For the first time in written history, The Bessler wheel mysteries have finally been solved. I feel the urge to share it with you guys in this forum. But somehow I feel stupid if I do it without asking some questions first.
Firstly, how do you open source it? I'm afraid that someone will steal it and patent it for himself.
Secondly, what will this benefit me? What will I get by doing this, will this harm anyone?
I know why everyone keeps failing to replicate a Bessler Wheel, its because they keep on repeating his mistakes. there is none of his published drawings that works! You are looking it the wrong way. The clues are there but lets keep that for another time.
The reason why I am saying that the mystery is solved is because of a very simple mechanism which he wanted to protect so much. You wont believe how simple it is, thus I understand why he destroyed and hidden all the evidences. With this lost knowledge (not anymore), every written history about the wheel fits in the puzzle. All questions regarding the clues that were gained in the past can now be fully understood. And finally Johann Bessler will be accepted as a genuine Perpetual Motion inventor.[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
Regards[/font][/size]
can you at least tell us if this is still purely mechanical solution or involve another forces ? I'm aware of patents combining gravity with magnetism and a special levers to make it running forever....they ae toys, because to get any descent output the wheel has to be very big, but maybe I'm wrong
it is pure gravitic attraction in every sense.
to put it in Bessler's words would be like
"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."[/size]- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717
Quote from: forest on April 24, 2014, 03:50:14 PM
can you at least tell us if this is still purely mechanical solution or involve another forces ? I'm aware of patents combining gravity with magnetism and a special levers to make it running forever....they ae toys, because to get any descent output the wheel has to be very big, but maybe I'm wrong
I can assure you that a 10Kw generation can be easily achieved.
even a system without weights are possible runners. Weights are used to change the power generated.
On the BesslerWheel forum ****** who was sure he has a working model wrote:
...
"I am thinking about posting the whole thing on General Discussions."
...
I posted the following reply:
I think that is the most intelligent "thinking" that anyone has ever had on this forum.
And anyone else who believes they have a runner would be well advised to do the same and beat ****** to it.
Because once a runner has been posted the principle behind it (the conservation of 3rd derivative energy) will be so obvious that any one else posting will be accused of copying that principle from ******.
Patenting is so "last year". Surely the likes of Google, Facebook Twitter, etc. shows people where things are at.
My granddaughter is paid more for her YouTube make up videos than her systems analyst father is paid for professional employment.
If ******'s device really does run then he will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
Quite apart from anything else he has a moral duty to not delay such a discovery a day more than necessary since it will revolutionize the energy supply of the world and put an end to global warning and African children dying from lack of clean pumped water.
Why don't the members of this forum ever seem to recognise these moral responsibilities?
Why are they so wrapped up with their own little vested interests?
Quote from: gurangax on April 24, 2014, 02:40:13 PM
For the first time in written history, The Bessler wheel mysteries have finally been solved. I feel the urge to share it with you guys in this forum. But somehow I feel stupid if I do it without asking some questions first.
QuoteFirstly, how do you open source it? I'm afraid that someone will steal it and patent it for himself.
Hi, you publish here your hypothesis & theory in as complete detail as you can muster - then you enter into discussions here about the mechanism & how you envisage it working to be 'fit for task' - you publish all drawings, simulations, video's etc in your possession showing the detail - remember to date each drawing etc & write your full name on it to claim provenance.
Many would try to 'method' patent such an idea - if it is that simple then work-around improvements are easily done, making patenting obsolete - mostly they forget that a simple device would be on Taiwanese shelves within weeks & any downstream derivatives the weeks after - the genie is out of the bottle.
QuoteSecondly, what will this benefit me? What will I get by doing this, ...
IF it works [or has clear & unambiguous potential to work], you will get much kudos & notoriety [the good kind if it works out] - you will make history & leave a legacy to your descendants & the human population at large - one of 'the man who broke the mold' & of altruism second to none.
Quotesnip ... will this harm anyone?
Always remember "The Law of Unintended Consequences" - unless you have a brain the size of a planet you won't be able to think thru every consequence, effect or cause, & all the downstream permutations for generations.
There are always 'perverse effects' that can't be rationally or logically anticipated in any action - the thought to seriously consider is that INACTION has severe perverse effects too.
Best of luck !
Good post, Fletch.
thanks for input. I dont know how I will be doing this. Writing the whole thing down will take a long time. It's probably good if I just post it slowly, 1 at a moment.
gurangax (http://www.overunity.com/profile/gurangax.10530/)
Nice to here of another person who has solved another variation. I am wondering when you are going to show a video of at least a covered wheel. It would be great if all of us who have a running machine to show them all at the same time for the maximum shock effect. 2014 when gravity shook the world in a whole new way. ;)
Alan
Quote from: AB Hammer on April 24, 2014, 06:12:22 PM
gurangax (http://www.overunity.com/profile/gurangax.10530/)
Nice to here of another person who has solved another variation. I am wondering when you are going to show a video of at least a covered wheel. It would be great if all of us who have a running machine to show them all at the same time for the maximum shock effect. 2014 when gravity shook the world in a whole new way. ;)
Alan
hi Alan, 2014 seems nice for a change. But I dont think a covered wheel is a good for proving it, because people will say that a motor runs it somehow. Anyway the wheel can do what ever the Bessler's Wheel can do including turn on both sides. Im thinking its not really my invention but credit should go to the real inventor J B.
regards
Yes, but it is easy to advocate 'altruism' and 'morality' in such an instance until one has truly faced the consequences of sharing 'dangerous truths'. I mean, which came first the chicken or the egg? And which comes next, the revolution, or the Revolution?
The world stands at the same old precipice from which it has collectively jumped time and again throughout history. The very big difference this time around, is technology. "Just share it"....."let it free and be recognized".....such well meaning, but naive advocations ring a bit hollow in the ears of those who've shared much more meaningful Truths than yet another technological 'savior' of mankind.
What many desperately seek, is hard, tangible, simple, understandable, STABLE, energy devices to do work for you. Yet the world is in the condition it's in precisely because man has continually proven, despite the false promises his faith in technology and himself have made, that he will not WORK HARD ENOUGH HIMSELF.
And it is exactly his lack of will power to consistently follow righteous precepts that continually reveals him unworthy of such a Gift as "free energy". Look at the dismal legacy of atomic energy. Much of the Pacific ocean is at this moment, dead or dying, and the 'fallout' of Fukashima is just warming up. You think that the unholy grail of atomic energy, which was once universally touted as the energetic savior of mankind, has COST US?
Just WAIT until your energy is "FREE".
Whether you are looking in the mirror, on the net, or at your boob tubes....you search in vain for the 'savior' you seek. Freedom....True Freedom, is never free.
Earth is at another tipping point, and this one is bigger than any other before it. The vast chasm between the haves and have nots is rapidly climbing higher than at any other time in history. Something has got to give....
And let's face it, free energy has been done to death. And quite literally for those whose lives were taken by those who felt their foundations shaken. Surely, some of you can see that whatever the conglomerate 'beast' that runs this planet cannot co-opt and exploit, it destroys.
Well, it's time is nearing their end. And it will be destroyed. And not by human hands.
You have your Creator's Word on that.
I assure you, it will not take anything remotely so grand as a revelation of "free energy" to topple that rotten apple cart in which the many have gradually become accustomed to riding.
There's a small window of time remaining for many to bounce on out before it hits a Stone Wall. A Wall upon which a Final Sentence is written.
http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/2hands/2hands1.htm
Blessings
Quote from: gurangax on April 24, 2014, 06:22:13 PM
hi Alan, 2014 seems nice for a change. But I dont think a covered wheel is a good for proving it, because people will say that a motor runs it somehow. Anyway the wheel can do what ever the Bessler's Wheel can do including turn on both sides. Im thinking its not really my invention but credit should go to the real inventor J B.
regards
gurangax
Bessler has top ratings in my book as the original builder. But today's builders will be the first to expose the many possible ways and that won't just be Bessler's.
Alan
Ok I will start by saying the nature of the lost knowledge. It is as simple as a lever. To be more precise it is a 2 stage leverage system. You wont see it until I have told you how it is assembled. Well its just that simple, now its only a matter of placing the lever at the proper places.
Our minds are usually tuned to think of only what we can see in front of us. The very reason why so many failed to duplicate Besller's achievement. It's really that simple that even Besller was scared that the community will not agree to his asking price of 100,000 to reveal the secret. There was not much of artistry in it.
since it is that simple, my next explanation should be enough to cover the hows and whys it works. Actually theres nothing much to post about it after. Because everything will get clear as we move on. So I will let you guys think for awhile for now.
Regards.
Guran..... can you say if you use one size weights or more than one size?
Quote from: overtaker on April 24, 2014, 07:58:48 PM
Guran..... can you say if you use one size weights or more than one size?
you can run it even without weights.
a testimony from the one who have seen the mechanism is this
Interior of the machine was a simple arrangement of weights and levers. - Prince Karl, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, eyewitness account
so there you have it
Quote from: overtaker on April 24, 2014, 07:58:48 PM
Guran..... can you say if you use one size weights or more than one size?
to answer it the Bessler way is this
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain." -[/size]
Regarding MT138 he said
"Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply the game in a different way."[/size]- Johann Bessler[/size][/size]Do you see it?
Quote from: gurangax on April 24, 2014, 08:48:11 PM
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain."
How about this one?
http://www.overunity.com/13959/impulse-perpetual-machine/msg375653/#msg375653 (http://www.overunity.com/13959/impulse-perpetual-machine/msg375653/#msg375653)
So, is that a yes or no? :)
Quote from: vineet_kiran on April 24, 2014, 09:18:12 PM
How about this one?
http://www.overunity.com/13959/impulse-perpetual-machine/msg375653/#msg375653 (http://www.overunity.com/13959/impulse-perpetual-machine/msg375653/#msg375653)
i dont think impluses are involved here. the falling weight that were heard simply falls but it wasnt the impact that drives it. There was some wheels which doesnt have the hitting sound. And one that have soft weight landing. It is easily explained with this lever system.
Quote from: overtaker on April 24, 2014, 09:28:41 PM
So, is that a yes or no? :)
size doesnt matters, what really matters is the heaviness of the weight.
So your design will work using all 20 lb. Weights?
Quote from: overtaker on April 24, 2014, 09:41:37 PM
So your design will work using all 20 lb. Weights?
if it were all 20lb weights then surely it will not work. some weights need to be 3/4 lighter or so depending on the design. but in the end just as Bessler said an ounce here or there makes no difference.
you can see the physics involved using just one crossbar or the basic element. as stated by JB
"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly[/font][/size], 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." [/font][/size]
The use of springs is not necessary, but it can be used to dampen the impact from falling weight.
Regarding this speculation
Weights may have been pierced in the middle and attached by connecting springs (observer speculation).[/li]
[li][/size]- Acta Eridutorum, An Account of the Perpetuum Mobile of J. E. E. Orffyreus, 1715[/size]
[/size]The only reason for using a pierced weights is for weight offsetting to balance the wheel, for the initial tune up.
going into it more..
The basic element consists of a sliding crossbar with leverage configuration such that it will make a 2 stage leverage system.
A wooden sliding cross bar does make scratching sound when sliding with the wheel. the crossbar can be the actual weights thus eliminating the need for extra weights. In his words are
"A wheel appears on the scene - is it really a wheel, for it does not have a normal rim. It revolves, but without other wheels inside or outside, and without weights, wind or springs.""It turns to the right and the left; it spins around in either direction, laden or empty."
Quote from: gurangax on April 24, 2014, 08:12:21 PM
a testimony from the one who have seen the mechanism is this
Interior of the machine was a simple arrangement of weights and levers. - Prince Karl, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, eyewitness account
so there you have it
Just a technicality gurangax - IIRC Karl never gave that descriptive "simple arrangement of weights & levers" - this appeared in a book by Frank Edwards & it is not known where he got the information - there is no confirmation from other sources so it is generally considered to be unreliable & poetic licence on his behalf.
Many of the quotes you are giving are subject to slight translation differences, but I accept that they are helping you frame the picture you want to paint.
.......................................
I feel I have to ask at this stage whether you are at the hypothesis & theory stage only ?
Or, have you conducted any sim or real world experiments that cause you such great confidence in a simple lever & weight solution to Bessler's mystery of his purported true PMM's ?
Thanks in advance !
What about the testimony of Bessler's maid?
Something that is rarely mentioned here in discussions of Bessler is that he was a journeyman clockmaker before he found easier means of making his living.
Quote from: fletcher on April 24, 2014, 11:49:50 PM
Just a technicality gurangax - IIRC Karl never gave that descriptive "simple arrangement of weights & levers" - this appeared in a book by Frank Edwards & it is not known where he got the information - there is no confirmation from other sources so it is generally considered to be unreliable & poetic licence on his behalf.
Many of the quotes you are giving are subject to slight translation differences, but I accept that they are helping you frame the picture you want to paint.
.......................................
I feel I have to ask at this stage whether you are at the hypothesis & theory stage only ?
Or, have you conducted any sim or real world experiments that cause you such great confidence in a simple lever & weight solution to Bessler's mystery of his purported true PMM's ?
Thanks in advance !
My investigations have led me to believe that it is as simple as they say it is. pulleys are not necessary but it is used to tune the machine to do its job more efficiently. the concept of this lost knowledge is the core of his gravity wheel which is a 2 stage leverage system. Knowing this concept alone will open ways to many other gravity wheel marvels. I found other ways to do it without the use of pulleys. I will discuss about this in proper time as I need more time to decide. The secret wont be revealed in just a day.
Regards
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 25, 2014, 12:18:31 AM
What about the testimony of Bessler's maid?
Something that is rarely mentioned here in discussions of Bessler is that he was a journeyman clockmaker before he found easier means of making his living.
I can assure you that Bessler is not a fraud.
the organ musical instrument have many levers and pulleys built in it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 25, 2014, 12:18:31 AMWhat about the testimony of Bessler's maid?
TK .. Bessler's maid had recently been fired by Bessler for theft IIRC - so it's plausible that she was either in vindictive mind or in a frame of mind to be be persuaded to give false testimony, perhaps for financial gain - to put it in context, at that time there were three particular gentlemen quite peeved with Bessler & very vocal publicly about how he must be a fraud - reputations were literally at stake - btw, the maid also said the Bessler's brother Gottfried & Bessler himself were squirreled away taking turns turning the crank from adjoining rooms - Gottfried never admitted to any such thing in any trial proceedings, & of course Bessler denied it outright - there was no other corroberating evidence to the maids claim that I'm aware of.
In case you missed it, Bessler's first public demonstration was outside in a town square, IINM, which makes it hard to turn the device from a crank & handle thru the support & pinions etc, from a distance, without being seen - secondly in subsequent tests his wheels were closely examined & no sign of fraud was detected, including shafts & gears required to be hidden in the supports etc.
QuoteSomething that is rarely mentioned here in discussions of Bessler is that he was a journeyman clockmaker before he found easier means of making his living.
Bessler was a jack of many trades - accomplished in many skills including doctoring for hire - he also was a competent carpenter & able blacksmith amongst other things, as well as well traveled & learned, & musical.
The ONLY reference I have be able to find to his watch/clock making skills is a self passage in DT I think where he talks of sailing to England - on the voyage, to make some money, he makes two pocket watches for fellow passengers - he is quite dismissive about it taking only a couple of lines - clearly, he must have had access to materials & tools to make these watches, & he must have known the math etc - if it were something he could pick up & do on a whim then he was indeed a man of many skills & education - I have no doubt those skills, along with organ making came in use for making wheels, & he says so about the organ making skills.
Why does it works? For a wheel to rotate by itself, the center of gravity for all the weights combined must be above the center or above the axle of the wheel. In other words, the weights must always be heavier at the top side. This is exactly how the wheel works, and the 2 stage leverage system is what made it to happen.
The RAR device could well be a two lever device...
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
In which case the sooner you give your insights full publicity the better....
else it will just be seen as a variant of RAR. Nobody remembers who
comes second. :(
Quote from: Grimer on April 25, 2014, 02:22:42 AM
The RAR device could well be a two lever device...
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
In which case the sooner you give your insights full publicity the better....
else it will just be seen as a variant of RAR. Nobody remembers who
comes second. :(
Grimer....Thanks for your helpful intentions. The link is written in Portuguese(?) that falls sadly incomprehensibly upon my solely English speaking ears and consists of seemingly 100s of large pictures that will take 1.98 thousand hours to open on my superslow computer rig.
I never bothered to learn exactly what a Two Lever Device is, to my lasting humiliation and shame. I believe I have One Lever Device pretty much figured out. Could you be generous and explain simply and briefly what a Two Lever Device is?
In advance, thank you very much.
CANGAS 25
Quote from: CANGAS on April 25, 2014, 03:24:34 AM
Grimer....Thanks for your helpful intentions. The link is written in Portuguese(?) that falls clumsily upon my English speaking ears and consists of seemingly 100s of large pictures that will take 1.98 thousand hours to open on my superslow computer rig.
I never bothered to learn exactly what a Two Lever Device is, to my lasting humiliation and shame. I believe I have One Lever Device pretty much figured out. Could you be generous and explain simply and briefly what a Two Lever Device is?
In advance, thank you very much.
CANGAS 25
Your question should be addressed to gurangax. He is the one who introduced the term into this thread.
Quote from: Grimer on April 25, 2014, 02:22:42 AM
The RAR device could well be a two lever device...
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/)
In which case the sooner you give your insights full publicity the better....
else it will just be seen as a variant of RAR. Nobody remembers who
comes second. :(
There are lot more than two levers in that monstrosity. They'll need more than two levers to make it move, too.
@fletcher: Thanks for that review. I get the feeling that not many people have studied up on Bessler the way you have. I believe the maid, and I believe that Bessler used several different methods for the various challenges, and I know that patrons of the arts will accept the most outrageous BS from their artists because they are paying them for it.
I'm not close-minded though. There is one way -- only -- to convince me that Bessler actually had what he and all the thousands of people who believe in him claim: show me a working Bessler wheel.
Unfortunately.... you cannot.
Quote from: Grimer on April 25, 2014, 02:22:42 AM
The RAR device could well be a two lever device...
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/)
In which case the sooner you give your insights full publicity the better....
else it will just be seen as a variant of RAR. Nobody remembers who
comes second. :(
I can assure you if anyone seen how it is put together you will be surprised how simple it is. I dont know how a RAR works but surely it is not a wheel. But there is something in a 2 stage leverage system. Googling 2 stage lever leads me to Veljko Milkovik 2 stage mechanical oscillator which he claims to be an energy amplifier.
[size=1px !important]
Quote from: gurangax on April 25, 2014, 04:24:27 AM
I can assure you if anyone seen how it is put together you will be surprised how simple it is. I dont know how a RAR works but surely it is not a wheel. But there is something in a 2 stage leverage system. Googling 2 stage lever leads me to Veljko Milkovik 2 stage mechanical oscillator which he claims to be an energy amplifier. [size=1px !important]
So your
Two Lever Thingy is a Milkovic?!
QuoteI can assure you if anyone seen how it is put together you will be surprised how simple it is
How did you
seen it put together? When can I take a ride in your Time Machine?
CANGAS 26
Quote from: CANGAS on April 25, 2014, 04:43:43 AM
So your Two Lever Thingy is a Milkovic?!
How did you seen it put together? When can I take a ride in your Time Machine?
CANGAS 26
No it is not a Milkovic device although it is related. Anyway he called it a 2 stage mechanical oscillator which needs to oscillate my 2 stage lever does not need to oscillate it simply gets attracted by gravitic attraction.
When I say "seen it put together" I was refering to my device. Which I strongly believe matches the Bessler Wheel design criteria.
Regards
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 25, 2014, 12:18:31 AM
What about the testimony of Bessler's maid?
Something that is rarely mentioned here in discussions of Bessler is that he was a journeyman clockmaker before he found easier means of making his living.
As a matter of interest, Al, have you read John Collins' book on Bessler?
Bessler was trying to hint the mechanism used in his toy drawings MT138. It's not easily seen but when put properly you will get the 2 stage leverage.
For those who doesnt know what is MT138 please go to this link http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=MT_121-143#MT_138-141
Quoting from Apologia Poetica
Seen sideways or full face it is as glorious as a peacock's tail.
In this sentence is the truth about the machine.
Did you have a working model?
I will decode some of the Apologia Poetica from my point of understanding of the device
Greed is an evil root. [/size][/i]An anvil receives many blows. [/i]A driver drives. A runner runs. [/i]A seer sees. The buyer buys. [/i]The rain flows. Snow falls. [/i]The jack fires. The bow twangs; [/i]
* The above simply tells that each component will do exactly what its designed to do. This is the laws of nature.
a large herd of fat, lazy, [/size][/i]plump horses wanders aimlessly. [/i]
* The above is is a description of the sliding crossbars.
The flail wants to be with the [/size][/i]thresher, not with the scholar. [/i]Children play among the pillars [/i]with loud heavy clubs. [/i]Acrobats and shadow-boxers [/i]are as swift and nimble as the wind. [/i]The cunning cat slinks quietly along [/i]and snatches juicy mice. [/i]
*The above will be discussed later.
The dog creeps out of his kennel [/size][/i]just as far as his chain will stretch. [/i]He knows how to please by playing [/i]with his toys and knick-knacks. [/i]He wags his tail, creeps through the hoop, [/i]and is rewarded with a pat on the paws [/i]by the stiff fops who watch him. [/i]
[/size][/i]
* The above is a description of the lever in action.
Regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 24, 2014, 02:40:13 PM
Secondly, what will this benefit me? What will I get by doing this, will this harm anyone?
You get to write the book, publish the DVD and go on the TV talk shows. You design and arrange the building on special equipment. Undoubtedly, others will follow but you will follow up with improved versions. i.e. you are going to be a jump ahead.
This has happened with the Linux computer operating system. The principal behind Ubuntu Linux, Mark Shuttleworth, visited the Space Station on the back of this.
Quote from: gurangax on April 24, 2014, 02:40:13 PM
Firstly, how do you open source it? I'm afraid that someone will steal it and patent it for himself.
Secondly, what will this benefit me? What will I get by doing this, will this harm anyone?
I don't see any reason to fear that someone would steal the idea and patent it becuase the moment you post a simple working OU device, immediately you and your design will become world famous since it will be the first working OU device. No one can steal a well known design.
You will benefit from it only if you disclose it. If not nobody will believe that you have a working OU device as most (all) of the claims of OU devices sofar have been proved as fakes.
Thanks for the inputs. I will disclose it but not so soon.
Regards
"What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!'" - Bessler
Without a working model it is only theory.
Quote from: 11111 on April 25, 2014, 09:38:20 AM
Without a working model it is only theory.
I will disclose it but not so soon. regards
Maybe this has already been patented and you have stumbled upon a similar principle?
Google Patent US 20140083800A1
Quote from: braden on April 25, 2014, 09:49:07 AM
Maybe this has already been patented and you have stumbled upon a similar principle?
Google Patent US 20140083800A1
I dont see any similarities. btw thats not a wheel device
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 25, 2014, 09:51:55 AM
I dont see any similarities. btw thats not a wheel device
regards
I dont know if that will even work, the design is too complicated contrary to Besllers findings.
Quote from: gurangax on April 25, 2014, 09:44:17 AM
I will disclose it but not so soon. regards
Very good idea. Enjoy the attention first, then see what happens, make more promises, then wait a bit longer.
Good practice in the overunity business.
Quote from: celsus on April 25, 2014, 10:23:11 AM
Very good idea. Enjoy the attention first, then see what happens, make more promises, then wait a bit longer.
Good practice in the overunity business.
I have my reasons, im sure Besller have his reasons too. thats why he wrote this words;
But softly! - speak softly of all these marvels, [/size][/i]
lest the enemy grows wise! He will drench me with his spittle [/i]so that I will lose my temper and in a sudden fit, [/i]cast aside the mantle that conceals my wheel. [/i]But he shall be thwarted in his desires. [/i]
Regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 25, 2014, 08:48:21 AM
Quoting from Apologia Poetica
Seen sideways or full face it is as glorious as a peacock's tail.
In this sentence is the truth about the machine.
And that truth represents a 3 dimensional axis mechanics. Thus the very reason why so many failed in the quest.
"Are ye also yet without understanding?"
Quote from: Paul-R on April 25, 2014, 09:11:24 AM
You get to write the book, publish the DVD and go on the TV talk shows. You design and arrange the building of special equipment. Undoubtedly, others will follow but you will follow up with improved versions. i.e. you are going to be a jump ahead.
This has happened with the Linux computer operating system. The principal behind Ubuntu Linux, Mark Shuttleworth, visited the Space Station on the back of this.
I forgot to mention a possible knighthood.
Arise, Sir Gurangax.
Quote from: gurangax on April 25, 2014, 09:30:31 AM
Thanks for the inputs. I will disclose it but not so soon.
Regards
"What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!'" - Bessler
gurangax, If you have a working gravity wheel, why do you think a super computer with all the knowledge of the human race cannot create the same?.
Please don't state the obvious thank you.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 25, 2014, 03:53:50 AM
I believe the maid, and I believe that Bessler used several different methods for the various challenges, and I know that patrons of the arts will accept the most outrageous BS from their artists because they are paying them for it.
I'm not close-minded though. There is one way -- only -- to convince me that Bessler actually had what he and all the thousands of people who believe in him claim: show me a working Bessler wheel.
Unfortunately.... you cannot.
You are preaching to the converted TK.
It would be irrational to take a position based on belief alone, & I seldom do that - no, I don't have a working Bessler wheel but then I don't claim to.
I am however interested in
all plausible ways he might have achieved his wheels public performances & load tests etc - for this I pay particular attention to the written eye witness accounts, the certificates of authenticity, but mostly the treatises of his most vocal critic Christian Wagner, where he & Bessler trade blows - Wagner was a mathematician & very logical thinker - he explained why PMM's were impossible in terms we would completely understand & identify with today - his rebuttals & Bessler's comebacks make the written exchanges interesting reading, if you set aside the escalating emotion at times.
You mention the patrons of the arts accepting most outrageous BS etc etc - I am interested in the subtleties [or not] of human nature & what motivates people at certain times - for that you often have to study the context of the situation - yes, Bessler could have had various different means to animate his wheels at various challenges - that can't be ruled out, but neither has anyone come up with a plausible explanation about how that was done, including the educated critics of the time that examined his wheels closely & conducted many tests - so that argument has validity but so far no substance - show me the sausages :)
Back to the maid - a couple of further observations about her credibility - first the court case was about tax evasion - Bessler free demonstrations were very popular - after a while to limit viewing numbers he charged a small entrance fee - the town council decided that a one-off special tax should be passed to clip the ticket on Bessler's wheel demonstrations - he objected to being singled out & refused to pay, ending up in court.
So the court case was about not paying imposed taxes - yet, the maid is called & testifies that she hand turned the wheel, though how that relates to unpaid taxes I'm not sure - I do know that Bessler's three main adversaries in the gallery were lapping it up - secondly, & I find this most curious, the maid said she was sworn to secrecy by Bessler that she turned his wheels - she said she was made to swear an onerous oath that she would never reveal how the wheels operated - so, imagine this - she testifies against Bessler, after having been fired, breaks her oath & reveals that she turned the wheels .. or .. she testifies against Bessler, after having been fired, doesn't break her oath & tells the inquiry a falsehood, not breaking her sworn oath, but simultaneously damaging Bessler & his reputation - perhaps for her a path of vindication, reward, & lesser consequences in an afterlife ?
Well, as you can see, all speculation, but context does muddy the waters on what appears at face value a cut-and-dried "the maid did it".
The Bessler wheel is an unpractical design made along time ago.
See the Dimitriev wheel, it is the modern version.
PS:Gurangax is a scumbag, all talk.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on April 25, 2014, 04:40:07 PM
The Bessler wheel is an unpractical design made along time ago.
See the Dimitriev wheel, it is the modern version.
PS:Gurangax is a scumbag, all talk.
Armcortex
The Dimitriev wheels are not that impressive and a poor example for they use motors. If it can't be done with gravity I am not interested to mix it with my research.
IMHO there are wheels out there. So I am suggesting a mass exposure of all who has done it. It will have to be promoted.
PS Gurangax has posted before. Just look up all his post and go to page 8 and work your way back. Click on show post. also look at his attached word links.
Alan
Quote from: Bumblebee on April 25, 2014, 03:47:05 PM
gurangax, If you have a working gravity wheel, why do you think a super computer with all the knowledge of the human race cannot create the same?.
Please don't state the obvious thank you.
You need to program the computer to do something. and since i can say that every perpetual motionist thinks about the same failures then how can someone programs it the right way. There is something common that why they failed. But that is for later talk. anyway I have already put some clues to it and still many doesnt get it. I wonder why.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on April 25, 2014, 04:40:07 PM
The Bessler wheel is an unpractical design made along time ago.
See the Dimitriev wheel, it is the modern version.
PS:Gurangax is a scumbag, all talk.
That wheel doesnt work with gravity alone, and I can assure you the wheel is very simple you can run it with just 1 crossbar with the help of gravity alone. with Besslers word is this;
"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my 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"
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 25, 2014, 10:19:40 PM
You need to program the computer to do something. and since i can say that every perpetual motionist thinks about the same failures then how can someone programs it the right way. There is something common that why they failed. But that is for later talk. anyway I have already put some clues to it and still many doesnt get it. I wonder why.
send me a simulation program and I will show you how it is done. regards
The z axis is the key!
regards.
ps: I need to fix my broken cylinder head today so I wont be available until im finished with it. anyway keep posting bad or good. doesnt matter to me.
Quote from: gurangax on April 25, 2014, 05:33:07 AM
Bessler was trying to hint the mechanism used in his toy drawings MT138. It's not easily seen but when put properly you will get the 2 stage leverage.
For those who doesnt know what is MT138 please go to this link http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=MT_121-143#MT_138-141 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=MT_121-143#MT_138-141)
In that figure if the standing toy hammers the lever it beomes external force (impulse). Only then the lever can move in the indicated direction. If the toy only pushes the lever then it becomes internal force and lever will not move in the indicated direction because the reaction at the bottom of the toy pushes the lever in opposite direction.
Without an external force you cannot build even a underunity device. In a system of levers, only impulse can create an external force.
A best example would be, if you sit inside a car and push the car, the car will not move forward because your back will be pushing the car in opposite direction. Only if you get down car and push it, then the car moves forward.
Where is the external force in the figures shown? Can you please clarify?
Quote from: vineet_kiran on April 25, 2014, 10:37:08 PM
In that figure if the standing toy hammers the lever it beomes external force (impulse). Only then the lever can move in the indicated direction. If the toy only pushes the lever then it becomes internal force and lever will not move in the indicated direction because the reaction at the bottom of the toy pushes the lever in opposite direction.
Without an external force you cannot build even a underunity device. In a system of levers, only impulse can create an external force.
A best example would be, if you sit inside a car and push the car, the car will not move forward because your back will be pushing the car in opposite direction. Only if you get down car and push it, then the car moves forward.
Where is the external force in the figures shown? Can you please clarify?
NO impulse is used. forget about impulse. if you push the car from the inside surely the car wont move, but if you turn the gearbox from the inside then surely the car will move. OK. back to work,
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 25, 2014, 11:06:26 PM
... if you push the car from the inside surely the car wont move, but if you turn the gearbox from the inside then surely the car will move. OK. back to work,
regards
Can you turn the gear box flying in air? You have to stand or sit firmly inside the car to turn the gear box. Where that force will act?
To perform mechanical work in one direction, you should have equal force in opposite direction which follows directly from Newton's third law. In a single system, these two forces cancel off and you will not get any useful work.
Quote from: gurangax on April 25, 2014, 10:30:24 PM
The z axis is the key!
regards.
ps: I need to fix my broken cylinder head today so I wont be available until im finished with it. anyway keep posting bad or good. doesnt matter to me.
If you indeed have a working Bessler wheel then, why the need to fix your cylinder head? Just hook the working wheel to your car and go for free. No cylinder head required.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on April 26, 2014, 12:17:44 AM
If you indeed have a working Bessler wheel then, why the need to fix your cylinder head? Just hook the working wheel to your car and go for free. No cylinder head required.
Bill
the wheel doesnt provide for my family. i have more important task for now.
regards
Quote from: vineet_kiran on April 25, 2014, 11:24:44 PM
Can you turn the gear box flying in air? You have to stand or sit firmly inside the car to turn the gear box. Where that force will act?
To perform mechanical work in one direction, you should have equal force in opposite direction which follows directly from Newton's third law. In a single system, these two forces cancel off and you will not get any useful work.
i will disclose everything but not so soon. i'll let you think about it for awhile, i have provided some vital clues. its so simple! you are simply thinking the same thing all over again you wont see it that way.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 12:40:59 AM
the wheel doesnt provide for my family. i have more important task for now.
regards
Oh, so it does not work then? Sorry, I must have not understood your earlier posts. But then why do you say the mystery is solved if it does not work? Now I am confused.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on April 26, 2014, 12:50:07 AM
Oh, so it does not work then? Sorry, I must have not understood your earlier posts. But then why do you say the mystery is solved if it does not work? Now I am confused.
Bill
Tell me what will I get by giving you the secret, money? I dont think so. I need to work to feed my family. And I dont think the wheel will give me that instantly, you know I need to be really carefull about it so it doesnt fall into the wrong hand.
regards.
Quote from: gurangax on April 25, 2014, 04:50:06 AM
No it is not a Milkovic device although it is related. Anyway he called it a 2 stage mechanical oscillator which needs to oscillate my 2 stage lever does not need to oscillate it simply gets attracted by gravitic attraction.
When I say "seen it put together" I was refering to my device. Which I strongly believe matches the Bessler Wheel design criteria.
Regards
NUTZ!! I dont get to ride in somebodys Time Machine! Again! Drat!
So we are back to square one. You have not clairvoyantly
seen it put together, but, rather, you have just figured out how, along with 40 million previous Bessler wannabees, the wheel turned.
Hay, Jack, I have figured out how he turned his wheel too! Me and 40 million others!
I sincerely pray that God miraculously provides any and all providence that you and your family needs quickly! Amen!
The secret to a perpetually energetic wheel would be of such momentous importance to the entire human race that it is highly unlikely it would be placed in the hands of any man who would be willing to sell it for a fraction of its worth. Jesus has very plainly explained to us that "Any of you who will not hate his father or mother or wife or children to follow me cannot inherit my kingdom." Or, something very closely paraphrased to that.
And Jesus demanded of us, "Sell all that you own and give the money to the poor, and then, you may follow me, and inherit the Kingdom Of God".
The secret of a perpetually energetic wheel is the secret that can potentially set humanity free. All of humanity.
I personally do not believe that the secret has been placed in your hands.
CANGAS 27
Quote from: fletcher on April 25, 2014, 04:05:12 PM
You are preaching to the converted TK.
It would be irrational to take a position based on belief alone, & I seldom do that - no, I don't have a working Bessler wheel but then I don't claim to.
I am however interested in all plausible ways he might have achieved his wheels public performances & load tests etc - for this I pay particular attention to the written eye witness accounts, the certificates of authenticity, but mostly the treatises of his most vocal critic Christian Wagner, where he & Bessler trade blows - Wagner was a mathematician & very logical thinker - he explained why PMM's were impossible in terms we would completely understand & identify with today - his rebuttals & Bessler's comebacks make the written exchanges interesting reading, if you set aside the escalating emotion at times.
You mention the patrons of the arts accepting most outrageous BS etc etc - I am interested in the subtleties [or not] of human nature & what motivates people at certain times - for that you often have to study the context of the situation - yes, Bessler could have had various different means to animate his wheels at various challenges - that can't be ruled out, but neither has anyone come up with a plausible explanation about how that was done, including the educated critics of the time that examined his wheels closely & conducted many tests - so that argument has validity but so far no substance - show me the sausages :)
Back to the maid - a couple of further observations about her credibility - first the court case was about tax evasion - Bessler free demonstrations were very popular - after a while to limit viewing numbers he charged a small entrance fee - the town council decided that a one-off special tax should be passed to clip the ticket on Bessler's wheel demonstrations - he objected to being singled out & refused to pay, ending up in court.
So the court case was about not paying imposed taxes - yet, the maid is called & testifies that she hand turned the wheel, though how that relates to unpaid taxes I'm not sure - I do know that Bessler's three main adversaries in the gallery were lapping it up - secondly, & I find this most curious, the maid said she was sworn to secrecy by Bessler that she turned his wheels - she said she was made to swear an onerous oath that she would never reveal how the wheels operated - so, imagine this - she testifies against Bessler, after having been fired, breaks her oath & reveals that she turned the wheels .. or .. she testifies against Bessler, after having been fired, doesn't break her oath & tells the inquiry a falsehood, not breaking her sworn oath, but simultaneously damaging Bessler & his reputation - perhaps for her a path of vindication, reward, & lesser consequences in an afterlife ?
Well, as you can see, all speculation, but context does muddy the waters on what appears at face value a cut-and-dried "the maid did it".
That's all great fun, except:
The sausages you ask for are laid before you daily in the form of the known science, tested countless times that gravity is a conservative field.
The burden of proof for extraordinary claims is on the claimant, or in this case you as the Devil's advocate arguing for the extraordinary claimant. As long as gravity remains persistently a conservative field, Bessler's claims of a perpetual gravity wheel remain extraordinary claims against established known science.
The maid's testimony corroborates a conventional view. No speculation of extraordinary events or circumstances is required to accept her account. Speculation or extraordinary events and/or circumstances is required to discount her account.
No one contradicted the maid by for example testifying that she was not present in the adjacent room turning the crank when she claimed she did.
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 01:04:26 AM
Tell me what will I get by giving you the secret, money? I dont think so. I need to work to feed my family. And I dont think the wheel will give me that instantly, you know I need to be really carefull about it so it doesnt fall into the wrong hand.
regards.
Why don't you build it first ... then you can worry about it falling into the "wrong hands". It's plain from your posts that you don't actually have anything built, you just have an "idea" that you think will work.
And instead of saving the world, you are concerned about personal profit. That's nice.... but why are you posting your secrets (or rather your dreams) on an Open Source website?
It is clear that some of you dont know what my intention is. I have told here many many times already that I will disclose it meaning I will open source it, but also at the same time I dont know who is watching this forum so I will not disclose it immediately. But I promise you that I will open source it. It is so simple that even if I say it then you will immediately understand and there is nothing left for me to say. SO I will do it slowly until I feel its ok to spread it to the world.
I know that some companies are watching this forum. And I know I cant sell the thing so at the end when all is proved as I said it is, only then will I try to request for donations from anyone. I hope this is clear enough.
regards
Quote from: vineet_kiran on April 25, 2014, 11:24:44 PM
Can you turn the gear box flying in air? You have to stand or sit firmly inside the car to turn the gear box. Where that force will act?
To perform mechanical work in one direction, you should have equal force in opposite direction which follows directly from Newton's third law. In a single system, these two forces cancel off and you will not get any useful work.
you are totaly right about the law, Bessler have no problem with that this is his description of the internal
"If one weight is giving an upward impetus, another one, at the same time, is giving an equal downward one."
so the question is what made it work?
regards
[/size]
Quote from: MarkE on April 26, 2014, 04:51:54 AMThat's all great fun, except:
The sausages you ask for are laid before you daily in the form of the known science, tested countless times that gravity is a conservative field.
Yes Mark .. the sausages I seek work both ways, as you well know - proof for a PPM .. OR .. for a plausible way to fake his wheels & their performance - the only plausible way to fake these performances that I know of using materials but not technology of his day (not seen by me but heard described [from what I consider a very reliable source]) is to use a Stirling engine & hidden fuel supply that requires replenishment - the problem being that Stirling engines weren't invented & patented until a hundred years later [1816] .. AND .. if Bessler had used a primitive Stirling analogue then why didn't he just sell that new type of engine for profit rather than conceal it as a ruse for a PMM ?
QuoteThe burden of proof for extraordinary claims is on the claimant, or in this case you as the Devil's advocate arguing for the extraordinary claimant. As long as gravity remains persistently a conservative field, Bessler's claims of a perpetual gravity wheel remain extraordinary claims against established known science.
Yes Mark .. I know that argument very well having fallen back on it myself many times over many years [it's an easy fall back position] - discussion is shut down, & the message becomes stale, seemingly delivered by a one-trick-pony - personally I'd like to see discussion promoted here where someone like gurangax gets a fair chance to openly discuss their ideas & perhaps present evidence of any claims made - yes, I also have seen & recognize the same patterns that emerge here countless times, but I have also seen the same very predictable responses from the bleaches, delivered with little or no grace.
QuoteThe maid's testimony corroborates a conventional view. No speculation of extraordinary events or circumstances is required to accept her account. Speculation or extraordinary events and/or circumstances is required to discount her account.
No one contradicted the maid by for example testifying that she was not present in the adjacent room turning the crank when she claimed she did.
Quote
http://www.orffyre.com/chronology.html (http://www.orffyre.com/chronology.html)
1727
On 28th November Bessler's maid, Anne Rosine Mauersbergerin, testifies to authorities that Bessler's wheels had all been turned manually by Bessler, his wife, his brother Gottfried and herself. She claimed the turning was carried out by a small crank in an adjoining room. She claimed the posts had been hollowed out and contained a long and thin piece of iron with a barb at the bottom which was attached to the shaft journal.
The maids accusations were discredited and the charges were dismissed. A long and difficult relationship existed between Mauersbergerin and Bessler and there is suggestion that she did not act alone in her accusations (Gartner). Bessler's reputation is permenantly damaged.
Bessler destroys all documents, drawings and models that describe and prove his secret, in fear of it being stolen upon his arrest.
I have calculated the torque generation and sure enough the result is a runner. I dont think that Bessler even do the math.
-regards
Do we really think that Bessler's maid was clever enough to figure out a possible faking method, if that method wasn't actually used? I doubt that, even more than I doubt that gurangax actually has any real devices built.
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 07:15:45 AM
I have calculated the torque generation and sure enough the result is a runner. I dont think that Bessler even do the math.
