used to motivate, inspire, inform, or persuade readers.
           Some readers do not fit mentally and verbally into any level other than "street talk" level.

My reference was more towards critics who gaslight others, distract and disrupt meaningful conversations.

For example, you said...

QuoteSome readers do not fit mentally and verbally into any level other than "street talk" level.

Implying that because I cursed I am not mentally fit to interact on any other level than street talk. This is exactly how people who gaslight talk always making indirect references to degrade and belittle. They continually harass other people then when confronted feign victim hood. 

So to recap, of all the information and concepts I offered your only interested in the curse word so you could imply I'm not "mentally fit".

I thought this was interesting...
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/health-and-wellbeing/290817/why-intelligent-people-swear-more-than-others.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/intelligent-people-tend-to-be-messy-stay-awake-longer-and-swear-more-a7174256.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/questions-character/202102/are-people-who-curse-actually-more-honest

Which would seem to contradict your false assertion that people who curse are not as mentally fit as others. In fact the opposite would seem to be true which is why we should always check our premise...

AC

Format of this forum  as a set of rules is directed to peaceful information  sharing.
  "Street talk" level doesn't require  Unorthodox  form of acting, to comply with such rules.
       Wording "Mentally" refers to anything  related  to your mind but doesn't
            qualify you as "Deranged".
-by that no "insult" but an opinion, was formulated by me _{explained in link you ignored to read}
   Qualification of  processed  data, is always based on given individual ability to assign
       phenomena and events into category recognized by these skilled in art.
          _{explanation is here: https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/deranged-vs-mentally (https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/deranged-vs-mentally)}
               No manifested _("there") by you conduct and criteria of understanding and applying,
                   precise formulation in English Language (e.g. word "mental"), fit into level
                       of this  forum, causing direction of your conclusions oscillating as inflammatory.
                            That factor constitutes your " limitation" and level of recognition
                                in this  discussion. You are expressing yourself  in this forum,  and not
                                    in a nude  beach or swinger club where you can manifest something
                                         else too.
Wesley
   _{Wesley's wife, educationally skilled in art of psychology.}
               

From https://besslerwheel.com/firstlaw.html

QuoteWhat About the First Law of Thermodynamics?
The impossibility of energy for free is enshrined in one of the most fundamental and important laws of physics: the First Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change its form.

The 1st law claimed.

QuoteIn a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it.

In effect, they falsely assumed because heat energy as jiggling atoms was conserved in a "closed system" all energy must be conserved everywhere in the universe. However Electric, Magnetic, Gravic field energy and EM waves have no "heat" and are not confined to closed systems. It would seem to me many do not understand the difference between open and closed systems which feels like an important concept.

Here is a bizarre statement from Helmhotz.

QuoteNo one had ever succeeded, he wrote, in building a Perpetual Motion Machine that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the Conservation of Energy.

Wait a minute, wasn't every discovery/invention thought impossible before it was discovered?. Planes, trains and automobiles were thought impossible, computers, radio, rockets, wheels, words, pictures, I mean literally everything. So how is a Free Energy device any different, in fact it's not. The only thing which prevents something from being invented/discovered is a lack of knowledge and understanding.

QuoteSkeptics are quick to cite the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove Bessler's claims. In fact, the argument is circular. The Laws of Thermodynamics do not prove that Bessler's machine is impossible. On the contrary, they are deduced from the "leap of faith" of first presuming it is impossible.

Bingo, we have a winner.

Thermo(heat)-Dynamics(motion) only applies to heat or how fast atoms jiggle. Here's a clue, 99% of the energy in the universe has nothing to do with heat. The universe is only 1% material and 99% vacuum full of Electric, Magnetic, Gravic fields including Electro-Magnetic waves. Thus 99% of all energy relates to field energy not jiggling atoms as heat.

The logic the critics are using is circular and based on fallacies. It falsely presumes that because they have not seen something and cannot understand it then it cannot exist. Wait a minute, doesn't this mean they think whatever they believe no matter how nonsensical must dictate the reality of the universe for everyone and everything?. Indeed, the classic man-god ego trip is alive and well in them.