-regards
Feel free to show your working.
Note that if you do your math correctly and haven't made any mistakes, and you are using ordinary common physics.... you cannot reach an overunity result. On the other hand, if your normal math and physics leads to an overunity result, you have erred somewhere.
This is Ibison's Law, and it has never been known to be violated.
Bessler said this
"It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of 'excess weight'"
im not sure if the translation is correct but I will say it works by principle of weight shifting giving the excess torque which drives it.
-regards
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2014, 07:28:35 AM
Feel free to show your working.
Note that if you do your math correctly and haven't made any mistakes, and you are using ordinary common physics.... you cannot reach an overunity result. On the other hand, if your normal math and physics leads to an overunity result, you have erred somewhere.
This is Ibison's Law, and it has never been known to be violated.
I would like to show how erroneous this law is. But that will be for another day.
regards
If I'm not mistaken this is all purely hypothetical.
People love themselves a good mystery, as I can assure you that your thread wouldn't have grown this fast would you have posted the concept 6 pages ago.
Over the years I got tired of explaining why open source is the only way going forward with any kind of this technology. However as history tends to repeat, I would argue that you have made a flaw in your reasoning and a prototype would not move as you thought.
Most of us had/have all kind of "working" machines in our head at one point but the year is 2014 an besides the occasional "I have a runner but I cannot share it now" we are still using good old nuclear power and gasoline to move forward and r*ping the planet.
To me personally I get a thrill when I can share my ideas and designs openly, yes I have a job and know the importance of an income in this money ruled world, but when it comes to this you must become the change you want to see in the world. Hopefully a world of abundance and free of concepts like money (hey I can dream can't I).
this is no theory at all. it works, how do i know? I'm looking at it right now. ANyway I will only show the final proof when i think its ok to do so.
regards
TK .. I think its pretty clear that gurangax has an idea that he thinks will work - he's done some calcs that he believes support this notion.
It's also pretty clear that the maid had coaching from Wagner, Gartner & Borlach.
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 07:15:45 AM
I have calculated the torque generation and sure enough the result is a runner. I dont think that Bessler even do the math.
-regards
gurangax .. Bessler did use the term "excess weight" - in other passages he described it as "imbalance" & at other times various other descriptives were used such as "preponderance" IINM, but he never said "overbalance, out of balance, or called it a "gravity wheel or gravity engine".
ETA:
Quote from: gurangaxthis is no theory at all. it works, how do i know? I'm looking at it right now. ANyway I will only show the final proof when i think its ok to do so.
regards
Unless I misinterpret what gangurax is saying here, this is a definitive statement & ups the ante.
Regarding the potential power generation of the wheel Bessler said this;
"I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold."
So obviously the power is very usefull not like what others think. Like i said earlier a 10kw power generation can be easily achievable. This will be made possible by heavier weights.
-regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 07:35:57 AM
I would like to show how erroneous this law is. But that will be for another day.
regards
Well, to do that you would have to show that your calculations are not in error, that your assumptions are correct.... and that your device, built according to your calculations, actually does work in an overunity manner!
So please, feel free to demonstrate. Today. Because "Another day" -- also known as "soon" -- never comes, you know.
Quote from: fletcher on April 26, 2014, 07:43:10 AM
TK .. I think its pretty clear that gurangax has an idea that he thinks will work - he's done some calcs that he believes support this notion.
It's also pretty clear that the maid had coaching from Wagner, Gartner & Borlach.
Just as it is clear that by far most of the accounts we have are coming from True Believers -- and may be somewhat...er... weighted.
;)
Quote
gurangax .. Bessler did use the term "excess weight" - in other passages he described it as "imbalance" & at other times various other descriptives were used such as "preponderance" IINM, but he never said "overbalance, out of balance, or called it a "gravity wheel or gravity engine".
ETA:
Unless I misinterpret what gangurax is saying here, this is a definitive statement & ups the ante.
By "IT" he obviously means his page of calculations. He doesn't have any working prototype. You can recognize the usual rhetoric coming from someone who cannot back up his claims with evidence.
Just share it and be done with it. If it's as simple as you say it is then it won't take long to replicate, you win the current OU prize and can enjoy yourself until the value of that sum lasts.
However if monetary gain is part of your focus then this is not the right place to be, and you'd probably be better off with the people that currently sent you pm's in order to "help" you out.
Quote from: broli on April 26, 2014, 08:09:40 AM
Just share it and be done with it. If it's as simple as you say it is then it won't take long to replicate, you win the current OU prize and can enjoy yourself until the value of that sum lasts.
However if monetary gain is part of your focus then this is not the right place to be, and you'd probably be better off with the people that currently sent you pm's in order to "help" you out.
i will disclose it just be patient anyway its not even 1 week since I started this. I simply like getting mixed responses from people, that way I know more about them.
regards
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2014, 08:01:49 AM
Well, to do that you would have to show that your calculations are not in error, that your assumptions are correct.... and that your device, built according to your calculations, actually does work in an overunity manner!
So please, feel free to demonstrate. Today. Because "Another day" -- also known as "soon" -- never comes, you know.
to prove it now will need me to make some drawings of the 2 stage lever. if i do that the secret will already be given out. please wait for awhile more everything will be clear soon enough
regards
Ok, you want to play, fine. I'll play.
How about making a little wager?
I'll bet you that you will not show any working device. Ever, but let's put a time limit on the bet, say, one month plus a few days. Call it June 1. If you haven't shown a real working Bessler-variant wheel by June 1, I win the bet.
Let's say, if I win, you make a one hundred dollar donation to your local no-kill animal shelter or neuter-spay program. If, on the other hand, you win.... then we all win, because you will have Saved the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil. And I'll make a hundred dollar donation (of my now worthless money) to you or the charity of your choice.
:P
(Drawings and theoretical calculations DO NOT COUNT without a functioning prototype. You are claiming to have something that works... and I say you do not. So show your working device, not a drawing of it!)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2014, 08:43:57 AM
Ok, you want to play, fine. I'll play.
How about making a little wager?
I'll bet you that you will not show any working device. Ever, but let's put a time limit on the bet, say, one month plus a few days. Call it June 1. If you haven't shown a real working Bessler-variant wheel by June 1, I win the bet.
Let's say, if I win, you make a one hundred dollar donation to your local no-kill animal shelter or neuter-spay program. If, on the other hand, you win.... then we all win, because you will have Saved the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil. And I'll make a hundred dollar donation (of my now worthless money) to you or the charity of your choice.
:P
(Drawings and theoretical calculations DO NOT COUNT without a functioning prototype. You are claiming to have something that works... and I say you do not. So show your working device, not a drawing of it!)
Wager or not, I still will disclose it before your said time limit. Anyway I accept this wager.
regards
Why do they fail? Its because they are looking it only on paper which is 2 dimensional. Everyone keeps repeating this error. Now open your mind and do it in 3 dimension. I have told you earlier the key lies on the z axis.
regards
why does a windmill works? I guess it because of the larger particles that can be felt hitting the blade and causes movement. this concept is just the same with a water turbine.
gravity is everywhere and cannot be felt because we are already accustomed to our own weights. what it does is simply attract all masses to the source of gravity. it is something that I can not explain very well.
The closest thing to a gravity is a magnetic field. If there is a very large magnetic field the device will surely work by the same principle of attraction.
I wonder about pressure, for example at the very bottom of the sea where pressure are the same all over a body.
Well this is just something that come to my mind anyway.
regards.
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 09:18:04 AM
why does a windmill works? I guess it because of the larger particles that can be felt hitting the blade and causes movement.
they work like an aircraft's wing. suction due to Bernouille's Theorem.
something come up to my mind what if we drive a helicopter using a gravity engine. that will be really something.
Quote from: Paul-R on April 26, 2014, 09:24:06 AM
they work like an aircraft's wing. suction due to Bernouille's Theorem.
in other words there is only 1 flow of force being felt thus cause the movement. It is just the same with gravity attraction which is a 1 sided force, surely a gravity driven engine/wheel is real.
I have an idea which will work on pressure and it is not a turbine. It is based on the 2 stage lever i was talking about earlier. The more I think about it I found that it will work with any force which is 1 sided.
regards
It seems as if perpetual motion would be possible if a machine and its components
are in constant dynamic motion flux and its state is evolving in just the right way.
Take for example a spacecraft and a planet, where the planet attracts the spaceraft
but before the time the spacecraft gets to the planet the planet has changed
it's position, the two positions evolving systematically. Wouldn't in this simplfied
point of view have the spacecraft be in perpetual motion about the planet?
:S:MarkSCoffman
Now I will say this.
It is not the weight that causes the machine to work. It is the levers! Without them your device simply doesnt work. Levers this is the secret of a perpetual machine.
regards
With levers you gain weight but you lose v.
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 09:51:00 AM
Now I will say this.
It is not the weight that causes the machine to work. It is the levers! Without them your device simply doesnt work. Levers this is the secret of a perpetual machine.
regards
Bessler wheel is not really a perpetual motion wheel, it simply extract the energy from gravity to do work, so I can assure you there will be energy surplus. It gets the energy from gravity attraction the same way you get energy from a windmill! Simply said a perpetual motion machine doesn't exist!
-regards
Quote from: PiCéd on April 26, 2014, 10:06:48 AM
With levers you gain weight but you lose v.
Read everything I have told here
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 09:36:12 AM
I have an idea which will work on pressure and it is not a turbine. It is based on the 2 stage lever i was talking about earlier. The more I think about it I found that it will work with any force which is 1 sided.
regards
gurangax,
I think that you and Mr. Rossi should be careful not to threaten to eat your customer's lunch for him. To focus on the simplest application
of a principle or you will come to not ever focus on any of them. The way patents are written should advise you of this.
I suspect that it's not MIBS that screw up inventors...it's the inventors behavior...themselves. Don't let valuable primary
ideas be held hostage to the vagaries of application secondary less valuable ones. Of course to do so would only be human,
but that's not something that we need right now.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Without a simple schema there reason to be skeptical.
Quote from: mscoffman on April 26, 2014, 10:14:53 AM
gurangax,
I think that you and Mr. Rossi should be careful not to threaten to eat your customer's lunch for him. To focus on the simplest application
of a principle or you will come to not ever focus on any of them. The way patents are written should advise you of this.
I suspect that it's not MIBS that screw up inventors...it's the inventors behavior...themselves. Don't let valuable primary
ideas be held hostage to the vagaries of application secondary less valuable ones. Of course to do so would only be human,
but that's not something that we need right now.
:S:MarkSCoffman
The device is so simple that I have to fill my "free time" with other thoughts, I simply tell what my thoughts was. I can assure you that the primary goal is still the same. I can even tell in one word how simple it is, but then what is left for me to say afterwards?
-regards
Quote from: PiCéd on April 26, 2014, 10:20:43 AM
Without a simple schema there reason to be skeptical.
of course, if I were you I will feel the same too.
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 08:57:34 AM
Why do they fail? Its because they are looking it only on paper which is 2 dimensional. Everyone keeps repeating this error. Now open your mind and do it in 3 dimension. I have told you earlier the key lies on the z axis.
regards
To quote mr Bessler
"He who wishes to make it in this world must often be prepared to use a combination of lateral thinking and initiative!"
-regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 08:53:52 AM
Wager or not, I still will disclose it before your said time limit. Anyway I accept this wager.
regards
You will disclose it before June 1st 2014, eh! I look forward to that.
Incidentally, I believe what you claim is possible. Indeed, I believe that RAR have already achieved it - and if you are correct then you will beat them to the punch and deserve all the plaudits that will be coming to you.
Like Broli, I too believe open source is the way to go.
There are deliberate reasons why the wheel have its thickness.
-regards
It resets itself every 6.00 oclock but this can be changed according to application.
Now the problem of a really big wheel is how to stop it. But I already have a solution. You simply stop the innards mechanism and the wheel will reach its balanced position. in todays technology one can use an electromagnet to do this.
-regards
An electric car will really benefit from this. the problem of making a gravity engine to run a car is there will be no speed control.
It is actually not a wheel. There is no need for the wheel to run it. The basic element only consists of the 2 stage levers
Bessler's words;
A wheel appears - is it really a wheel, for it does not have a normal rim.
-regards
Oh did I said it too soon?
Let's see
6 years ago you made the exact same claim, used the exact same riddles and ended up showing exactly nothing. Your response time seems to also indicate that you love the attention this brings to you. Humans truly are silly beings.
Quote from: broli on April 26, 2014, 11:42:15 AM
6 years ago you made the exact same claim, used the exact same riddles and ended up showing exactly nothing. Your response time seems to also indicate that you love the attention this brings to you. Humans truly are silly beings.
True I love the attention that Im getting right now.
regards
Im waiting for someone who can come up with something with every clues i gave. It is nearly there.
regards
J.C should probably write a new book.
Quote from: broli on April 26, 2014, 11:42:15 AM
6 years ago you made the exact same claim, used the exact same riddles and ended up showing exactly nothing. Your response time seems to also indicate that you love the attention this brings to you. Humans truly are silly beings.
Thanks for that bit of research into his posts, Broli.
I thought he sounded like a time waster but I always believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt until the truth becomes clear.
im quite surprised that still no one comes up with something after every clues I gave. Its super simple.
regards
Quoting Bessler
"the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device" ... The "essence" -
he called it the "essence" but I called it the element.
regards
And you cant even wait a month?
regards
@gurangax
With your understanding of the Bessler Wheel, I have a question, and I hope you can respond.
Bessler's first two wheels were self starters. If you were to hold on to the outside of the wheel or axle and allow it to turn very slowly, would the internally generated force at that slow speed be the same as the force generated when running at full speed?
Do you have a running model right now?
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 08:16:31 AM
i will disclose it just be patient anyway its not even 1 week since I started this. I simply like getting mixed responses from people, that way I know more about them.
People are impatient because it's 5 minutes past 12 in the decline of society. The collapse has begun. No one bears it anymore: working for the slavery. Working for the money system. Working for the downfall. Many people would love to escape from this and want to be "left the fuck alone".
Overunity would be an attempt to escape it, e.g. by providing unlimited energy so you can store food without depending on the grid or creating vehicles without oil barons. It doesn't make larger companies or power stations obsolete, but it can provide more individual freedom. By restoring a piece of freedom like this much more can grow out of it. Even new societies. It could be world changing.
[speculation mode] Also the frequencies have risen on earth and continue to rise. That's why people get impatient much more quickly. They don't like playing mystery games anymore. Truth or lies will be recognized much earlier than before as well. [speculation mode off]
Quote from: gauschor on April 26, 2014, 03:07:40 PMAlso the frequencies have risen on earth and continue to rise.
Which frequencies would that be?
Quote from: broli on April 26, 2014, 11:42:15 AM
6 years ago you made the exact same claim, used the exact same riddles and ended up showing exactly nothing. Your response time seems to also indicate that you love the attention this brings to you. Humans truly are silly beings.
Thanks for the heads-up Broli.
Read Charles's from Malaysia's previous posts from 2008.
Quote from: celsus on April 26, 2014, 03:55:05 PM
Which frequencies would that be?
I don't know for certain anymore. I watched a speech from Wolfgang Wiedergut about "Avatar Rays" and it was something about our planetary system approaching or aligning a certain position or stage in the galaxy. While this takes place the minds and souls of every being grows. This is also why people feel time passes faster and faster. After reached the zenit, everything will retract again. But I can't reproduce the exact words anymore, so I probably mix something up here... should have listened more carefully...
Quote from: broli on April 26, 2014, 11:42:15 AM
6 years ago you made the exact same claim, used the exact same riddles and ended up showing exactly nothing.
Yeah, I also investigated the post history. Kinda disappointing :(
I thought it would be sort of fun if Fletcher,Koala or MarkE or someone similar could
tell us how big of a wheel we would need to run our properties.
I think 20kw would be about right, I have a 10kva genset and it can't cope with
my needs, electric shower alone being 9 kw.
Say your wheel could capture 5% of gravitational energy and remember the speed
of a wheel is severely limited if it is to feel the force.
I can't imagine a basement installation!
John.
gurangax said earlier ...
QuoteIt resets itself every 6.00 oclock but this can be changed according to application.
By this do you mean at the 6 o'clock position every half or full turn of the wheel?
Quote from: minnie on April 26, 2014, 05:44:39 PM
I thought it would be sort of fun if Fletcher,Koala or MarkE or someone similar could
tell us how big of a wheel we would need to run our properties.
I think 20kw would be about right, I have a 10kva genset and it can't cope with
my needs, electric shower alone being 9 kw.
Say your wheel could capture 5% of gravitational energy and remember the speed
of a wheel is severely limited if it is to feel the force.
I can't imagine a basement installation!
John.
This depends on the torque that the wheel produces which is unknown and a matter of design. If
you can continuously average and buffer the electricity your wheel produces in a solar type 30KWh
battery bank system with a factory prebuilt front end you only need 2HP horsepower continuously.
This might be about 2 wheels or a double thick wheel as an estimate. Your current 10HP generator
could easily supply this now while running only 1/6 of the time if you had the solar buffer bank
system.
Heating, automobile, and unusual base loads would all have to be handled separately.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: zoelra on April 26, 2014, 01:27:22 PM
@gurangax
With your understanding of the Bessler Wheel, I have a question, and I hope you can respond.
Bessler's first two wheels were self starters. If you were to hold on to the outside of the wheel or axle and allow it to turn very slowly, would the internally generated force at that slow speed be the same as the force generated when running at full speed?
Bessler have several variations. It can do everything a Bessler wheel can do it matches every clues so i have no doubts that it has to be the mechanism he used, thus I am saying the mystery is solved.
regards
Quote from: fletcher on April 26, 2014, 04:27:29 PM
Thanks for the heads-up Broli.
Read Charles's from Malaysia's previous posts from 2008.
ABHammer have posted earlier to look for my older post and no one took notice of his word. Its true that I have been here a long time ago and made the same claim, but it would not be wise to think that I was the same as 6 years ago. I mean "nothing is learnt"? If you see my older post I made some research after the failure and was trying to tell the foundings yet no one seems to take it seriously, thus it was left alone and waiting to be woken up again this year.
regards
Quote from: zoelra on April 26, 2014, 05:45:13 PM
gurangax said earlier ...By this do you mean at the 6 o'clock position every half or full turn of the wheel?
Every 6.00 oclock meaning whenever it reaches there.
regards
Quote from: minnie on April 26, 2014, 05:44:39 PM
I thought it would be sort of fun if Fletcher,Koala or MarkE or someone similar could
tell us how big of a wheel we would need to run our properties.
I think 20kw would be about right, I have a 10kva genset and it can't cope with
my needs, electric shower alone being 9 kw.
Say your wheel could capture 5% of gravitational energy and remember the speed
of a wheel is severely limited if it is to feel the force.
I can't imagine a basement installation!
John.
If for example one wished to run their home for a day at 1kW average consumption then that is 86.4MJ required for a 24 hour period. Given that gravity is a conservative field, that means the wheel will rotate once from a maximum GPE position to a mininmum GPE position. 86.4MJ is 8.81 million kg*meters. If you wanted to do this with a mass of water, and had a 10m diameter wheel ( a lovely addition to any front or back yard ), then the store mass at the top would need to be 880,000 kg, IE 880 metric tons. In water, that would be a bit more than 880 cubic meters on top of that 10m diameter wheel. Then for the next day, all you need to do is restore that wheel to its maximum GPE position again. That is of course only a small problem for proponents of myths.
I mean really? cant someone come up with a conclusion of how it may work I have already given the clues needed..
lets say we have a 2 meter crossbar with 2 kg of weight on both ends (so its 4kg) then we will get a maximum of at least 2.946 of torque.
well this is dependant on the design parameters of course.
regards
edit: I meant 2.946 Nm of torque
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 09:06:55 PM
I mean really? cant someone come up with a conclusion of how it may work I have already given the clues needed..
lets say we have a 2 meter crossbar with 2 kg of weight on both ends (so its 4kg) then we will get a maximum of at least 2.946 of torque.
well this is dependant on the design parameters of course.
regards
It doesn't work. Gravity is conservative.
But I tell you what as long as you want to continue with your claims: I'll happily contract electricity from you for $0.10 / kWh. You just install your equipment on my premises in a sealed and locked cabinet, and I'll buy the electricity. Tell me what continuous power capacity that you can deliver, the form: AC or DC and at what voltage, current, and phase configuration (if AC), and when you can install.
@gurangax
Please start a new thread when you're ready to share your secret. I'm not going to waste my time coming back here.
Thanks.
come on guys dont be such a lazy a. thinker. its so simple really.
Quote from: 4Tesla on April 26, 2014, 09:21:51 PM
@gurangax
Please start a new thread when you're ready to share your secret. I'm not going to waste my time coming back here.
Thanks.
if you think I will reveal it that soon you are mistaken, at least I have a time limit now.
Quote from: MarkE on April 26, 2014, 09:13:06 PM
It doesn't work. Gravity is conservative.
But I tell you what as long as you want to continue with your claims: I'll happily contract electricity from you for $0.10 / kWh. You just install your equipment on my premises in a sealed and locked cabinet, and I'll buy the electricity. Tell me what continuous power capacity that you can deliver, the form: AC or DC and at what voltage, current, and phase configuration (if AC), and when you can install.
You have no idea what gravity can do.
regards
ok guys i wont be wasting anymore of your "precious" time. see you judgement day.
@gurangax
Blow off the criticism. Everyone that announces gets it. Makes you think twice about saying anything positive. I looked at your old posts and you did reveal what you were discussing (the eternity wheel if I'm seeing everything) so I'm not sure what the big deal is. I hope you stay with us.
You just said the following:
Quote
I mean really? cant someone come up with a conclusion of how it may work I have already given the clues needed.
lets say we have a 2 meter crossbar with 2 kg of weight on both ends (so its 4kg) then we will get a maximum of at least 2.946 of torque.
I may be miss-interpreting this statement, but you also previously said if all the weights were the same the wheel would not work. Some of them needed to be 3/4 lighter. It is difficult for me to come up with a conclusion when I'm confused about the clues. You responded to my previous questions and I thank you for that, so I hope you will continue.
For your information, I have spent the better part of the last 10 years working with two stage oscillator designs and I believe I now know the reason why the device cannot produce excess energy. I have said as much in previous posts, but being a low volume poster and relative newbie to the forums, I'm sure my posts were all but ignored. I like your direction and have always felt the 2SO (in the right configuration) could provide an answer. I'm not implying what you are suggesting is a 2SO, which you have also said, but I do however find the similarities interesting, but at the same time, I can't help but wonder if what you are suggesting isn't just a unique form of a 2SO (not a Milkovic oscillating style 2SO). You did say separately that a "weight falls" and the "crossbar slides". What you didn't say was whether the dropping weight produced CF, and that the CF was the motive force causing the crossbar to slide (presumably upward). That's a conclusion I could draw based on my work, and the clues you have presented.
Quote from: MarkE on April 26, 2014, 08:58:07 PM
If for example one wished to run their home for a day at 1kW average consumption then that is 86.4MJ required for a 24 hour period. Given that gravity is a conservative field, that means the wheel will rotate once from a maximum GPE position to a mininmum GPE position. 86.4MJ is 8.81 million kg*meters. If you wanted to do this with a mass of water, and had a 10m diameter wheel ( a lovely addition to any front or back yard ), then the store mass at the top would need to be 880,000 kg, IE 880 metric tons. In water, that would be a bit more than 880 cubic meters on top of that 10m diameter wheel. Then for the next day, all you need to do is restore that wheel to its maximum GPE position again. That is of course only a small problem for proponents of myths.
hi Marke
I like your calculations, but I need a bit of explanation of this,
1kW for 24 hours = 86.4MJ = 8.81 million kg * meters. where these numbers come from?
say, I have GPE 100J always, it means I have a 100 watt?
Quote from: gurangax on April 26, 2014, 08:16:31 AM
i will disclose it just be patient anyway its not even 1 week since I started this. I simply like getting mixed responses from people, that way I know more about them.
regards
Hi. gurangax
judgement day, in 3 days, or 1 month or when ?
Quote from: Marsing on April 27, 2014, 12:43:58 AM
Hi. gurangax
judgement day, in 3 days, or 1 month or when ?
im giving time for you guys to seriously think about my clues, judgement day is jun 1st.
regadrs
Quote from: Marsing on April 27, 2014, 12:24:41 AM
hi Marke
I like your calculations, but I need a bit of explanation of this,
1kW for 24 hours = 86.4MJ = 8.81 million kg * meters. where these numbers come from?
say, I have GPE 100J always, it means I have a 100 watt?
his calculations is grossly wrong, since gravity doesnt deplete the energy like a battery so the hours doesnt count.
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 12:45:45 AM
im giving time for you guys to seriously think about my clues, judgement day is jun 1st.
regadrs
Sometime clues is just wrong assumption, we need to prove it in a real world,
btw, everyone have their own clues....
Quote from: zoelra on April 26, 2014, 11:25:11 PM
@gurangax
Blow off the criticism. Everyone that announces gets it. Makes you think twice about saying anything positive. I looked at your old posts and you did reveal what you were discussing (the eternity wheel if I'm seeing everything) so I'm not sure what the big deal is. I hope you stay with us.
You just said the following:
I may be miss-interpreting this statement, but you also previously said if all the weights were the same the wheel would not work. Some of them needed to be 3/4 lighter. It is difficult for me to come up with a conclusion when I'm confused about the clues. You responded to my previous questions and I thank you for that, so I hope you will continue.
For your information, I have spent the better part of the last 10 years working with two stage oscillator designs and I believe I now know the reason why the device cannot produce excess energy. I have said as much in previous posts, but being a low volume poster and relative newbie to the forums, I'm sure my posts were all but ignored. I like your direction and have always felt the 2SO (in the right configuration) could provide an answer. I'm not implying what you are suggesting is a 2SO, which you have also said, but I do however find the similarities interesting, but at the same time, I can't help but wonder if what you are suggesting isn't just a unique form of a 2SO (not a Milkovic oscillating style 2SO). You did say separately that a "weight falls" and the "crossbar slides". What you didn't say was whether the dropping weight produced CF, and that the CF was the motive force causing the crossbar to slide (presumably upward). That's a conclusion I could draw based on my work, and the clues you have presented.
CF will be one reason to slow it down. So it wont be turning so fast. ANyway i appreciate inputs like this.
regards
Quote from: Marsing on April 27, 2014, 12:57:24 AM
Sometime clues is just wrong assumption, we need to prove it in a real world,
btw, everyone have their own clues....
just wait for the finale.
regards
@gurangax
You have asked for conclusions based on the clues and I have given one. You didn't say whether my assumptions and my conclusion were correct. Can you say?
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 01:02:59 AM
@gurangax
You have asked for conclusions based on the clues and I have given one. You didn't say whether my assumptions and my conclusion were correct. Can you say?
Its not CF that causes the movement. CF will only slow it down.
regards
@gurangax
Thanks for the honesty.
@gurangax
Back to the clues. You mentioned some weights need to be 3/4 lighter. This could suggest there are weights that shift, and there are weights that act as shifters (basically a 4 weight crossbar). You didn't say as much in your posts, but it would seem to make sense. Can you elaborate on what you meant about the different weights?
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 12:51:34 AM
his calculations is grossly wrong, since gravity doesnt deplete the energy like a battery so the hours doesnt count.
I need from his VP,
and agree, gravity doesnt deplete the energy like a battery. its mean
"ALWAYS" there ,
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 01:11:28 AM
@gurangax
Back to the clues. You mentioned some weights need to be 3/4 lighter. This could suggest there are weights that shift, and there are weights that act as shifters (basically a 4 weight crossbar). You didn't say as much in your posts, but it would seem to make sense. Can you elaborate on what you meant about the different weights?
Now you are making progress. Bessler says
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain."
i suggest that you read everything on this page [/size]
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Portal:Clues
regards
Yes I have read those clues many times. So it would seem I am correct in the assumption of the crossbar containing two weights and two shifter weights. Another assumption would be that the shifter weights are the weights that fall.
At this point I'm trying to clear up uncertainties in my assumptions of the clues you presented. Again I thank you for responding.
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 01:25:53 AM
Yes I have read those clues many times. So it would seem I am correct in the assumption of the crossbar containing two weights and two shifter weights. Another assumption would be that the shifter weights are the weights that fall.
At this point I'm trying to clear up uncertainties in my assumptions of the clues you presented. Again I thank you for responding.
you dont need weights to make it work. the levers itself have mass and weight.
regards
"you dont need weights to make it work. the levers itself have mass and weight."
I think we have all seen this in our builds. I certainly have building 2SOs. They also work without weights (assuming the right materials and dimensions).
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 01:41:27 AM
"you dont need weights to make it work. the levers itself have mass and weight."
I think we have all seen this in our builds. I certainly have building 2SOs. They also work without weights (assuming the right materials and dimensions).
it definitely doesn't oscillate.
So can we make the following assumption. In a no weight scenario, the folding up or unfolding (depending on how you look at it) of the two stage lever/linkage (under its own weight) produces more height and thus more weight and leverage above the axle.
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 01:47:47 AM
So can we make the following assumption. In a no weight scenario, the folding up or unfolding (depending on how you look at it) of the two stage lever/linkage (under its own weight) produces more height and thus more weight and leverage above the axle.
the concept is already there but there's a bit more to it
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 01:49:24 AM
the concept is already there but there's a bit more to it
regards
something to do with Bessler word
- Weights gained force from their own swinging (or movement).
- Bessler
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 01:47:47 AM
So can we make the following assumption. In a no weight scenario, the folding up or unfolding (depending on how you look at it) of the two stage lever/linkage (under its own weight) produces more height and thus more weight and leverage above the axle.
Anyway I suggest you make a test on real device and start learn from there.
Much as been said about
Weights gained force from their own swinging (or movement).
- Bessler
The swinging interpretation is what supports the idea of CF. Movement would imply something else which is what I believe you are alluding to.
I'm constantly working on builds and thinking of different models. I don't rule out any design or principle until I can disprove it. The "swinging" is what keeps my interest in the 2SO.
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 02:06:18 AM
Much as been said about
Weights gained force from their own swinging (or movement).
- Bessler
The swinging interpretation is what supports the idea of CF. Movement would imply something else which is what I believe you are alluding to.
I'm constantly working on builds and thinking of different models. I don't rule out any design or principle until I can disprove it. The "swinging" is what keeps my interest in the 2SO.
I dont think its the CF more like the inertia of a moving object.
regards
Besslers one-way wheels were very thin. I would think that if there were z-axis components and movements, they would have to have been inside the axles, at least this is a possibility. I'm thinking of something like MT34 for the weight shifting levers and weights.
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 02:20:25 AM
Besslers one-way wheels were very thin. I would think that if there were z-axis components and movements, they would have to have been inside the axles, at least this is a possibility. I'm thinking of something like MT34 for the weight shifting levers and weights.
no its just the same principle, with slight variations.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 02:22:51 AM
no its just the same principle, with slight variations.
regards
anyway I dont look at the MT anymore, it only shows some failed device mechanism, but you can look at mt138.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 02:24:44 AM
anyway I dont look at the MT anymore, it only shows some failed device mechanism, but you can look at mt138.
regards
I didnt realize the drawings were numbered so what i meant was mt138-mt141
"I dont think its the CF more like the inertia of a moving object."
If you are referring to momentum (resistance to change in speed), yes it definitely increases with speed, and could be what Bessler was referring to.
"no its just the same principle, with slight variations."
If you are saying the way the horizontal levers and weights are placed in MT34 is just a 3D variation of the 2D way, then that makes sense, and probably why no one has had any success with this design.
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 02:37:54 AM
"no its just the same principle, with slight variations."
If you are saying the way the horizontal levers and weights are placed in MT34 is just a 3D variation of the 2D way, then that makes sense, and probably why no one has had any success with this design.
I meant to say all Bessler wheel big or small they use the same principle with slight variations. And there is nothing on his mt which will work unless someone figured the toy page
regards
gurangax, thanks for the clarification.
Due to the thinness of the first wheel, my thoughts are still that if there was anything on the z-axis, it would be within the axle.
there is something useful on a camshaft
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 24, 2014, 02:40:13 PM
For the first time in written history, The Bessler wheel mysteries have finally been solved. I feel the urge to share it with you guys in this forum. But somehow I feel stupid if I do it without asking some questions first.
Firstly, how do you open source it? I'm afraid that someone will steal it and patent it for himself.
Secondly, what will this benefit me? What will I get by doing this, will this harm anyone?
I know why everyone keeps failing to replicate a Bessler Wheel, its because they keep on repeating his mistakes. there is none of his published drawings that works! You are looking it the wrong way. The clues are there but lets keep that for another time.
The reason why I am saying that the mystery is solved is because of a very simple mechanism which he wanted to protect so much. You wont believe how simple it is, thus I understand why he destroyed and hidden all the evidences. With this lost knowledge (not anymore), every written history about the wheel fits in the puzzle. All questions regarding the clues that were gained in the past can now be fully understood. And finally Johann Bessler will be accepted as a genuine Perpetual Motion inventor.[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
Regards[/font][/size]
Hi,
use GPL, if you want open source it. But honestly, sooner or later all patents will be useless.
If you want benefit from it, dont write on open source forum. We all are here for free, just because we want to help.
Yes you harm lot of people, especialy rich one.
If you want share you knowlege post us some drawing, be sure that we will test it. If it work, we will be gratefull and you will be know like guy who sole energy crysis. Nothnig less or more.
If not please dont confuse ppl around with clues, false hope and so on .... you know karma is bitch.
Thx
gurangax,
Found this threat yesterday, what a great puzzle.
I found the peacock you are talking about.
Now thinking out loud, I guess the heavy weights are attached at the tilting poles on which ropes (E) are attached.
The ropes will pull the light inner weights to the rim between 12 and 6 o'clock.
Some other mechanism pulls the light weight back to the center at 6 o'clock (the y-ax mechanism)?
Bert
Quote from: Marshallin on April 27, 2014, 04:20:48 AM
Hi,
use GPL, if you want open source it. But honestly, sooner or later all patents will be useless.
If you want benefit from it, dont write on open source forum. We all are here for free, just because we want to help.
Yes you harm lot of people, especialy rich one.
If you want share you knowlege post us some drawing, be sure that we will test it. If it work, we will be gratefull and you will be know like guy who sole energy crysis. Nothnig less or more.
If not please dont confuse ppl around with clues, false hope and so on .... you know karma is bitch.
Thx
I will disclose it soon at least on Jun 1st. so If you dont want to think about it just wait until the date.
regards
Quote from: bbem on April 27, 2014, 04:34:44 AM
gurangax,
Found this threat yesterday, what a great puzzle.
I found the peacock you are talking about.
Now thinking out loud, I guess the heavy weights are attached at the tilting poles on which ropes (E) are attached.
The ropes will pull the light inner weights to the rim between 12 and 6 o'clock.
Some other mechanism pulls the light weight back to the center at 6 o'clock (the y-ax mechanism)?
Bert
It shouldn't be too complicated. anyway all of his published drawings wont work, the key is the z axis, if you are working on a 3 dimensional plane of forces you might find other mechanism that work i mean other variations of it.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 04:46:15 AM
................... anyway all of his published drawings wont work, ..................
regards
are you sure ?
My last guess, is this the z-axis mechanism?
Bert
Quote from: Marsing on April 27, 2014, 05:01:35 AM
are you sure ?
he destroyed all evidence. well if you think there is somewhere in his published drawings which work why dont you try to figure it out.
Quote from: bbem on April 27, 2014, 05:09:39 AM
My last guess, is this the z-axis mechanism?
Bert
try reading all my post in this thread. anyway the closest to any is here http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=MT_121-143#MT_138-141
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 04:43:24 AM
I will disclose it soon at least on Jun 1st. so If you dont want to think about it just wait until the date.
regards
Ok, but since history reapeat itself, i will not bet on it :D. Nothing personal.
Look on all this people on this forum and theirs claims. Is every time same, sameone claim that he have somethnig and promise that "soon" he will publish/finish it and post everything.
Everytime time is same, either:
- They just fooling around to have few minutes of flame, and they stop when people lost interest. Sometimes even want donations for it.
- Sameone will stop them. If they are lucky just with money. If not solutions are lost with them anyway.
For your own protection, if you realy have somethnink, and you realy want help the world, share it soon as you have it. You may not get another chance.
After it noone have reason to hurt you, because it will just prove yours claims.
How hard you thnink is track your IP address to provider, and ask him for your address?
There is no annonimity on the internet, not anymore.
Quote from: Marshallin on April 27, 2014, 05:37:31 AM
Ok, but since history reapeat itself, i will not bet on it :D . Nothing personal.
Look on all this people on this forum and theirs claims. Is every time same, sameone claim that he have somethnig and promise that "soon" he will publish/finish it and post everything.
Everytime time is same, either:
- They just fooling around to have few minutes of flame, and they stop when people lost interest. Sometimes even want donations for it.
- Sameone will stop them. If they are lucky just with money. If not solutions are lost with them anyway.
For your own protection, if you realy have somethnink, and you realy want help the world, share it soon as you have it. You may not get another chance.
After it noone have reason to hurt you, because it will just prove yours claims.
How hard you thnink is track your IP address to provider, and ask him for your address?
There is no annonimity on the internet, not anymore.
I don't think someone will try to stop me, the only way they can discredit it is by false facts and known laws of physics. But since its so simple to build they wont have that chance anyway. A worker must be paid for his work or do you think you should work for someone without being paid? Whats wrong with this world today, you rather want to pay your bills then pay for something that is even better.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 05:46:29 AMWhats wrong with this world today
We are officially in an era of Kali Yuga, meaning that mostly everything is wrong which can be wrong. But more and more people wake up so the wrongness cannot be hidden for long.
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 05:46:29 AM
I don't think someone will try to stop me, the only way they can discredit it is by false facts and known laws of physics. But since its so simple to build they wont have that chance anyway. A worker must be paid for his work or do you think you should work for someone without being paid? Whats wrong with this world today, you rather want to pay your bills then pay for something that is even better.
regards
Perfectly understood your situation. If you can make a model or a kit then please find good people and start selling. I wish you all the best. How do you like the idea ?
Quoting Bessler
"I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)"
There is something about the properties of a lever which does not exist in you physics books.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 03:34:10 AM
there is something useful on a camshaft
regards
Was he able to adjust the cam-timing at the camshaft?
[/font][/size]
MT138: "He rather understates the flail arm at the top of B, but has made much of it in so many other images."[/font][/size]
Quote from: forest on April 27, 2014, 07:15:12 AM
Perfectly understood your situation. If you can make a model or a kit then please find good people and start selling. I wish you all the best. How do you like the idea ?
I would like to sell it but there is no point now since im going to open source it. My only hope for such payment is through donations. but that is for later.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 07:19:59 AM
I would like to sell it but there is no point now since im going to open source it. My only hope for such payment is through donations. but that is for later.
regards
Since you solved the riddle you could name your finding to "Bessler-gurangax" and ask people to donate to show their gratitude. There a enough good people that will donate for sure.
Another option is to crowd-fund it to enhance/simplify the design for the benefit of the earth/mankind.
Bert
Quote from: bbem on April 27, 2014, 07:27:14 AM
Since you solved the riddle you could name your finding to "Bessler-gurangax" and ask people to donate to show their gratitude. There a enough good people that will donate for sure.
Another option is to crowd-fund it to enhance/simplify the design for the benefit of the earth/mankind.
Bert
thanks I'll consider something like that.
regards
gurangax said
QuoteThere is something about the properties of a lever which does not exist in you physics books.
You said lever not levers, so I have to ask if this unknown behavior or property exists only when two levers are combined into the "two stage" lever configuration you mentioned?
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 12:20:36 PM
gurangax said
You said lever not levers, so I have to ask if this unknown behavior or property exists only when two levers are combined into the "two stage" lever configuration you mentioned?
you only need one lever to achieve the effect I am reffering to.
regards
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 12:20:36 PM
gurangax said
You said lever not levers, so I have to ask if this unknown behavior or property exists only when two levers are combined into the "two stage" lever configuration you mentioned?
There are several versions on the internet of the Apologia Poetica. But one struck me as it closely describe this lever. Thus It shows even more that it is his secret mechanism. Here it is
"Children play with heavy clubs among the broken columns."
Some variation of the poem omit the broken column so it loses some important values.
regards
gurangax said
Quoteyou only need one lever to achieve the effect I am refering to.
When you talk of a lever I still think you are referring to some type of multi-bar linkage (like the two stage lever). When I think of a lever I think of a single straight bar with a fulcrum. It is difficult to follow each other when we may have different views on the simple things like the definition of a lever. Can you help clear this up.
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 01:38:43 PM
gurangax said
When you talk of a lever I still think you are referring to some type of multi-bar linkage (like the two stage lever). When I think of a lever I think of a single straight bar with a fulcrum. It is difficult to follow each other when we may have different views on the simple things like the definition of a lever. Can you help clear this up.
I know what a lever is and what a 2 stage lever is. And i literally mean only 1 lever. There is a property not known by many. Maybe if you play with it many times will you notice of this. Its hardly noticed because it were never used like this.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 12:57:23 PM
you only need one lever to achieve the effect I am reffering to.
regards
hi gurangax
just 2 questions
das the center of gravity of the lever need to be displaced to alow some work
I supose thas this displacement force must be balanced whith opposite one
thanks in advence
and sorry for my bad writing
artmos
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 01:52:12 PM
I know what a lever is and what a 2 stage lever is. And i literally mean only 1 lever. There is a property not known by many. Maybe if you play with it many times will you notice of this. Its hardly noticed because it were never used like this.
regards
I will just wait until June 1st at which time you will owe TK's charity of choice $100.00. The action of levers is, and has been, well known. I am looking forward to seeing your "working" device.
Bill
Why not disclose it now?
As TK has said.
You can usually spot the rhetoric of somebody who has nothing, and it is absolutely pathetic.
@gurangax,
I don't mean to offend and sorry if I did. I will study the lever in more detail as you suggest.