AC

Quote from: onepower on September 10, 2023, 12:40:54 PM
From https://besslerwheel.com/firstlaw.html

The 1st law claimed.
In effect, they falsely assumed because heat energy as jiggling atoms was conserved in a "closed system" all energy must be conserved everywhere in the universe. However Electric, Magnetic, Gravic field energy and EM waves have no "heat" and are not confined to closed systems. It would seem to me many do not understand the difference between open and closed systems which feels like an important concept.

Here is a bizarre statement from Helmhotz.
Wait a minute, wasn't every discovery/invention thought impossible before it was discovered?. Planes, trains and automobiles were thought impossible, computers, radio, rockets, wheels, words, pictures, I mean literally everything. So how is a Free Energy device any different, in fact it's not. The only thing which prevents something from being invented/discovered is a lack of knowledge and understanding.

Bingo, we have a winner.

Thermo(heat)-Dynamics(motion) only applies to heat or how fast atoms jiggle. Here's a clue, 99% of the energy in the universe has nothing to do with heat. The universe is only 1% material and 99% vacuum full of Electric, Magnetic, Gravic fields including Electro-Magnetic waves. Thus 99% of all energy relates to field energy not jiggling atoms as heat.

The logic the critics are using is circular and based on fallacies. It falsely presumes that because they have not seen something and cannot understand it then it cannot exist. Wait a minute, doesn't this mean they think whatever they believe no matter how nonsensical must dictate the reality of the universe for everyone and everything?. Indeed, the classic man-god ego trip is alive and well in them.

AC

Nicely written with common sense. But, mainstream science admitting this will just ruin their own stage where they pretty much enjoy to sit and judge. Although, when they are cornered they come up with same reason that more research need to done as they don't have all the answers all the time, while simply forgetting that from the same height in the same time they judge, decide and conclude (even knowing they are blind).

But, what is most frustrating is the fact that any patent office refer to this mainstream science when asked to issue a patent for a working device that is beyond understanding of said so mainstream science.
Basically they have created a system which is fundamental wrong ... only comes to my mind The Inquisition when I try to compare when we know that any FE/OU will serious disrupt many interests more or less occult.

So, we can only quote Galileo Galilei: E pur si muove  :)

Eppur si muove
Two relations are here to differ :

Galileo Galilei as scientist

and

Galileo Galilei as professional theologist ,the Pope his and the church org CEO

Btw : there were in romano-catholic church history many counter-popes ( 13+) = counter-god representence !?
quis,quem,quod
In quis 'bishope of Roma vulgo Papa/conclave : (non)habeamus Papam (5.case : Ablativ) You ,G.G,believe ?
     1633 Galileis tribunal process : 1618-1648  30-years-war !
     Evangelism(Calvin,Zwingli/Luther) / romano-catholizism

    The sun/ORBS turns around URBS/Roma= the Pope ! DOGMA ,for and in the church/Papal-estate !
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Norditalien_und_Mittelitalien_1806.jpg

( 1.Nominativ 2.Genitiv 3.Dativ 4.Akkusativ 5.above 6.Vokativ = Kant'sche Imperativ )

wmbr
OCWL

adrouk

QuoteNicely written with common sense. But, mainstream science admitting this will just ruin their own stage where they pretty much enjoy to sit and judge. Although, when they are cornered they come up with same reason that more research need to done as they don't have all the answers all the time, while simply forgetting that from the same height in the same time they judge, decide and conclude (even knowing they are blind).

But, what is most frustrating is the fact that any patent office refer to this mainstream science when asked to issue a patent for a working device that is beyond understanding of said so mainstream science.
Basically they have created a system which is fundamental wrong ... only comes to my mind The Inquisition when I try to compare when we know that any FE/OU will serious disrupt many interests more or less occult.

I agree but don't think it matters.

What other people believe or not has no real influence on our abilities or what we can accomplish. Many inventors no longer seek investors or patents which is archaic and go straight to crowdfunding. At which point the only requirement is that what your selling works.