Once you reveal how the Bessler Wheel works, how difficult will it be for us to construct a working model? Time consuming? Expensive? Requiring great skills? Expensive tools? Or will there be simple way to demonstrate the basic idea? A way to build small model from everyday items such that we can go, OK, I see that this will work (in other words, proof of concept)!
You see, I'm very much interested in these types of things, but I don't have a workshop to build stuff with, sigh.
Quote from: zoelra on April 27, 2014, 03:03:30 PM
@gurangax,
I don't mean to offend and sorry if I did. I will study the lever in more detail as you suggest.
Please don't feed the troll.
Im sure that gurangax dont has a working model.
However, if he does, & to my satisfaction only, it measures up as a self sustaining free-energy machine as promoted, that does not require 'fuel' or stored energy, & has potential to do external work over & above normal mechanical losses, I will gladly make gurangax a donation - my wallet is still in my hip pocket & it can't read clues.
Quote from: fletcher on April 27, 2014, 04:26:18 PMif it measures up as a self sustaining free-energy machine as promoted, that does not require 'fuel' or stored energy, & has potential to do external work over & above normal mechanical losses, I will gladly make gurangax a donation.
Me too.
Something tells me we won't see this open-sourcing taking place and people replicating it.
Let's hope I am 100% wrong.
Quote from: fletcher on April 27, 2014, 04:26:18 PM
However, if he does, & to my satisfaction only, it measures up as a self sustaining free-energy machine as promoted, that does not require 'fuel' or stored energy, & has potential to do external work over & above normal mechanical losses, I will gladly make gurangax a donation - my wallet is still in my hip pocket & it can't read clues.
@Fletcher;
I plan on doing this too, a definite cash payout after Jun 1...gurangax will have helped me in doing what I am doing anyway, saving me money but maybe in a safer and more securely way. I am not open to discussing details. I will also help him set up ipso-facto crowd funding. A novel idea because we never get anything real before. Let the rich people who are hurt go argue with a physics text book. We have implicit agreement about this which is the free enterprise system. Terrorists...
as always, can and will go to h*ll.
I am not counting on anything...bs and incomprehensible human behaviors abound too.
:S:MarkSCoffman
mscoffman .. simply a matter of 'opportunity cost' - IF he can connect the dots where all others & science have failed, then I will learn something of personal intellectual value to me.
Agreed, I consider this a problem in logic and mathematics, only one with profound physical implications.
Try reading about Bessler's personal history through JC's book. You just know that Bessler is not a myth or a creation of somebody, there exists written histories. If it were not so I would have not ventured into this findings.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 09:00:26 PM
Try reading about Bessler's personal history through JC's book. You just know that Bessler is not a myth or a creation of somebody, there exists written histories. If it were not so I would have not ventured into this findings.
regards
Bessler never established what he claimed. Nor have you. Do you want to contract electricity deliveries using your claimed device?
Quote from: MarkE on April 27, 2014, 09:13:50 PM
Bessler never established what he claimed. Nor have you. Do you want to contract electricity deliveries using your claimed device?
It is a lost knowledge. even though it is simple but many failed to notice it. I can show a very simple experiment to show you how easy and truthful it is. Besslers word below is very real and I fully understands what he meant.
"I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)"
regards
p.s I have no plan of any contract at the moment.
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 09:47:21 PM
It is a lost knowledge. even though it is simple but many failed to notice it. I can show a very simple experiment to show you how easy and truthful it is. Besslers word below is very real and I fully understands what he meant.
"I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)"
regards
p.s I have no plan of any contract at the moment.
notice how explained it as a sudden interaction.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 09:47:21 PM
It is a lost knowledge. even though it is simple but many failed to notice it. I can show a very simple experiment to show you how easy and truthful it is. Besslers word below is very real and I fully understands what he meant.
"I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)"
regards
p.s I have no plan of any contract at the moment.
What you have done is made a series of claims that you have failed to support. There is no reason to expect that will ever change.
Quote from: MarkE on April 27, 2014, 11:06:38 PM
What you have done is made a series of claims that you have failed to support. There is no reason to expect that will ever change.
For you I will say just wait until Jun 1st.
regards
p.s
[size=78%]I may release it anytime sooner than you think.[/size]
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 11:14:58 PM
For you I will say just wait until Jun 1st.
regards
p.s [size=78%]I may release it anytime sooner than you think.[/size]
June 1st, gravity will still be conservative and you will still be unable to demonstrate against your claims.
What people is led to believe is that a wheel driven by gravity alone is a perpetual motion device which is a wrong assumptions. I have put here that gravity only attracts, meaning the pressure of gravity is 1 sided it is not like a magnet, though I may have thought of a device which could be propelled by magnetic attraction. Gravity field on earth is very large that you only experience a 1 sided force I dont know if the other side of the force existed. If it does probably it goes through another dimension (this is interesting) so that we on this dimension doesnt feel it. Since it is a 1 sided force you can make a device so it can be transformed into other form of energies. A very true and proved case is the windmill or a water turbine.
If a windmill use blades as a mechanism of energy transformation, then Bessler wheel uses levers as the mechanism.
Btw a perpetual motion device can not exist since it must need some outer form of energy to make it do something. And I think that such impossible task to do is a pressure point in a deep sea where the force is the same all around it, unless maybe if you make a large device to make use of the difference of the pressures.
If there is anything perpetual I can only think of God as the one and only perpetual thing.
regards.
Quote from: MarkE on April 27, 2014, 11:25:46 PM
June 1st, gravity will still be conservative and you will still be unable to demonstrate against your claims.
Ok whatever
regards,
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 11:33:03 PM
If there is anything perpetual I can only think of God as the one and only perpetual thing.
You are absolutely right! Sooner or later everyone will realise this truth!!
after doing some thinkering, I found that a pendulum is an energy amplifier since you only put very little energy to make a great weight displacement. This extra weight displacement is caused by the acceleration caused by gravity. but since it is gravity itself that will cancel the other half of this energy amplification the pendulum loses its amplified energy until it stood still again. A truely amplifed energy will be if we let the pendulum drop to the ground and the energy amplified will be released as a crack on the ground. I may have not intepreted what i really meant to say here.
A 2 stage oscillator is actually using this phenomenon of energy amplification when it is doing its job. My 2 stage lever is doing the same thing but in a much better way. As a conclusion what the device really is, is a device able to tap the energy from gravity and convert it into mechanical energy, or should we call it a gravity mill?
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 28, 2014, 07:14:07 AM
after doing some thinkering, I found that a pendulum is an energy amplifier since you only put very little energy to make a great weight displacement. This extra weight displacement is caused by the acceleration caused by gravity. but since it is gravity itself that will cancel the other half of this energy amplification the pendulum loses its amplified energy until it stood still again. A truely amplifed energy will be if we let the pendulum drop to the ground and the energy amplified will be released as a crack on the ground. I may have not intepreted what i really meant to say here.
A 2 stage oscillator is actually using this phenomenon of energy amplification when it is doing its job. My 2 stage lever is doing the same thing but in a much better way. As a conclusion what the device really is, is a device able to tap the energy from gravity and convert it into mechanical energy, or should we call it a gravity mill?
regards
Such statements betray that you have a poor understanding of basic physics. Pendulums DO NOT
amplify energy. Pendulums like other resonant devices
store energy. In the case of a pendulum the
stored energy alternates between potential and kinetic forms. Each cycle of the pendulum loses a portion of the stored energy to things like bearing friction and windage. Each cycle either that lost energy is replenished from an outside energy source, or the pendulum runs down.
To gurangax ...
Quote
It is a lost knowledge. even though it is simple but many failed to notice it. I can show a very simple experiment to show you how easy and truthful it is. Besslers word below is very real and I fully understands what he meant.
"I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)"
notice how explained it as a sudden interaction.
"Sudden interaction" could imply impact and change of direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w8aXZYZUHE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w8aXZYZUHE)
Quote from: MarkE on April 28, 2014, 08:35:48 AM
Such statements betray that you have a poor understanding of basic physics. Pendulums DO NOT amplify energy. Pendulums like other resonant devices store energy. In the case of a pendulum the stored energy alternates between potential and kinetic forms. Each cycle of the pendulum loses a portion of the stored energy to things like bearing friction and windage. Each cycle either that lost energy is replenished from an outside energy source, or the pendulum runs down.
Like I said I may have not said it correctly, but my findings does says that energy gains did accumulate through the mechanism. I can not for now say it in clear way as english is not my 1st language.
regards
Quote from: zoelra on April 28, 2014, 10:53:44 AM
To gurangax ...
"Sudden interaction" could imply impact and change of direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w8aXZYZUHE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w8aXZYZUHE)
there was mistyped from me it should be "notice how he said about the sudden interaction/event"
To gurangax ...
Besslers quote
"I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)"
gurangax quote
"notice how he said ..."
You seem to be suggesting there is more in the wording, the HOW ...
"how true craftsmanship can rise above" also related to "as does a weight above the point of application"
or maybe just
"you cant comprehend..." which we dont seem to be able to do. Just kidding.
Also giving extra thought to the visual of "among broken columns".
Quote from: zoelra on April 28, 2014, 11:29:48 AM
To gurangax ...
Besslers quote
"I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)"
gurangax quote
"notice how he said ..."
You seem to be suggesting there is more in the wording.
"how suddenly"
or
"the excess weight"
or
"how true craftsmanship can rise above"
or
"as does a weight above the point of application"
or maybe
"you cant comprehend..." which we dont seem to be able to do.
Also giving extra thought to "among broken columns".
Yes there are some important values to his words. I have done a lever experiment before. There are 2 weights in a state of balance on the lever, but when I do something to the mechanism, The other weight flew up. It was caused by this energy gain/amplification and this is what makes the wheel to revolve, this was the principle that he found and wanted to keep secret.
regards
Thanks gurangax I will give it some hands on thought. ;)
Quote from: zoelra on April 28, 2014, 11:51:24 AM
Thanks gurangax I will give it some hands on thought. ;)
ok no problem.
regards
p.s if you did find what I meant, you will certainly say "now i understand"
Gurangax..
Judging by what you have stated, and the fact that your findings are 80% the same as mine. I would say you are very close to or actually have a working wheel.
Good luck. 8)
Quote from: Bumblebee on April 28, 2014, 01:05:03 PM
Gurangax..
Judging by what you have stated, and the fact that your findings are 80% the same as mine. I would say you are very close to or actually have a working wheel.
Good luck. 8)
thanks but i dont need luck but thanks anyway.
Quote from: Bumblebee on April 28, 2014, 01:05:03 PM
Gurangax..
Judging by what you have stated, and the fact that your findings are 80% the same as mine. I would say you are very close to or actually have a working wheel.
Good luck. 8)
Anyway are you going to share your findings? anyway from your previous post i dont think it is the same mechanism.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 28, 2014, 11:46:38 AM
Yes there are some important values to his words. I have done a lever experiment before. There are 2 weights in a state of balance on the lever, but when I do something to the mechanism, The other weight flew up. It was caused by this energy gain/amplification and this is what makes the wheel to revolve, this was the principle that he found and wanted to keep secret.
regards
If the lever plank was light and yet stiff and one accelerates lever pivot point upward, the light weight would go flying, because the inertia
of the heavy weight would be unbalanced by the lower inertia of the light weight.
"goes flying" means that a local center of gravity of the flying component only informs the global center of gravity of the system
at time intervals with impulses.
[Whether a lever amplifies distance or(vs) energy depends on subsequent system dynamics.] With what probability can we retrieve the
light weight or project it's trajectory for reuse without the system getting tangled up in itself. A tangled system demands an subsequent
energy intensive restart expenditure.
---
In machine M138-141 the drawing of "handles" below point E seems to imply that the game is operated by means of a hand magnetic.
A hand magnetic is in OU reference to a device where humans apply nervous energy in situations without realizing it, such that OU
operations on the device are only apparent. I don't think that this necessarily creates a negative systemic situation for your device, but
I can't be sure. I did think that this was interesting in that this toy seems to operate based on a improper OU technique.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: gurangax on April 27, 2014, 09:47:21 PM
It is a lost knowledge. even though it is simple but many failed to notice it. I can show a very simple experiment to show you how easy and truthful it is. Besslers word below is very real and I fully understands what he meant.
"I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)"
regards
Hi Gurangax-
Your thread is fascinating & has caused me to look at the function of Bessler's wheel in a totally different way! In an earlier post you stated that 1/2 of the wheel remains void of weights & that the mechanism has similarities to a peacock. You also stated that the mechanism resets at the 6:00 position. I can picture the weighted crossbars being lifted & shifted through the axis of the wheel from the 6:00 position to the 12:00 position. No crossbars ever occupy the light side of the wheel. Correct me if I'm wrong but the crossbars are lifted by levers that are impacted by weights that are timed to fall when each crossbar reaches the 6:00 position. They impact a 2 stage lever propelling the crossbars to the 12:00 position.
Quote from: gurangax on April 28, 2014, 11:09:42 AM
Like I said I may have not said it correctly, but my findings does says that energy gains did accumulate through the mechanism. I can not for now say it in clear way as english is not my 1st language.
regards
Claiming that you have discovered what would be a break through that would fundamentally change physics as we know it without offering any evidence whatsoever should lead any reasonable person to completely discount your claims. The fact that you present yourself as grossly ignorant of the physics should lead even very gullible people to realize that you have nothing but a story.
Hi Gurangax, sounds like we're working on similar designs, although there are no weights flying up in mine. By 2 stage lever, do you mean dual function?....as in actuator and reset?
A little note about pendulum : it is a less friction movement example. It proves there is no law of conservation of WORK. The same energy can do much more work if friction is limited to single point where pendulum is connected to the support.
That's all an enough. If the same is used ( I don't know how yet) with lever then surely very curious things are possible....
Quote from: forest on April 28, 2014, 04:27:40 PM
A little note about pendulum : it is a less friction movement example. It proves there is no law of conservation of WORK. The same energy can do much more work if friction is limited to single point where pendulum is connected to the support.
That's all an enough. If the same is used ( I don't know how yet) with lever then surely very curious things are possible....
You are flat wrong. The work that a pendulum does is ideally zero. Energy just moves between two forms. A pendulum does real work overcoming friction in the bearings and air friction, AKA windage. That work that is done must be identically replaced with outside energy each and every cycle.
gurangax said
Quote
A 2 stage oscillator is actually using this phenomenon of energy amplification when it is doing its job. My 2 stage lever is doing the same thing but in a much better way. As a conclusion what the device really is, is a device able to tap the energy from gravity and convert it into mechanical energy, or should we call it a gravity mill
EDIT:
Would you please clarify what you mean by "phenomenon of energy amplification" ?
The way you use it sounds like it means the increasing kinetic energy of an object as it free falls.
Quote from: MarkE on April 28, 2014, 04:32:07 PM
You are flat wrong. The work that a pendulum does is ideally zero. Energy just moves between two forms. A pendulum does real work overcoming friction in the bearings and air friction, AKA windage. That work that is done must be identically replaced with outside energy each and every cycle.
MarkE
The pendulum is ideally zero. This is what has intrigued me for a long time. You supply the first part of energy lifting it up to release. Then it swings lifting up the other side nearly the same distance. Then lifting to the other side and so on. The total amount of distance you lifted, lets say 3 feet. Yet the pendulum action of the many times it lifts many many times more than that. It almost seems something is missing.
Now! I'm not going to say one way or the other but just to bring up another way to look at it.
Alan
Quote from: AB Hammer on April 28, 2014, 05:08:49 PM
MarkE
The pendulum is ideally zero. This is what has intrigued me for a long time. You supply the first part of energy lifting it up to release. Then it swings lifting up the other side nearly the same distance. Then lifting to the other side and so on. The total amount of distance you lifted, lets say 3 feet. Yet the pendulum action of the many times it lifts many many times more than that. It almost seems something is missing.
Now! I'm not going to say one way or the other but just to bring up another way to look at it.
Alan
Alan absolutely nothing is missing. In order to avoid describing this using calculus, let's look at three states: up left, up right, and down. Let's also remove all friction, including windage for a moment. When the pendulum is up left or up right it has identical gravitational potentials, both the maximum that it will have. When it is down it has the minimum gravitational potential that it will have. It also has the maximum kinetic energy at the instant that it passes through zero. Because there is no friction, and no external load, the pendulum does not perform any work as it swings back and forth. Energy simply converts from gravitational potential to kinetic energy and back. All that energy is stored. It is just stored in the combination of two different forms, reaching a maximum in one form and the minimum in the other form at each of the three states. When one loads the pendulum either with something that does external work, such as a generator set-up or a crank that might lift something up, or even friction, then the pendulum delivers energy, and in order to maintain the same amplitude, IE in order to sustain, that external energy delivered, must be replenished from another outside source.
Quote from: gurangax on April 28, 2014, 01:22:04 PM
Anyway are you going to share your findings? anyway from your previous post i dont think it is the same mechanism.
regards
That was a different wheel. If you haven't already got a runner you will soon see why I said good luck. I'm sure you don't want me to steal you thunder, do you?.
Quote from: getterdone on April 28, 2014, 03:00:50 PM
Hi Gurangax, sounds like we're working on similar designs, although there are no weights flying up in mine. By 2 stage lever, do you mean dual function?....as in actuator and reset?
yes and probably you say it much better.
regards
Quote from: zoelra on April 28, 2014, 05:03:00 PM
gurangax said
EDIT:
Would you please clarify what you mean by "phenomenon of energy amplification" ?
The way you use it sounds like it means the increasing kinetic energy of an object as it free falls.
If you take a weight up and release it in mid air, the weight will accelerate because of gravity's attraction and make a hole on on the earth. this is is clear energy gain that the weight experiences, the hole means energy without you even need throwing the weight to the earth.
regards.
p.s somebody will say that you need energy to take the weight back to the top, and if you think I dont even know such known laws, you are dead wrong, because you don't know what you are talking about, for you I will say just wait until you see it with your own eyes.
Quote from: Bumblebee on April 28, 2014, 06:10:42 PM
That was a different wheel. If you haven't already got a runner you will soon see why I said good luck. I'm sure you don't want me to steal you thunder, do you?.
you have said it yourself already, I dont need luck. thanks
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 28, 2014, 08:35:47 PM
p.s somebody will say that you need energy to take the weight back to the top, and if you think I dont even know such known laws, you are dead wrong, because you don't know what you are talking about, for you I will say just wait until you see it with your own eyes.
Have you found any method of anti-gravitational levitation?
Quote from: Newton II on April 28, 2014, 09:09:09 PM
Have you found any method of anti-gravitational levitation?
no laws is broken it is physics please understand the energy that resets itself is purely gravitic attraction.
Quote from: gurangax on April 28, 2014, 09:17:44 PM
no laws is broken it is physics please understand the energy that resets itself is purely gravitic attraction.
and the energy gained is simply from gravity own force of attraction.
Quote from: gurangax on April 28, 2014, 09:31:02 PM
and the energy gained is simply from gravity own force of attraction.
just the same as energy gained from a windmill is got from the flow of that wind. If you take the device on a freefall it wont work because gravity is relatively zero.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 28, 2014, 09:17:44 PM
no laws is broken it is physics please understand the energy that resets itself is purely gravitic attraction.
when gravitic attraction 'energy' resets itself, how it will raise to its initial height, unless it loses its weight?
Quote from: Newton II on April 28, 2014, 09:43:31 PM
when gravitic attraction 'energy' resets itself, how it will raise to its initial height, unless it loses its weight?
you need to see it working in order to find that out
regards
Quote from: mscoffman on April 28, 2014, 01:47:01 PM
If the lever plank was light and yet stiff and one accelerates lever pivot point upward, the light weight would go flying, because the inertia
of the heavy weight would be unbalanced by the lower inertia of the light weight.
"goes flying" means that a local center of gravity of the flying component only informs the global center of gravity of the system
at time intervals with impulses.
[Whether a lever amplifies distance or(vs) energy depends on subsequent system dynamics.] With what probability can we retrieve the
light weight or project it's trajectory for reuse without the system getting tangled up in itself. A tangled system demands an subsequent
energy intensive restart expenditure.
---
In machine M138-141 the drawing of "handles" below point E seems to imply that the game is operated by means of a hand magnetic.
A hand magnetic is in OU reference to a device where humans apply nervous energy in situations without realizing it, such that OU
operations on the device are only apparent. I don't think that this necessarily creates a negative systemic situation for your device, but
I can't be sure. I did think that this was interesting in that this toy seems to operate based on a improper OU technique.
:S:MarkSCoffman
it is the heavier weight which is sent flying
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 28, 2014, 09:58:33 PM
you need to see it working in order to find that out
regards
Please show that... we can see and find out.
Quote from: Newton II on April 28, 2014, 10:05:03 PM
Please show that... we can see and find out.
sure, but you will need to wait a proper time
regards
There are many variations that can be designed when looking on 3d plane. for instance the toy yoyo have such potential.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on April 28, 2014, 10:01:22 PM
it is the heavier weight which is sent flying
regards
This is Bessler's word
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain."
Notice he said a heavy weight is sent flying. No matter how you look at it, every clues matches to the mechanism I found.
regards
Quote from: gravitationallychallenged on April 28, 2014, 02:56:45 PM
Hi Gurangax-
Your thread is fascinating & has caused me to look at the function of Bessler's wheel in a totally different way! In an earlier post you stated that 1/2 of the wheel remains void of weights & that the mechanism has similarities to a peacock. You also stated that the mechanism resets at the 6:00 position. I can picture the weighted crossbars being lifted & shifted through the axis of the wheel from the 6:00 position to the 12:00 position. No crossbars ever occupy the light side of the wheel. Correct me if I'm wrong but the crossbars are lifted by levers that are impacted by weights that are timed to fall when each crossbar reaches the 6:00 position. They impact a 2 stage lever propelling the crossbars to the 12:00 position.
sorry i didnt notice your post earlier. there are many variations that can be done, all that I can say for now is that the wheel is top heavy. But you are getting somewhere. regards
Quote from: AB Hammer on April 28, 2014, 05:08:49 PM
MarkE
The pendulum is ideally zero. This is what has intrigued me for a long time. You supply the first part of energy lifting it up to release. Then it swings lifting up the other side nearly the same distance. Then lifting to the other side and so on. The total amount of distance you lifted, lets say 3 feet. Yet the pendulum action of the many times it lifts many many times more than that. It almost seems something is missing.
Now! I'm not going to say one way or the other but just to bring up another way to look at it.
Alan
I don't want to be offtopic here but , the definition of work is completely wrong. The work I'm taking about is simply measure by a "absolute road" the total distance mass is moved by force , counting each distance moved even in opposite directions. Only road and time are basic principles ! Depending of arrangement you can do much more with force when eliminating resistance. Sure, if you want to call work the amount of energy you spent - it is all the same, you never find overunity!!!!
Quote from: forest on April 29, 2014, 06:59:45 AM
I don't want to be offtopic here but , the definition of work is completely wrong. The work I'm taking about is simply measure by a "absolute road" the total distance mass is moved by force , counting each distance moved even in opposite directions. Only road and time are basic principles ! Depending of arrangement you can do much more with force when eliminating resistance. Sure, if you want to call work the amount of energy you spent - it is all the same, you never find overunity!!!!
Work and energy are well defined terms. Kindly do not make up your own meanings.
When a pendulum falls from its apogee, work is performed on the pendulum converting potential energy to kinetic energy. When the pendulum reaches the bottom of its stroke the process reverses, converting kinetic energy back into potential energy. To the outside world, the transfer of energy between potential and kinetic forms is transparent, IE the process is completely internal, IE the energy is stored within the pendulum. The energy merely changes form going from completely potential to partially potential / partially kinetic to fully kinetic, and then back again with each swing. We can use a simple money analogy: If you place a $10. of quarters in your left pocket and then move them one by one to your right pocket until all of them are in your right pocket and then reverse the process, you neither gain nor lose any money. If you repeat the process many times, you move lots of money, but neither gain, nor lose any money.
Quote from: forest on April 29, 2014, 06:59:45 AM
I don't want to be offtopic here but , the definition of work is completely wrong. The work I'm taking about is simply measure by a "absolute road" the total distance mass is moved by force , counting each distance moved even in opposite directions. Only road and time are basic principles ! Depending of arrangement you can do much more with force when eliminating resistance. Sure, if you want to call work the amount of energy you spent - it is all the same, you never find overunity!!!!
@forest and MarkE
Ah yes the term
Work. It does
seem to be misinterpreted. Like to lift something is work, but to hold something is not, according to how teachers teach physics. So if you pick up a bucket of water? that is work. Now hold that bucket up and strait out for a period of time and that becomes the hardest time of non work we ever did.
Work? LOL You definitely extended a lot amount of energy. You hart beats faster, your muscles hurt and you are tired out. But you were not doing work. But it is said that gravity is
working against you to hold the bucket. It looks to me, to be more of a tug of war as in the game. So if the rope is not going to one side or the other not moving, the people on the rope must not be doing
Work, but in truth they are getting a workout. LOL
I do appreciate MarkE stating the physics viewpoint and I thank you for that. But when we show and have a
Working Wheel. It will throw a large kink in the word
Work for it will be doing
Work with only gravity.
The more we study? The more we learn we have a lot to learn.
Alan
edited to correct some words.
Well, it is about doing work and doing smart work ;)
Look at the video (with boat) at this site:
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html
Bert
Quote from: AB Hammer on April 29, 2014, 08:10:03 AM
@forest and MarkE
Ah yes the term Work. It does seem to be misinterpreted. Like to lift something is work, but to hold something is not, according to how teachers teach physics. So if you pick up a bucket of water? that is work. Now hold that bucket up and strait out for a period of time and that becomes the hardest time of non work we ever did.
I choose to hold it straight out pushing it onto a shelf at the lifted height.
Quote
Work? LOL You definitely extended a lot amount of energy. You hart beats faster, your musles hurt and you are tired out. But you were not doing work.
Nope, my handy shelf doesn't perform any work holding up that bucket, and because I am lazy enough to take advantage of the shelf, neither do I.
Quote
But it is said that gravity is working against you to hold the bucket. It looks to me, to be more of a tug of war. So if the rope is not going to one side or the other not moving, the people on the rope must not be doing Work, but in truth they are getting a workout. LOL
I do appreciate MarkE stating the physics viewpoint and I thank you for that. But when we show and have a Working Wheel. It will through a large kink in the word Work for it will be doing Work with only gravity.
I think you mean if you ever show such a thing. Many, many have tried and none have succeeded. In order to succeed you are going to have to find a way for something to weigh more on its way down than it does on its way up. No one has yet found a way to make a mass smaller based on its position relative to other masses.
Quote
The more we study? The more we learn we have a lot to learn.
Alan
There is certainly much to learn. That's why retreading the same ground over and over seems so counterproductive. Yet, there are people bent on at least claiming to do just that.
If you can not solve the problem,"change the problem."
I would prefer hooking the bucket handle on a "sky hook"
so no work would be needed to hold it indefinitely!
Quote from: camelherder49 on April 29, 2014, 09:42:41 AM
If you can not solve the problem,"change the problem."
I would prefer hooking the bucket handle on a "sky hook"
so no work would be needed to hold it indefinitely!
Why exert energy to do no useful work? One could go out and build a chair that uses a rocket engine to support one's weight, or just use a conventional chair with legs.
Quote from: AB Hammer on April 29, 2014, 08:10:03 AM
Ah yes the term Work. It does seem to be misinterpreted. Like to lift something is work, but to hold something is not, according to how teachers teach physics. So if you pick up a bucket of water? that is work. Now hold that bucket up and strait out for a period of time and that becomes the hardest time of non work we ever did. Work? LOL You definitely extended a lot amount of energy. You hart beats faster, your muscles hurt and you are tired out. But you were not doing work. But it is said that gravity is working against you to hold the bucket. It looks to me, to be more of a tug of war as in the game. So if the rope is not going to one side or the other not moving, the people on the rope must not be doing Work, but in truth they are getting a workout. LOL
I think it can be put in another way. As Newton's third law states, forces always happen in pairs in opposite directions. For every
F there has to be a
-F in opposite direction. So, when you consider work as F*S reulting from force F, there has to be equal amount of work -F*S in opposite direction resulting from the force -F.
Hence when you lift a bucket of water, you will be storing potential energy m*g*h in it. But your muscles will be spending energy
-m*g*h in opposite direction to maintain potential energy in the lifted bucket. So, you will feel tired.
So, if you find a method to add
mgh and
-mgh only in magnitude leaving the direction then net work done will be 2mgh !! (efficiency is 200%)
Just a thought! Correct me if I am wrong.
There is a .pdf file by a guy named Linevich who says this problem all traces back to
a defintion as to whether one should consider a weight (or mass) moving on it's
own through space (flying) as (a) having no work is being done at all, that the propensity
is just a propensity of the mass of matter to have inertia - or (b) work by the law of
matter momentum is being done to the weight. He says that an error initially in
science reasoning occured when they picked (a) over (b).
Another group of people then showed that the dual pendulum situation is directly
mathematically analogously linked to this same first analyses mathematics.
I've also seen that a guy who fires a magnetic mass through ring magnetic gets
an anomolous reaction to the expected newtonian one and seems to trace it to same
thing. I think this could be tested in a "vomit commet" aircraft where weightlessness
is experienced, as a non-mass reaction space drive. If you fire these two pieces
apart linked by a rubber bungy cord they should (A) either continue to recollide at the
center of gravity of the system or (B) collide but then both go driftting off the experiemental
stage to the left or right.
So man, this could be a real problem and a Gruganax's demo will seal it.
:S:MarkSCoffman
---
Off topic post apologies
The other thing is that "tension" is not a really a real force because a small amount of motion always
accompanies it in the real world. That small amount of motion at very high levels of force still equals
negative work being applied by a support. Unbalanced machines can produce a delayed -work reflection
some of which might be re-collectable. Eventually repeating this causes the support material to fail
under stress. So one could consider the materials ability to retain it's integrity as a kind of fuel.
I think that is what I think is behind that giant .RAR machine. Eventually one of the welds breaks
and it's time for a fill-up.
What the proportion of tension results in the final tension and how much is energy based acceleration
is in final tension determines how much energy is used to maintain it.
Quote from: MarkE on April 29, 2014, 08:46:45 AM
I choose to hold it straight out pushing it onto a shelf at the lifted height.Nope, my handy shelf doesn't perform any work holding up that bucket, and because I am lazy enough to take advantage of the shelf, neither do I.I think you mean if you ever show such a thing. Many, many have tried and none have succeeded. In order to succeed you are going to have to find a way for something to weigh more on its way down than it does on its way up. No one has yet found a way to make a mass smaller based on its position relative to other masses.There is certainly much to learn. That's why retreading the same ground over and over seems so counterproductive. Yet, there are people bent on at least claiming to do just that.
MarkE
That is not how it works. At least not one of my wheels. Here is how it works in a veg description. One foot reaches the descending side wall of the wheel at 2:30 as the other foot starts to lift at 5:30 and the full action is finished and then repeats. This is the same wheel that nearly took off my thumb and broke the mechanism over 4 years ago but the new version is a lot better constructed. It is very personal why I haven't rebuilt it till now. You will have to read about that on Besslerwheel.com comunity buzz for I will not repeat it if I can help it.
Alan
P.S. Now that we gave gurangax a rest. LOL, Now lets get back on topic and maybe we might see at least a covered wheel self starting then stopped and reversed as claimed.
Quote from: Newton II on April 29, 2014, 10:07:56 AM
I think it can be put in another way. As Newton's third law states, forces always happen in pairs in opposite directions. For every F there has to be a -F in opposite direction. So, when you consider work as F*S reulting from force F, there has to be equal amount of work -F*S in opposite direction resulting from the force -F.
Something performs work and something(s) receives the work performed. Energy is conserved.
Quote
Hence when you lift a bucket of water, you will be storing potential energy m*g*h in it. But your muscles will be spending energy
-m*g*h in opposite direction to maintain potential energy in the lifted bucket. So, you will feel tired.
With muscles it is more than that because of how they function. In order to hold something up using your muscles, they must contract and that consumes power constantly whether or not useful work is done.
Quote
So, if you find a method to add mgh and -mgh only in magnitude leaving the direction then net work done will be 2mgh !! (efficiency is 200%)
No, the energies sum, not their absolute values. If you link two weights by a massless rope over a frictionless pulley, then the total energy in the system is the sum of the GPEs of the two buckets, and that is a constant value: raising one identically lowers the other and vice-versa. Elevators use this to avoid expending unnecessary energy lifting the elevator car itself. That does not change the energy that must be added to make an elevator car full of people go up, or the energy returned taking an elevator car full of people down.
Quote
Just a thought! Correct me if I am wrong.
Quote from: AB Hammer on April 29, 2014, 03:36:56 PM
MarkE
That is not how it works. At least not one of my wheels. Here is how it works in a veg description. One foot reaches the descending side wall of the wheel at 2:30 as the other foot starts to lift at 5:30 and the full action is finished and then repeats. This is the same wheel that nearly took off my thumb and broke the mechanism over 4 years ago but the new version is a lot better constructed. It is very personal why I haven't rebuilt it till now. You will have to read about that on Besslerwheel.com comunity buzz for I will not repeat it if I can help it.
Alan
P.S. Now that we gave gurangax a rest. LOL, Now lets get back on topic and maybe we might see at least a covered wheel self starting then stopped and reversed as claimed.
ABHammer the comment that I responded to conflated the fact that the way our muscles work we have to expend continuous power to contract them, with the concept of work which is the integral of F*ds. If there is no movement by an object in the direction of the applied force, then there is no work performed. One can exercise all day long by pushing against a wall. As long as the wall doesn't move none of that pushing does any work on the wall.
MarkE
LOL nice slide of hand/word, but I was only responding to what was highlighted in red.
QuoteI think you mean if you ever show such a thing. Many, many have tried and none have succeeded. In order to succeed you are going to have to find a way for something to weigh more on its way down than it does on its way up. No one has yet found a way to make a mass smaller based on its position relative to other masses.
Which looked more like you where responding to this part of what I wrote.
QuoteI thank you for that. But when we show and have a Working Wheel. It will through a large kink in the word Work for it will be doing Work with only gravity.
Therefore I responded to what said.
Quote from: AB Hammer on April 29, 2014, 05:53:51 PM
MarkE
LOL nice slide of hand/word, but I was only responding to what was highlighted in red.
Which looked more like you where responding to this part of what I wrote.
Therefore I responded to what said.
"Slide of hand???"
Gravity wheels don't work and never have for the reasons that I stated. You are free to believe otherwise, but will find yourself short of any example that supports such a belief.
gurangax
quote
For you I will say just wait until Jun 1st.
end quote
Roll on June 1st.............?
Perhaps June will be a good month for the planet,we have the Tinman sharing something special on June 15th and now mr.gurangax on June 1st
Very nice .....very nice indeed
thx
Chet
Quote from: MarkE on April 29, 2014, 05:10:54 PM
No, the energies sum, not their absolute values. If you link two weights by a massless rope over a frictionless pulley, then the total energy in the system is the sum of the GPEs of the two buckets, and that is a constant value: raising one identically lowers the other and vice-versa. Elevators use this to avoid expending unnecessary energy lifting the elevator car itself. That does not change the energy that must be added to make an elevator car full of people go up, or the energy returned taking an elevator car full of people down.
The above process explains only 'action'. Reaction is provided by bearing of frictionless pulley. Whether to raise or lower the elevator, the pulley over which elevator rope goes has to be supported on a strong bearing. If not entire elevator would fall on the ground.
I think MScoffman got it right :
"The other thing is that "tension" is not a really a real force because a small amount of motion always accompanies it in the real world. That small amount of motion at very high levels of force still equals negative work being applied by a support. Unbalanced machines can produce a delayed -work reflection some of which might be re-collectable. Eventually repeating this causes the support material to fail under stress. So one could consider the materials ability to retain it's integrity as a kind of fuel.
What the proportion of tension results in the final tension and how much is energy based acceleration is in final tension determines how much energy is used to maintain it."
http://www.physics.hku.hk/~phys0607/lectures/chap04.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_(physics)
Quote from: Newton II on April 29, 2014, 08:43:53 PM
The above process explains only 'action'. Reaction is provided by bearing of frictionless pulley. Whether to raise or lower the elevator, the pulley over which elevator rope goes has to be supported on a strong bearing. If not entire elevator would fall on the ground.
The pulley does not perform any work, and if it is massless and frictionless, no work is performed on it. That is getting away from the issue. The total energy in the system is the sum of the GPEs of the two weights. When the GPE of one decreases, the best that one can do with an ideal system is identically increase the GPE of the other. Introducing non-ideal behavior to the pulley loses energy to the pulley and means that it takes work to move the weights.
Quote
I think MScoffman got it right :
"The other thing is that "tension" is not a really a real force because a small amount of motion always accompanies it in the real world.
Tension is the differential force across an object, in this case the cable. Tension does not require any motion. Changing the tension across an elastic object will stretch that object.
Quote
That small amount of motion at very high levels of force still equals negative work being applied by a support.
We can choose to stipulate that the modulus of the material is infinite for simplicity. If you want to take a real material into account, the deflection, or if the load is big enough: plastic deformation is work done on the support. In this case the support would come closer to the ground, consuming GPE.
Quote
Unbalanced machines can produce a delayed -work reflection some of which might be re-collectable. Eventually repeating this causes the support material to fail under stress. So one could consider the materials ability to retain it's integrity as a kind of fuel.
Working an object can eventually cause the material to fail. In the meantime, the process of working the material releases heat.
Quote
What the proportion of tension results in the final tension and how much is energy based acceleration is in final tension determines how much energy is used to maintain it."
http://www.physics.hku.hk/~phys0607/lectures/chap04.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_(physics)
Quote from: MarkE on April 29, 2014, 06:06:02 PM
"Slide of hand???"
Gravity wheels don't work and never have for the reasons that I stated. You are free to believe otherwise, but will find yourself short of any example that supports such a belief.
Greetings MarkE
I used the slide of hand statement for you shifted back to the muscles when I thought we were past that. But I can see you are an absolutist which is a shame for I just say never say never.
How many attempts have there been to get energy from gravity alone? Maybe 50 to 100 thousand directions? But there are nearly an endless amount of combinations and possibilities to try. So! we haven't even truly scratched the surface. Now there are several old news articles that show what was believed to be perpetual wheels in the past and reports of the wheels working as well. I would like to see more people try to replicate those and quit doing the same old wheels that have been proved not to work and then claim to work. Here is one of those wheels in the news paper. July 18 1897 The Salt Lake Herald.
Quote from: AB Hammer on April 29, 2014, 09:09:52 PM
Greetings MarkE
I used the slide of hand statement for you shifted back to the muscles when I thought we were past that. But I can see you are an absolutist which is a shame for I just say never say never.
How many attempts have there been to get energy from gravity alone? Maybe 50 to 100 thousand directions? But there are nearly an endless amount of combinations and possibilities to try. So! we haven't even truly scratched the surface. Now there are several old news articles that show what was believed to be perpetual wheels in the past and reports of the wheels working as well. I would like to see more people try to replicate those and quit doing the same old wheels that have been proved not to work and then claim to work. Here is one of those wheels in the news paper. July 18 1897 The Salt Lake Herald.
I am unfamiliar with any term: "slide of hand". Do you mean "sleight of hand"?
I am one who requires evidence commensurate with claims. If one wishes to challenge extremely well evidenced science, then one needs extremely strong evidence. It is sheer folly to attempt to rearrange the same pieces in different ways without first finding that there is at least some evidence that doing so will alter the behavior of at least one of the pieces. Gravity is to the best of our knowledge a conservative field. Absent evidence to the contrary, it is impossible to make a working gravity wheel.
Quote from: MarkE on April 29, 2014, 09:35:28 PM
I am unfamiliar with any term: "slide of hand". Do you mean "sleight of hand"?
I am one who requires evidence commensurate with claims. If one wishes to challenge extremely well evidenced science, then one needs extremely strong evidence. It is sheer folly to attempt to rearrange the same pieces in different ways without first finding that there is at least some evidence that doing so will alter the behavior of at least one of the pieces. Gravity is to the best of our knowledge a conservative field. Absent evidence to the contrary, it is impossible to make a working gravity wheel.
MarkE
I have been enjoying reading these old news papers. Even Thomas Edison claimed a perpetual motion wheel. the Salt Lake Herald March 26 1899
I loved the punch line. LOL
Quote from: MarkE on April 29, 2014, 09:07:53 PM
The pulley does not perform any work, and if it is massless and frictionless, no work is performed on it. That is getting away from the issue. The total energy in the system is the sum of the GPEs of the two weights. When the GPE of one decreases, the best that one can do with an ideal system is identically increase the GPE of the other.
Pulley doesnot perform any useful work adding to the action. But what about the reactive force in the opposite direction provided by pulley? Will it not cause any flow of energy in opposite direction? Heat is produced by frictional force which is µ*F which is very less depending on type of surface whereas reaction force is
-F which is exactly equal to the applied force in magnitude.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm)
:-\
Quote from: Newton II on April 29, 2014, 11:39:49 PM
Pulley doesnot perform any useful work adding to the action. But what about the reactive force in the opposite direction provided by pulley? Will it not cause any flow of energy in opposite direction? Heat is produced by frictional force which is µ*F which is very less depending on type of surface whereas reaction force is -F which is exactly equal to the applied force in magnitude.
Please reread my post. I explained the effects of any deformation of the pulley/bearings. Energy goes into deflecting / deforming, and it comes out of the GPE.
One question from my side my friends. As toys are the key to understanding I have to understand the toys first.
http://factumpoetica.org/mt-138-2/
Toys C, D and E are quite obvious.
B is Jacobs Ladder.
What's A??
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2014, 12:16:53 AM
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm)
:-\
Oh right, do not imitate it, modifications are needed.
I found that Bessler can be hilarious at times for example this is what he wrote
"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!"
I vote for 1st May as the date to disclose the mysteries of the Bessler wheel :P ::)
Quote from: Airstriker on April 30, 2014, 07:59:49 AM
One question from my side my friends. As toys are the key to understanding I have to understand the toys first.
http://factumpoetica.org/mt-138-2/ (http://factumpoetica.org/mt-138-2/)
Toys C, D and E are quite obvious.
B is Jacobs Ladder.
What's A??
[Speculation] - 'A' appears to be the front view of 'B's side view of a Jacobs Ladder.
ETA: could also represent a chain link i.e. parallel beams pivoted to a single beam & able to pass in 3 dimensions.
N.B. the number of segments match - in 'B' the pivots are on either side alternating which isn't obvious in the front view - in 'A' all pivots are on one side.
Quote from: gauschor on April 30, 2014, 03:11:14 PM
I vote for 1st May as the date to disclose the mysteries of the Bessler wheel :P ::)
A month late, innit?
;D
Quote from: MarkE on April 30, 2014, 02:10:35 AM
Please reread my post. I explained the effects of any deformation of the pulley/bearings. Energy goes into deflecting / deforming, and it comes out of the GPE.
Deforming, deflection happens because of action but not reaction. When pulley/bearings deform, it implies that they are not strong enough to provide reaction in the opposite direction.
The term 'reaction' has sofar not been understood clearly by physicists. May be Newton has to take birth again to explain it.
Quote from: Newton II on May 01, 2014, 08:06:31 AM
Deforming, deflection happens because of action but not reaction. When pulley/bearings deform, it implies that they are not strong enough to provide reaction in the opposite direction.
The term 'reaction' has sofar not been understood clearly by physicists. May be Newton has to take birth again to explain it.
The deformation / deflection stops when the forces match. I am afraid that you have not taken the time to understand the three laws of your namesake.
Quote from: MarkE on May 01, 2014, 10:56:54 AM
The deformation / deflection stops when the forces match. I am afraid that you have not taken the time to understand the three laws of your namesake.
Reaction force exists even when there is no deformation/deflection. Is it only for namesake?
Quote from: Airstriker on April 30, 2014, 07:59:49 AM
One question from my side my friends. As toys are the key to understanding I have to understand the toys first.
http://factumpoetica.org/mt-138-2/ (http://factumpoetica.org/mt-138-2/)
Toys C, D and E are quite obvious.
B is Jacobs Ladder.
What's A??
Maybe it is a way to display the timing-axis.
BTW When I have a good look at the figures, it looks like the upper are slightly titled to the front and the lower to the back (z-axis).
Bert
Is there anyone really familiar with the Bessler Wheel? Some questions: Do we KNOW that there is an axle that runs clear through the wheel? If not, if it is possible that the inside is clear of anything jutting through the middle, that gives one more possibilities of what one can do. If it does have an axle like that, there are still 2 possibilities. Either the axle is solidly locked to the ground and does not rotate, and the wheel just rotates over it. OR, the axle rotates with the wheel, which I suppose would mean the bearings would be outside of the wheel. Which is it? If the former, then that too presents some advantages, as now you have a solid non-moving structure inside the wheel to work with.
Quote from: Newton II on May 01, 2014, 12:37:20 PM
Reaction force exists even when there is no deformation/deflection. Is it only for namesake?
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Any static force that is not matched by an opposing static force results in acceleration in the direction of the imbalance, and consequently a reaction force equal to the product of the mass and the acceleration.
Quote from: phaedrus on May 01, 2014, 06:04:44 PM
Is there anyone really familiar with the Bessler Wheel? Some questions: Do we KNOW that there is an axle that runs clear through the wheel? If not, if it is possible that the inside is clear of anything jutting through the middle, that gives one more possibilities of what one can do. If it does have an axle like that, there are still 2 possibilities. Either the axle is solidly locked to the ground and does not rotate, and the wheel just rotates over it. OR, the axle rotates with the wheel, which I suppose would mean the bearings would be outside of the wheel. Which is it? If the former, then that too presents some advantages, as now you have a solid non-moving structure inside the wheel to work with.
read here http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Portal:Clues the axle have many compartments and holes and I may know why. Everything inside it rotates there is none that stays still.
regards
Quote from: MarkE on May 01, 2014, 07:08:11 PM
Any static force that is not matched by an opposing static force results in acceleration in the direction of the imbalance, and consequently a reaction force equal to the product of the mass and the acceleration.
Just continue that argument. When static force moves in the direction of imbalance, the reaction force also moves in the direction of imbalance because they are in contact. The product of positive force multiplied by displacement is useful work. But what happens to the product of negative force (reaction) and displacement?
Quote from: Newton II on May 02, 2014, 05:36:12 AM
Just continue that argument. When static force moves in the direction of imbalance, the reaction force also moves in the direction of imbalance because they are in contact. The product of positive force multiplied by displacement is useful work. But what happens to the product of negative force (reaction) and displacement?
No, the integral of F*ds is work. F is a vector. Work is performed so long as motion occurs in the direction of the applied force. There is no requirement that the force be positive with respect to any coordinate system. Whatever applies force in the direction of motion conveys energy to anything that accelerates in the direction of the applied force.
@gurangax
One weight on a lever provides torque on an axle ; at the end of the axle at the 2 Levers the torque is halved and because of the different length of these levers , the forces that they apply to the levers of the main shaft are not equal . Therefor they don't cancel each other and there is a resulting torque that rotates the main shaft. Please do not judge it based on his replication, but on the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWRyYYX7JxE
Do you think this is possible?
Quote from: MarkE on May 02, 2014, 05:51:31 AM
F is a vector. Work is performed so long as motion occurs in the direction of the applied force. There is no requirement that the force be positive with respect to any coordinate system. Whatever applies force in the direction of motion conveys energy to anything that accelerates in the direction of the applied force.
Action and reaction are equal and opposite. If you take vector sum of these two forces it accounts to zero. Which means the mass shouldnot move at all. But why a mass moves when you apply force on it?
Quote from: TheCell on May 02, 2014, 08:53:44 AM
@gurangax
One weight on a lever provides torque on an axle ; at the end of the axle at the 2 Levers the torque is halved and because of the different length of these levers , the forces that they apply to the levers of the main shaft are not equal . Therefor they don't cancel each other and there is a resulting torque that rotates the main shaft. Please do not judge it based on his replication, but on the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWRyYYX7JxE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWRyYYX7JxE)
Do you think this is possible?
I don't see how that will work, probably using a motor inside. If it was caused by gravity it should accelerate, instead the velocity is just the same.
regards
Quote from: Newton II on May 02, 2014, 09:26:32 AM
Action and reaction are equal and opposite. If you take vector sum of these two forces it accounts to zero. Which means the mass shouldnot move at all. But why a mass moves when you apply force on it?
You people are just confusing the issues. For a static force the vector sum of all forces (including action and reaction) sum upto zero. Hence the mass doesnot move. In a moving mass you have to resolve the forces separately for the mass in motion and the driver causing motion. Then you will get the direction of net force. If you have doubt, purchase a engineering mechanics book and read it.
You can magnify a static force hence static energy by using a lever. For example think that you are breaking a wall using levers. If you use shorter arm lever, you have to spend lot of energy to break the wall. But if you use a very long length lever you can break the wall easily. In both cases output energy required is the same since no movement is involved but input energy will be very less in the second case (ie., with longer lever arm).
In the above instant both action and reaction are static since no movement is involved. Which means that to magnify static energy, both action and reaction have to be static.
In a moving system, for example a wheel, the action will be moving in one direction causing the wheel to rotate but the reaction will be stagnant in opposite direction which will be provided by the bearing which in turn slows down the action.
Hence if you make the bearing also to rotate in opposite direction, you may get magnified energy from the wheel since the reaction force further enhances action instead of slowing it down
To sum it up :
a) For stationary energy to be magnified, both action and reaction have to be stagnant.
b) For moving energy to be magnified (overunity) both action and reaction forces have to move in opposite directions.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 30, 2014, 12:16:53 AM
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm
None of the wheels shown in the above link work because, none of these wheels consider reaction forces. If theses designs are intelligently modified so that action and reaction forces move in opposite directions, then there is a possibility that all these wheels can become perpetual wheels.
Quote from Newton II Today at 03:26:32Quote
Action and reaction are equal and opposite. If you take vector sum of these two forces it accounts to zero. Which means the mass shouldnot move at all. But why a mass moves when you apply force on it?
A net zero force does not necessarily mean no movement, but it does mean no acceleration. If you lift an object at a constant speed you are countering the weight of the object with your own hands. The net force is zero. If an object is sitting on a table and there is friction between the object and table, and you provide just enough force to overcome the friction, the object will move at a constant speed. Again the net force is zero.
How to handle the effects of accelerating within a gravity field may be one of the ingredients in finding a working solution. :D
Just in case nobody noticed, someone must be wrong in their description
of force/vector etc.
Quote from: Newton II on May 02, 2014, 09:26:32 AM
Action and reaction are equal and opposite.
Correct.
Quote
If you take vector sum of these two forces it accounts to zero.
Correct.
Quote
Which means the mass shouldnot move at all.
Incorrect.
Quote
But why a mass moves when you apply force on it?
B E C A U S E, in that case the reaction force is equal to mA.
Thanks for playing.
This guy is close to my findings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-MyYwSLt3c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi16ws35JIQ
regards
Your lack of intelligence and education is apparent. To see something in the video ??
Then you come here asking for money ? No, you will get slaps in the face, punches even.
Bessler is turning in his grave, to see such a lowly mind speak on his behalf.
Simple trigonometry and math, the path is dictated by the axle and circular path while the other objects are in freefall, making it appear as tho one is faster.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 04, 2014, 08:34:37 PM
Your lack of intelligence and education is apparent. To see something in the video ??
Then you come here asking for money ? No, you will get slaps in the face, punches even.
Bessler is turning in his grave, to see such a lowly mind speak on his behalf.
Simple trigonometry and math, the path is dictated by the axle and circular path while the other objects are in freefall, making it appear as tho one is faster.
Bessler will be proud of what I did. And you dont have a clue.
regards
You try to look for complicated answers to get something done and you forgot about the simple things that can do it. You ended up having complicated problems. Do not underestimate this small things as you have no clue what it can do.
regards
And the Bessler wheel is what ?? Simple ?
Sure my idea is complex, not really, but I have other ideas in mind now.
But my question is, why are you so dumb ?
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 04, 2014, 09:36:14 PM
And the Bessler wheel is what ?? Simple ?
Sure my idea is complex, not really, but I have other ideas in mind now.
But my question is, why are you so dumb ?
we shall see who is who.
regards
@gurangax,
Can you please answer a simple question - Do you have a working prototype? YES or NO.
Quote from: Newton II on May 05, 2014, 01:43:24 AM
@gurangax,
Can you please answer a simple question - Do you have a working prototype? YES or NO.
Newton, gurangax does not have a working gravity wheel.
Quote from: Newton II on May 05, 2014, 01:43:24 AM
@gurangax,
Can you please answer a simple question - Do you have a working prototype? YES or NO.
yes. and im not going to show it right away. When people depends to much on calculation they will not see it.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 05, 2014, 03:50:08 AM
yes. and im not going to show it right away. When people depends to much on calculation they will not see it.
regards
No, you are not going to show a working gravity wheel ever, not on June 1st, not after June first, not ever.
Quote from: gurangax on May 05, 2014, 03:50:08 AM
yes. and im not going to show it right away. When people depends to much on calculation they will not see it.
regards
Hi gurangax,
Would like to know how noisy your wheel is when running? Do you have to operate it in a cellar or at a place your neighbours cannot hear it?
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on May 05, 2014, 04:54:28 AM
Hi gurangax,
Would like to know how noisy your wheel is when running? Do you have to operate it in a cellar or at a place your neighbours cannot hear it?
Thanks, Gyula
if you put springs to dampen the banging the sound will be kept to a minimum, it is actually is up to you how to make it quieter, as long as the excess energy is not disturbed it should be fine.regards
gurangax,
I find all very interesting, and I think your presentation methods
are excellent. So please continue.
I think I have mentioned about my idea that tension could be considered
a kind of fuel under the correct circumstances. For example if there was
something alive inside Bessler's wheel we could consider that it's self
movement would be self justifiable for a time. Well what about something
that was once alive, lets take tree wood for example. I am just wondering
whether all that banging and bows stretching for example might
not be considered a release of energy stored in the wood. But
the next question is how much is there and whether a materials
release of tension energy can be justified by its initial cost. I doubt
if you have specific answers right now but it is something that may be of
some interest for the future. This is why each move made by a system
really needs to be linked to a theoretical physics energy evaluation.
I think you are doing rather well in creating the theoretical underpinnings for
a demonstration of a new truth. You have a right to be here and to make your
point(s) of view made.
:S:MarkSCoffman
My prediction for the events that will take place before the end of the month:
a) he will become upset and proclaim that humanity is not ready for his device and disappear
b) he will announce that he will file for a patent and disappear
c) he will make an even bolder claim but unveil his new strategy that pushes the "reveal" date back further
d) he will not donate the 100$ to a charity
I wish this field consisted only of intelligent and kind spirited people that openly share, discussed, criticized and improved each others ideas in order to perhaps find something that has been overlooked by many. I guess some people just need their 30 days of fame.
Quote from: mscoffman on May 05, 2014, 12:33:26 PM
gurangax,
I find all very interesting, and I think your presentation methods
are excellent. So please continue.
I think I have mentioned about my idea that tension could be considered
a kind of fuel under the correct circumstances. For example if there was
something alive inside Bessler's wheel we could consider that it's self
movement would be self justifiable for a time. Well what about something
that was once alive, lets take tree wood for example. I am just wondering
whether all that banging and bows stretching for example might
not be considered a release of energy stored in the wood. But
the next question is how much is there and whether a materials
release of tension energy can be justified by its initial cost. I doubt
if you have specific answers right now but it is something that may be of
some interest for the future. This is why each move made by a system
really needs to be linked to a theoretical physics energy evaluation.
I think you are doing rather well in creating the theoretical underpinnings for
a demonstration of a new truth. You have a right to be here and to make your
point(s) of view made.
:S:MarkSCoffman
I dont think tension is involved here, even if it is, it is not the driving force. there is none in the wheel which is alive for example you can make it from steel or aluminum. The banging is a result of energy gained, and wasted as a bang. I have found a way to use this gained energy and convert it into a rather efficient energy transformation. This is the reason why it works.
I don't care what other people says but, anything that falls have gained some extra energy in it. I understood why the 2 stage oscillator works, it gained energy from the fall of the weight of the pendulum. I can explain it but I choose not to, it is not the proper time yet, but I will say that my 2 stage lever is a lot more better.
regards
Most folks try to make a wheel where movable or shifting weights are required to somehow create an unbalance.
It seems this is a wrong approach as the only way to gain a bit of energy in a closed system is in free fall of a weight, allowing it to freely accelerate.
Am I off base? Or is this simplistic thinking? Or both!
Quote from: gurangax on May 05, 2014, 04:19:05 PM
I dont think tension is involved here, even if it is, it is not the driving force. there is none in the wheel which is alive for example you can make it from steel or aluminum. The banging is a result of energy gained, and wasted as a bang. I have found a way to use this gained energy and convert it into a rather efficient energy transformation. This is the reason why it works.
I don't care what other people says but, anything that falls have gained some extra energy in it. I understood why the 2 stage oscillator works, it gained energy from the fall of the weight of the pendulum. I can explain it but I choose not to, it is not the proper time yet, but I will say that my 2 stage lever is a lot more better.
regards
You are dead wrong. Objects that fall do not gain any extra energy. They convert almost all of the GPE to kinetic energy. The rest is lost as heat.
"It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of 'excess weight'" - Bessler
Provided that the Bessler translation is accurate, I now have understanding of what he meant by 'excess weight'.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 05, 2014, 10:43:41 PM
"It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of 'excess weight'" - Bessler
Provided that the Bessler translation is accurate, I now have understanding of what he meant by 'excess weight'.
regards
Would you kindly expand on your interpretation of Bessler's principle of "excess weight"
Thanks in advance.
do you mean by "excess weight" the force addition from the falling down mass ? compared to the same mass in rest ?
Quote from: forest on May 06, 2014, 03:39:09 AM
do you mean by "excess weight" the force addition from the falling down mass ? compared to the same mass in rest ?
correct.
Quote from: Vortex1 on May 05, 2014, 10:53:19 PM
Would you kindly expand on your interpretation of Bessler's principle of "excess weight"
Thanks in advance.
forest have answered it for me
regards
Quote from: Airstriker on May 06, 2014, 05:53:53 AM
Is Jacob's ladder involved?
For now I dont know how it is involved or were it ever involved
regards
Quote from: forest on May 06, 2014, 03:39:09 AM
do you mean by "excess weight" the force addition from the falling down mass ? compared to the same mass in rest ?
If I am right, falling masses actually lose weight whereas a mass accelerating upwards gains weight. This is the reason why you feel that your body has become lighter when moving down in a lift and feel heavier while moving upwards.
When you move down in a lift, your weight will be 'mg-ma' and when you move up your weight will be 'mg+ma'. Where 'a' is acceleration of the lift.
correct me if I am wrong.
Quote from: Newton II on May 06, 2014, 07:07:23 AM
If I am right, falling masses actually lose weight whereas a mass accelerating upwards gains weight. This is the reason why you feel that your body has become lighter when moving down in a lift and feel heavier while moving upwards.
When you move down in a lift, your weight will be 'mg-ma' and when you move up your weight will be 'mg+ma'. Where 'a' is acceleration of the lift.
correct me if I am wrong.
Your weight does not change in a lift. Neither does a skydiver's weight doesn't change as they fall even when they reach terminal velocity. In order to accelerate something upward, additional force over and above that required to counter gravity must be applied: elevator up. In order to accelerate something downward the force opposing gravity must be reduced: elevator down or a jump off a tall building. Your body senses movement of fluids under force of acceleration in your gut and your inner ear.
What scientific principle is used and what type apparatus is used to weigh
a skydiver at terminal velocity?
Quote from: MarkE on May 06, 2014, 08:46:33 AM
Your weight does not change in a lift. Neither does a skydiver's weight doesn't change as they fall even when they reach terminal velocity. In order to accelerate something upward, additional force over and above that required to counter gravity must be applied: elevator up. In order to accelerate something downward the force opposing gravity must be reduced: elevator down or a jump off a tall building. Your body senses movement of fluids under force of acceleration in your gut and your inner ear.
Weight doesnot change in a free fall. A skydiver is a free falling mass. When you apply force upwards or downwards, it has to change the resultant weight because weight is also a force.
LOL
This is more looking like a fishing trip for answers and each side is looking to the other side for answers. Well here is your answer.
A falling weight in a wheel has no weight effect to the wheel while falling, yet the weight is still the same weight. Once it impacts, the impact force depends on if it is on the ascending side or the descending side. There can be a lot of vibration from an impact which can interrupt a gyro effect.
Alan
Quote from: Newton II on May 06, 2014, 09:41:17 AM
Weight doesnot change in a free fall. A skydiver is a free falling mass. When you apply force upwards or downwards, it has to change the resultant weight because weight is also a force.
No, adding one force to another changes the net force. It does not change the cause or magnitude of the first force. A bucket of water doesn't become weightless when someone picks it up or puts it on a table.
oh, I see too much fuss here . Please don't be disrupted by false theories. Keep it simple.I think that video link poste said very much the principle. Mass free falling in air do not load the wheel (?), but the impact has more energy because the potential energy is converted to kinetic and that constitutes the addition force to the normal mg force. Except that I have still no idea how to contruct device, but frankly I'm the one the less interested (only curious). For me it will still be a toy even if running continously due to various factors (mass, loud, costs, mechanical parts wearing). But I'm all ears.... ::)
If we sit a bucket of water on a scale which is on a platform that can be raised very quickly, and we do cause the platform to raise at a rapid rate then the scale will show an increased "weight", however the mass of the water is unchanged. Weight is relative to gravity and motion in relation to that gravity I think, though I don't think mass is. An object in zero gravity has no measurable weight but the object still has mass as far as I can tell.
It is gravity that causes a mass to show "weight".
A man travels to the moon and takes a scale with him, on Earth he weighs 90 kilograms by the scale, but on the moon he weighs less by the scale. He is still the same man and the same mass when he returns to Earth he will weigh more again. Weight is a relative measurement I think.
If we have a ferris wheel with a person on a scale in each cabin then as the cabins begin their upward movement the scales in those cabins will read more when the cabins begin to make their downward movement the scales will read less. The scales measure weight which is influenced by gravity and movement.
For a wheel to continue to spin there must be energy applied to it to make it happen, from somewhere. Any self turning wheel should be capable of self starting if it is possible
Cheers
Farmhand
KISS, remember ? Take 90kg mass and put gently on sand , then measure how much sand will sink, then fall this mass from the 1 meter above and compare.
Then see video link (already posted here ) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-MyYwSLt3c
P.S. I was eager to propose other experiment with your foot, please forgive me :P ::)
Quote from: forest on May 06, 2014, 02:51:48 PM
Farmhand
KISS, remember ? Take 90kg mass and put gently on sand , then measure how much sand will sink, then fall this mass from the 1 meter above and compare.
Then see video link (already posted here ) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-MyYwSLt3c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-MyYwSLt3c)
P.S. I was eager to propose other experiment with your foot, please forgive me :P ::)
You left out the part where you LIFTED the 90kg mass 1 meter above the sand. That took energy and imparted that energy as potential energy to the mass. When it falls, due to gravity, the potential energy will be released (or converted to kenetic energy) and the resultant "hit" upon the sand will be equal to the energy added by YOU when you lifted it minus the drag from air friction.
You can not leave out one side of the equation and expect an accurate result. ALL energy input must be accounted for.
Bill
Sure, but did you watched video ? Once mass is in air the lever or any other more complex type of levers connected to wheel are FREE from load of this mass, if you build device for such situation , i.e. to become balanced WHEN this mass is in air (falling due to gravity) then it become continously unbalanced except the moment when mass is falling, it may be descripted as continous falling down due to gravity. Then surely the impact of this mass on the propel lever (!) will thow in air another mass and so on...
Never falling down mass....
Quote from: forest on May 07, 2014, 03:55:57 AM
Sure, but did you watched video ? Once mass is in air the lever or any other more complex type of levers connected to wheel are FREE from load of this mass, if you build device for such situation , i.e. to become balanced WHEN this mass is in air (falling due to gravity) then it become continously unbalanced except the moment when mass is falling, it may be descripted as continous falling down due to gravity. Then surely the impact of this mass on the propel lever (!) will thow in air another mass and so on...
Never falling down mass....
If you believe such things and cannot be persuaded by conventional physics, then the solution for you is to try and build something that takes advantage of your ideas.
Quote from: gurangax on April 30, 2014, 10:02:15 AM
I found that Bessler can be hilarious at times for example this is what he wrote
"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!"
What is the meaning of cross-bar here? Is cross-bar simply an X formed of two bars (so in fact M138) or do you simpy mean a bar hanging between two points (crossing the wheel)?
Quote from: Airstriker on May 08, 2014, 06:42:42 PM
What is the meaning of cross-bar here? Is cross-bar simply an X formed of two bars (so in fact M138) or do you simpy mean a bar hanging between two points (crossing the wheel)?
only 1 bar.
Did you find a way to utilize this idea? Or is it something completely different?:
http://youtu.be/FWU8GY1RQT8 (http://youtu.be/FWU8GY1RQT8)[/color][/font]
Quote from: Airstriker on May 09, 2014, 05:34:07 AM
Did you find a way to utilize this idea? Or is it something completely different?:
http://youtu.be/FWU8GY1RQT8 (http://youtu.be/FWU8GY1RQT8)[/color][/font]
Completely different.
Quote from: Bessler on May 08, 2014, 06:42:42 PM
"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my 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"
Is Bessler actually saying here, that it is possible to make a running wheel with only one cross-bar (whatever that means)?? Totally absurd! He must mean 1 cross-bar per section, of which there are clearly 8.
Quote from: phaedrus on May 09, 2014, 12:36:45 PM
Is Bessler actually saying here, that it is possible to make a running wheel with only one cross-bar (whatever that means)?? Totally absurd! He must mean 1 cross-bar per section, of which there are clearly 8.
I suppose it's really only 1 crossbar per machine. I know - I also cannot imagine that ;) That's why I asked whether it's maybe the X formed of two bars. But it's not ;)
gurangax has priorly explained by quoting Bessler that viewed from the front or side it resembles a peacock's tail.
This would imply a plurality of crossbars, a layering 3 dimensional fanning out.
Before guessing, it is important to pay attention to his clues.
If you ask me to speculate how many bars that he used one his famous last wheel, I would say 4 bars.
If you ask me how many bars are needed to run it i say 1 bar.
regards
I realized one thing. The knowledge is special it is a gift to me, no matter how much clues I give no one will know how it is done. So I will say just be patient I will disclose and share this gift to all and hopefully I may get something in return.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 09, 2014, 07:19:51 PM
I realized one thing. The knowledge is special it is a gift to me, no matter how much clues I give no one will know how it is done. So I will say just be patient I will disclose and share this gift to all and hopefully I may get something in return.
regards
I totally understand your point of view. Special insight from deep meditation should not be just given out to the clamoring crowd. It is best to release it in slow doses, in parables or riddles like Bessler. I hope as you share your gift, you get whatever your wish is in return.
Meanwhile, I enjoy the riddle and the clues. Take your time.
Quote from: gurangax on May 09, 2014, 07:19:51 PM
I realized one thing. The knowledge is special it is a gift to me, no matter how much clues I give no one will know how it is done. So I will say just be patient I will disclose and share this gift to all and hopefully I may get something in return.
regards
When you release it, if it works as you say I'll be willing to make a donation to compensate you for your effort & I'm sure others will as well.
Quote from: gurangax on May 09, 2014, 07:19:51 PM
I realized one thing. The knowledge is special it is a gift to me, no matter how much clues I give no one will know how it is done. So I will say just be patient I will disclose and share this gift to all and hopefully I may get something in return.
regards
People from Maylasia have a set of musical instruments called a Gamelan (gam-el-lon) that plays
musical notes in "phrases", It may be this that wires their brains somewhat differently.
From Wikipedia;
"The word gamelan, referring only to the instruments, comes from the low Javanese word
gamel, referring to a type of hammer like a blacksmith's hammer."
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: mscoffman on May 09, 2014, 08:50:24 PM
People from Maylasia have a set of musical instruments called a Gamelan (gam-el-lon) that plays
musical notes in "phrases", It may be this that wires their brains somewhat differently.
From Wikipedia;
"The word gamelan, referring only to the instruments, comes from the low Javanese word
gamel, referring to a type of hammer like a blacksmith's hammer."
:S:MarkSCoffman
lol. even if you say this, I doubt that anyone else in my country can do it. btw I never played or seen the item since it is not our custom. Its definitely not intuition either, it's probably because it will be easier for someone with my geographical location to share it, compared with others who claimed the same. I have some theories too but that's for later.
regards
Does the axle rotate with the whole wheel (stiff link) ? Or does it rotate independently (bearing between the wheel and the axle is used)? If they are idependent, do they rotate in the same direction or opposite? Is there anything directly attached to the axle? Do you use lines/chains or only stiff bars, levers etc.? Thanks in advance for the answers. Cannot sleep because of you :P
Quote from: Airstriker on May 10, 2014, 06:13:28 AM
Does the axle rotate with the whole wheel (stiff link) ? Or does it rotate independently (bearing between the wheel and the axle is used)? If they are idependent, do they rotate in the same direction or opposite? Is there anything directly attached to the axle? Do you use lines/chains or only stiff bars, levers etc.? Thanks in advance for the answers. Cannot sleep because of you :P
I really do think that there are many variations that can be done with this lets call it Bessler's principle of excess weight. Mine is using the least of mechanism yet I think it is better than Bessler's own basic system because he said his wheel revolves so slow with only 1 bar, i think it is the same mechanism but I have done something to it (tweak). But reading the apologia poetica makes me think that he already know about it (the tweak).
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 10, 2014, 06:30:24 AM
I really do think that there are many variations that can be done with this lets call it Bessler's principle of excess weight. Mine is using the least of mechanism yet I think it is better than Bessler's own basic system because he said his wheel revolves so slow with only 1 bar, i think it is the same mechanism but I have done something to it (tweak). But reading the apologia poetica makes me think that he already know about it (the tweak).
regards
How about answering the questions? :) Let's say, considering your most simple design.
Hello,
I just joined today. I've always been interested in free energy devices and I want to share my small video of my overbalanced device. But how do I go about doing that?
It's not perpetual, but I think it could be improved on and I hope it will shed some light on new ways to produce free energy.
Thanks you :)
Quote from: perpetualman on May 10, 2014, 03:44:59 PM
Hello,
I just joined today. I've always been interested in free energy devices and I want to share my small video of my overbalanced device. But how do I go about doing that?
It's not perpetual, but I think it could be improved on and I hope it will shed some light on new ways to produce free energy.
Thanks you :)
Welcome.
It is easy. Just post your video to Youtube and then post a link here. I know there are other video sites that you can post it to and that will work also. Most of us use Youtube but, no matter, just post a link to where you have uploaded your video and all can see it.
Bill
Thanks Bill, I'll give that a try:)
Quote from: Airstriker on May 10, 2014, 02:18:06 PM
How about answering the questions? :) Let's say, considering your most simple design.
I believe I and Bessler have already answered these questions.
regards
In your design, are the weights above the center of gravity, and does it produce torque on one side of your wheel design? The reason why I'm asking is, I know of only one possible way to keep (ALL) the weight, force, torque, whatever you want to call it, on one side of the wheel while the wheel itself remains in motion.
You don't have to describe your wheel works or what arrangement the weights are in. I just want to know if you've figured out a way to keep the weight/force above the center of gravity and to the right or left side of the wheel/device.
I have the strange feeling that we might have the same leverage system in mind.
Quote from: perpetualman on May 11, 2014, 04:15:24 AM
In your design, are the weights above the center of gravity, and does it produce torque on one side of your wheel design? The reason why I'm asking is, I know of only one possible way to keep (ALL) the weight, force, torque, whatever you want to call it, on one side of the wheel while the wheel itself remains in motion.
You don't have to describe your wheel works or what arrangement the weights are in. I just want to know if you've figured out a way to keep the weight/force above the center of gravity and to the right or left side of the wheel/device.
I have the strange feeling that we might have the same leverage system in mind.
the only way for the wheel to revolve both side is if the cg is above and on the zenith of the wheel axle. And this is how my design works. Even if you say we have the same system in mind I doubt that you or anyone else will have the exact mechanism, even though I have said it is so simple but in reality you will have to be very creative to come into this findings, but I welcome everyone to guess it before my revealing date. I will say this, the first time you stumble into it you will feel it will work but in reality it will only balance itself, it is already in the right direction one have to think deeper but it is just plain simple. At least this is what happened to me back some years ago.
regards
gurangax
Is this approach heading in the right direction for a single crossbar system? (weights not shown)
Regards, Vortex1
.
Quote from: Vortex1 on May 11, 2014, 09:59:04 AM
gurangax
Is this approach heading in the right direction for a single crossbar system? (weights not shown)
Regards, Vortex1
I have no idea what that will do or how you want it to function, but to me Bessler's principle of weight excess is the key that will open to many other energy harnessing machines. The design is not limited to one alone it can have many other variants. As long as we use his principle there will be many others to come. In other words we are just beginning to scratch the skin. But im not going to go into detail just yet.
regards
gurangax
The toy wheel is two dimensional, approximately 15" dia. x 1.25" thick. The cantilever mechanism is shown outside the wheel. I know this will not work regardless of weight placement, it is only a first step to understand what will not work.
This is not the first wheel I have ever built, been playing with this mind puzzle over 20 years. I have many simple yet elegant non-working designs, just this proves that the mind can be tricked into believing something will work, but the hidden flaws show up in the build.
So I ask have you built a working model or mental / paper /math model?
Kind Regards, Vortex1
Quote from: Vortex1 on May 11, 2014, 10:22:41 AM
gurangax
The toy wheel is two dimensional, approximately 15" dia. x 1.25" thick. The cantilever mechanism is shown outside the wheel. I know this will not work regardless of weight placement, it is only a first step to understand what will not work.
This is not the first wheel I have ever built, been playing with this mind puzzle over 20 years. I have many simple yet elegant non-working designs, just this proves that the mind can be tricked into believing something will work, but the hidden flaws show up in the build.
So I ask have you built a working model or mental / paper /math model?
Kind Regards, Vortex1
I understand very well what you meant to say. Lets just wait for the revelation to come. Sometimes I become paranoid with certain questions and I prefer not to answer it.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 11, 2014, 10:31:15 AM
I understand very well what you meant to say. Lets just wait for the revelation to come. Sometimes I become paranoid with certain questions and I prefer not to answer it.
regards
OK no problem, I will honor your preference, I can wait.
Kind Regards, Vortex1
gurangax .. you have said that you have a working physical prototype - your YT videos show you know how to use WM2D sim program - have you duplicated your real world build results in WM i.e. have a sim that accelerates each revolution that has no fake forces added ?
I ask because if your real world build accelerates initially & self sustains thereafter but your sim doesn't, without the addition of fake forces, then it means that the sim is not following/duplicating nature etc - by implication we have it wrong as your real world build would prove - if the sim does, without fake forces added, then one or other of the Conservation Laws is defective, either Conservation of Energy, Conservation of Momentum, or Conservation of Angular Momentum, IMO.
Quote from: fletcher on May 11, 2014, 06:10:56 PM
gurangax .. you have said that you have a working physical prototype - your YT videos show you know how to use WM2D sim program - have you duplicated your real world build results in WM i.e. have a sim that accelerates each revolution that has no fake forces added ?
I ask because if your real world build accelerates initially & self sustains thereafter but your sim doesn't, without the addition of fake forces, then it means that the sim is not following/duplicating nature etc - by implication we have it wrong as your real world build would prove - if the sim does, without fake forces added, then one or other of the Conservation Laws is defective, either Conservation of Energy, Conservation of Momentum, or Conservation of Angular Momentum, IMO.
The laws work on wm2d I have tested it, the problem is it is only in 2d so I have no idea how to simulate the 3d wheel with a 2d simulator.
regards
There are many work-arounds to simulate the real world 3D environment.
1. make objects NOT COLLIDE [objects menu]
2. as I once did where I had an airfoil that moved in the z plane when subject to aerodynamic forces - I built a side view duplicate on the same page running in sync with the front view 2D model - duplicate forces generated off the same inputs & outputs were then copied to the side view model etc - quite simple really.
3. other work-arounds.
You would need to give an example of what you would want to resolve [can be unrelated to your wheel] & get people to help you design a work-around.
Solidworks
http://grabcad.com/questions/how-to-add-gravity-simulation-on-motion-study-in-solidworks-2012 (http://grabcad.com/questions/how-to-add-gravity-simulation-on-motion-study-in-solidworks-2012)
But why bother with simulations if you already have a working machine right? right?
I don't have a working model of my gravity wheel design, but I do have 2 drawings that I can post. I don't know if it will be of interest to anyone, but I believe that it is a good design and hopefully someone else will too. Just one question though before I post it:
If this is the solution to free gravity power machines, what do I do next?
Perpetualman
Quote from: perpetualman on May 12, 2014, 01:41:31 AM
I don't have a working model of my gravity wheel design, but I do have 2 drawings that I can post. I don't know if it will be of interest to anyone, but I believe that it is a good design and hopefully someone else will too. Just one question though before I post it:
If this is the solution to free gravity power machines, what do I do next?
Perpetualman
You can post your drawings & ask for confirmation whether your design has been attempted before. This can help to prevent you from wasting your efforts on a failed concept. The only way to determine if a gravity wheel is a solution is to build a working prototype & record a video of it functioning or performing work. People since Bessler's time have attempted to solve his riddles but until now haven't been able to produce anything but inoperable models.
Well,
Here's what I came up with. Maybe someone can confirm if this will work or not. Try building it and find out.
(Perpetualman)
Perpetual Man- I like your idea although I would swivel weights at the 12 oclock position in order to provide the overbalance.
Hi Perpetualman .. thank you for sharing your ideas - you obviously have put some time & thought into this proposal & presentation - the L levers are rotated in the z axis via a stator & cog arrangement.
I have a few questions & clarifications required.
1. the wheel is designed to turn CCW [counter clockwise] ?
2. there is always a 'heavy' sector on the lhs [as we view the drawing] ?
3. there is always a 'light' sector on the rhs ?
4. two lifts occur each sector, one at or about 9 o'cl & the other at or about 4 o'cl ?
..................................
What you are proposing is that you redistribute the density of the wheel by rotating the levers in the z axis/plane - this shifts the Center of Gravity [CoG] & the Center of Mass [CoM] to the left of the Center of Rotation [CoR] - this creates a torque about the pivot at the wheel center causing CCW rotation.
I'm sure you've heard all the arguments about conservative gravity & how it is path independent - that means it doesn't matter what path a mass takes up or down, the mass can not have more Kinetic Energy [KE] than the Potential Energy [PE] it would have had at any horizontal height, from using gravity force alone [not including ordinary system losses of energy to frictions etc] - this holds true for z axis movement as well unfortunately because height is the only salient consideration & not direction.
IOW's, if the levers are prepositioned to give the ultimate overbalance & maximum torque then yes the whole wheel will gain Rotational KE [RKE] because the CoM is not located vertically below the CoR - unfortunately, convention says [not accounting for ordinary system losses] that the RKE gained is exactly the same as the energy required to rotate the levers into the favourable torque positions [i.e. create heavy & light sectors] & never in excess of this minimum energy required to translate the levers i.e. lift their individual CoM ["the reset"].
There would only be an advantage [energy surplus] IF the cost of rotating the two levers per sector was LESS than the RKE gain - if you can show that would be the case with a sim or working model then you would have the mathematicians pouring over your design for a much closer look & analysis.
Perhaps that's enough comment to think on for now - if I have misinterpreted something in your descriptions please clarify.
Hi Fletcher!
The lever's in the drawing are set up to rotate CCW. You can place the lever's (manually) in the other direction if you want it to rotate CW. The left side, according to the drawing, will always be heavier than the right.
I know that there have been a lot of proposels to building a gravity powered wheel and i would like to build this one that i've posted. I'm not saying that it will definately work, i just think it has more potential than most other designs that i've looked at.
But your right, I need to build one and see if it's worth anything. By the way, is there a free program online that i can use or download to put this idea to the test?
I heard of a program called (Algodoo) but haven't tried it yet. Have you heard of this before?
(Perpetualman)
Quote from: perpetualman on May 12, 2014, 05:09:59 PM
By the way, is there a free program online that i can use or download to put this idea to the test?
I heard of a program called (Algodoo) but haven't tried it yet. Have you heard of this before?
(Perpetualman)
Speaking of which, I am also interested in this. I have seen so many people in this forum talking about WM2D (which I finally discovered stands for Working Model 2D) and how they tried their designs on it. But I went to their web site, and they want about 3 grand for it! Yikes! Am I to believe that all these overunity forum members actually laid down that kind of money for this software?? And its only 2D! They must be more dedicated to this than I realized! I'd love to have a copy, but at THAT price, I think I'll just live without. Sure could use it right now, though.
I've heard of it but I have never used it - most sim programs are 2D - an exception is Solid Works Cosmos but it's not the only 3D sim out there - I don't know about any free 3D versions but perhaps someone else can point you in the right direction.
What I described earlier was of course the static view - however I don't believe the wheel in motion [dynamic analysis] would be any different in end result.
I can explain it this way without resorting to math.
Imagine a table top - the plane stretches in all directions [2 axis, x & z] - this is equivalent to a horizontal slice of space at a given distance from the earths surface - at this horizontal height gravity's acceleration is the same in all directions in the x & z coordinate system - if I want to lift a mass higher than the table top I need to do work [expend energy] against gravity force - if I lift it a defined distance it will acquire certain PE above the table top datum - if I push the mass up an incline [not counting frictional losses etc] it will take the same amount of energy to raise its Potential E, regardless of whether I lift it vertically or push or pull it up an incline etc - this holds true for any lift in the x or z directions.
So, if I have a lever that needs to rotate in the z axis then it is subject to the same 'g' - & we know that it makes no difference whether I lift the mass vertically or push it up an incline ... OR ... I rotate it around a pivot in the z plane - it still has to lift the same vertical height to acquire the same PE regardless of what direction or method [lift or rotation] I use.
The day someone demonstrates in theory or practice an energy cheaper method of replenishing PE to a system will be the day that a gravity wheel can work & be described as OU.
Perpetualman
Nice illustration but you are going to fins some problems whit your design and similar ones have been tried before. I am not going to say the approach is bad for it isn't but you need to reduce a lot of friction you are causing in the design.
Good luck and keep an open mind.
Alan
I appreciate all the input.
I think I'll just get some material and start putting it together piece by piece. I don't know how long it will take, but I'll post my progress with pictures.
I do have a project that i put together a few years ago. It's an overbalanced device that uses two weights to keep it off balanced. It's been in my shed all that time. I think I'll get it out this weekend and make a video of it and post it so you guys can see how it works. Who know's, this might inspire others to make something better.
(Perpetualman)
Quote from: perpetualman on May 12, 2014, 06:21:39 PM
I appreciate all the input.
I think I'll just get some material and start putting it together piece by piece. I don't know how long it will take, but I'll post my progress with pictures.
I do have a project that i put together a few years ago. It's an overbalanced device that uses two weights to keep it off balanced. It's been in my shed all that time. I think I'll get it out this weekend and make a video of it and post it so you guys can see how it works. Who know's, this might inspire others to make something better.
(Perpetualman)
Nice effort. I was already thinking that we might have the same mechanism earlier, but it seems we dont. From my experience anything that works in 2d and designed to gain its extra energy from 2d point wont work. But I think there is something interesting about cf if working on 2d which I haven't figured out yet. Anyway best of luck to you, and looking forward to your vids.
regards
I have a question:
I see that some people are full members, Sr. Members, Elite members ect... How to you obtain that kind of status?