Many inventors no longer patent but copyright everything instead. Copyright protects the original expression of an idea in an artistic or literary form. So I build a working gravity wheel as a work of art then publish the pictures, plans and descriptions of how it works. All are now protected by copyright and nobody can copy or reproduce anything I published without my consent/payment. As such nobody can patent my ideas using similar pictures, plans or descriptions because this would be copyright infringement. Copyright is massive and enforced globally because it covers music and literature.

Simply put, if the system does not work to our advantage then we need to change what were doing. To hell with all the useless patents, investors and middle men. If some guy can throw some paint on a canvas and ask millions of dollars then monetizing FE technology should be easy. It's almost as easy as claiming the thing we just created is a work of art, if they don't like art then that's there problem not ours.

AC

'copyright'-inventor ?
The risk :  Plagiatscanner

The today 120 000 000 ideas applications in the ' patent archive' !
95% from the patent archive applications 2023 now licence-/fee free for use available !

The multi-millions ' non comercial' dissertations in archives ( Promotion,Habilitation) !
dissertations = patents ,the one for individual  hono(u)r,the other for comercial profit

So a ' copyright work' can often end in tribunals,when not ' idea priority '  from published ideas,worldwide and timeless, is cleared !
"' Appropriation of another's work under one's own name." ,also called robbery !
Arbitrary: fake

Claiming a right is the second step,the first step,as seeker its obligation ,the re-/search :
   is there a free - new - individual right available ,as free - not individual or public ownership - claim ?

wmbr
OCWL

iancaiv

QuoteThe today 120 000 000 ideas applications in the ' patent archive' !
95% from the patent archive applications 2023 now licence-/fee free for use available !

The multi-millions ' non comercial' dissertations in archives ( Promotion,Habilitation) !
dissertations = patents ,the one for individual  hono(u)r,the other for comercial profit

Your confusing the issue, you cannot patent an idea or an idea for an invention only a real invention. The invention must be of a patentable subject matter, novel, useful and non-obvious. You cannot patent an idea or a scientific discovery only an invention based on an idea, keyword "invention".

QuoteSo a ' copyright work' can often end in tribunals,when not ' idea priority '  from published ideas,worldwide and timeless, is cleared !
"' Appropriation of another's work under one's own name." ,also called robbery !
Arbitrary: fake

Your confusing the issue again. We cannot copyright another persons idea only our own original or artistic expressions of an idea.

The concept of copyright is brilliant, somewhere an artist just took $10 worth of paint and spread it on a $20 canvas and created a million dollar painting. The buyer isn't paying a million dollars for $30 worth of materials, there paying for the idea and artistry that went into making the painting. Of course, any dullard/business person could try and sell copies but they will never be a true artist.

What you seem to have trouble understanding is that there are some people who are actually original, imaginative and creative. They don't need others ideas and can create there own like a true artist. It's only the people with no imagination or creativity who are trying to convince others were all the same in my opinion.

AC

Clearly You ,as inventor case,are expressing ever an idea ,as individual solution/result !

There are different kinds of patents= publications and their - new,temporary monopole,right kind claims :
A trademark,logo,signature

A model design,concret and/or abstract

An utility model
A technical standart

Since some decades information software and new artificial biocell cultures or artificial R-/D-NA!


A thinking model = idea(up to : near,same Ideal/Maxime ) ,worse or good

For the given example -paint/canvas/million-  : not the ( un-/known)  artist makes this comercial value ,but the mainstream media circus !
Da Vinci ' Salvator mundi ' has probably 50 € material input value,but it is sold for more,10⁶+ times more !
Circus,Circus :

https://www.lovezoo.de/aktionen/592-gemaelde-vom-orang-utan-ramon.html (https://www.lovezoo.de/aktionen/592-gemaelde-vom-orang-utan-ramon.html)
Orang-Utan Ramon paints ' rosa momentum phase ' ::) , cheaper than a da Vinci painting !
Copyright included ?

In the 60ees Hanna Bekker vom Rath,galery-ownership, offered many paintings from ' entartete Artisten',Chagal/Picasso/Miro et cet.each for today +- 1000-5000 € value,which are now sold each for million !
Circus,Circus !
wmbr
OCWL