Quantity of posts?
Quote from: perpetualman on May 12, 2014, 09:26:00 PM
I have a question:
I see that some people are full members, Sr. Members, Elite members ect... How to you obtain that kind of status?
All of them are based upon amount of postings except Elite Member. To obtain that one, it has to be awarded to you by our gracious host.
Bill
I see, well, I'll be getting my video together of my over balanced device that I mentioned earlier.
Stay tuned!
(Perpetualman)
PM- I'll be looking forward to viewing your video.
First of all it is my first(edit: second) post, so all the best to all involved here in the forum! :)
@gurangax
I like your riddle and here is my contribution. It is not perfect, but I think it heads in the right direction.
You have mentioned the peacock from both sides, 3D aspect, the toy, lever...
I think the counterweight should move on the "crossbar" so its impact when falling could be used as well.
I haven't fund a way to get this "excess weight", which is the key as you have written.
I am sure it is not exactly how your wheel is constructed, but as you have mentioned there can be many possibilities.
By the way, this kind of devices could be roughly simulated using free SketchUp 8 and SketchyPhysics plugin. The plugin doesn't work well with higher versions.
Quote from: Tomasz on May 13, 2014, 03:10:41 PM
First of all it is my first(edit: second) post, so all the best to all involved here in the forum! :)
@gurangax
I like your riddle and here is my contribution. It is not perfect, but I think it heads in the right direction.
You have mentioned the peacock from both sides, 3D aspect, the toy, lever...
I think the counterweight should move on the "crossbar" so its impact when falling could be used as well.
I haven't fund a way to get this "excess weight", which is the key as you have written.
I am sure it is not exactly how your wheel is constructed, but as you have mentioned there can be many possibilities.
Nice try. but thats not what I have.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 13, 2014, 03:16:18 PM
Nice try. but thats not what I have.
I was hoping for a small hint. The "nice try" is also something, but doesn't help much :)
Edit:
My model definitely would switch ca 6 o'clock.
Quote from: Tomasz on May 13, 2014, 03:24:55 PM
I was hoping for a small hint. The "nice try" is also something, but doesn't help much :)
Edit:
My model definitely would switch ca 6 o'clock.
I'll give you a hint, you are so far the closest one to get it. your design have similarities with my design back years ago, you will find it exciting and tempted to build but it will only balance itself. you have something missing for it to work.
regards
Thanks for encouragement.
Quote from: gurangax on May 13, 2014, 03:38:33 PMyour design have similarities with my design back years ago
Great! There is a chance I get something working ca. 2020 AD ! ;)
Quote from: gurangax on May 13, 2014, 03:38:33 PMyou have something missing for it to work
Thanks ??? ...
Quote from: gurangax on May 13, 2014, 03:38:33 PM
... but it will only balance itself. you have something missing for it to work.
regards
Yes, you need a battery and a motor.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 13, 2014, 09:21:50 PM
Yes, you need a battery and a motor.
Bill
correct you hit the jackpot
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 13, 2014, 10:14:09 PM
correct you hit the jackpot
regards
I thought as much.
Bill
Except Bessler in 1712 didn't have a battery & electric motor - the closest electrical source might have been a Leyden Jar but that wasn't invented until 1745.
So, he might have used a spring/bow & clockwork mech etc [the spring given initial compression or extension by hand; a witness heard a spring sound when JB was reinstalling a weight] except in direct reply to Wagner's accusation of such, JB said that springs were used but not in the way that Wagner implied - in further answer to the wind-up method conjecture Bessler went away & designed a dual direction wheel - most realize that a spring needs an anchor point to work against - if it unwinds powering a wheel for a short time then reversing the direction of the wheel will not wind the spring back to full PE, whilst doing work & maintaining RPM etc - then there was Karl, who saw the mech, was aware of the criticism & conjecture, & still decided to be his patron & give him a job while JB attempted to sell his wheel - a risky proposition for a man with a reputation as being well educated & interested in science, & whose position, power & influence in the region would be diminished with a sullied reputation of supporting a fraud for a true PPM.
That does not mean that gurangax has not used a clock-work device etc to reposition weights in the z axis to avoid Cf's influence, but that work-around is not likely Bessler's solution IMO, & if he had read all the clues & Wagner's Critiques he would have known the background to those accusations.
P.S. the 54 day test would require a lot of stored energy, just to overcome ordinary system losses, if it were clock-work - do the sums to see how big a spring is required v's the wheel diameters & available internal space/volume etc to get a clearer picture, if you think it is a viable method.
The topic of this thread ends with a period, I suspect it should have been a question mark.
Pirate88179 said
"Yes, you need a battery and motor"...
gurangax replied
"correct you hit the jackpot"
I don't think gurangax meant this literally. Agreeing that a battery and motor were needed could be just another way of implying an energy source and driver were needed (aka, gravity and lever system).
I agree Zoelra .. both Bill & gurangax were being sardonic, as it's an obvious solution - gurangax has said that only he has thought of his answer, while a battery & motor, or clock-work mech etc, has been thought about by everyone with at least one brain cell.
And he was adamant that it was Bessler's mechanical principle, though it could be coupled to many different mechanical forms to achieve a self-sustaining wheel.
He still has until the end of May to come good on his claims.
Quote from: fletcher on May 15, 2014, 12:12:11 AM
I agree Zoelra .. both Bill & gurangax were being sardonic, as it's an obvious solution - gurangax has said that only he has thought of his answer, while a battery & motor, or clock-work mech etc, has been thought about by everyone with at least one brain cell.
And he was adamant that it was Bessler's mechanical principle, though it could be coupled to many different mechanical forms to achieve a self-sustaining wheel.
He still has until the end of May to come good on his claims.
When June 1st comes anyone with doubts about how this will end up will find out when gurangax either amazes or fails to deliver as promised.
Ditto
The battery is something which stores energy, the motor releases it into work.
Perhaps some of the gravitational pull is stored and released at a later time at a point in the cycle as it is needed for some effect, such as but not limited to unlatching a latch.
The pull and release, the twanging of the bow.
Quote from: MarkE on May 15, 2014, 01:27:09 AM
When June 1st comes anyone with doubts about how this will end up
I'm already at the edge of my seat, waiting to show all the oil and gas industry people the middle finger.
Quote from: gauschor on May 15, 2014, 07:26:27 AM
I'm already at the edge of my seat, waiting to show all the oil and gas industry people the middle finger.
If anyone is going to make those industries less powerful it is not going to be gurangax.
Quote from: MarkE on May 15, 2014, 08:32:38 AM
If anyone is going to make those industries less powerful it is not going to be gurangax.
Oh stop it please. Give people a chance. If people would really care about such comments you still wouldn't know that Earth is round ;]
If you don't like what people say here, or what they dare to say, simply leave this forum.
Personally I'm also sceptic as I was taught things during my studies and whole life but who am I to say people that something is impossible. Nothing is impossible in fact - it's only a matter of time, will and usually money. And to finish - I would really like to say one day - WOW. And I think you also want that - that's why you're here..
Quote from: Airstriker on May 15, 2014, 09:22:17 AM
Oh stop it please. Give people a chance. If people would really care about such comments you still wouldn't know that Earth is round ;]
Man kind has known that the world is round going back to the Greeks. They even formulated a pretty good estimate of its diameter.
Quote
If you don't like what people say here, or what they dare to say, simply leave this forum.
Gurangax is free to make his claims. Expressing that I find his complete lack of evidence unconvincing is hardly out of line.
Quote
Personally I'm also sceptic as I was taught things during my studies and whole life but who am I to say people that something is impossible. Nothing is impossible in fact - it's only a matter of time, will and usually money. And to finish - I would really like to say one day - WOW. And I think you also want that - that's why you're here..
More things are impossible than are possible. Think about it. On June 1st all will get to see how gurangax's story holds up or falls apart.
Quote from: MarkE on May 15, 2014, 09:45:24 AM
Man kind has known that the world is round going back to the Greeks. They even formulated a pretty good estimate of its diameter.Gurangax is free to make his claims. Expressing that I find his complete lack of evidence unconvincing is hardly out of line.More things are impossible than are possible. Think about it. On June 1st all will get to see how gurangax's story holds up or falls apart.
Or you will say: "I'm sorry" - deal ?:)
Quote from: gauschor on May 15, 2014, 07:26:27 AM
I'm already at the edge of my seat, waiting to show all the oil and gas industry people the middle finger.
gauschor
You need to ask yourself.
Did wind power give them the middle finger?
Did solar give them the middle finger?
Did nuclear give them the middle finger?
Gravity is already being used to produce energy with hydro power plants. A gravity wheel will be a little better off than wind as an energy producer and the middle finger would be a waist of time to the oil and gas industry.
BUT!! You can give all those nay sayers the finger for their words just became a great waste of time. LOL
Alan
Quote from: Airstriker on May 15, 2014, 02:17:54 PM
Or you will say: "I'm sorry" - deal ?:)
If gurangax were actually able to deliver I gladly would. Unfortunately, he cannot.
Quote from: gurangax
The reason why I am saying that the mystery is solved is because of a very simple mechanism which he wanted to protect so much.
You wont believe how simple it is, thus I understand why he destroyed and hidden all the evidences. With this lost knowledge (not anymore), every written history about the wheel fits in the puzzle. All questions regarding the clues that were gained in the past can now be fully understood.
And finally Johann Bessler will be accepted as a genuine Perpetual Motion inventor.
The opening stanza in this thread - seems that gurangax knows exactly what the term "genuine Perpetual Motion" means - not even the newest noob would confuse a motor/clock-work weight ratcheting device with a genuine PM principle, & it certainly couldn't be described as "lost knowledge", as it's anything but "lost".
Anything that gagangax can do I can do better.
The new design I have in mind will be an order of magnitude more powerful and way cheaper than anything he could ever come up with.
Any funds should go to me, I need 2000$, who wants to sponsor ?
If you have a CNC mill or some other useful facility in Canada I can also consider.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 16, 2014, 02:34:05 AM
Anything that gagangax can do I can do better.
The new design I have in mind will be an order of magnitude more powerful and way cheaper than anything he could ever come up with.
Any funds should go to me, I need 2000$, who wants to sponsor ?
If you have a CNC mill or some other useful facility in Canada I can also consider.
What can you do to show that your design will work now?
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 16, 2014, 02:34:05 AM
Anything that gagangax can do I can do better.
The new design I have in mind will be an order of magnitude more powerful and way cheaper than anything he could ever come up with.
Any funds should go to me, I need 2000$, who wants to sponsor ?
If you have a CNC mill or some other useful facility in Canada I can also consider.
Yes, yes, yes, we understand. The solution to a perpetually energized wheel could be potentially worth 200 Trillion USD. ANd you are cheerfully offering it give-away fire sale for 2000. 200 Trillion could permanently erase poverty for the entire human race. What will you do with your 2000? Lay in your next year of beer? Heinikens?
Giving it away (or selling it for a bowl of porridge) would be the same as throwing it into the sea, never to be seen again. Do you have absolutely NO understanding of real Satans world economics? And do you have absolutely NO compassion for the poor of the Earth?
CANGAS 33
Quote from: gurangax on April 24, 2014, 02:40:13 PM
For the first time in written history, The Bessler wheel mysteries have finally been solved. I feel the urge to share it with you guys in this forum. But somehow I feel stupid if I do it without asking some questions first.
Firstly, how do you open source it? I'm afraid that someone will steal it and patent it for himself.
Secondly, what will this benefit me? What will I get by doing this, will this harm anyone?
I know why everyone keeps failing to replicate a Bessler Wheel, its because they keep on repeating his mistakes. there is none of his published drawings that works! You are looking it the wrong way. The clues are there but lets keep that for another time.
The reason why I am saying that the mystery is solved is because of a very simple mechanism which he wanted to protect so much. You wont believe how simple it is, thus I understand why he destroyed and hidden all the evidences. With this lost knowledge (not anymore), every written history about the wheel fits in the puzzle. All questions regarding the clues that were gained in the past can now be fully understood. And finally Johann Bessler will be accepted as a genuine Perpetual Motion inventor.[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
Regards[/font][/size]
QuoteFor the first time in written history, The Bessler wheel mysteries have finally been solved.
No, no. I probably beat you to it several decades ago. You have not claimed exactly when you first happened to be inspired by the spirit to think of it. You were inspired by the spirit to conceive it?
QuoteFirstly, how do you open source it?
In America, US, an inventor has one year after publically publicizing a device until it goes into public domain. He must apply for a patent within the year. In all else of the world, the inventor cannot wait even 1 second after publically publicizing the device. So if ,in Germany or Russia or wherever, the inventor publically publicizes the device, and, 1 second later hands over the patent application, he has lost his rights to it, and it is public domain.
CANGAS 34
ARMCORTEX, I am in the Hamilton, ONT area. You can contact me here.If you live in the Toronto area and you can make the next meeting (Tuesday May 27), we can meet. See www.inventorscircle.org/
Publish your work today to an encrypted document and distribute it to many forums, the key to be given out on the day of your information release. This way it will be in many hands and you will be safer. Should something happen to you, at some later date perhaps the code can be broken and the information released to the world.
Meanwhile have the document notarized with several witnesses signing the document in the presence of the notary.
Keep a lab notebook of your work with dated pages showing the progress of your design.
Giving it to the world, you will be famous and the lecture circuit will also keep you well compensated.
Don't bother to try to patent, a patent is just a license to sue or invitation to have your work confiscated and you pay for this.
The big corps will always find ways around a patent, they have all the advantage of high power lawyers on staff full time working to cheat.
Quote from: Vortex1 on May 16, 2014, 09:06:59 AM
Publish your work today to an encrypted document and distribute it to many forums, the key to be given out on the day of your information release. This way it will be in many hands and you will be safer. Should something happen to you, at some later date perhaps the code can be broken and the information released to the world.
Meanwhile have the document notarized with several witnesses signing the document in the presence of the notary.
Keep a lab notebook of your work with dated pages showing the progress of your design.
Giving it to the world, you will be famous and the lecture circuit will also keep you well compensated.
Don't bother to try to patent, a patent is just a license to sue or invitation to have your work confiscated and you pay for this.
The big corps will always find ways around a patent, they have all the advantage of high power lawyers on staff full time working to cheat.
If someone has something useful there is no harm in filing a provisional patent application in the US. It only costs a few hundred dollars and gives one a year in the US to decide if they want to go through the expense of a formal patent application.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 16, 2014, 02:34:05 AM
Anything that gagangax can do I can do better.
The new design I have in mind will be an order of magnitude more powerful and way cheaper than anything he could ever come up with.
I think as AB hammer pointed out; the energy density of this device as an engine would be rather low, I mean that is a factor in whether
something gets real world used or not. In this case it is definetly the prinicple that is of importance, less then the device per sei.
Who knows what others might do with it.
---
Also, I see some use for patents, it is just that connect-the-dots way patents are portrayed as a "payday for inventors" is hyper-bogus.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 16, 2014, 02:34:05 AM
The new design I have in mind will be an order of magnitude more powerful and way cheaper
An elaborate machine with immense power is costly and unnecessary. All you need is a technology demonstrator that can generate 1% more than it uses. If it simply runs for hours unassisted, that is enough.
Then use crowd funding.
If you rip off the people, do not assume that they won't hunt you down like a dog.
.
Hello.
I will explain my idea to like minded people who can help me build it.
I believe there will be good business in the future, so no I don't share my ideas to the general public.
If you have an impressive shop and are interested let me know.
My design is similar to the chalkalis device, but better, and different, very simple and cheap.
Quote from: fletcher on May 15, 2014, 12:12:11 AM
I agree Zoelra .. both Bill & gurangax were being sardonic, as it's an obvious solution
Not correct. I was, and am, totally serious. It is my opinion that gurangax was being serious also but, you can draw your own conclusions.
Bill
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 16, 2014, 10:09:19 AM
Hello.
I believe there will be good business in the future, so no I don't share my ideas to the general public.
Then what the heck are you doing on an OPEN SOURCE website? You do know what open source means don't you?
Bill
I will give one last clue
"all the inmost parts, and the perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement, as I've been saying since 1712."
Have you any slightest of idea of what he meant by this? you can only speculate but I understood it. Some people thinks they are real clever but apparently they are not.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 16, 2014, 08:35:37 PM
I will give one last clue
Some people thinks they are real clever but apparently they are not.
regards
;D
It is not an easy task to solve the mechanism only based on the JB quotes or clues, worst if one mention that perhaps it violates some laws of physics, even worst if many people have tried for 300 years without luck.
I had more than 40 designs that fit 90 to 100% to the description of the JB wheel, but guess what?... they are not, they are not self powered, and now I understand why they don't work.
Usually once I finished a design or prototype all clues fitted perfectly, that is my point.
Gurangax give us more clues, at this point I'm more interested in your personal clues than JB clues.
Best regards
Quote from: charly2 on May 16, 2014, 09:56:27 PM
It is not an easy task to solve the mechanism only based on the JB quotes or clues, worst if one mention that perhaps it violates some laws of physics, even worst if many people have tried for 300 years without luck.
I had more than 40 designs that fit 90 to 100% to the description of the JB wheel, but guess what?... they are not, they are not self powered, and now I understand why they don't work.
Usually once I finished a design or prototype all clues fitted perfectly, that is my point.
Gurangax give us more clues, at this point I'm more interested in your personal clues than JB clues.
Best regards
show me your designs which you said fits 100% and I will look into it. or you can start from Tomasz design because he is the only person who is in the right direction at the moment.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 16, 2014, 10:05:30 PM
show me your designs which you said fits 100% and I will look into it. or you can start from Tomasz design because he is the only person who is in the right direction at the moment.
regards
Well basically for every Besslers clue I can use to describe it to my design so thats the reason why Im saying mystery solved. (with a dot).
regards
Hey gurangax .. you are good at quoting Bessler's clues.
Bessler said he was terrified that just one word could give his principle away.
Do yo know what that word is ?
Can you give better & different clues than Bessler did, ones he perhaps didn't think of ?
Today we are more versed in physics speak, laws of conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, thermodynamics, & Noether's Theorem of symmetries - Bessler didn't know all these 'limitations' & symmetries, or terms - he just wanted to solve the age old problem of the true PMM - he did use two English terms when writing his notes in German in MT (beside his wood cuts) that we recognise - they being 'force' & 'movement' used in the descriptions of MT's 28 & 29 - my point being that he did not refer to nor describe energy & angular momentum or stuff we grapple with every day - just force, movement & momentum (used in other publications) - s'Gravesande hadn't formalized his theory of KE = mv^2 (later adjusted to 1/2mv^2 with the SI system) & gravity as mass x acceleration wasn't defined well either - he never described his wheels as gravity wheels, just said there was imbalance, & that they couldn't reach/find 'punctum quietus' or force equilibrium once in motion.
Knowing what you know about physics & technical descriptives used today which conservation law do you believe Bessler's principle invalidates ?
My money is on CoAM, if its true !
ETA: seems Charly2 wants your words too.
Quote from: fletcher on May 16, 2014, 10:22:48 PM
Hey gurangax .. you are good at quoting Bessler's clues.
Bessler said he was terrified that just one word could give his principle away.
Do yo know what that word is ?
Can you give better & different clues than Bessler did, ones he perhaps didn't think of ?
Today we are more versed in physics speak, laws of conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, thermodynamics, & Noether's Theorem of symmetries - Bessler didn't know all these 'limitations' & symmetries, or terms - he just wanted to solve the age old problem of the true PMM - he did use two English terms when writing his notes in German in MT (beside his wood cuts) that we recognise - they being 'force' & 'movement' used in the descriptions of MT's 28 & 29 - my point being that he did not refer to nor describe energy & angular momentum or stuff we grapple with every day - just force, movement & momentum (used in other publications) - s'Gravesande hadn't formalized his theory of KE = mv^2 (later adjusted to 1/2mv^2 with the SI system) & gravity as mass x acceleration wasn't defined well either - he never described his wheels as gravity wheels, just said there was imbalance, & that they couldn't reach/find 'punctum quietus' or force equilibrium once in motion.
Knowing what you know about physics & technical descriptives used today which conservation law do you believe Bessler's principle invalidates ?
My money is on CoAM, if its true !
His wheel is run by gravity not CF, you have misunderstood the weight swinging which gain force. In fact I think everyone else misunderstood it. There is no violation of laws, it is pure gravity attraction powered.
regards
I think many here are familiar with the "falling chimney" or 'falling stick" examples - a mass on the end of a lever will fall faster with more KE than the same mass falling in free fall ... IF ... there is another larger mass pinned closer to the fulcrum to leverage against i.e. that inner mass is retarded & the outer is advanced/accelerated - I can show you the sims if you wish ? - the total KE at bottom of fall is never higher than the GPE lost however.
You must mean something else ?
in this word "all the inmost parts, and the perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement, as I've been saying since 1712."
it become clear of what he meant only when you know about his weight excess principle. The fact is its so simple! i dont know what one word that will describe it. But I know what the thing is.
regards
Quote from: fletcher on May 16, 2014, 10:36:04 PM
I think many here are familiar with the "falling chimney" or 'falling stick" examples - a mass on the end of a lever will fall faster with more KE than the same mass falling in free fall ... IF ... there is another larger mass pinned closer to the fulcrum to leverage against i.e. that inner mass is retarded & the outer is advanced/accelerated - I can show you the sims if you wish ? - the total KE at bottom of fall is never higher than the GPE lost however.
You must mean something else ?
Well regarding sims since you ask about it earlier can you simulate tomasz design with one bar and with wm2d? Its nice that someone come up with the design so I dont have to show anything yet.
regards
gurangax said
"His wheel is run by gravity not CF, you have misunderstood the weight swinging which gain force."
Are you saying the interpretation itself is wrong (that is, there is no swinging and no gained force such as CF) or are you saying there is swinging and gained force but the force is not CF ?
Quote from: zoelra on May 16, 2014, 10:55:36 PM
gurangax said
"His wheel is run by gravity not CF, you have misunderstood the weight swinging which gain force."
Are you saying the interpretation itself is wrong (that is there is no swinging like a pendulum and therefore no gained force such as CF) or are you saying there is swinging and gained force but the force is not CF ?
Im afraid that what I will say will give out the secret but here goes. You are intepreting the swinging weights at the wrong plane of axis, Bessler meant the swing on the z plane.
regards
Perhaps he means the levers orientated in the z plane at right angles to the direction of rotation will lift up due Cf once a wheel is dynamic ?
In my design the weight lifting mechanism is a variation of the 2 stage oscillator and it does swing in the z plane (really the y-z plane where y is the vertical axis). I use the word 2 stage oscillator because everyone is familiar with the working Milkovic 2SO. However my variation of the 2SO is nothing like Milkovics. Instead of swinging, you could design the mechanism so the weight just drops and does the lifting work, but then the wheel has to rotate 180 degrees so the weight resets. I prefer swinging so the weight returns to its initial position. You definitely have to use the z plane for the movement. So now you know something about my design.
Quote from: fletcher on May 16, 2014, 11:14:35 PM
Perhaps he means the levers orientated in the z plane at right angles to the direction of rotation will lift up due Cf once a wheel is dynamic ?
im saying no to the idea
regards
Quote from: zoelra on May 16, 2014, 11:16:53 PM
In my design the weight lifting mechanism is a variation of the 2 stage oscillator and it does swing in the z plane (really the y-z plane where y is the vertical axis). I use the word 2 stage oscillator because everyone is familiar with the working Milkovic 2SO. However my variation of the 2SO is nothing like Milkovics. Instead of swinging, you could design the mechanism so the weight just drops and does the lifting work, but then the wheel has to rotate 180 degrees so the weight resets. I prefer swinging so the weight returns to its initial position. You definitely have to use the z plane for the movement. So now you know something about my design.
well even if you say this and even the basic is the same I will say it doesnt work hence why you are here. the mystery is what makes it works?
regards
I'm not saying my design is Besslers, just that I myself have found and associated two unique properties of levers and am using them to produce a lift. I actually found the properties with math (what everyone said is not possible) so we will see. Just so you know I am a member of besslerwheel.com and someone there made a post about your findings and I am following what you are saying because it is similar to my work. I wish you all the best and look forward to seeing your wheel work, but I will not give up on my design. It is many years in the making and I truly believe it will be a runner. As you say there are many ways to make a wheel.
Quote from: zoelra on May 16, 2014, 11:28:33 PM
I'm not saying my design is Besslers, just that I myself have found and associated two unique properties of levers and am using them to produce a lift. I actually found the properties with math (what everyone said is not possible) so we will see. Just so you know I am a member of besslerwheel.com and someone there made a post about your findings and I am following what you are saying because it is similar to my work. I wish you all the best and look forward to seeing your wheel work, but I will not give up on my design. It is many years in the making and I truly believe it will be a runner. As you say there are many ways to make a wheel.
is it via pm? because i didnt see anything in there mentioning about my findings.
regards
what do you mean by "is it via pm" ?
Quote from: zoelra on May 16, 2014, 11:35:56 PM
what do you mean by "is it via pm" ?
did someone told you by using personal message at besslerwheel or did i missed it being posted on the forum?
The post on besslerwheel.com is in the member section so you will have to join if you want to read it.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6067 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6067)
Fletcher is also a member there and the conversation is a bit more technical because many of the members are engineer types and a lot of them have been pursuing PM for a long long time. You might want to consider joining.
The BW post didn't have details other than saying you made an announcement of a runner. I had to read your posts to get the details.
Quote from: zoelra on May 16, 2014, 11:48:34 PM
The post on besslerwheel.com is in the member section so you will have to join if you want to read it.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6067 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6067)
Fletcher is also a member there and the conversation is a bit more technical because many of the members are engineer types and a lot of them have been pursuing PM for a long long time. You might want to consider joining.
The BW post didn't have details other than saying you made an announcement of a runner. I had to read your posts to get the details.
i have joined it long time ago under difrent username but i have joined it recently using this username. but i never posted yet.
regards
Glad to hear you joined. The link in my last post will take you to the BW post. You will see there is not much detail there.
Sorry gurangax .. I only have 24 hours then I'm heading off again - things to do that take priority over Tomasz's Cf design on about page 26 or so IIRC - (I'd have to think about how to fake the forces to show it as a 3D design) - there, a counter weight had a sliding pivot [shaft ran thru it] so it could rotate - attached to the counter weight was a pantograph [parallelogram] in the z axis with two further torque masses - as the mech fell from position of highest GPE the two masses moved outwards & via the linkage moved the counterweight along its slot IINM - it can not achieve a position of higher GPE at end of cycle or RKE at bdc than it was given at the start when it was hand positioned.
FWIW, Tomasz never claimed it was OU but you said it needed something else to get 'excess weight' that would make it OU.
......................
ETA: FWIW .. the toy's page shows two sets of pantographs, center page - IMO they show linear force & momentum, & Translational KE mechanically morphed/routed into rotational force [torque], angular momentum & RKE.
Quote from: fletcher on May 17, 2014, 12:35:16 AM
Sorry gurangax .. I only have 24 hours then I'm heading off again - things to do that take priority over Tomasz's Cf design on about page 26 or so IIRC - (I'd have to think about how to fake the forces to show it as a 3D design) - there, a counter weight had a sliding pivot [shaft ran thru it] so it could rotate - attached to the counter weight was a pantograph [parallelogram] in the z axis with two further torque masses - as the mech fell from position of highest GPE the two masses moved outwards & via the linkage moved the counterweight along its slot IINM - it can not achieve a position of higher GPE at end of cycle or RKE at bdc than it was given at the start when it was hand positioned.
FWIW, Tomasz never claimed it was OU but you said it needed something else to get 'excess weight' that would make it OU.
......................
ETA: FWIW .. the toy's page shows two sets of pantographs, center page - IMO they show linear force & momentum, & Translational KE mechanically morphed/routed into rotational force [torque], angular momentum & RKE.
well you were asking earlier if wm2d will work with the principle and I told you I dont know how to to it with wm2d and you ask me to design something which resembles it so someone can help me simulate it. I know Tomasz design will not work. My point is I need to know how to do it with wm2d. I probably can modify it to match my design.
thanks. regards
As I said to you in an earlier post - build two views side by side on the same page - one side view
- , the other from the front ||.
Build your mechs in the normal way in 2D in the 'O' view - the sim will calculate all your forces etc for you in the normal way.
What you have trouble representing is the forces in the z axis - so, if you have elements that rise & fall in the z axis make a static representation of the levers or whatever in the || view - create some inputs & outputs boxes - make an output for Cf's [or whatever] & manully enter the formula - Cf, for example is mv^2 - so as long as you have outputs for velocity of the falling lever you can feed that into the new output box ( |body[?].v| ) - you can use the mass as well ( body[?].mass ) - for radius create a rod from CoR to mass - deactivate rod length - create an output for rod length - take the output ( Output[?].y1 ) & divide the mv^2/radius (rod length) - now you have Cf's as an output etc.
You tie inputs & outputs & forces generated etc between to the two models on the same page - I often use the force element to actually see the forces waxing & waning etc - that input is fed elsewhere where needed.
Last, debug your program i.e. make sure everything is logical so you don't get a false positive by having forgotten to include something that should be there.
I'll post a sim of an aerodynamic model where airfoils moved in the z axis that I made many years ago - study the sim & cannibalize what you require to duplicate your actions & forces as required.
Quote from: fletcher on May 17, 2014, 01:30:21 AM
As I said to you in an earlier post - build two views side by side on the same page - one side view - , the other from the front ||.
Build your mechs in the normal way in 2D in the 'O' view - the sim will calculate all your forces etc for you in the normal way.
What you have trouble representing is the forces in the z axis - so, if you have elements that rise & fall in the z axis make a static representation of the levers or whatever in the || view - create some inputs & outputs boxes - make an output for Cf's [or whatever] & manully enter the formula - Cf, for example is mv^2 - so as long as you have outputs for velocity of the falling lever you can feed that into the new output box ( |body[?].v| ) - you can use the mass as well ( body[?].mass ) - for radius create a rod from CoR to mass - deactivate rod length - create an output for rod length - take the output ( Output[?].y1 ) & divide the mv^2/radius (rod length) - now you have Cf's as an output etc.
You tie inputs & outputs & forces generated etc between to the two models on the same page - I often use the force element to actually see the forces waxing & waning etc - that input is fed elsewhere where needed.
Last, debug your program i.e. make sure everything is logical so you don't get a false positive by having forgotten to include something that should be there.
I'll post a sim of an aerodynamic model where airfoils moved in the z axis that I made many years ago - study the sim & cannibalize what you require to duplicate your actions & forces as required.
thanks for the file. I will try understanding it first then do something about the design.
regards
I should have included the AL-Finish1 pic - it shows the forces & the wings closed etc.
But, as had been said, why do you need a sim when you have a physical model ? - the sim is a nice clean way to draw a picture rather than labouring with paint etc so perhaps that's your reason.
Quote from: fletcher on May 17, 2014, 01:49:54 AM
I should have included the AL-Finish1 pic - it shows the forces & the wings closed etc.
But, as had been said, why do you need a sim when you have a physical model ? - the sim is a nice clean way to draw a picture rather than labouring with paint etc so perhaps that's your reason.
well I have much free time so its better filled with something. Anyway I would very much like to know if it can be done with wm2d as well.
regards
Quote from: fletcher on May 16, 2014, 10:22:48 PM
Hey gurangax .. you are good at quoting Bessler's clues.
...
Today we are more versed in physics speak, laws of conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, thermodynamics, & Noether's Theorem of symmetries - Bessler didn't know all these 'limitations' & symmetries, or terms - he just wanted to solve the age old problem of the true PMM - he did use two English terms when writing his notes in German in MT (beside his wood cuts) that we recognise - they being 'force' & 'movement' used in the descriptions of MT's 28 & 29 - my point being that he did not refer to nor describe energy & angular momentum or stuff we grapple with every day - just force, movement & momentum (used in other publications) - s'Gravesande hadn't formalized his theory of KE = mv^2 (later adjusted to 1/2mv^2 with the SI system) & gravity as mass x acceleration wasn't defined well either - he never described his wheels as gravity wheels, just said there was imbalance, & that they couldn't reach/find 'punctum quietus' or force equilibrium once in motion.
...
Yeah, I think this is amazing...So maybe if you have complete mastery of the theory, then maybe you can't see the forest
from the trees.
To some extent I was interested in whether Bessler had an associate who was a mathematician? In fact I looked
up whether Hamilton was alive at the same time as Bessler. Hamilton first proposed Hamiltonians and Quaterion matrix
mathematics. Quaterians are used to compute the physical state of systems. The retired space shuttle used quaterians
for Nav. calculations. Hamilton though was a junior to Bessler by a century.
A mathematician would have been looking at the form of the solution to equations and how it affected the solution's
outcome. He could have been directing Bessler to look at specific mechanical areas where the equational solution
could have mathematical problems, as to where OU then might be observed.
This thread has made me aware of this guy Wagner who Bessler talked about as "throwing his calculations out of the window"
when he found his solution. I'm going to try to look this guy Wagner up. The problem is unless the solution-of-Bessler's
is true, then Bessler is not a scientist. If he doesn't deserve a place in scientific history then his associates won't necessarily
be remembered there either. Because this; I would urge Gruganax if he has a solution to make it public so we can straighten
this out. In, science facts don't stand alone but send out "interference evidence patterns" sailing through associated and analog
systems of understanding. That is why supression of information (like nuclear information after WWII) is in general an anathema
to science.
Quote from: fletcher on May 16, 2014, 10:22:48 PM[/font] ...
knowing what you know about physics & technical descriptives used today which conservation law do you believe Bessler's principle invalidates ?
My money is on CoAM, if its true !
ETA: seems Charly2 wants your words too.
The question is: Is conservation of energy law true only in mathematically simple systems...Like when spacecraft are billions of miles
from earth so that only gravitational force prevails. vs. Is there a transfer function that couples energy from zero-point for instance
without any record keeping as to how much is/was actually coupled out. We are here only to annotate not to design the f*cker.
:S:MarkSCoffman
So here is another try. This time it looks better, because it employs more of the principles you described.
@all
Don't forget that simulating a 3D system in a 2D simulator in this case is going to suffer from Einstein rest frame
problems and have some numerical errors. This is because gravity is in a *spherical* acceleration rest frame,
referenced towards a single point, and not a laboratory cartesian coordinate (x,y,z) reference frame acceleration
along three independent line axis. A simulation involves integration of forces and some method should be used
to guarantee that the integration of out plane y ~ z axis forces is indeed down in the error bars from the other
forces before the 2D simulation *result* can fully be trusted. This y ~ z coupling into the x axis in the real world
is going to change results.
Of course the 2D simulation model will be useful for 3D visuallization in any event.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: Tomasz on May 17, 2014, 10:05:45 AM
So here is another try. This time it looks better, because it employs more of the principles you described.
Tomsaz
Why do you keep putting Bessler's and Guarangax names to the designs you are showing?
Guarangax has not shown a single design of his latest claim. But he has quoted Bessler a lot.
As for Bessler in his defense, I believe he would like it for people to stop posting his name to non workable wheels. Its embarrassing to the one who has built running wheels.
Now I am not sure this is correct but it does fit the profile. It seems like people are being played for ideas. So if you post an idea. Don't give credit where credit is not due. If you show a design you worked on?
Be proud of your work. Alan
Quote from: mscoffman on May 17, 2014, 10:05:40 AM
Yeah, I think this is amazing...So maybe if you have complete mastery of the theory, then maybe you can't see the forest
from the trees.
To some extent I was interested in whether Bessler had an associate who was a mathematician?
A mathematician would have been looking at the form of the solution to equations and how it affected the solution's
outcome. He could have been directing Bessler to look at specific mechanical areas where the equational solution
could have mathematical problems, as to where OU then might be observed.
This thread has made me aware of this guy Wagner who Bessler talked about as "throwing his calculations out of the window"
when he found his solution. I'm going to try to look this guy Wagner up. The problem is unless the solution-of-Bessler's
is true, then Bessler is not a scientist. If he doesn't deserve a place in scientific history then his associates won't necessarily
be remembered there either.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Hi .. I suggest you read the eye witness accounts - there were some very capable people including competent mathematicians - Liebniz was a 'friend' of Bessler's as was 'sGravesande to a degree but not PMM associates - Bessler also was a contemporary of the Bernoulli's.
I think Wolff [another mathematician] described Bessler's mathematical abilities, paraphrased, as 'underwhelming'.
Wagner was a mathematician & a mechanic - there is a very good exchange between Bessler & Wagner which can be read in the Wagner Critiques I & II [IIRC II is first for some reason] - search John Collins web sites for the critiques.
http://www.orffyre.com/quotes.html for eye witness comments & first hand insight of the machines & the man.
That looks Pretty big.
Have you seen the videos of bobby's and more importantly pics, others like Felix wurth dimitriev etc.
Try this thought Tomas.
If you had a hinged motor and a staticnheavy flywheel on a main frame. Double shafted motor,or 2 motors. On hinges, attached by its frame which is rotating, and on the same center point Of the motor orbir the shaft is driving a gear via pulleys, and this is stepped up to high rpm on another axle
Via pulleys again, wich drives a grippy heavy wheel that discharges itself on a static arc held to the floor
The motor recharges the system. The motor is inside the imaginary big circle, the heavy wheel on the edge of the imaginary.
The only tricky thing is the wiring. And they are many ideas here that can aid.
This is the concept.
@Tomasz
nice try again, but that wont work.
now I will shed some more lights into the secret, it lays on Bessler word here
"all the inmost parts, and the perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement, as I've been saying since 1712."
I already gave it but no one cared to ask, the meaning of his words. Now I will say this, at one point there is no connectedness of the actuator to the reseter. it is free to move.
regards
Gurangax stop trying to mislead others, you are nothing but a disinformant, I have already given the answer above.
Your mind is not able to comprehend, so you will continue to act as a sycophant
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 17, 2014, 10:12:21 PM
Gurangax stop trying to mislead others, you are nothing but a disinformant, I have already given the answer above.
Your mind is not able to comprehend, so you will continue to act as a sycophant
this is my thread, stop filling it with your design go make your own thread instead.
regards
You can't make me. This is the Internet scumbag.
rofl whatever
gurangax it might be time to consider posting only on www.besslerwheel.com (http://www.besslerwheel.com)
Quote from: zoelra on May 17, 2014, 11:30:03 PM
gurangax it might be time to consider posting only on www.besslerwheel.com (http://www.besslerwheel.com)
No, he is going to owe TK's charity $100.00 come June 1st. Moving over and posting to another site will not change that. Unless, of course, he shows us a working wheel and not just some designs and pictures. We will see.
Bill
He deserves the right to post his ideas in his own thread and to not have that thread hi-jacked by others posting their own designs and ideas against his wishes. A well moderated site would not allow this and that is why I suggested moving to www.besslerwheel.com (http://www.besslerwheel.com).
I have a plan. I know even a video will not satisfy you skeptics. So I have asked a member in this forum to replicate it. If even this will not satisfy you then I dont know what will.
regards
Gurangax here is a suggestion for you.
When you are ready, forward your plans to one person such as Fletcher (here and at www.besslerwheel.com (http://www.besslerwheel.com) ). From all that I have read from his posts, he appears to be impartial, very knowledgable, and well respected. Have him review the plans and give his thoughts on whether the design will work or not. If he gives a positive review, you will have no problems selling your plans to anyone that wants them. This will satisfy the goal of releasing your design and allow you to make a profit.
Quote from: zoelra on May 18, 2014, 12:04:15 AM
Gurangax here is a suggestion for you.
When you are ready, forward your plans to one person such as Fletcher (here and at www.besslerwheel.com (http://www.besslerwheel.com) ). From all that I have read from his posts, he appears to be impartial, very knowledgable, and well respected. Have him review the plans and give his thoughts on whether the design will work or not. If he gives a positive review, you will have no problems selling your plans to anyone that wants them. This will satisfy the goal of releasing your design and allow you to make a profit.
thanks but i've seen some of this member's videos and I can say that he will do fine.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 18, 2014, 12:01:15 AM
I have a plan. I know even a video will not satisfy you skeptics. So I have asked a member in this forum to replicate it. If even this will not satisfy you then I dont know what will.
regards
Very good idea. As I posted on another topic, replications are the ONLY way to show something really works. We all know that photos and videos can be faked. But, if others replicate a design, well, that is very hard to argue against. I look forward to seeing this.
Bill
Quote from: AB Hammer on May 17, 2014, 02:59:35 PMSo if you post an idea. Don't give credit where credit is not due. If you show a design you worked on? Be proud of your work.
You are right, but I cannot edit my posts.
Quote from: gurangax on May 17, 2014, 09:21:38 PM
@Tomasz
nice try again, but that wont work.
I guess you have a big experience with GW buy why are you so sure? :)
Quote from: gurangax on May 17, 2014, 09:21:38 PMNow I will say this, at one point there is no connectedness of the actuator to the reseter. it is free to move.
The "excess weight" gap does that almost precisely.
I am curious. Does your wheel require something that keeps it revolving at an optimal rpm?
Quote from: zoelra on May 17, 2014, 11:41:31 PM
He deserves the right to post his ideas in his own thread and to not have that thread hi-jacked by others posting their own designs and ideas against his wishes.
This is not against his will, because he was asking whether someone else could figure this out before he releases his info. My work is plainly inspired by this "findings".
Quote from: Tomasz on May 18, 2014, 12:55:31 AM
You are right, but I cannot edit my posts.I guess you have a big experience with GW buy why are you so sure? :)The "excess weight" gap does that almost precisely.
I am curious. Does your wheel require something that keeps it revolving at an optimal rpm?This is not against his will, because he was asking whether someone else could figure this out before he releases his info. My work is plainly inspired by this "findings".
I know when I see one. Well you can try building it to see for proof. But as long as you work on the 3d mechanics, there is hope.
regards
I have discovered that the double hinge solves problems. I even think it can be servo controlled to a point where gravity can take over.
Thx Gurangax.
But keep in mind, this trick, a motor incorporated in the design as a swinging weight can drive an isolated pulsing mechanism.
A heavy flywheel with high friction and its friction static arc counterpart.
You can get really clever with the pendulum, full servo control and predictive software.
Totally new way to use motors.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 19, 2014, 05:05:41 AM
I have discovered that the double hinge solves problems. I even think it can be servo controlled to a point where gravity can take over.
Thx Gurangax.
But keep in mind, this trick, a motor incorporated in the design as a swinging weight can drive an isolated pulsing mechanism.
A heavy flywheel with high friction and its friction static arc counterpart.
You can get really clever with the pendulum, full servo control and predictive software.
Totally new way to use motors.
Maybe somehow I have inspired you into something, I dont know but anyway you are welcome.
regards
I am attaching the excess weight secret principle here.
regards
Hi gurangax,
Would you tell who can receive the password?
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on May 20, 2014, 04:58:16 AM
Hi gurangax,
Would you tell who can receive the password?
Gyula
I have given it to a forum member, im just trying to protect my claims. There should be no one that should be able to claim what I found. And the replication is going on at the moment though I have not seen it yet. I will give the password on june 1st
regards
This is just another thread with a claimant who plays games with you and who will _never_ show you any of his own real work that supports his claims.
June 1 will come and go and we will still have nothing but BS from this claimant.
Remember Archer Quinn? Mylow? Elecar? A dozen others who have done the same thing? QEG? Claims without evidence, threads that pretend to "teach" by someone who can't even understand the basics of their own chosen topic?
The thing is so simple to understand, why would the inventor not understand his creation?
regards
Only 10 days left! Let's start a 10-day-lasting-beach-party (never)ending in the climax of energy liberation :)
Dear Gurangax,
The wheel thickness is described as variously 6 inches, 14 inches and 12 inches for wheel diameters of 10 feet, 12 feet and 11 feet respectively.
If we consider the maximum and minimums, it does not leave a lot of room for a hinged weight swinging in the Z axis. In other words it would not produce a lot of gain if the best case swinging weight was a 28" movement from the outer edge inward. This is a best case of 12" for the 6" thick wheel.
Was there some other means employed than weights swinging in the Z axis? In other words, was the Z axis employed for some other purpose?
Kind Regards, Vortex1
P.S the naysayers will always be there, but you have gotten me to ponder gravity and how it produces an acceleration of a body of mass, that in itself is valuable, so I thank you. I also enjoy the clues and revisiting the wheel.
Quote from: Vortex1 on May 20, 2014, 10:10:32 AM
Dear Gurangax,
The wheel thickness is described as variously 6 inches, 14 inches and 12 inches for wheel diameters of 10 feet, 12 feet and 11 feet respectively.
If we consider the maximum and minimums, it does not leave a lot of room for a hinged weight swinging in the Z axis. In other words it would not produce a lot of gain if the best case swinging weight was a 28" movement from the outer edge inward. This is a best case of 12" for the 6" thick wheel.
Was there some other means employed than weights swinging in the Z axis? In other words, was the Z axis employed for some other purpose?
Kind Regards, Vortex1
P.S the naysayers will always be there, but you have gotten me to ponder gravity and how it produces an acceleration of a body of mass, that in itself is valuable, so I thank you. I also enjoy the clues and revisiting the wheel.
Of course if I want it to be really powerfull I will need a thicker z axis but, I dont think Bessler wanted to demonstrate a powerfull wheel, it is enough just to show some excess energy do some work which seems to be perpetual but actually it is driven by gravity. Also I must stress that to replace the thickness on z axis one can substitute the thickness with heavier mass.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 20, 2014, 10:18:07 AM
Of course if I want it to be really powerfull I will need a thicker z axis but, I dont think Bessler wanted to demonstrate a powerfull wheel, it is enough just to show some excess energy do some work which seems to be perpetual but actually it is driven by gravity. Also I must stress that to replace the thickness on z axis one can substitute the thickness with heavier mass.
regards
but it should not be too heavy. anyway I dont think you will see this with the worlds current learning system. although it is there in front of our eyes. Maybe this is what Bessler meant when he said
"...but what I didn't know then, and indeed have only recently discovered, is that there were obstacles in our way. We were, you might say, unprepared and therefore still far from the truth."
regards
Quote from: Vortex1 on May 20, 2014, 10:10:32 AM
The wheel thickness is described as variously 6 inches, 14 inches and 12 inches for wheel diameters of 10 feet, 12 feet and 11 feet respectively.
If we consider the maximum and minimums, it does not leave a lot of room for a hinged weight swinging in the Z axis.
Agreed! If we look here http://www.orffyre.com/measurements.html, we see the first wheel, which this web site claims was only 4.6 feet in diameter, was only 4" thick! How can you do anything in the Z axis with only 4" to work with? Gurangax may have come up with a method of achieving a running wheel, but I think it probably isn't the same a Bessler did it, which, given these dimensions must have been only 2d.
Quote from: phaedrus on May 20, 2014, 10:37:26 AM
Agreed! If we look here http://www.orffyre.com/measurements.html (http://www.orffyre.com/measurements.html), we see the first wheel, which this web site claims was only 4.6 feet in diameter, was only 4" thick! How can you do anything in the Z axis with only 4" to work with? Gurangax may have come up with a method of achieving a running wheel, but I think it probably isn't the same a Bessler did it, which, given these dimensions must have been only 2d.
It is just the same principle of excess weight which he refered to. there are various implementation that can be done with it. without it your wheel will only balance. understand this, a balanced wheel will only balance if you used a balanced system. In other words there is no excess energy because the energy you got from gravity was being canceled by gravity itself and of course not forgeting the resistance in the system.
I understand how we usually think of it, I have been there as well. I have read something about Bessler connectedness principle but I have forgoten about it, I think there is truth in there, Im going to find what that is now.
regards
It was refreshing to be reading back Bessler MT drawings. I found the connectedness principle on his MT9 drawing, and I think his principle of excess weight should fit with what he meant. also something new to ponder take a look on MT25 I think what he meant is one should look at the diagram in 3d, he is drawing it on the x-y plane, you should be able to understand what he meant by now.
regards
Ok after reading on JC's blog about his translation of connectedness principle, I found that even himself is not really clear of what it means because it could be meaning many things. Drawing my own conclusion I think I know what the principle is and it has something to do with the weight excess principle. Later.
regards
Even after all these years, looks like we still get the same old story of someone dragging out a claim thread over weeks with nothing at the end of it.
If you have something that works, then just post it and someone will replicate it and if it works, well done you done a great service to the world ! .
If not then just join the list of many claims over the years that turned out to be BS ! .
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 20, 2014, 02:23:18 PM
Even after all these years, looks like we still get the same old story of someone dragging out a claim thread over weeks with nothing at the end of it.
If you have something that works, then just post it and someone will replicate it and if it works, well done you done a great service to the world ! .
If not then just join the list of many claims over the years that turned out to be BS ! .
Cheers
Sean.
June 1st is only 11 days hence. The 15 minutes will then be up.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 20, 2014, 02:23:18 PM
Even after all these years, looks like we still get the same old story of someone dragging out a claim thread over weeks with nothing at the end of it.
If you have something that works, then just post it and someone will replicate it and if it works, well done you done a great service to the world ! .
If not then just join the list of many claims over the years that turned out to be BS ! .
Cheers
Sean.
I thought you are already replicating it :P
@gurangax - think of CLaNZeR as a replicator - if he does it, everybody will know it's working ;)
Also protect you rights by making a document describing your finding and revealing your true name and place it on some server that will store the date of posting (google docs or somethings?). Important thing is that this date should be read only and not modifyable. You don't have to reveal this document to anybody - just keep it for yourself in case somebody dares to tell that it's his finding. It's life you know, and life is brutal ;]
it seems that someone doesnt know how to read.
regards
some will find my post to be of zero value because they think they have everything in the world to figure it out. but for the sake of those who do believe I will keep you updated. in other words im doing this not to prove those who dont believe, im doing this for those who keep on finding how Bessler have done it. You need to know of Bessler's legacy.
regards
Something very nice happened today. The forum member (replicator) nearly had a heart attack after understanding how the principle works. lol. gave me a long smile.
Quote from: gurangax on May 20, 2014, 09:13:43 PM
Something very nice happened today. The forum member (replicator) nearly had a heart attack after understanding how the principle works. lol. gave me a long smile.
Personally I would rather like to see working embodiment. What was so heart-breaking for him ? Falling mass in space ?
Quote from: forest on May 21, 2014, 02:32:01 AM
Personally I would rather like to see working embodiment. What was so heart-breaking for him ? Falling mass in space ?
The first time when we understands how it works is the most shocking. I don't know how to say this but its probably the simplicity about it and yet it slips from our knowledge for so long. certainly this year is the time for eye openers. Anyway his reaction to it really made my day, he even go as far as to say you guys are going to like it and told me to make a paypal account (which I already have btw). Its like a feeling of victory if you understand what I mean.
regards
Hi,
Please see the attached image. Hope the machine is working on this principle.
nixon
Hi all,
Please see the below attached photo.The rod A should be 4 or more times lengther than the rod D.Tie the rope E at one fourth of the Rod A will generate 4 times more force on weight C. With that force Weight C on the Z axis can move to XY plane.So it will increase the weight on right side of the wheel , which cause the wheel unbalanced and can started to move.. If the force is not enough to move the weight c from Z axis to XY plane, by increase the weight of B more than C can give more force to move the weight.
regards
Nixon
Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 20, 2014, 02:23:18 PM
Even after all these years, looks like we still get the same old story of someone dragging out a claim thread over weeks with nothing at the end of it.
If you have something that works, then just post it and someone will replicate it and if it works, well done you done a great service to the world ! .
If not then just join the list of many claims over the years that turned out to be BS ! .
Cheers
Sean.
Right you are, mate. This "gurangax" fellow is just another arrogant "elecar" like character who will not be showing any kind of "self runner" on June 1 or at any other time, because he may have a PayPal account... but he has no self-running device. You can go back and read the "elecar" SNOT thread and see that the identical script is being followed. He claims to have what he won't show until the time is right... he arrogantly pretends to "teach" what he cannot himself do.... and when challenged he fails to produce facts or demonstrations and instead just insults his critics. And when the self-imposed "deadline" approaches, comes and goes... he will vanish just like elecar did. The only question I have is this: will he produce an obviously faked video, like elecar did, before he vanishes?
He's not nearly as entertaining as Archer Quinn was. At least Archer made some videos before he vanished into the outback with his donated funds, parts and supplies.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 21, 2014, 08:14:14 AM
This "gurangax" fellow is just another arrogant "elecar" like character...
A bit premature, TK. You may have to eat your words on June 2nd. He may shock as all and earn his knighthood.
Well I think the admin of this forum knows best what is happening. fake or not, you will know soon enough.
regards
One request from my side - when you do post on June 1st, please do so on the new thread - finding something in a 35 pages long conversation is always tough ;] But please post a link to that new thread on this thread. Then it all will be clean and clear without rubbish comments. Thanks in advance.
Quote from: Airstriker on May 21, 2014, 09:51:05 AM
One request from my side - when you do post on June 1st, please do so on the new thread -
Why?
We have over 14,000 threads on this website, many of them duplicates or rubbish. your comment about searchng does not relate.
Why start a new thread?
I now think I see what the missing ingredient is, besides the clever system of levers and weights, an over center mechanism is added to insure that each component "snaps" into the correct position at the correct time, all controlled by gravity.
This resets each independent mechanism to the proper condition, which is opposite above the axle than it is below it.
When I say "over center mechanism" I am not talking about over the center of the axle (although that is where the action occurs), those skilled in the art of mechanical design know what I mean.
It is a simple spring used in a clever way to create a bit of "hysteresis", otherwise the wheel would be self defeating.
I fully understand why one of the weights must be slightly heavier than the other.
It is the combination of the ingredients that makes it all work.
Anyway it looks very good on paper thus far, now to double and triple check the calculations and build it.
gurangax, would you agree with any of the above points?
Regards, Vortex1
Quote from: Vortex1 on May 22, 2014, 10:32:27 AM
I now think I see what the missing ingredient is, besides the clever system of levers and weights, an over center mechanism is added to insure that each component "snaps" into the correct position at the correct time, all controlled by gravity.
This resets each independent mechanism to the proper condition, which is opposite above the axle than it is below it.
When I say "over center mechanism" I am not talking about over the center of the axle (although that is where the action occurs), those skilled in the art of mechanical design know what I mean.
It is a simple spring used in a clever way to create a bit of "hysteresis", otherwise the wheel would be self defeating.
I fully understand why one of the weights must be slightly heavier than the other.
It is the combination of the ingredients that makes it all work.
Anyway it looks very good on paper thus far, now to double and triple check the calculations and build it.
gurangax, would you agree with any of the above points?
Regards, Vortex1
I have a feeling that you might get this idea from MT25 which I told to look it in 3d perspective. I havent look at MT25 in 3d perspective for any possible runner yet, but maybe someone can. in other words the mechanism I am using is different than that. A spring can be used to store the excess energy and released when needed. But for the sake of simplicity Im not using it. as for agreeing with the points I dont see a clear picture of what you meant, maybe a picture will help?
regards
The hysteresis mechanism is tripped by the difference between the two weights depending on whether they are above the axle or below it (inverted).
It can be looked at as preventing the weights from entering a "forbidden state" before the appropriate time.
Yes, a sketch would help, I'm working on that now. Maybe we have two different approaches to the problem....there seem to be many.
Quote from: Vortex1 on May 22, 2014, 11:26:58 AM
The hysteresis mechanism is tripped by the difference between the two weights depending on whether they are above the axle or below it (inverted).
It can be looked at as preventing the weights from entering a "forbidden state" before the appropriate time.
Yes, a sketch would help, I'm working on that now. Maybe we have two different approaches to the problem....there seem to be many.
ok cant wait to see your sketch
regards
excuse me, I'm not mechanical man, I'm only simple -minded. but I think this discussing is worthless because no single system of levers or axles or whatever without free movement in space is dumb and impossible to be free running. There must be IMHO a mechanism to throw mass in free air and then the impact of hit is the way to make it unbalanced. That's all I wanted to say, now your turn to propose mechnical solution. If I got it wrong then please correct me gurangax.
The impact noise very closely match with descriptions of working device
Hey TK !
Now I am even more confused.
So Gurangax has a design which he claims works yet he is not going to release until the 1st June ?
But meanwhile he is asking others to post pictures of their ideas?
@Gurangax
Why are you waiting till the 1st to post your working solution?
Is it not simple steps?
1.) You have a design that works.
2.) You publish the design.
3.) You share video of your working machin1e.
4.) People replicate and proof whether it is working or not.
Why this has 35 pages of posts about something that can be very simple. Do not understand why it has to be so complicated.
What is happening before the 1st or have I got to read all these pages of posts to find out ?
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 21, 2014, 08:14:14 AM
Right you are, mate. This "gurangax" fellow is just another arrogant "elecar" like character who will not be showing any kind of "self runner" on June 1 or at any other time, because he may have a PayPal account... but he has no self-running device. You can go back and read the "elecar" SNOT thread and see that the identical script is being followed. He claims to have what he won't show until the time is right... he arrogantly pretends to "teach" what he cannot himself do.... and when challenged he fails to produce facts or demonstrations and instead just insults his critics. And when the self-imposed "deadline" approaches, comes and goes... he will vanish just like elecar did. The only question I have is this: will he produce an obviously faked video, like elecar did, before he vanishes?
He's not nearly as entertaining as Archer Quinn was. At least Archer made some videos before he vanished into the outback with his donated funds, parts and supplies.
Quote from: forest on May 22, 2014, 01:17:51 PM
excuse me, I'm not mechanical man, I'm only simple -minded. but I think this discussing is worthless because no single system of levers or axles or whatever without free movement in space is dumb and impossible to be free running. There must be IMHO a mechanism to throw mass in free air and then the impact of hit is the way to make it unbalanced. That's all I wanted to say, now your turn to propose mechnical solution. If I got it wrong then please correct me gurangax.
The impact noise very closely match with descriptions of working device
I'm just waiting for the forum member to finish his design. Btw it is the falling weight which drives the wheel.
regards
Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 22, 2014, 01:40:32 PM
Hey TK !
Now I am even more confused.
So Gurangax has a design which he claims works yet he is not going to release until the 1st June ?
But meanwhile he is asking others to post pictures of their ideas?
@Gurangax
Why are you waiting till the 1st to post your working solution?
Is it not simple steps?
1.) You have a design that works.
2.) You publish the design.
3.) You share video of your working machin1e.
4.) People replicate and proof whether it is working or not.
Why this has 35 pages of posts about something that can be very simple. Do not understand why it has to be so complicated.
What is happening before the 1st or have I got to read all these pages of posts to find out ?
Cheers
Sean.
June 1st was a wager between me and TK. But I also said that I may post it sooner. Btw a replication is taking place at the moment and most of it is his own design, but it is using the principle of excess weight which I was saying earlier. Please be noted that they can be many designs with the principle including many of Bessler's MTs, just read his side notes.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 22, 2014, 01:57:37 PM
June 1st was a wager between me and TK. But I also said that I may post it sooner. Btw a replication is taking place at the moment and most of it is his own design, but it is using the principle of excess weight which I was saying earlier. Please be noted that they can be many designs with the principle including many of Bessler's MTs, just read his side notes.
regards
Btw vortex and I had a private conversation in which I asked him to just post his ideas here, we all have our reasons.
regards
How is it a replication if it is his own design?
Do you have a working machine there at the moment that you have built? , or is it just a idea you have and someone is building a machine using the principles that you have discovered?
Quote from: gurangax on May 22, 2014, 01:57:37 PM
June 1st was a wager between me and TK. But I also said that I may post it sooner. Btw a replication is taking place at the moment and most of it is his own design, but it is using the principle of excess weight which I was saying earlier. Please be noted that they can be many designs with the principle including many of Bessler's MTs, just read his side notes.
regards
Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 22, 2014, 02:04:58 PM
How is it a replication if it is his own design?
Do you have a working machine there at the moment that you have built? , or is it just a idea you have and someone is building a machine using the principles that you have discovered?
Ok maybe I have used the wrong word for it, because I read somewhere in the forum talking about replication for proving something. But still I can consider it as a replication with minor parts diffrences since the device is actually working on simple principle and very minimal components. so it is a lot the same with my wheel (but I havent got the chance to see how his replication looks like yet) with maybe some minor parts diffrence, what i meant to say is its the building skills that makes it diffrent from mine.
But for what ever reason there is I still have time.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 22, 2014, 02:13:47 PM
Ok maybe I have used the wrong word for it, because I read somewhere in the forum talking about replication for proving something. But still I can consider it as a replication with minor parts diffrences since the device is actually working on simple principle and very minimal components. so it is a lot the same with my wheel (but I havent got the chance to see how his replication looks like yet) with maybe some minor parts diffrence, what i meant to say is its the building skills that makes it diffrent from mine.
But for what ever reason there is I still have time.
regards
Well you have to see it first in order to understand from my point of view
regards
Ah okay.
Replication is where someone usually see's a working machine and then copies it or copies the principles to see if it works or not.
If you have a mechanism that can be implemented into any design, then he could be just replicating that one part as such.
So I am still not clear. Do you have a working machine yourself?
Quote from: gurangax on May 22, 2014, 02:13:47 PM
Ok maybe I have used the wrong word for it, because I read somewhere in the forum talking about replication for proving something. But still I can consider it as a replication with minor parts diffrences since the device is actually working on simple principle and very minimal components. so it is a lot the same with my wheel (but I havent got the chance to see how his replication looks like yet) with maybe some minor parts diffrence, what i meant to say is its the building skills that makes it diffrent from mine.
But for what ever reason there is I still have time.
regards
Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 22, 2014, 02:20:57 PM
Ah okay.
Replication is where someone usually see's a working machine and then copies it or copies the principles to see if it works or not.
If you have a mechanism that can be implemented into any design, then he could be just replicating that one part as such.
So I am still not clear. Do you have a working machine yourself?
I believe I know where this question is heading to. I already answered this question before but I will say again, my video is not as credible as a video which is made by someone who replicates it. Today it is common that a video can be faked. I am going a step ahead just to make sure that no one will be able to deny it afterwards. Please know that I know what I'm doing and there are reasons for me to do what I am doing. btw June 1st is close. You guys can do whatever you want when the day comes.
regards
I will say this, The wheel is actually balanced. The magic happens only when you started it. This may be puzzling and strangely it must be the reason why one fails to see it.
regards
I did not ask if you had a video of a machine or pictures of a machine.
It is very simple question. Do you have a machine that has been built on your principles working and that just keeps working with no external input?
I can wait till the 1st of June that is not a problem and your choice and freewill to release the info when you want.
if you are a honest man and tell me you have built a machine and it is working.
If you do not have a working machine then this is just another idea like all the rest.
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 22, 2014, 02:36:19 PM
I did not ask if you had a video of a machine or pictures of a machine.
It is very simple question. Do you have a machine that has been built on your principles working and that just keeps working with no external input?
I can wait till the 1st of June that is not a problem and your choice and freewill to release the info when you want.
if you are a honest man and tell me you have built a machine and it is working.
If you do not have a working machine then this is just another idea like all the rest.
Cheers
Sean.
Maybe you dont like reading but this will be the second time that I will be answering this. the answer is yes.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 22, 2014, 02:38:10 PM
Maybe you dont like reading but this will be the second time that I will be answering this. the answer is yes.
regards
Ok now you made my paranoia become high, and it is a mistake for me to answer this question. I prefer not to answer it.
regards
Okay good :)
Will pop back in 9 days time.
And yep I do not like reading 35 pages of stuff, but now you say you have a working machine that turns by itself non stop with no input power, then I will go back and read all the pages.
I have not replicated for a few years now, but if your claim looks feasible when you publish it, then I may have a go.
Cheers
Sean.
gurangax
I'm whole heart with you. You don't need to answer questions, don't let paranoia to fight you.
I'm just curious if the wheel is balanced before mass is throw in air or at the moment when the mass is in air. Feel free not to answer if you don't like to...
Do not worry, others also have done this in the past, like Mylow and claim that MIB come knocking on the door etc etc.
Then they disappear, but usually turn up later saying that they did not get a knock at the door and they did not have a working machine.
But they were just out for attention and having a bit of fun with people. Not nice I know, but you get people like that in life.
This is why people are weary of such claims like yours of having a working machine. If the MIB scenario exists then surely you are better off getting your design out public quicker, rather then later. If your design is public then too late for MIB (if they exist) to knock on your door. No point them wasting their time.
Quote from: gurangax on May 22, 2014, 02:39:34 PM
Ok now you made my paranoia become high, and it is a mistake for me to answer this question. I prefer not to answer it.
regards
@gurangax
You just said "...The wheel is actually balanced. The magic happens only when you started it..."
The wheel is actually balanced ... the magic happens when started ... ? I must not be interpreting what you are saying correctly. Are you saying the wheel is balanced at rest and only becomes unbalanced when it starts turning?
Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 22, 2014, 02:04:58 PM
Do you have a working machine there at the moment that you have built? , or is it just a idea you have and someone is building a machine using the principles that you have discovered?
When the bet was first made, Gurangax replied:
"Wager or not, I still will disclose it before your said time limit."
Seemed pretty certain back then. Now he has also recently replied that it may be sooner.
So why hasn't it been or isn't going to be sooner. It makes no logical sense.
I am going to be the richest and most famous person in the world and errrrrr, Sept 15th seems like a good date to pluck out of the air (bizarre).
The fame gained from being the principal participant in this thread will be miniscule by comparison.
I cannot realistically think of a single reason why June 1 has to be a hard and fast date.
Except maybe........................................
From following this thread from the beginning, I believe Alan (AB Hammer) is the replicator (the clues are there if you look for them - PMs, a suggested joint unveil, Aan's impressive building skills, mutual interest in the subject).
Gurangax states that the replicator is using his own design.
It seems he believes that Alan has the best chance of anyone on this site of producing a working design.
(for what it's worth, I also feel that AB has the best skills / understanding of anyone here in this subject, and yet after many years, he is not quite there.....Yet)
Waiting till June 1 gives Gurangax the best opportunity to be presented with a working design without having to share what he has produced.
If the replicator fails to produce on time, then it is the other persons fault for not stepping up to the plate. Or their design was wrong / misunderstood. And best of all, in order to avoid embarrassing the replicator, he/she won't of course be named.
And it will certainly buy more time for someone like Vortex to hand him (as requested) a diagram of a working model on a plate.
It is actually quite genius really if you ask me.
It would never be more then HOPE, I don't see how such mechanical device would help any common man. It simply have a bad cost to power factor. For any serious power it would need massive wheel I suppose, multiply by the cost of metal used, wearing of parts and so on...I wish I could be wrong....yet, of course as always there will be some usage for it especially in places when noise do not disturb others, to pump water for example...
If something can run by itself with no external input and does not come to a stand still then whether the machine is powerful enough to create any useful power is not the issue.
The fact that it has defied the laws of physics as we are taught them will be enough to make greater minds explore outside the box and also to stop them telling the rest of the world that people that think out of the box are a bunch of mad hatters !
So IMO getting a self runner is not always about getting Free Energy. It is more about shifting peoples minds to other possibilities.
P.S on page 28 and still non the wiser, but did say I would read whole thread !
Well apart from one angle
If the lever falls away faster than the weight placed upon it and you could introduce another lever before the weight catches up with the first lever and so the process carries on.
But then we get into the weight/mass and dropping feathers and weights blah blah blah !! Oh and introducing a vacuum. Lets not go there please !
Quote from: forest on May 22, 2014, 03:58:34 PM
It would never be more then HOPE, I don't see how such mechanical device would help any common man. It simply have a bad cost to power factor. For any serious power it would need massive wheel I suppose, multiply by the cost of metal used, wearing of parts and so on...I wish I could be wrong....yet, of course as always there will be some usage for it especially in places when noise do not disturb others, to pump water for example...
PIH123 said:
QuoteAnd it will certainly buy more time for someone like Vortex to hand him (as requested) a diagram of a working model on a plate.
It is actually quite genius really if you ask me.
I don't have a working model or even a paper model to deliver to anyone on a plate. I lack the necessary insight to crack this. I have only been following the clues offered by gurangax and have a few ideas that seem workable in theory, but doing the elementary math, statically it is balanced and comes out to a null. How it would behave if set in motion is to be determined with a physical model.
I have not spent any time to master a 3D modelling program so cannot predict the centrifugal force and how it might affect the mechanism or even if it needs to be considered.
gurangax is the master, I am an interested student.
(beginning of rant)
People should not be so negative, if they don't believe such a wheel is possible, they are reading the wrong thread. We already know what the standard physics books say. This is for people who don't want to close and seal the door on possibilities, however outrageous or contrary to the current view.
Some were laughed at for trying to get energy from rocks, until it was discovered some rocks contained Uranium. Gravity is still quite a predictable yet unkown force. The term "Gravitons" is just a label given by those that "try to hide what they don't know to begin with". (B. Dylan)
Terrence McKenna quote:" philosophers of natural science say
"just give us one free miracle" (the big bang, a limit test for credulity) "and we will roll from that point forward".
https://www.facebook.com/TheArchaicRevival/posts/612983772045248 (https://www.facebook.com/TheArchaicRevival/posts/612983772045248)
(end of rant)
Regards
Vortex1
Another one bites the dust...
Don't be so bloody naive, gurangax doesn't have a "self runner", that is pretty obvious from all of his previous posts, here or elsewhere.
Nevermind.
It's just Deja-vu, again, and again...
Ok, let's wait for the (lol, self imposed) 1.st of June. 2014?
How typical...
I can understand people like CLaNZeR (I first started lurking here a few years back, saw some of the replications he did, this guy is an incredible asset to this cause) and other regulars here being upset with gurangax that he has not just revealed his idea. But personally I love this! And if I were to come up with the answer to a mystery like this that has stumped the best minds for the last 300 years, I would be just as reluctant and hesitant. In fact, I don't know if I would announce it at all. I think if gurangax is sincere (and perhaps naively I believe he is), we must not antagonize him. Just think how lucky we are that he is willing to share this at all. What is so interesting is that, as PIH123 has just indicated, just the fact that gurangax has convinced lots of people that HE HAS DONE IT, is creating a wave of creativity (perhaps we should ride that wave). I have been trying and trying to come up with his answer before he announces it! I actually wouldn't mind if he delayed his day of announcement to give me more time, :) But I do understand the regulars here who have been at this for years and years and had their hopes raised before and then nothing happened.
Did you ever see the 1951 British movie "The Man in the White Suit". About this guy who invents this new type of fabric that never gets dirty and never wears out. And EVERYONE is out to neutralize him! I feel this somewhat applies to what gurangax has discovered. The oil people won't like it, the coal people won't like it. The natural gas people won't like it. The nuclear people won't like it (even the cold fusion people). The wind-power advocates won't like it. Even the solar power people won't like it. All the physicists and physics teachers and everyone else who worships establishment physical science won't like it (with a few exceptions of course). But what about all the people who have been searching for this type of thing for years and years and years. Will they even like it? I mean, to take away a goal like that?? All these people who were hoping it would be THEM who discovered this long sought-after holy grail of free energy. Wouldn't this revelation sort of cut these people off at their knees? So I don't envy being in gurangax's position for those reasons, and yet, I do want to find a solution, too.
Quote from: CLaNZeR on May 22, 2014, 04:15:05 PM
If something can run by itself with no external input and does not come to a stand still then whether the machine is powerful enough to create any useful power is not the issue.
The fact that it has defied the laws of physics as we are taught them will be enough to make greater minds explore outside the box and also to stop them telling the rest of the world that people that think out of the box are a bunch of mad hatters !
So IMO getting a self runner is not always about getting Free Energy. It is more about shifting peoples minds to other possibilities.
Agreed! Excellent post!
password is BB793C6896DA118104EBFB97B5DA373C.
regards
p.s I will be answering questions later
Putting it all together.
regards
Password for what exactly?
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 12:47:07 AM
password is BB793C6896DA118104EBFB97B5DA373C.
regards
p.s I will be answering questions later
Regarding your video. It shows a small weight dropping a large distance and a big weight rising a small distance. I can't seem to find the magic.
Quote from: PIH123 on May 22, 2014, 03:14:57 PM
When the bet was first made, Gurangax replied:
"Wager or not, I still will disclose it before your said time limit."
Seemed pretty certain back then. Now he has also recently replied that it may be sooner.
So why hasn't it been or isn't going to be sooner. It makes no logical sense.
I am going to be the richest and most famous person in the world and errrrrr, Sept 15th seems like a good date to pluck out of the air (bizarre).
The fame gained from being the principal participant in this thread will be miniscule by comparison.
I cannot realistically think of a single reason why June 1 has to be a hard and fast date.
Except maybe........................................
From following this thread from the beginning, I believe Alan (AB Hammer) is the replicator (the clues are there if you look for them - PMs, a suggested joint unveil, Aan's impressive building skills, mutual interest in the subject).
Gurangax states that the replicator is using his own design.
It seems he believes that Alan has the best chance of anyone on this site of producing a working design.
(for what it's worth, I also feel that AB has the best skills / understanding of anyone here in this subject, and yet after many years, he is not quite there.....Yet)
Waiting till June 1 gives Gurangax the best opportunity to be presented with a working design without having to share what he has produced.
If the replicator fails to produce on time, then it is the other persons fault for not stepping up to the plate. Or their design was wrong / misunderstood. And best of all, in order to avoid embarrassing the replicator, he/she won't of course be named.
And it will certainly buy more time for someone like Vortex to hand him (as requested) a diagram of a working model on a plate.
It is actually quite genius really if you ask me.
btw he is not AB. so you can stop your accusations.
regards
thank you gurangax ;) the magic happens when you throw away any mechanical joints (forcing balance) as I expected. I hope everybody see it now, especially those "skilled in art"
btw I think this is slighly wrong animation. If I'm correct there should be a very slight minimal time when lever is FREE FALLING in air without touching anything. It is not obvious here..
Of course I'm not expert here, please bear with me. It resemble to me the David and Goliath story. A small rock doing huge impact due to the proper timing of releasing mass from contrifugal force.
Please , please ...you must see this ! I'm only uneducated simple-minded person ! It's impossible you don't found it ealier
Quote from: forest on May 23, 2014, 02:51:55 AM
thank you gurangax ;) the magic happens when you throw away any mechanical joints (forcing balance) as I expected. I hope everybody see it now, especially those "skilled in art"
Now do you understand? :)
Quote from: broli on May 23, 2014, 02:20:39 AM
Password for what exactly?
Regarding your video. It shows a small weight dropping a large distance and a big weight rising a small distance. I can't seem to find the magic.
you need to find the file which needs the password
regards
The excess energy is so obvious. Anyone who doesnt see it obviously doesnt know real physics.
regards
Quote from: broli on May 23, 2014, 02:20:39 AM
Password for what exactly?
Regarding your video. It shows a small weight dropping a large distance and a big weight rising a small distance. I can't seem to find the magic.
Again, I can only trust my intuition, but if you can please take that inside lever (with small and large balls) outside the device (theoretically of course) . The compute all forces as it would be stationary on ground lever. Then take into account "apparent" weight rise due to potential gravity energy converted into kinetic one which adds force to the larger ball.Recompute the lever action (force on the smaller ball point). You need to know the distance the larger ball falls...
Quote from: forest on May 23, 2014, 02:51:55 AM
thank you gurangax ;) the magic happens when you throw away any mechanical joints (forcing balance) as I expected. I hope everybody see it now, especially those "skilled in art"
btw I think this is slighly wrong animation. If I'm correct there should be a very slight minimal time when lever is FREE FALLING in air without touching anything. It is not obvious here..
Of course I'm not expert here, please bear with me. It resemble to me the David and Goliath story. A small rock doing huge impact due to the proper timing of releasing mass from contrifugal force.
Please , please ...you must see this ! I'm only uneducated simple-minded person ! It's impossible you don't found it ealier
watch carefully
Quote from: forest on May 23, 2014, 02:51:55 AM
thank you gurangax ;) the magic happens when you throw away any mechanical joints (forcing balance) as I expected. I hope everybody see it now, especially those "skilled in art"
btw I think this is slighly wrong animation. If I'm correct there should be a very slight minimal time when lever is FREE FALLING in air without touching anything. It is not obvious here..
Of course I'm not expert here, please bear with me. It resemble to me the David and Goliath story. A small rock doing huge impact due to the proper timing of releasing mass from contrifugal force.
Please , please ...you must see this ! I'm only uneducated simple-minded person ! It's impossible you don't found it ealier
I mean did you open the rar file? or did you only watch the video
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 02:53:14 AM
Now do you understand? :)
I think so. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I had other concept but not easy to implement, more according to the video link you posted with a ball alone flying in air and hitting the kind of elastic lever of two parts , but the obvious problem is the way to catch the ball and attach again to the lever system. I'm really not much experienced in mechanical devices and really not that much interested in building anything complicated :-\
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 03:09:41 AM
I mean did you open the rar file? or did you only watch the video
regards
:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ looking for it.... but what program I need to open the inside of it ?
Quote from: forest on May 23, 2014, 03:11:26 AM
I think so. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I had other concept but not easy to implement, more according to the video link you posted with a ball alone flying in air and hitting the kind of elastic lever of two parts , but the obvious problem is the way to catch the ball and attach again to the lever system. I'm really not much experienced in mechanical devices and really not that much interested in building anything complicated :-\
a falling ball does gain energy. but im afraid most of the energy will be released and wasted as impact/impulse. the simple design i made will rotate right or left depending on the first action you put to it. when the wheel is not moving it is actually balanced, the work is only done after the lever falls due to heavier top side.
regards
I'm afraid I cannot open design file. However I'm curious how it can be stopped once run and how you make it rotate in one direction every time. I assume that by stopping forcefully every levers got the balance position when the larger mass in at the bottom ?
Is this the same way Bessler used the principle ? Then I can't imagine how he started the wheel except maybe if he had a "window" in his wheel to rise the lever up ?
Thank you Gurangax :)
Looking very promising indeed.
(wish you added the Ikea parts with ;)
Now I need to find the best free programm to open the wm2d file.
Regards, Bert
Quote from: forest on May 23, 2014, 03:28:43 AM
I'm afraid I cannot open design file. However I'm curious how it can be stopped once run and how you make it rotate in one direction every time. I assume that by stopping forcefully every levers got the balance position when the larger mass in at the bottom ?
Is this the same way Bessler used the principle ? Then I can't imagine how he started the wheel except maybe if he had a "window" in his wheel to rise the lever up ?
if you combine the excess weight principle with his MTs you will have a unidirectional wheel.
regards
Quote from: forest on May 23, 2014, 03:28:43 AM
I'm afraid I cannot open design file. However I'm curious how it can be stopped once run and how you make it rotate in one direction every time. I assume that by stopping forcefully every levers got the balance position when the larger mass in at the bottom ?
Is this the same way Bessler used the principle ? Then I can't imagine how he started the wheel except maybe if he had a "window" in his wheel to rise the lever up ?
It is known that to fix the wheel Bessler will have to slide lets say a rod and poke it through a tiny hole. He is actually mending it by rising the lever up. Please read more about Bessler's action with the wheel. The earlier wheels was tied down so it wont move.
Quote from: bbem on May 23, 2014, 03:34:19 AM
Thank you Gurangax :)
Looking very promising indeed.
(wish you added the Ikea parts with ;)
Now I need to find the best free programm to open the wm2d file.
Regards, Bert
I think there is free trial version of working model
regards
Thank you!
I have created a quick artistic impression based on what I have learned today.
There is indeed something to be done to stop the lever at a certain position.
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 03:03:45 AM
The excess energy is so obvious. Anyone who doesnt see it obviously doesnt know real physics.
regards
ROFL!
The excess energy is obvious? In your simulation?
lol...
The rest of the world is just not smart enough, eh? So, we're - simply - just not seeing it? Yeah,sure.
Congratulations, you just rediscovered a leverage principle. Now, mate it with the dynamics of a turning wheel. While you do that, think about what really means "closing the loop".
That is - CLOSING THE LOOP, again...
In the mean time, you can get off of your "divine pedestal", You've already build yourself an enormous superiority complex, and that's certainly not healthy!
If you don't know what I'm talking about, check out "Archer Quinn's thread" (from a few years ago, on this site).
A very typical case (out of many hundreds ..) of a self-deluded revolutionary inventor, who didn't managed to do his "homework"...
"Archurians vs. Newtonians"... lol
No offence meant. Peace!
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 03:41:13 AM
I think there is free trial version of working model
regards
Too bad there is NO WORKING MODEL of your claims, free or otherwise!
And June 1 is getting closer every day. Just one week left!
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2014, 05:31:52 AM
Too bad there is NO WORKING MODEL of your claims, free or otherwise!
And June 1 is getting closer every day. Just one week left!
But he said he has.
Anyways, I hope gurangax will create a new topic when disclosing his full work, as bits of important information are spread all around in these 40 pages, making it hard to follow.
here is another look of energy excess being harnessed.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 06:19:51 AM
here is another look of energy excess being harnessed.
regards
this is a gravity effect principle I called the dynamic lever principle.
regards
Quote from: Tomasz on May 23, 2014, 05:19:25 AM
Thank you!
I have created a quick artistic impression based on what I have learned today.
There is indeed something to be done to stop the lever at a certain position.
that is some art, you are really good with this.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 02:53:14 AM
Now do you understand? :)
Now I understand ;)
Simple yet brilliant - just as it should be looking - if a working model works of course ;)
Yet, I also see one "flaw" in the design. In it's current state it won't be able to constantly accelerate. It will always accelerate only to the point where inertia won't allow the weight mounted at the leverage to fall. And if so, the wheel's rotation will become very unlinear. But probably that's why Bessler needed the pendulums - to stabilize the wheel's rotation.
Quote from: Leibniz on May 23, 2014, 05:21:59 AM
ROFL!
The excess energy is obvious? In your simulation?
lol...
The rest of the world is just not smart enough, eh? So, we're - simply - just not seeing it? Yeah,sure.
Congratulations, you just rediscovered a leverage principle. Now, mate it with the dynamics of a turning wheel. While you do that, think about what really means "closing the loop".
That is - CLOSING THE LOOP, again...
In the mean time, you can get off of your "divine pedestal", You've already build yourself an enormous superiority complex, and that's certainly not healthy!
If you don't know what I'm talking about, check out "Archer Quinn's thread" (from a few years ago, on this site).
A very typical case (out of many hundreds ..) of a self-deluded revolutionary inventor, who didn't managed to do his "homework"...
"Archurians vs. Newtonians"... lol
No offence meant. Peace!
You're blind or something ?
Quote from: Airstriker on May 23, 2014, 06:35:20 AM
Now I understand ;)
Simple yet brilliant - just as it should be looking - if a working model works of course ;)
Yet, I also see one "flaw" in the design. In it's current state it won't be able to constantly accelerate. It will always accelerate only to the point where inertia won't allow the weight mounted at the leverage to fall. And if so, the wheel's rotation will become very unlinear. But probably that's why Bessler needed the pendulums - to stabilize the wheel's rotation.
remember this is only a 1 crossbar wheel. you know what it can do with more.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 06:43:34 AM
remember this is only a 1 crossbar wheel. you know what it can do with more.
regards
I suppose it would only add additional power and make the rotation more stable. Inertia would still be a limitation as fas as angular velocity goes.
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 03:03:45 AM
The excess energy is so obvious. Anyone who doesnt see it obviously doesnt know real physics.
regards
So I guess that 'real' physics concepts such as the principles of conservation of energy and momentum mean nothing to you?
Stop spouting such obvious crap and learn some basic physics.
There is no chance at all that this mechanism can give rise to working Bessler wheel, or in fact any mechanism that runs without requiring an external energy source.
@gurangax could you post a video file taken of that wm2d file that was in the first rar file protected by password ? Getting this evaluation copy of wm2d is not that easy, and the demo version doesn't allow files loading. Thanks in advance.
Quote from: Airstriker on May 23, 2014, 06:54:04 AM
I suppose it would only add additional power and make the rotation more stable. Inertia would still be a limitation as fas as angular velocity goes.
the speed will depend on how long the lever is. the longer it is the slower the wheel will be, just like the pendulum. a shorter lever will cause it to turn faster. for more power the lever will be longer. in other words you can back engineer of what I just said with collections of bessler wheel and compare the speed to its thickness and you will come to conclusion that it is the same mechanism used.
regards
Quote from: Airstriker on May 23, 2014, 07:17:59 AM
@gurangax could you post a video file taken of that wm2d file that was in the first rar file protected by password ? Getting this evaluation copy of wm2d is not that easy, and the demo version doesn't allow files loading. Thanks in advance.
sure
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 07:20:34 AM
the speed will depend on how long the lever is. the longer it is the slower the wheel will be, just like the pendulum. a shorter lever will cause it to turn faster. for more power the lever will be longer. in other words you can back engineer of what I just said with collections of bessler wheel and compare the speed to its thickness and you will come to conclusion that it is the same mechanism used.
regards
So you don't have a working prototype to show us right? You have just an idea?
Quote from: pulp on May 23, 2014, 07:24:49 AM
So you don't have a working prototype to show us right? You have just an idea?
No, it's worse than that. Not only does he not have a working prototype, he doesn't have any idea either.
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 07:20:34 AM
the speed will depend on how long the lever is. the longer it is the slower the wheel will be, just like the pendulum. a shorter lever will cause it to turn faster. for more power the lever will be longer.
So you have discovered that the one thing that has been hidden all these years.
The mysterious source of energy that has eluded literally billions of people.
The Aether, the life energy, the fifth element .........................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It is............................ Wait for it ................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A thomas's english muffin.
(or whatever else you had for breakfast, that was used by your muscles to raise that thing
one time, that errrrrr, what do we call it.
OK, I have scanned back through the thread, and the Master has chosen to call it a "LEVER"
– remember that word, it will find it's way into the modern lexicon very soon.
Let's say it a bunch of times so we can commit it to memory.
I am glad it wasn't AB Hammer who discovered this. He would be embarrased.
Dear Gurangax
Thank you for everything you have released, it is appreciated.
I applied for an evaluation program for the wm2d. Don't know when that will come. In the meantime have we seen everything in that excess weight wm2d file or are there other screenshots, perhaps of your completed wheel ?
I am trying to envision how a variation of this mechanism could be best placed inside the wheel.
This is different than what I was working on, but maybe the principle you show could be added to it.
Are pairs of this mechanism coupled with a crossbar, such that the plurality of mechanisms exist at the periphery of the wheel and the lift force is transmitted by the crossbar to the mechanism at 180 degrees from the opposite? Then adding the proper amount of "play" to the linkage would allow free fall.
Since you say the weight operates in the Z axis, that doesn't leave much room in the thickness of the wheel for a swinging weight.
If some degree of free fall of the weight is required, it would seem a wheel could be made without a swinging weight, just have it drop a short distance to the levers, but this would be very noisy in a wooden wheel. The swinging weight does add acceleration.
Kind Regards, Vortex1
Quote from: Vortex1 on May 23, 2014, 08:56:49 AM
Dear Gurangax
Thank you for everything you have released, it is appreciated.
I applied for an evaluation program for the wm2d. Don't know when that will come. In the meantime have we seen everything in that excess weight wm2d file or are there other screenshots, perhaps of your completed wheel ?
I am trying to envision how a variation of this mechanism could be best placed inside the wheel.
This is different than what I was working on, but maybe the principle you show could be added to it.
Are pairs of this mechanism coupled with a crossbar, such that the plurality of mechanisms exist at the periphery of the wheel and the lift force is transmitted by the crossbar to the mechanism at 180 degrees from the opposite?
Since you say the mechanism operates in the Z axis, that doesn't leave much room in the thickness of the wheel for a swinging weight.
Kind Regards, Vortex1
http://www.overunity.com/14565/the-bessler-wheel-mystery-solved/msg403676/#msg403676
the video I showed is a working configuration in the y-z plane. and this is just for 1 crossbar. what I wanted to show is what drives the wheel. it is just a 2 stage leverage system driven by gravity, the energy harnessing occured during the non contactness (Bessler principle of connectedness) between lever and the crossbar. the excess energy is what lifted the heavy crossbar and changed the cg of the whole wheel higher than the center of the wheel axis. This turns the wheel 180 degrees and the cycle repeats.
once you understand this principle, you can design many others including a small version of the 2 stage lever near the periphery of the wheel and drive lets say MT9 for example.
regards
I added some GPE measurement boxes to the four major moving elements in the WM2D sim.
The 1kg weight looses 60.174J.
The 1kg bar looses 22.405J.
The 3kg crossbar gained 36.413J.
The 4kg weight gained 27.310J.
More Energy is lost than gained. I believe this shows that the Center of Gravity of the entire system dropped.
Quote from: mondrasek on May 23, 2014, 09:15:35 AM
I added some GPE measurement boxes to the four major moving elements in the WM2D sim.
The 1kg weight looses 60.174J.
The 1kg bar looses 22.405J.
The 3kg crossbar gained 36.413J.
The 4kg weight gained 27.310J.
More Energy is lost than gained. I believe this shows that the Center of Gravity of the entire system dropped.
can you send the file. The sim was not drawn to scale it was to show how it will work. I have posted some other videos showing falling levers and weights which indeed gained energy during the fall.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 09:19:18 AM
can you send the file. The sim was not drawn to scale it was to show how it will work. I have posted some other videos showing falling levers and weights which indeed gained energy during the fall.
regards
Sure. I did not label the GPE measurements clearly. They are placed close to the elements they represent. They are also not "zeroed" beyond ~.005J.
Quote from: mondrasek on May 23, 2014, 09:25:00 AM
Sure. I did not label the GPE measurements clearly. They are placed close to the elements they represent. They are also not "zeroed" beyond ~.005J.
That was just to show how well the principle is. try changing the crossbar mass to 2kg.
regards
p.s. you might need to add aditional crossbar extension so the lever doesn't move out of place
Bessler said:
"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds, four quarters high."
Depending upon the interpretation, "if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots" either "four pounds four quarters high" or "each pound one quarter high".
I'm not discrediting your findings but your principle does not match Bessler's own description of the principle. Your fall distance appears to be over 7 times the raised height. You may have found "a" solution but it does not sound like you found Bessler's solution.
p.s. You were correct, our solutions are not the same. Luckily my discovery is safe for the moment.
Quote from: zoelra on May 23, 2014, 10:42:09 AM
Bessler said:
"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds, four quarters high."
Depending upon the interpretation, "if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots" either "four pounds four quarters high" or "each pound one quarter high".
I'm not discrediting your findings but your principle does not match Bessler's own description of the principle. You may have found "a" solution but it does not sound like you found Bessler's solution.
well I did read about this and I find it to be strange phenomenon if it were true. It clearly violates conservation of energy. I think the translation must be investigated again. I have no problem linking Bessler to the mechanism I found because everything fits eye witness accounts or Bessler's words. It could be that he found other mechanism as well which were able to do what he was saying. If this was the case then it must be a truely powerful wheel.
regards
Quote from: zoelra on May 23, 2014, 10:42:09 AM
Bessler said:
"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds, four quarters high."
zoelra,
is your finding fit with those words?
gurangax,
can you reduce the resolution of all your vid less than 1024*xxxx pixels and re post here ? i see black screen.
Quote from: Marsing on May 23, 2014, 11:28:39 AM
zoelra,
is your finding fit with those words?
gurangax,
can you reduce the resolution of all your vid less than 1024*xxxx pixels and re post here ? i see black screen.
I think you are missing some video codecs. try installing video codecs first maybe here http://www.codecguide.com/download_kl.htm
regards
Yes, i use K-Lite Codec Pack to open your file, there is no problem when opening other vid, so i guess the problem is resolution.
No working prototype to show? As stated earlier I and perhaps many others see no magic in this idea.
Quote from: Marsing on May 23, 2014, 11:47:21 AM
Yes, i use K-Lite Codec Pack to open your file, there is no problem when opening other vid, so i guess the problem is resolution.
Ok I'll try youtube instead.
regards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddg0kUSJMk0&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKuBjNpXX8g&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn5lJZNFuG4&feature=youtu.be
edit- Youtube is Ok, thanks
Quote from: Marsing on May 23, 2014, 11:57:02 AM
hi.. i think there is option in your program to save in different resolution, and it will be easier.
thank.
Im sorry I dont think there is, but I already uploaded it to youtube.
regards
Quote from: zoelra on May 23, 2014, 10:42:09 AM
Bessler said:
"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds, four quarters high."
Depending upon the interpretation, "if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots" either "four pounds four quarters high" or "each pound one quarter high".
I'm not discrediting your findings but your principle does not match Bessler's own description of the principle. Your fall distance appears to be over 7 times the raised height. You may have found "a" solution but it does not sound like you found Bessler's solution.
p.s. You were correct, our solutions are not the same. Luckily my discovery is safe for the moment.
I think I found the meaning of this. It is possible what he meant was, let say 1 pound weight falls down the lever with distance a quarter, this causes imbalance to the wheel so the weight now rotates with the wheel a distance of 4 quarters from bottom to top of wheel. this is logical and doesnt go against the laws.
regards
Marsing said:
"zoelra, is your finding fit with those words?"
Yes I can make that happen and it does not violate the conservation of energy law. It is made up of simple movements and leverage.
There is no way to know if the amount of weight and fall/lift distances Bessler mentions is what he actually used in his wheels, but a mechanism that is capable of producing that type of effect with the values he specified would have significance. To be clear, I'm not saying the mechanism I'm presenting is Bessler's solution, but it is a possible solution because it does match his comments.
I'm basing the information below on the ratio interpretation "if one pound falls one quarter, it shoots four pounds, four quarters high (each pound shooting one quarter high)". The other interpretation would just require a modification of the mechanism parameters.
Start with a lever (like the one shown in the picture below) with a one pound weight on the right side and a four pound weight on the left side. Both weights are equidistant from the pivot point. If you know how to make the one pound weight on the right side feel like 4 pounds, then due to the symmetry, any drop in that weight will result in an equal rise of the weight on the opposite side of the lever. So there you have it, "when one pound falls one X, it shoots four pounds, four X high" (each pound shooting one X high). X being the distance dropped which could be a quarter of an inch, a quarter of a foot, a quarter of the wheel height, a quarter of a turn, or any displacement as long as the design allows. Now all you have to do is figure out how to make that one pound weight feel like four pounds. That's where lateral thinking and ingenuity comes in.
[EDIT] Also note that the drawing I have included is a simple illustration to make the point and NOT the actual mechanism. I should also add that in this example, just over one pound on the left is required to reset the one pound weight on the right, the remaining weight would be the "applied load" on the mechanism. I see this mechanism as a prime mover, one of many, shifting weights to the overbalanced position, with those shifting weights being the "applied load". Each mechanism would be oriented in the z-axis. Remember in MT13, Bessler said the wheel would be good for running if someone was at the top of the wheel to lift the weights with lightning speed.
Quote from: broli on May 23, 2014, 02:20:39 AM
Regarding your video. It shows a small weight dropping a large distance and a big weight rising a small distance. I can't seem to find the magic.
Hi gurangax,
Thanks for posting the idea. It really seemed you have it with all the theater around but as others also pointed I would also not be so sure. The idea may produce sounds similar what witnesses heard but I think the wheel will not pass 9o'clock in production phase.
In your first video for example your crossbar is 6kg which is lifted say 1m , this makes 60J GPE.
Your weight on lever is 1.3kg not considering weight of lever itself. If we assume crossbar is being lifted 1m then longer lever arm is looking at picture about 3m. Then weight start at 12o'clock have 39J GPE.
You let it fall 3 m to the 3o'clock then during lifting the crossbar another 3m below the rotation point. This movement only costed 78J.
No I assume you want to use the crossbar builded leverage to get also the lever with weight back to 12o'clock.
No way... Sorry.
Marcel
Quote from: MT on May 23, 2014, 05:05:03 PM
Hi gurangax,
Thanks for posting the idea. It really seemed you have it with all the theater around but as others also pointed I would also not be so sure. The idea may produce sounds similar what witnesses heard but I think the wheel will not pass 9o'clock in production phase.
In your first video for example your crossbar is 6kg which is lifted say 1m , this makes 60J GPE.
Your weight on lever is 1.3kg not considering weight of lever itself. If we assume crossbar is being lifted 1m then longer lever arm is looking at picture about 3m. Then weight start at 12o'clock have 39J GPE.
You let it fall 3 m to the 3o'clock then during lifting the crossbar another 3m below the rotation point. This movement only costed 78J.
No I assume you want to use the crossbar builded leverage to get also the lever with weight back to 12o'clock.
No way... Sorry.
Marcel
That is true only for a balanced system, (lever in full contact all time, where energy gain is not happening), you should understand the weight excess phenomenon, it is something which is imposible to get with a conected lever to the crossbar. knowing this itself is very telling of the fact that the droping weight energies was translated into a force which become the source of power to turn the wheel. if not you tell me where the laws of conservation goes for the fall of weight.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 08:33:40 PM
That is true only for a balanced system, (lever in full contact all time, where energy gain is not happening), you should understand the weight excess phenomenon, it is something which is imposible to get with a conected lever to the crossbar. knowing this itself is very telling of the fact that the droping weight energies was translated into a force which become the source of power to turn the wheel. if not you tell me where the laws of conservation goes for the fall of weight.
regards
A lever in full contact with the crossbar all the time is balanced in what ever position of the lever. the diffrence is so obvious. you just need to do the experiment if you wanted answers.
regards
Not @ all the holy grail design.
Alot of Bobby Amasingham's devices are better than this and much smaller, and probably more powerful.
Especially the new ones with springs and eccentric weights.
I dont expect much of your design, you should pay attention to what others are doing instead of stupid texts.
Its very difficult to reach you and explain these simple facts.
This was posted on a small reclusive forum I go to.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51593515/bobby%20new.phz
Quote from: gurangax on May 23, 2014, 08:33:40 PM
That is true only for a balanced system, (lever in full contact all time, where energy gain is not happening), you should understand the weight excess phenomenon, it is something which is imposible to get with a conected lever to the crossbar. knowing this itself is very telling of the fact that the droping weight energies was translated into a force which become the source of power to turn the wheel. if not you tell me where the laws of conservation goes for the fall of weight.
Good morning,
I think I understand the excess weight as you describe it. A moving object appears heavier to impacted object. In the example it has actually a variable weight. Maximal at impact at 3o'clock, back to 1.3kg at 6oclock. For me this is a novel view on a moving object but not so sure it matters. One need to get object up to desired speed, it costs something. And this something should also be part of energy calculation of the cycle. Anyway I'll still give a thought, will see what else it offers. Thanks.
Marcel
If Bessler were alive today, and if he would make a high torque medium speed machine (he would be much further), then surely he would have an offset drive arrangement. With the motor acting as its own swinging pendulum, accelerator, and driver on a central sun gear or external track. Probably incredibly clever arrangement and superior to anything you could ever come up with.
With a lightweight frame and low amount of parts, and incredible OU ratio.
Not an wooden machine of the old days.
Just curious. How much say 1kg object going 10km/h "weights" upon impact of another object when it is forced to a full stop? How to calculate this?
Marcel
Would you like me to throw at you a spinning flywheel at 5000 rpm or a non rotating flywheel ?
Wich one could you catch without bodily harm ?
Simple lego model of excess weight principle:
http://youtu.be/G85tl-e9VFM
That is not in the spirit of gravity device principles and very bad practice to cantilever like this, bearings should only receive radial forces.
You are basicly providing sideway traction on a cantilever to a bearing ? Are you insane ?
Even well engineered this is crap as a free energy device, where is the kinetic energy of that weight and conservation of momentum?
You are slowing down your rotating weight as it is about to fall, loading it
I dont see any relation with the motion of planets , galaxies and universe. Uninspired.
guys do not forget that I have shown not even half of the energy gained on the falling lever.
regards
Quote from: gurangax on May 24, 2014, 06:14:35 AM
guys do not forget that I have shown not even half of the energy gained on the falling lever.
regards
a maximum energy gain can throw a 4 times weight heavier into air literaly speaking
Quote from: gurangax on May 24, 2014, 06:14:35 AM
guys do not forget that I have shown not even half of the energy gained on the falling lever.
regards
You must be dumb, loading your rotating weight as its about to fall with a shitty ass lever arm cantilevered on a bearing.
Thats basicly the opposite of what you should be doing. At that point you extend the lever and push it tangantially.. And you try to respect bearings if you can.
I almost wondered if we stopped thinking 2D and started thinking more 3D if we couldn't achieve OU with a sphere instead of a wheel I have never gave it much thought per say as to what other things would be possible with a sphere but I assume this would open us up to a few more possible things than grappling with a wheel not that a wheel overbalanced is not possible it may very well be but it is a simple question but somewhat complex for one to picture all of the possibilities alone. The other thing I wonder is scale we all know from the quantum world that scale does indeed have an effect on possibility so who knows we may need a thousand super small wheels to generate the effect and provide over unity power as well go big or go home may not apply.
Quote from: infringer on May 25, 2014, 01:05:27 AM
I almost wondered if we stopped thinking 2D and started thinking more 3D if we couldn't achieve OU with a sphere instead of a wheel I have never gave it much thought per say as to what other things would be possible with a sphere but I assume this would open us up to a few more possible things than grappling with a wheel not that a wheel overbalanced is not possible it may very well be but it is a simple question but somewhat complex for one to picture all of the possibilities alone. The other thing I wonder is scale we all know from the quantum world that scale does indeed have an effect on possibility so who knows we may need a thousand super small wheels to generate the effect and provide over unity power as well go big or go home may not apply.
Vector calculus is the tool that you need to evaluate your 3D versus 2D question. Before you go to all of the effort, you might try to get an intuitive sense by pondering what forces are going to act along the added axis and how they will affect the movement and ultimate energy in and out.
2d vs 3d question;
I think the Grurangax should consider gaining access to a student version
of a professional package of a 3d drawing and 3d mechanical simulation
computer software. He may have to become a "virtual" student to do it and to get
access to a low cost student version of the software. This is especially true
if he has end-to-end confidence in his design. Hopefully this software would
come with an "evolutionary" design simulator that would allow computer
driven experimental parameter adjustment of subsystems. This type of method
would save time, especially in the worst case should his methods fail to converge
to a solution.
I would encourage him to do this if he feels he has a golden thread of a method
that will work, before he lets naysayers change his focus to methods he has not
tried. He has apparently done much experimental evaluation of his methods
already. But there are indications that he is going to need to rely on 3d gyroscopic
forces to get adequate energy to make this system go. This will feed small
forces back and forth across 3d axis frame boundaries. Getting adequate
stiffness across a 3d to 2d simulation converter, while possible, does not
seem like it promises a good time. Once he has a three dimensional solution
he may be able to cause it to be back-fit to a 2d solution with margins, for
demonstration display purposes.
He should also be sensitive whether all the mechanical methods he is using
such as cable drag? and fully free component trajectories are simulated
accurately.
This method also holds promise if he is finds he is having probabilistic failures
in a real experimental device.
Accurate Statistics like Grurangax's: " The Wheel is overbalanced 95% of the time
during rotation", or broil's "energy at center of gravity of subcomponents" can help
add to the conviction that this can work.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Why would he have to simulate it using software if he already has a working wheel as he has claimed? He claims it works so, no simulation needed. Of course, I still have my doubts about this.
Bill
Yeah I just contacted my reseller now for a student version of dynamics for my spaceclaim
I will crush the figures of gurangax the retarded.
My design is a mirror mirrored hehe, balanced and strong
Quote from: mscoffman on May 25, 2014, 03:28:38 PM
2d vs 3d question;
I think the Grurangax should consider gaining access to a student version
of a professional package of a 3d drawing and 3d mechanical simulation
computer software. He may have to become a "virtual" student to do it and to get
access to a low cost student version of the software. This is especially true
if he has end-to-end confidence in his design. Hopefully this software would
come with an "evolutionary" design simulator that would allow computer
driven experimental parameter adjustment of subsystems. This type of method
would save time, especially in the worst case should his methods fail to converge
to a solution...
There is absolutely no point in simulating this (or any similar mechanism) using engineering software and expecting to find an over-unity or self running result.
All such simulations have conservation of energy and momentum built in to equations of motion. If they show an over unity result then this is simply an artefact of the method of calculation and is incorrect.
In case you hadn't realised these principles ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDE any device from being a self runner. It simply does not matter what geometry you come up with.
What would be the point of modelling a device such as this when you already know the result will show that it does not work?
Quote from: LibreEnergia on May 25, 2014, 07:16:48 PM
There is absolutely no point in simulating this (or any similar mechanism) using engineering software and expecting to find an over-unity or self running result.
What would be the point of modelling a device such as this when you already know the result will show that it does not work?
Except for one thing. Gurangax has already created several perpetual motion machines in wm2d, which seems to contradict your point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zplmhei761s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPkZhh3LVPo
I think this guy has discovered a very interesting principle here. I
would like to see a real live running wheel taking advantage of it, though.
Quote from: phaedrus on May 25, 2014, 07:56:32 PM
Except for one thing. Gurangax has already created several perpetual motion machines in wm2d, which seems to contradict your point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zplmhei761s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPkZhh3LVPo
...
Your obviously failed to note my point that:
"If they show an over unity result then this is simply an artefact of the method of calculation and is incorrect."
Many simulations use numerical methods to approximate solutions to systems of partial differential equations.
Depending on the problem at hand these equations can become unstable depending on the starting conditions and may not always converge smoothly on a solution.
In this situation the numerical approximation to a system that would be conservative if it could be solved implicitly may give a non conservative result when solved numerically.
Most simulation software seeks to minimise such behaviour. However, depending on the accuracy and computation intensity desired the design of the simulation algorithm may allow some degree of 'non physical' results.
LibreEnergia, stop your ignorant blabbering, you know nothing of such software.
These arrangements do create more power in the simulations and that does translate into reality, I have proof.
You dont know how to cheat gravity, you are not initiated like me and Gurangax.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 26, 2014, 12:20:24 AM
LibreEnergia, stop your ignorant blabbering, you know nothing of such software.
These arrangements do create more power in the simulations and that does translate into reality, I have proof.
You dont know how to cheat gravity, you are not initiated like me and Gurangax.
Software is only going to tell you a combination of the assumptions built into its programming and what you tell it. LibreEnergy is absolutely correct about a lot of software, including virtually any that utilizes finite element methods. If the mesh is not fine enough, or does not extend far enough then the model is an inadequate approximation of reality. Typical modeling software solves large numerical matrices. The finite resolution of numbers sets a limit as the the ratio of the largest and smallest numbers that the program can add or subtract. You can test for the limits by creating entities that have disparate dimensions and adding them together. For instance in Excel, you can add 1E-X to 1 for progressively larger values of X and see where the value degenerates to 1.0 no matter how many digits you display past the decimal point.
If you manage a simulation that indicates something extraordinary, then the next step is to test the validity of the result. That can be done several ways. One way is with a physical experiment. Another is by applying a set of relevant knowns to the software and seeing if it predicts the known results or not. The other thing that you should be very careful about: Power is not energy. There are many ways to multiply power. There are no known ways to multiply energy. If you have discovered one, that would be a first.
Would be more interesting if the simulation files were shared as well. And as pointed out earlier, Gurangax over hyped the fact that he had a RUNNING machine, nothing of that sort has been shown/proven/replicated.
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 26, 2014, 12:20:24 AM
LibreEnergia, stop your ignorant blabbering, you know nothing of such software.
These arrangements do create more power in the simulations and that does translate into reality, I have proof.
You dont know how to cheat gravity, you are not initiated like me and Gurangax.
It would appear that your ignorance knows no bounds.
As it happens I studied mechanical engineering at a reputable university for 4 years. During that time were shown how to derive mathematics that are at the heart of modern simulation software from first principles, and built numerical solver algorithms that were then tested for validity against physical models.
Since then I have been a software engineer for 25 years. I feel I am more than qualified to make pronouncements on how simulation software is developed including any limitations it may have.
As to your ability to 'cheat gravity', such pronouncements put you firmly in the category of other known fraudsters on here such as Wayne Travis.
Unfortunately the world doesnt run by that specific program of yours, otherwise there would be no OU aaa but there is.
Ok so the unaltered program show over power, what are you debating exactly ?
I am done arguing with with uniniated, goodbye OU.com
Gurangax, frikkin panzi, cant wait till we compare our specs!
Quote from: ARMCORTEX on May 26, 2014, 06:30:01 AM
Unfortunately the world doesnt run by that specific program of yours, otherwise there would be no OU aaa but there is.
Ok so the unaltered program show over power, what are you debating exactly ?
It is obvious from that statement that you don't know the difference between power and energy. Like most on here this lack of understanding gives rise to false claims of OU with monotonous regularity.
" I have overunity! "
Great, congratulations! Please prove it, by providing credible data from a _real object_ that supports your claim.
" No. Not yet. I am waiting for (insert some future date/event) here. But I have overunity! Because volts. Leverage. Negative resistance. Scalar gravity."
OK... that sounds a little strange, here's why, so you really should prove it.
" No. You are stupid if you can't understand my overunity. Split positive, convert gravity, leverage, you idiot."
Er.... (lists qualifications and more reasons why it can't work as described)....
" Your qualifications and experience are irrelevant because I HAVE OVERUNITY. Bessler. Bedini. TESLA, ffs. "
Well..... prove it then, by providing a demonstration of your actual apparatus.
" NO. You people are all too stupid and I don't have to prove anything to stupid people. I don't need to show you no stinking badges. Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish."
How many times have we heard some variation on this theme?
8)
And, more often than not, Sterling backs their claims...at least for a while until it is obvious to all that the device does not work at all.
Bill
Quote from: phaedrus on May 25, 2014, 07:56:32 PM
Except for one thing. Gurangax has already created several perpetual motion machines in wm2d, which seems to contradict your point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zplmhei761s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPkZhh3LVPo
I think this guy has discovered a very interesting principle here. I would like to see a real live running wheel taking advantage of it, though.
These two links are good examples. In reality this lever would be evolving as
the main wheel rotated into/out-of the plane of screen. Also it very difficult
to visualize just how conservation of angular velocity is going to affect forces
as this weight moves towards and away form the axis of rotation. This is the
reason the designer at least needs to have a 3d simulation tool. Since we can't
all sit around a conference room table putting our physical hands on this thing.
It would be best if someone could copy out key data. To actually prove this, we
would all need to build this in our minds; one subsystem providing energy
and also using some of it. The only way I would be wrong is if this total
device is extremely simple. Also these subcomponents are not self sizing,
some one is going to have to adjust this into operation, much easier in the
simulation rather then actually building trials of it.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 26, 2014, 09:41:28 AM
" I have overunity! "
Great, congratulations! Please prove it, by providing credible data from a _real object_ that supports your claim.
" No. Not yet. I am waiting for (insert some future date/event) here. But I have overunity! Because volts. Leverage. Negative resistance. Scalar gravity."
OK... that sounds a little strange, here's why, so you really should prove it.
" No. You are stupid if you can't understand my overunity. Split positive, convert gravity, leverage, you idiot."
Er.... (lists qualifications and more reasons why it can't work as described)....
" Your qualifications and experience are irrelevant because I HAVE OVERUNITY. Bessler. Bedini. TESLA, ffs. "
Well..... prove it then, by providing a demonstration of your actual apparatus.
" NO. You people are all too stupid and I don't have to prove anything to stupid people. I don't need to show you no stinking badges. Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish."
How many times have we heard some variation on this theme?
8)
In a perfect OU world.What people seem to not understand is that any voltage reading to some random
waveform is only going to an estimate to a number. The very best measurements
are only going to be approximations in these situation. RMS is not something from
mathematics or electronics, it is from Statistics.
I want my approximation to be converting the desired waveform into DC by a high
speed bridge rectifier, filtering until the Voltage and Current signals have no AC
riding on them. Then feeding the signal into a modern ~95% efficient high voltage
DC to AC power inverter. Now I can measure near perfect wattage by DC voltages
and DC currents with a 1000:1 current shunt so I use my DVM the way it was
designed to be used and multiply the two numbers with a calculator. Plug in my
KillaWatt meter into a AC outlet producing absolutely pure sine waves. Show
that my wattage numbers nearly match one another. Letting the Inverter eat
up any Power Factor corrections by combining them into its efficiency numbers.
Then light N incandescent light bulbs with no high voltage fluorescents, completely
devoid of negative resistance stabilization effects as my DC to AC inverter is already
stable. Then plug in driver source so that it produces a nice stable self running
infinite loop.
Then be able ignore the negative vocalization of all OU critics as the day is very
nearby when we can simply cast our vote with best educated beliefs from our own
individual pocketbooks. Ah...Justice at last.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: mscoffman on May 26, 2014, 01:10:52 PM
Then be able ignore the negative vocalization of all OU critics as the day is very
nearby when we can simply cast our vote with best educated beliefs from our own
individual pocketbooks. Ah...Justice at last.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Well, thus far, the score is something like "OU Critics" 200, OU Producers 0. We shall see if that changes.
Bill
Quote from: mscoffman on May 26, 2014, 01:10:52 PM
In a perfect OU world.
What people seem to not understand is that any voltage reading to some random
waveform is only going to an estimate to a number. The very best measurements
are only going to be approximations in these situation. RMS is not something from
mathematics or electronics, it is from Statistics.
Mark: rms, root mean square is absolutely from both mathematics and electronics. Rms values are the result of integrating the square value of either voltage or current over an interval, taking the mean value of that square to find the average of the square over an interval, (usually a repetition interval) and then taking the square root of the result to compute the equivalent continuous voltage or current over the interval had the original voltage or current been measured across, or through a resistive load. Rms values are not derived from or related to probabilities. They are simply a translation from voltage or current waveforms over an interval. And BTW, statistics is a branch of mathematics.
Quote
I want my approximation to be converting the desired waveform into DC by a high
speed bridge rectifier, filtering until the Voltage and Current signals have no AC
riding on them.
It takes a circuit to convert an AC source into a DC source. The impedance characteristics of the source determine how efficiently a given conversion circuit can be. In some cases a simple rectifier and bulk capacitor is adequate. In other cases in order to realize high efficiency, the conversion circuit must present a reasonable facsimile of a constant impedance across the entire AC cycle. Power factor corrected power converters operate that way. Typical architectures utilize a voltage boost converter that pumps up an intermediate storage capacitor bank that then supplies a second power converter that supplies the load. The intermediate storage capacitor bank voltage will typically swing up to 30% under full load.
Quote
Then feeding the signal into a modern ~95% efficient high voltage
DC to AC power inverter. Now I can measure near perfect wattage by DC voltages
and DC currents with a 1000:1 current shunt so I use my DVM the way it was
designed to be used and multiply the two numbers with a calculator.
Except that the very nonlinear load of your rectifier and capacitor combination creates pulsating currents on the input that can both cause big efficiency problems and measurement issues.
Quote
Plug in my
KillaWatt meter into a AC outlet producing absolutely pure sine waves. Show
that my wattage numbers nearly match one another. Letting the Inverter eat
up any Power Factor corrections by combining them into its efficiency numbers.
Then light N incandescent light bulbs with no high voltage fluorescents, completely
devoid of negative resistance stabilization effects as my DC to AC inverter is already
stable. Then plug in driver source so that it produces a nice stable self running
infinite loop.
Then be able ignore the negative vocalization of all OU critics as the day is very
nearby when we can simply cast our vote with best educated beliefs from our own
individual pocketbooks. Ah...Justice at last.
:S:MarkSCoffman
I have an alternate solution for you: Feed your AC into a power factor corrected AC - DC supply. You may need to use a variac to trim out the impedance match. If your AC supply is near 50-60Hz this will work. Then feed the output of your PFC corrected AC - DC supply to a DC - AC inverter. Your over unity device will have to make up for the losses in each of the power converters. If your OU device outputs at least 25% more output than input, then you should be able to self-loop.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on May 26, 2014, 07:44:13 AM
Like most on here this lack of understanding gives rise to false claims of OU with monotonous regularity.
LE, while I agree with you on most everything you have said on this thread so far... And I greatly appreciate your input on the simulation software algorithm's ability to misrepresent real world physics when programed to represent "extreme circumstances," I request that you consider who you include when you say "Like most on here."
IMHO "most on here" do not even post. And they mostly "listen." And, again, IMHO, some, if not many of those listening, are very educated and intelligent.
M.
Thanks for the videos, it's good to see gurangax works with some tools. That makes it easier to visualize the principles even if the program is not correct.
If someone claims to have a machine that runs itself with power left over to run something else too... you don't really need an oscilloscope or a set of RMS measurements. All you really need is to see the machine running itself.
And if someone promises to show you such a machine by a certain date, and then fails to do so.... what may you conclude then? Do you need to refer to a statistics text or some RMS deviations from a norm? I don't think so.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 26, 2014, 04:19:04 PM
If someone claims to have a machine that runs itself with power left over to run something else too... you don't really need an oscilloscope or a set of RMS measurements. All you really need is to see the machine running itself.
And if someone promises to show you such a machine by a certain date, and then fails to do so.... what may you conclude then? Do you need to refer to a statistics text or some RMS deviations from a norm? I don't think so.
Oh come on - still 5 days left. Give the boy a chance!
Quote from: Airstriker on May 26, 2014, 04:33:47 PM
Oh come on - still 5 days left. Give the boy a chance!
Well, actually, he did say "on or before June 1st" so...the countdown continues...it could be any time now.
Bill
Quote from: MarkE on May 26, 2014, 02:26:17 PM
It takes a circuit to convert an AC source into a DC source. The impedance
characteristics of the source determine how efficiently a given conversion circuit can
be. In some cases a simple rectifier and bulk capacitor is adequate. In other cases in
order to realize high efficiency, the conversion circuit must present a reasonable
facsimile of a constant impedance across the entire AC cycle. Power factor corrected
power converters operate that way. Typical architectures utilize a voltage boost
converter that pumps up an intermediate storage capacitor bank that then supplies a
second power converter that supplies the load. The intermediate storage capacitor
bank voltage will typically swing up to 30% under full load.
Except that the very nonlinear load of your rectifier and capacitor combination creates
pulsating currents on the input that can both cause big efficiency problems and
measurement issues.
I have an alternate solution for you: Feed your AC into a power factor corrected AC -
DC supply. You may need to use a variac to trim out the impedance match. If your AC
supply is near 50-60Hz this will work. Then feed the output of your PFC corrected AC -
DC supply to a DC - AC inverter. Your over unity device will have to make up for the
losses in each of the power converters. If your OU device outputs at least 25% more
output than input, then you should be able to self-loop.
@Mark E.
Ok, Thank you for taking the time to explain this Mark E. Sometimes the input power
may be at 50-60Hz sometimes not. Of course if it works for the overunity test then
one would want it at maximum efficiency during actual power conversion. Ground
isolated DC is so great because you can put two equal units in parallel to double
the power input or put equivalent impedance supplies in series to boost voltage.
Even when the source AC comes from two non-synchronous sources.
Apologies...to Grurangax for off topic post.
I am happy that Grurangax has shown what he has shown. From past experiments of my own with moderate success but no runner but, IMO has some merit. It will be interesting to see what he has for his final approach. But I will wait and see. The device I was working on in this approach is still in tack. So if time allows I may play with it again.
Alan
No one has posted today :o ... it's.... it's.... the calm before the storm!
@gurangax,
Bessler's first wheel was about 4 inches thick and it turned at approximately 60RPM.
Thickness aside, I don't think either of our wheel ideas (my pendulum drop or your weight/lever drop) will be able to keep up with a wheel turning at 60RPM (one revolution per second). To maintain power, I need the drop to occur within a 20 degree window at the top of the wheel (say -10 degrees to +10 degrees) and I need about a second for the motion to complete. A 20 degree span is .05556 of the 360 degree wheel, and this equates to .05556 of a second for the drop to occur, for a wheel turning at one revolution per second. There is no way a pendulum or weight on a lever could ever drop in this short period of time. :'(
What are your thoughts on this?
Gurangax is probably too busy to answer. After all, a big day is coming up fast.
Just to review, here are some relevant statements made in the thread. The number is the post number. All statements are gurangax's unedited words, except as noted.
Quote
4. I can assure you that a 10Kw generation can be easily achieved.
16. you can run it even without weights.
49. "11111" asked, QuoteDid you have a working model?
55. I will disclose it but not so soon. regards (This is an "answer" to 11111.)
83. It is clear that some of you dont know what my intention is. I have told here many many times already that I will disclose it meaning I will open source it, but also at the same time I dont know who is watching this forum so I will not disclose it immediately. But I promise you that I will open source it. It is so simple that even if I say it then you will immediately understand and there is nothing left for me to say. SO I will do it slowly until I feel its ok to spread it to the world.
I know that some companies are watching this forum. And I know I cant sell the thing so at the end when all is proved as I said it is, only then will I try to request for donations from anyone. I hope this is clear enough.
92. this is no theory at all. it works, how do i know? I'm looking at it right now. ANyway I will only show the final proof when i think its ok to do so.
regards
100. TK's Wager: (TK's post below)Quote
Ok, you want to play, fine. I'll play.
How about making a little wager?
I'll bet you that you will not show any working device. Ever, but let's put a time limit on the bet, say, one month plus a few days. Call it June 1. If you haven't shown a real working Bessler-variant wheel by June 1, I win the bet.
Let's say, if I win, you make a one hundred dollar donation to your local no-kill animal shelter or neuter-spay program. If, on the other hand, you win.... then we all win, because you will have Saved the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil. And I'll make a hundred dollar donation (of my now worthless money) to you or the charity of your choice.
:P
(Drawings and theoretical calculations DO NOT COUNT without a functioning prototype. You are claiming to have something that works... and I say you do not. So show your working device, not a drawing of it!)
101. Gurangax accepts wager:
Wager or not, I still will disclose it before your said time limit. Anyway I accept this wager.
126. Broli reminds us:
Quote
6 years ago you made the exact same claim, used the exact same riddles and ended up showing exactly nothing. Your response time seems to also indicate that you love the attention this brings to you. Humans truly are silly beings.
157. im giving time for you guys to seriously think about my clues, judgement day is jun 1st.
189. I will disclose it soon at least on Jun 1st. so If you dont want to think about it just wait until the date.
228. For you I will say just wait until Jun 1st.
regards
p.s I may release it anytime sooner than you think.
323. Quotefrom: Newton II on May 05, 2014, 07:43:24 AM
@gurangax,
Can you please answer a simple question - Do you have a working prototype? YES or NO.
yes. and im not going to show it right away. When people depends to much on calculation they will not see it.
479. I have a plan. I know even a video will not satisfy you skeptics. So I have asked a member in this forum to replicate it. If even this will not satisfy you then I dont know what will.
505. Something very nice happened today. The forum member (replicator) nearly had a heart attack after understanding how the principle works. lol. gave me a long smile.
521. I'm just waiting for the forum member to finish his design. Btw it is the falling weight which drives the wheel.
522. June 1st was a wager between me and TK. But I also said that I may post it sooner. Btw a replication is taking place at the moment and most of it is his own design, but it is using the principle of excess weight which I was saying earlier. Please be noted that they can be many designs with the principle including many of Bessler's MTs, just read his side notes.
528. Quotefrom: CLaNZeR on May 22, 2014, 08:20:57 PM
Ah okay.
Replication is where someone usually see's a working machine and then copies it or copies the principles to see if it works or not.
If you have a mechanism that can be implemented into any design, then he could be just replicating that one part as such.
So I am still not clear. Do you have a working machine yourself?
I believe I know where this question is heading to. I already answered this question before but I will say again, my video is not as credible as a video which is made by someone who replicates it. Today it is common that a video can be faked. I am going a step ahead just to make sure that no one will be able to deny it afterwards. Please know that I know what I'm doing and there are reasons for me to do what I am doing. btw June 1st is close. You guys can do whatever you want when the day comes.
531. Quotefrom: CLaNZeR on May 22, 2014, 08:36:19 PM
I did not ask if you had a video of a machine or pictures of a machine.
It is very simple question. Do you have a machine that has been built on your principles working and that just keeps working with no external input?
I can wait till the 1st of June that is not a problem and your choice and freewill to release the info when you want.
if you are a honest man and tell me you have built a machine and it is working.
If you do not have a working machine then this is just another idea like all the rest.
Cheers
Sean.
Maybe you dont like reading but this will be the second time that I will be answering this. the answer is yes.
550. The excess energy is so obvious. Anyone who doesnt see it obviously doesnt know real physics.
2014 is as 2008. That will not change come this Sunday.
Inspired by gurangax, I offer this as a possible explanation of one of Bessler's riddles.
Bessler said:
"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds, four quarters high."
Many will say this is cheating, but springs were used in Bessler's wheel (witnessed), and can counterbalance weights in an interesting way if used cleverly. This video is not the most interesting implementation of the use of springs.
The drop can be adjusted to whatever required e.g one quarter, and readjust spring tension to get the 4 Lb weight moving four quarters. I exaggerated the drop in this video, but you get the idea.
Many Thanks to gurangax
To test whether the animation is physically reasonable calculate the potential energies and see if it balances out.
The 1lb weight drops by ~6.5": -6.5 lb in
The 4lb weight rises by about 4": +16 lb in
The spring shows 12.9lbs force at 2" extension. 6.45lbs/" K
The spring relaxes to 3lbs force. Energy released is 0.5*6.45lbs*(2"^2 - (3lbs/6.45lbs/")^2) = -12.2 lb in
+16lb in - 18.7lb in. No apparent gain in potential, apparent loss of 2.7 lb in.
Agreed, there is no gain, it was just meant to show a method of explaining Besslers riddle. I never implied there was a gain.
I would urge people to think deeply about gravity, beyond high school physics and the "conferring" on the lifted weight of GPE. Nothing was conferred onto the weight, it is a component of a system. There is no measurement you can make on the weight alone to prove that it has been blessed with GPE.
Consider the action of gravity between two bodies of equal mass at very distant points in an otherwise empty space.
What is the limit of acceleration and net energy released upon collision?
I know how elusive is to think out of the box. The working self-running device will be very important even being a toy , just not powered by any known energy source like sun light or wind.
World is full of half-truth examples . You cannot get more energy from impact of two bodies falling in gravity field to the ground from the same elevation point, if those have the same mass, right ? RIGHT, but half-truth !
You can prepare ground below one mass and choose carefully material and you can get 100 times the energy of impact.
It's just one example of how narrow followin laws of physics will make you blind.
I was suggesting two bodies in gravitational attraction to each other in otherwise empty space, not two bodies falling to earth.
Maybe you could kindly expand on your example.
On another point, a peak energy pulse can do some interesting things, but is not very interesting when applied to another mass, as it is absorbed and integrated.
ok, to be more strict - it's not my idea ...but I found it relative to your comment. If you prepare ground as a iron plate and use two blocks of the same mass falling from the same place then the neodymium magnet will hit iron plate with much more force ;)
Quote from: forest on May 29, 2014, 12:00:40 PM
I know how elusive is to think out of the box. The working self-running device will be very important even being a toy , just not powered by any known energy source like sun light or wind.
World is full of half-truth examples . You cannot get more energy from impact of two bodies falling in gravity field to the ground from the same elevation point, if those have the same mass, right ? RIGHT, but half-truth !
You can prepare ground below one mass and choose carefully material and you can get 100 times the energy of impact.
It's just one example of how narrow followin laws of physics will make you blind.
This is simply not true. The energy of the impact is exactly the same and your comment belies a significant misunderstanding of the concept of energy.
Two identical masses dropped from the same height will arrive at the ground with exactly the same amount of kinetic energy. What happens at impact and how that energy is transferred to the ground depends on the rate at which the objects decelerate.
You are confusing energy with either the peak forces generated or power which is the rate of change of energy.
The amount of energy dissipated is the SAME no matter what surface it hits. The power of the impact depends on the nature of the surface and how it affects the deceleration of the object.
Like most on here, the confusion of the concepts of energy and power is the key reason for believing 'over-unity' is even possible.
he he he right...laws of nature are immutable but people are more clever to use a few together ;)
Quote from: forest on May 30, 2014, 01:24:44 AM
he he he right...laws of nature are immutable but people are more clever to use a few together ;)
If you can find a cheat against any First Principle then you would have every right to laugh. Unfortunately...
;D ;D ;D
Hope springs eternal ...
Actually, FOREST, thinking outside the box is easy. It is the putting the results of that thinking into useful form that is difficult.
Laws are absolute and inviolate until they are not.
Quote from: MarkE on May 30, 2014, 03:09:31 AM
Hope springs eternal ...
Maybe that's what runs gurangax's imaginary wheel: an eternal Hope spring.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 30, 2014, 02:28:22 PM
Maybe that's what runs gurangax's imaginary wheel: an eternal Hope spring.
There are just two days left until it's 2010 all over again.
That Hope would indeed be a nice powersource.
Ok. So here we've got June. Time for a show...
Conspicuous in his absence....
::)
Hey, I'm willing to give him until midnight, Texas time. That's another full 29 hours from here.
He has not said which year june!
Quote from: Newton II on May 31, 2014, 11:21:24 PM
He has not said which year june!
This is ridiculous, 12 hours left.
He gave us a straw... and then was never heard of again
Quote from: broli on April 26, 2014, 11:42:15 AM
6 years ago you made the exact same claim, used the exact same riddles and ended up showing exactly nothing. Your response time seems to also indicate that you love the attention this brings to you. Humans truly are silly beings.
Was there ever any doubt that Broli hit the nail on the head?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXmsu00sKcs
If there wasn't, the thread wouldn't have 45 pages.
So, he will be making a $100.00 donation to his local no kill animal shelter then? So, that is good, a good cause. This was a good bet that TK made.
Bill
Quote from: MarkE on May 29, 2014, 07:20:32 AM
2014 is as 2008. That will not change come this Sunday.
I'm thinking the lucky sequence is: 2020, 2014, 2008...
Hopefully "next time", if there is one, Grurangax will have a good idea what we need to see
for a proof.
We still have a little time left for the 2014 apparition.
And a few more hours left in this one. I said I won't call "time" until midnight local time tonight, so he's got fifteen more hours to Save the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil.
Seriously... "IF" I should win this bet, that's cool but.... I would much rather that he actually had what he claimed. The animal shelter would benefit from a world-changing technological discovery just as everybody else would.
World-changing technology?? If anyone were to get a wheel turning,which they won't,
you'd need a 30ft. wheel, 30 tons to charge your cell phone, I think.
John.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 01, 2014, 10:17:23 AM
And a few more hours left in this one. I said I won't call "time" until midnight local time tonight
Really, TK. Be reasonable. Show the full force of your statesmanship.
We must give until the new dateline clicks into June 2nd. I think New Zealand, home of Bruce De Palma, Peter Daysh Davey et alia, is where this happens first.
Yes a worthy bet, I knew Tinsel was a kind soul and an animal advocate. I would wager we won't see the receipt for the donation.
Looks like the MIB got this guy too. Damn! Another world saving technology snuffed out by those bastards.
They got him back in 2008 and they got him again now. (?) Next, they will be going after all of those successful replicators out there. Watch your back fellows.
Bill
Quote from: mscoffman on June 01, 2014, 09:55:51 AM
I'm thinking the lucky sequence is: 2020, 2014, 2008...
Hopefully "next time", if there is one, Grurangax will have a good idea what we need to see
for a proof.
We still have a little time left for the 2014 apparition.
Grurangax ,
Regardless of the bet aside. Please post what you were thinking would work. Some of us do wonder what you think could work.
Quote from: minnie on June 01, 2014, 10:43:41 AM
World-changing technology?? If anyone were to get a wheel turning,which they won't,
you'd need a 30ft. wheel, 30 tons to charge your cell phone, I think.
John.
That could hep deal with the obesity crisis.
"That could help deal with the obesity crisis."
Fat chance.
Quote from: memoryman on June 01, 2014, 07:09:04 PM
"That could help deal with the obesity crisis."
Fat chance.
Good one.
Bill
What a disappointing visit to Overunity dot com. Oh well, I'll test my own theories & perhaps someday......
Care to explain what was disappointing?
Quote from: memoryman on June 01, 2014, 10:39:47 PM
Care to explain what was disappointing?
I was expecting to see 'The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.'
Well... time is up! Where is it? >:(
Should I assume the "working prototype" only existed in a (bugridden) software application? Disappointing...
It is in the same place and state that his 2008 claims were back then.
Well here we are on June 2nd and not even an excuse and no replicators either.
Norman
guran-gas!!
http://www.fart-joke.com/fart_species.htm
Quote :
ASSAULT FART
Louder than bombs, with flames shooting out your ass.
100. TK's Wager: (TK's post below)
QuoteOk, you want to play, fine. I'll play.
How about making a little wager?
I'll bet you that you will not show any working device. Ever, but let's put a time limit on the bet, say, one month plus a few days. Call it June 1. If you haven't shown a real working Bessler-variant wheel by June 1, I win the bet.
Let's say, if I win, you make a one hundred dollar donation to your local no-kill animal shelter or neuter-spay program. If, on the other hand, you win.... then we all win, because you will have Saved the World from the Tyranny of Big Oil. And I'll make a hundred dollar donation (of my now worthless money) to you or the charity of your choice.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Ftongue.gif&hash=712f6fec39e91e3e027f36075cd22a26ca109ea1)
(Drawings and theoretical calculations DO NOT COUNT without a functioning prototype. You are claiming to have something that works... and I say you do not. So show your working device, not a drawing of it!)
101. Gurangax accepts wager:
Quote
Wager or not, I still will disclose it before your said time limit. Anyway I accept this wager.
So... the time limit has been agreed to, it has come and it has gone. The terms of the wager were agreed to and accepted by Gurangax. No real working Bessler-variant wheel has been demonstrated by Gurangax, or anyone else. Not even by the fellow who almost had a heart attack when Gurangax showed him whatever he does have.
SO... I am declaring that Gurangax has officially Lost This Wager.
Gurangax, please make your donation of 100 dollars US to your local no-kill animal shelter (or spay-neuter program) as soon as possible. Within 7 days would be fair, I think. I expect you to post an image of the donation receipt by the close of business on June 8 or before. Please make the donation in the name of "Nikola Tesla".
(Actually, what I really expect is that Gurangax won't honor the bet and that he won't be posting anything. )
Well "Uncle!" A hearty Congradulations to the Naysayers for being correct...I'm sure we will hear from you guys in the future.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Gurangax will come back under an other name, he can not live without his silly claim.
Or he will play his sick game in some other forum under an other name from a different angle. It is the only game he has.
The stupid game was not even well played, no style (simulated OU, what a bummer). He should learn from Mr. Wayne or from Quentron, they keep the Spiel going for years.
Greetings, Conrad
Do you think he is also the "elecar" of the self-looping "not-a-smot" permanent magnet ball-looper that was promised to reveal in a similar way, last year?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 03, 2014, 03:14:27 PM
Do you think he is also the "elecar" of the self-looping "not-a-smot" permanent magnet ball-looper that was promised to reveal in a similar way, last year?
May be he is the person calling himself "circle"?
http://www.overunity.com/13291/das-triumphirende-peretuum-mobile-orffyreanum/#.U44gEyivC7M
But "circle" was more "bull shit intelectual", but he might be a bit more sick now and therefore less verbous.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on June 03, 2014, 03:24:54 PM
May be he is the person calling himself "circle"?
http://www.overunity.com/13291/das-triumphirende-peretuum-mobile-orffyreanum/#.U44gEyivC7M (http://www.overunity.com/13291/das-triumphirende-peretuum-mobile-orffyreanum/#.U44gEyivC7M)
But "circle" was more "bull shit intelectual", but he might be a bit more sick now and therefore less verbous.
Greetings, Conrad
No Conrad he is not circle. I have had direct communications with circle, and he has come over to my shop from time to time.
Alan
Past June 1st.
Crickets.
As expected.
Bill
Quote from: AB Hammer on June 03, 2014, 05:09:42 PM
No Conrad he is not circle. I have had direct communications with circle, and he has come over to my shop from time to time.
Alan
@Alan: Thank you for clarifying that "circle" is not "Gurangax".
Since you have met "circle", what do you think about his claim of having solved the Bessler riddle?
I just went again through "circles" thread (where he showed the many pages of this old book) and it looks to me that he also has no running Bessler wheel, but nevertheless claims to have solved it? This is the reason why I see so much similarity between "circle" and "Gurangax".
So, how does a person, who thinks he has solved something without physical proof, behave in real life? Did he bull shit you as well, face to face?
Greetings, Conrad
Greetings Conrad
Circle is a very interesting person. He talks a mile a minute and is sometimes hard to understand. It took a bit to get on the same page but when we did his intent was clear. The design that he claims is worth a build and those who tried to follow before missed quite a bit. But when time allows I will be building it, and circle will be around for it's construction for any further clarity. He is very easy going and easy to befriend.
Alan
Quote from: AB Hammer on June 04, 2014, 09:47:59 AM
Greetings Conrad
Circle is a very interesting person. He talks a mile a minute and is sometimes hard to understand. It took a bit to get on the same page but when we did his intent was clear. The design that he claims is worth a build and those who tried to follow before missed quite a bit. But when time allows I will be building it, and circle will be around for it's construction for any further clarity. He is very easy going and easy to befriend.
Alan
@Alan: thank you for answering, would be great if you could build the "circle Bessler wheel".
If circle had not taken the aloof teacher position and were a bit less assured of his mental capabilities many people would have been interested in what he has to say. A clear statement that he has not yet built his idea would have helped as well.
And I never understand the logic behind talking about a secret which one is not prepared to disclose. If I had a secret I would even keep the fact, that I have a secret, a secret.
Well, there are many ways to happiness.
Greetings, Conrad
Another one bites the dust !
Darn those MIB guys hey !
NEXT
Cheers
Sean
Quote from: CLaNZeR on June 04, 2014, 05:48:19 PM
Another one bites the dust !
Darn those MIB guys hey !
NEXT
Cheers
Sean
Damn,,where do they store all those devices ? this must be HUGE depot :P
Quote from: forest on June 05, 2014, 02:59:45 AM
Damn,,where do they store all those devices ? this must be HUGE depot :P
I am not at liberty to tell you...
Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 03, 2014, 07:53:49 PM
Past June 1st.
Crickets.
As expected.
Bill
Has anyone considered the possibility that in all of the excitement, he forgot to put a break or kill switch on his runner.
And that during the proof-positive video demo, the thing went out of control and has put him in hospital (or worse).
Get well soon (or R.I.P.) Gurangax
I hope this will serve as a valuable leaning experience to other builders, and that he didn't suffer in vain.
Quote from: PIH123 on June 05, 2014, 12:38:46 PM
Has anyone considered the possibility that in all of the excitement, he forgot to put a break or kill switch on his runner.
And that during the proof-positive video demo, the thing went out of control and has put him in hospital (or worse).
Get well soon (or R.I.P.) Gurangax
I hope this will serve as a valuable leaning experience to other builders, and that he didn't suffer in vain.
I see an other outcome:
Gurangax sold out to the NSA and is laughing all the way to the bank.
But what he does not know yet, it is too dangerous that he stays alive for long. May be he should join Snowden in Russia.
Do they have "men in black" in Russia as well? Would Snowden disclose the machine?
Greetings, Conrad
No, he sold it to the oil barons and they are now preparing huge Bessel wheels to pump oil from underground. That way they could fire all stuff and sell oil with much more profit :P
Quote from: forest on June 05, 2014, 02:59:45 AM
Damn,,where do they store all those devices ? this must be HUGE depot :P
I have been in this secret depot, it is in the Untersberg near Salzburg http://www.thelivingmoon.com/46ats_members/SkyFloating/02files/Untersberg_01_addendum.html (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/46ats_members/SkyFloating/02files/Untersberg_01_addendum.html)
The depot is crammed full with machines, most of them still running (they are supposed to be self sustaining) and they store the anti gravity devices on the ceiling (to safe space).
The depot is guarded by aliens but I could bribe them with Sacher Torte http://shop.sacher.com/original-sacher-torte.html?___store=english&___from_store=german . (http://shop.sacher.com/original-sacher-torte.html)
The aliens are wearing Leder Hosen
http://www.bavaria-lederhosen.com/Bavarian-attire/Men/Trachten-Leather-Bundhosen/Trachten-Leather-Bundhose-Marco-brown.html?XTCsid=645f96apo0n54k031m3ln8k0s0 (http://www.bavaria-lederhosen.com/Bavarian-attire/Men/Trachten-Leather-Bundhosen/Trachten-Leather-Bundhose-Marco-brown.html?XTCsid=645f96apo0n54k031m3ln8k0s0) ,
which did not help them to hide their true idendity from me. I looked straight through this masquerade being an expert on Leder Hosen style.
Still, it was very dangerous and I hardly survived.
I am writing a book about it which you can buy for EUR 30.-- (special offer to OverUnity members). It contains photos and the description of twenty devices which I could inspect more closely.
I am now living in a bunker in Slovenia in constant fear. Please do not tell anybody.
Greetings, Conrad
I Googled Slovenia for a place called 'constant fear' but nothing showed up. Please provide the map coordinates so I can assassinate you.
Maybe gurangax was Mylow's brother? Or, even Mylow himself? Hmmmm.
Bill
***EDITED FOR SPELLING***
Hmmm... 40 pages empty talk. We should not have given him the attention in first place... but it's our own fault. We ignored the suspicious signs (which were: why the hell elaborate how it could work, if he had a working prototype? - Bingo! - *he had NO working prototype*).
Hi cheers to All, am new in this.
Having overbalance of weights in a wheel may not rotate the wheel, Bcoz, energy required to keep weights in overbalance is more than what the energy get out from overbalancing weights. so we need a lever which can keep weights in overbalance with less energy.
SC
Quote from: memoryman on June 05, 2014, 08:02:50 PM
I Googled Slovenia for a place called 'constant fear' but nothing showed up. Please provide the map coordinates so I can assassinate you.
I do feel, memoryman, that you are being less than entirely charitable.
Possibly, your diet contains rather too many artificial food colourings.
Quote from: Paul-R on June 06, 2014, 09:39:47 AM
I do feel, memoryman, that you are being less than entirely charitable.
Possibly, your diet contains rather too many artificial food colourings.
As a highly paid shill, I follow orders. It is not personal, just business...
The terms of the bet were agreed to by Gurangax without argument. And he failed to deliver his proof of a running Gravity Wheel by the time agreed upon. A week after his failure should be a reasonable enough time for him to produce proof that he honored the bet and paid off, by making a 100 dollar US donation to his local no-kill animal shelter or spay-neuter program. It's possible that he lives in a place where they don't actually have local animal shelters or spay-neuter programs. In that case I would accept proof of donation to any organization, world-wide, that helps to rescue stray/homeless/mistreated dogs. There are still a couple of days left before midnight June 7, at which time I will be forced to declare Gurangax to be a deadbeat hypocrite , as well as a blowhard false claimant.
Sudarsana - being new you will save a lot of time if you get this
lever lesson firmly in your head. The lever trades off a long distance
and a small weight for a larger weight and a short distance. ie.
1 lb can lift 5 lbs but the one lb travels 5 inches and the 5 lbs
only travels 1 inch therefore both sides are the same - 5 inch lbs.
Remember work done is force times distance.
Norman
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2014, 11:47:40 AM
The terms of the bet were agreed to by Gurangax without argument. And he failed to deliver his proof of a running Gravity Wheel by the time agreed upon. A week after his failure should be a reasonable enough time for him to produce proof that he honored the bet and paid off, by making a 100 dollar US donation to his local no-kill animal shelter or spay-neuter program. It's possible that he lives in a place where they don't actually have local animal shelters or spay-neuter programs. In that case I would accept proof of donation to any organization, world-wide, that helps to rescue stray/homeless/mistreated dogs. There are still a couple of days left before midnight June 7, at which time I will be forced to declare Gurangax to be a deadbeat hypocrite , as well as a blowhard false claimant.
I, for one, am pissed that no animal shelter nor ANY worthy charity will ever see his $100 for the loss of his bet. I do not mind to be the first one to call him out on being a deadbeat for not honoring the bet that he made and accepted publicly here on this forum. Gurangax is a deadbeat looser that should not be able to look himself in the mirror ever again. What a scumbag!
Sorry, but as I mentioned, I am pissed.
Bill
I am now calling time.
It has been a solid seven days since the deadline for the wager has come and gone. Gurangax has had ample time to protest, appeal, demonstrate, etc. but has remained silent. He has not honored the terms of the wager to which he specifically agreed. He failed to produce the demonstration of a working Bessler wheel and he failed to make and prove the 100 dollar donation that was specified and agreed to well over a month ago.
Gurangax is officially demonstrated to be a deadbeat: someone who makes false claims, insults his critics and who does not honor his agreed-upon obligations.
And I am not at all surprised.
If I may come to the defense of the Gurangax simple but elegant idea.
I have taken HIS model - simplified it and now show a 3 : 1 ratio lift AND hold of a weight towards the wheel perimeter. I have also added some comments to the model (attached) which are:
I can imagine a large wheel with crossbars like the one pictured on the left and the crossbar weights on the perimeter of the wheel were the pendulums are close to but do not touch the outer perimeter.
Gravity pulls the pendulums which pushes and holds the crossbars weights towards the wheel perimeter long enough to create an imbalance which will make the wheel rotate.
It will rotate either way and it will be permanently unbalanced. The correctly positioned pendulum lever will give a 3:1 lift ratio. Tuning needed for desired RPM.
Definitely worth a try.
200% weight leverage is nothing to joke about. Look at the potential energy readings in the model. Yes, there be friction mateys, but still worth a try.
Thank you very much Gurangax for publishing this - very interesting. I would advise contacting Preston Stroud if you would like a good builder on your team.
AZ
Forgot to mention a second (lever?) mechanism is needed to hold the crossbar weights towards the center of the wheel from about 4 to 8 o'clock positions.
I'll try and make a full model.... It will not be easy. (curved slots)
AZ
Ok real quick.
Try one:
Two lever pendulums of 1.5 KG each pushing a 9KG weight towards the perimeter at the 12, 1, 2 and 6, 7, 8 o'clock positions. Probably more weight is needed in the lever pendulums - but it will not exceed 2:1.
the pendulums cannot detach from the crossbar weight.
the crossbar weight slides radially back and forth
only two crossbar weights needed for continuous motion?
AZ
Model attached
PS: I have no idea how to project this onto a wheel in Working Model. Help appreciated.
PPS: Look at the Gravitational potential energy ratios!!!
Quote from: AquariuZ on June 08, 2014, 06:54:17 PM
....
Definitely worth a try.
200% weight leverage is nothing to joke about. Look at the potential energy readings in the model. Yes, there be friction mateys, but still worth a try.
...
AZ
It's not worth even trying.
The closest any wheel can become to being "over-unity" is when it is perfectly balanced with a bearing of the lowest possible friction and spinning in a vacuum..
Obviously this configuration is NOT over-unity, but one thing is certain, any other configuration that involves moving weights around during a cycle will be less efficient.
Creating an overbalanced condition requires energy. At best we can recover the some but not all of that energy as the wheel rotates. Since all movement involves frictional losses we would improve efficiency by having less movement of parts relative to each other. Take this to the logical conclusion and you end up back at the perfectly balanced wheel.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on June 08, 2014, 09:29:11 PM
It's not worth even trying.
The closest any wheel can become to being "over-unity" is when it is perfectly balanced with a bearing of the lowest possible friction and spinning in a vacuum..
Obviously this configuration is NOT over-unity, but one thing is certain, any other configuration that involves moving weights around during a cycle will be less efficient.
Creating an overbalanced condition requires energy. At best we can recover the some but not all of that energy as the wheel rotates. Since all movement involves frictional losses we would improve efficiency by having less movement of parts relative to each other. Take this to the logical conclusion and you end up back at the perfectly balanced wheel.
I hear that. You need input to create imbalance. But it also seems to me the levers are at least part of Besslers' idea.
Do you believe Bessler had a gravity wheel or not?
AZ
Quote from: AquariuZ on June 08, 2014, 06:54:17 PM
If I may come to the defense of the Gurangax simple but elegant idea.
I have taken HIS model - simplified it and now show a 3 : 1 ratio lift AND hold of a weight towards the wheel perimeter. I have also added some comments to the model (attached) which are:
I can imagine a large wheel with crossbars like the one pictured on the left and the crossbar weights on the perimeter of the wheel were the pendulums are close to but do not touch the outer perimeter.
Gravity pulls the pendulums which pushes and holds the crossbars weights towards the wheel perimeter long enough to create an imbalance which will make the wheel rotate.
It will rotate either way and it will be permanently unbalanced. The correctly positioned pendulum lever will give a 3:1 lift ratio. Tuning needed for desired RPM.
Definitely worth a try.
200% weight leverage is nothing to joke about. Look at the potential energy readings in the model. Yes, there be friction mateys, but still worth a try.
Thank you very much Gurangax for publishing this - very interesting. I would advise contacting Preston Stroud if you would like a good builder on your team.
AZ
The problem with things like levers is that with force multiplication comes distance division and the energy remains in balance.
Quote from: AquariuZ on June 08, 2014, 09:40:32 PM
I hear that. You need input to create imbalance. But it also seems to me the levers are at least part of Besslers' idea.
Do you believe Bessler had a gravity wheel or not?
AZ
I for one do not believe Bessler's claims.
Quote from: AquariuZ on June 08, 2014, 08:52:00 PM
Ok real quick.
Try one:
Two lever pendulums of 1.5 KG each pushing a 9KG weight towards the perimeter at the 12, 1, 2 and 6, 7, 8 o'clock positions. Probably more weight is needed in the lever pendulums - but it will not exceed 2:1.
the pendulums cannot detach from the crossbar weight.
the crossbar weight slides radially back and forth
only two crossbar weights needed for continuous motion?
AZ
Model attached
PS: I have no idea how to project this onto a wheel in Working Model. Help appreciated.
PPS: Look at the Gravitational potential energy ratios!!!
Could you make a movie of two of your working model 2d sheets and put it on youtube? Thanks in advance.
Quote from: AquariuZ on June 08, 2014, 06:54:17 PM
If I may come to the defense of the Gurangax simple but elegant idea.
I have taken HIS model - simplified it and now show a 3 : 1 ratio lift AND hold of a weight towards the wheel perimeter. I have also added some comments to the model (attached) which are:
I can imagine a large wheel with crossbars like the one pictured on the left and the crossbar weights on the perimeter of the wheel were the pendulums are close to but do not touch the outer perimeter.
Gravity pulls the pendulums which pushes and holds the crossbars weights towards the wheel perimeter long enough to create an imbalance which will make the wheel rotate.
It will rotate either way and it will be permanently unbalanced. The correctly positioned pendulum lever will give a 3:1 lift ratio. Tuning needed for desired RPM.
Definitely worth a try.
200% weight leverage is nothing to joke about. Look at the potential energy readings in the model. Yes, there be friction mateys, but still worth a try.
Thank you very much Gurangax for publishing this - very interesting. I would advise contacting Preston Stroud if you would like a good builder on your team.
AZ
AZ, your sim shows the 9kg Crossbar gaining 58.726J. The 3kg Pendulum is loosing 79.835J. So the system looses a total of 21.109J. That means that the Center of Gravity of the entire system is becoming lower. IE, Energy is lost by this action, not gained/created.
I tried to replicate Gurangax's idea of the Bessler wheel. Didn't work. I'm open for any input to make it work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0-WHDsGNjE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VjYddOL4w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBAGelJkBZ0
Dusty
Quote from: Dusty on June 09, 2014, 10:40:24 AM
I tried to replicate Gurangax's idea of the Bessler wheel. Didn't work. I'm open for any input to make it work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0-WHDsGNjE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VjYddOL4w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBAGelJkBZ0
Dusty
Very nice crafting Dusty..
Quote from: Airstriker on June 09, 2014, 08:12:43 AM
Could you make a movie of two of your working model 2d sheets and put it on youtube? Thanks in advance.
I can't for now sorry. Maybe someone else can do that?
Trying hard to make a decent model, but WM is pissing me off.
It just cannot handle complex polygons....
Quote from: mondrasek on June 09, 2014, 08:54:19 AM
AZ, your sim shows the 9kg Crossbar gaining 58.726J. The 3kg Pendulum is loosing 79.835J. So the system looses a total of 21.109J. That means that the Center of Gravity of the entire system is becoming lower. IE, Energy is lost by this action, not gained/created.
Please explain how you calculate a 21J loss.
How can the center of gravity lower when the center of mass rises? And what about the GPE values. Massive potential in the large weight versus the pendulums.
Thanks
Quote from: AquariuZ on June 09, 2014, 12:17:37 PM
Please explain how you calculate a 21J loss.
Try this out: Start and stop the sim. Then reset. Your GPE values for the Crossbar and Pendulum are should now read -263.689J and -35.424J respectively. These are the values that WM2D is calculating they have based on their mass and position in the Y plane relative to an absolute zero. You drew these objects with their individual Centers of Gravity below the Y axis zero line, so the values are negative.
We could compare these initial starting numbers to the ending numbers after the sim is run to see how much GPE each gains or looses. But I prefer to do it a bit differently. I like to modify the equations for the GPE measurement boxes to effectively "zero" them. It is like calibrating the sim so that those measurements start at, or near, a zero value. To do that I ADD 263.689 to the equation for the GPE of the Crossbar, and ADD 35.424 to the equation for the GPE of the Pendulum. Now if you start, stop, and reset the sim you will see that the starting GPE values are very small. You can increase the precision of the sim and get more significant digits to zero it even further if you like.
Once the sim is zeroed in this way you can see the exact numbers I reported after it runs and stops on it's own.
Quote from: AquariuZ on June 09, 2014, 12:17:37 PM
How can the center of gravity lower when the center of mass rises? And what about the GPE values. Massive potential in the large weight versus the pendulums.
The Center of Gravity (same as Center of Mass) of the Pendulum is falling much, much further than the Center of Gravity of the Crossbar is rising. The result sum of the SYSTEM of the two is an overall lowering of the CoG.
Quote from: mondrasek on June 09, 2014, 01:01:34 PM
Try this out: Start and stop the sim. Then reset. Your GPE values for the Crossbar and Pendulum are should now read -263.689J and -35.424J respectively. These are the values that WM2D is calculating they have based on their mass and position in the Y plane relative to an absolute zero. You drew these objects with their individual Centers of Gravity below the Y axis zero line, so the values are negative.
We could compare these initial starting numbers to the ending numbers after the sim is run to see how much GPE each gains or looses. But I prefer to do it a bit differently. I like to modify the equations for the GPE measurement boxes to effectively "zero" them. It is like calibrating the sim so that those measurements start at, or near, a zero value. To do that I ADD 263.689 to the equation for the GPE of the Crossbar, and ADD 35.424 to the equation for the GPE of the Pendulum. Now if you start, stop, and reset the sim you will see that the starting GPE values are very small. You can increase the precision of the sim and get more significant digits to zero it even further if you like.
Once the sim is zeroed in this way you can see the exact numbers I reported after it runs and stops on it's own.
The Center of Gravity (same as Center of Mass) of the Pendulum is falling much, much further than the Center of Gravity of the Crossbar is rising. The result sum of the SYSTEM of the two is an overall lowering of the CoG.
Now I have a fairly decent model running for a while - and you are right. Damn Newton.
Back and forth, back and forth losing momentum slowly but surely. Still moving after ten minutes, it takes a really long time to find equilibrium, but that's beside the point.
Gonna try one more thing, just to be sure.
Thanks mondrasek, you do make sense.
AZ
FWIW: my current model attached. Huge dimensions are needed because of WM limitations.
Quote from: Dusty on June 09, 2014, 10:40:24 AM
I tried to replicate Gurangax's idea of the Bessler wheel. Didn't work. I'm open for any input to make it work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0-WHDsGNjE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VjYddOL4w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBAGelJkBZ0
Dusty
Agree with AquariuZ. Awesome work you did! Are you the one Gurangax told to construct a real working model?
Anyway, I would like to comment on the device in the 2nd video (v=g4VjYddOL4w), although I wouldn't be surprised if you no longer have that version available for modifications at this point since you have constructed another version shown in your 3rd video.
This thing you have constructed works pretty much the way it is supposed to. The trouble is, the sliding-part (what Gurangax refers to as a "crossbar"), that needs to be much heavier than the part that flies out with the weights attached to it. The lever part is supposed to be a lighter part, that uses leverage to move the heavier sliding part from below the central axis to above it. So one thing you need to do is make the lever longer, less massive, but you also need to make the part of the lever that is on the other side of the pivot shorter so you get more leverage. Obviously this will mean the sliding part will not move so far as now, but if you can get it to move just enough so the total center of mass of the slider plus the lever moves up above the axis of the "wheel" as the lever comes down, then it seems to me it should work. The way you have constructed it, it looks like the lever is MUCH more massive then the slider. What is amazing to me is that theoretically, it doesn't even matter how far above the center of the axis you move the center of gravity. If you can just move it enough, then the whole thing will become top heavy and should try to rotate. Although obviously it will rotate more forcefully, the higher you can get the center of gravity above the axis each time.
Also note that in the video of the .wm2d simulation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddg0kUSJMk0), he shows the lever as starting out in a totally vertical position. My only problem with that was, you would need to come up with some kind of mechanism that would keep that lever in the vertical position (up against the side of the crossbar) from the time it fell down onto it, until it was once more in the up-cycle (that is, 180° after it fell down). I don't believe you want the lever to be able to start swinging away from the crossbar until it is all the way up on the top again.
Yes, phaedrus, I contacted gurangax about replicating and he said yes.
Thanks for your input, I'll try out what you said. The way I built the device I can easily swap out parts and re-adjust the lever arm.
Dusty
Quote from: phaedrus on June 09, 2014, 03:54:43 PM
My only problem with that was, you would need to come up with some kind of mechanism that would keep that lever in the vertical position (up against the side of the crossbar) from the time it fell down onto it, until it was once more in the up-cycle (that is, 180° after it fell down). I don't believe you want the lever to be able to start swinging away from the crossbar until it is all the way up on the top again.
...and that's the problem.
AZ
Quote from: AquariuZ on June 09, 2014, 04:30:33 PM
...and that's the problem.
AZ
In PMMs, overcoming the "sticky spot" never seems to get solved.
Quote from: Dusty on June 09, 2014, 10:40:24 AM
I tried to replicate Gurangax's idea of the Bessler wheel. Didn't work. I'm open for any input to make it work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0-WHDsGNjE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VjYddOL4w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBAGelJkBZ0
Dusty
Dusty
I have always liked your construction work of builds. But in truth Gurangax's ideas are more trading places and no real gain.
In his video of http://youtu.be/HPkZhh3LVPo is the one that approached more of what I have done and I am bringing out to newer work on my string. There is a lot more to deal with in this approach. and a free arm is not necessary, for you loose effects like lift.
http://www.overunity.com/14703/a-fast-device-which-uses-inverted-pendulums/#.U5YjCKNOWUk
Alan
Quote from: Dusty on June 09, 2014, 04:29:52 PM
Yes, phaedrus, I contacted gurangax about replicating and he said yes.
Thanks for your input, I'll try out what you said. The way I built the device I can easily swap out parts and re-adjust the lever arm.
Dusty
Care to make a new bet? Since gurangax has welched on the old one?
Same terms as before, but I'll give you _three_ months this time. Midnight Central Standard Time in the USA on September 10.
Quote from: AquariuZ on June 09, 2014, 04:30:33 PM
...and that's the problem.
AZ
I am unable to open up the wm2d files you have submitted (would someone please convert these into .avi's?) since I don't have a copy of that software. But from thinking about this in my head, I don't see that this is a deal-breaker. But perhaps it is just not possible to simulate in wm2d.
You could have the lever when it falls and the end gets to the bottom, goes past some kind of little resistance point (Like those little balls they have on some tools, with a little spring behind it, so if you push something onto the tool it doesn't just fall off. But this would need to be something that is much easier to get past). So that the lever goes even beyond just hanging straight down, but its actually a little past that. Now, if you have it do that, it won't even try to fly out as it rotates back up to the top. Then you just need something that gives it a little push up on top. At that point it would be nice if you had access to something that wasn't moving, and I realize that that is not true in a real Bessler Wheel. But I see that on Dusty's 2nd device I was talking about, he has at the end of the axle a nut that is stationary as it is turning around. So I think he could theoretically attach something to that, a long thin piece of flat steel connected to the end of the axle that goes up to the top, and would just need to have like a little ramp up there that the end of the lever would move over and cause itself to then be pushed past the slight resistance point and swing down and the cycle would repeat.
TK, no I'm not betting anything. But I did offer Gurangax the 100 bucks to pay off the bet. I just wanted him to clear this mess up he got himself into and come back to the forum.
You know, hit the reset button and lets get a fresh start on this Bessler thing. I think he has some great insight as to all the Bessler riddles, but those computer simulations fooled him
and his approach to letting us know needed to be different.
During the replication I only had the one drawing to go of off, the animation of the energy gain. He corrected me on a couple things and I would make the changes, but other than that we really
didn't communicate that much. I didn't even once ask him if he had a working device. I figured if he said he did I would go by his word and just let him guide me through the replication.
Actually even right now I'm really not sure if he really has a running device or not. My only interest was to just replicate and see what I could do.
Maybe he'll still surprise us, you know, give me another heart attack.
Dusty
Quote from: Dusty on June 09, 2014, 08:02:35 PM
TK, no I'm not betting anything. But I did offer Gurangax the 100 bucks to pay off the bet. I just wanted him to clear this mess up he got himself into and come back to the forum.
That's a foul, you know. The point of a bet is that the loser is penalized in some way. If someone else pays off for him and he comes back, he hasn't really lost anything and he has the satisfaction of knowing that he has duped someone into taking responsibility for his lies and fails.
Quote
You know, hit the reset button and lets get a fresh start on this Bessler thing. I think he has some great insight as to all the Bessler riddles, but those computer simulations fooled him
and his approach to letting us know needed to be different.
During the replication I only had the one drawing to go of off, the animation of the energy gain. He corrected me on a couple things and I would make the changes, but other than that we really
didn't communicate that much. I didn't even once ask him if he had a working device. I figured if he said he did I would go by his word and just let him guide me through the replication.
Actually even right now I'm really not sure if he really has a running device or not. My only interest was to just replicate and see what I could do.
Maybe he'll still surprise us, you know, give me another heart attack.
Dusty
Of course he doesn't have a running device, and of course he has no unique or "new" insight into Bessler's "riddles". You can hit the reset button as many times as you like, but gravity will still be a conservative field of force.
Here, are you up to this challenge?
Take any actual Bessler or other "gravity wheel" prototype model with moving parts like weights and levers. Of course it doesn't spin on its own, but if we give it a little starting push we can see how long it takes to come to a stop after that little push. So figure out a way to give your wheel a repeatable and known amount of energy in a starting "push". Like wrapping a string around the axle or periphery and letting a dropping weight pull on the string to start the wheel. In this way you can precisely repeat a known amount of starting energy to your wheel. Make a few runs, timing the rundown time and computing an average and a variance (or standard deviation). If you are careful and your wheel is stable you should be able to get a consistent rundown time (small SD) from run to run. Right?
Now take your wheel with its moving parts and freeze every one of them at "half-travel". By tightening or glue or other means. Leave only the central axle unfrozen. So now you have an inert wheel of the same mass as before and hopefully the same average moment of inertia. Right? Now repeat the timed rundowns using the same energy injection method as before. Do a bunch of runs, compute the average and the standard deviation.
Compare and report your findings. Repeat the rundown tests with any additions, changes, "improvements" etc that you might make.
It should be clear that any real "working" modification that works as Bessler intended should _increase_ the rundown time over the inert wheel. But if the rundown time is _decreased_... then your modification didn't work, it's actually worse than a simple solid and symmetrical disc would be.
I say this: there is no modification involving moving parts that will increase the rundown time, over that found with a solid inert disk of the same MoI. None. Unless of course the system is powered somehow, and not by gravity. Moving parts like falling levers, shifting weights, etc. are a loss mechanism that dissipates power through frictional heating, noise, and moving air around. They don't add to the rotational energy of the wheel.
The same testing principle holds for Permanent Magnet Motors. If you replace all your magnets with inert blocks of the same mass.... do you get longer, or shorter rundown times from a known starting impulse?
Quote from: Dusty on June 09, 2014, 08:02:35 PM
TK, no I'm not betting anything. But I did offer Gurangax the 100 bucks to pay off the bet. I just wanted him to clear this mess up he got himself into and come back to the forum.
You know, hit the reset button and lets get a fresh start on this Bessler thing. I think he has some great insight as to all the Bessler riddles, but those computer simulations fooled him
and his approach to letting us know needed to be different.
During the replication I only had the one drawing to go of off, the animation of the energy gain. He corrected me on a couple things and I would make the changes, but other than that we really
didn't communicate that much. I didn't even once ask him if he had a working device. I figured if he said he did I would go by his word and just let him guide me through the replication.
Actually even right now I'm really not sure if he really has a running device or not. My only interest was to just replicate and see what I could do.
Maybe he'll still surprise us, you know, give me another heart attack.
Dusty
Gurangax never had a working gravity wheel: not in 2008 not in 2014 and not in between. I know that, Tinsel Koala knows that, Gurangax knows that, and you should know that.
Quote from: Dusty on June 09, 2014, 04:29:52 PM
Yes, phaedrus, I contacted gurangax about replicating and he said yes.
Thanks for your input, I'll try out what you said. The way I built the device I can easily swap out parts and re-adjust the lever arm.
Dusty
By the way, first of all I just want to say I love the stuff you do! It is so refreshing to see a really skilled craftman working with real solid heavy metal like you are doing. Only trouble is, I wonder if this is going to work for the running wheel using Gurangax's excess weight principle. It might have to be a more delicate piece, but I really don't know.
But the main thing I wanted to say is, while you are working on it, just move the lever down to its lowest position. If the thing doesn't want to start rotating at that point (that is, it is top-heavy), you haven't got it. That is, of course, after making sure the whole thing is in balance normally (if the lever is sticking straight out at right-angles to the plane of rotation, then whatever position you rotate the device to, it will remain there and not move).
TK, yes, I performed the before and after run down test just exactly as you described early on in testing. Results were obvious.
MarkE, You are totally correct, I have no disagreement what so ever with what you say.
I just like to replicate and also I do work on my own designs. I just enjoy it, not much more to say.
Dusty
Phaedrus, thanks for the comments. By doing real time testing I'm hoping that something will present itself that would not be observed or considered by computer animations.
Dusty
Gurangax is a welcher and a lying scumbag. Anyone in contact with him should tell him this. Everyone has dreams and hopes and that's fine. But, this man took a bet on a public forum and did not pay up.
No one else should pay this debt but him. Unless and until he does, my opinion of him will not change. It is time for him to man up and pay off his bet...then maybe we can put all of this behind us. The choice is his.
Bill
Quote from: Dusty on June 09, 2014, 10:19:18 PM
TK, yes, I performed the before and after run down test just exactly as you described early on in testing. Results were obvious.
MarkE, You are totally correct, I have no disagreement what so ever with what you say.
I just like to replicate and also I do work on my own designs. I just enjoy it, not much more to say.
Dusty
If you enjoy it then more power to you and I hope you find it a nice pass time.
Here is Blender 2.70 file.
It is a good starting point to take into account 3D aspect of the simulation.
I am not that skilled in the software. Maybe someone else could make it more rigid and take it further.
Quote from: norman6538 on June 06, 2014, 09:41:57 PM
Sudarsana - being new you will save a lot of time if you get this
lever lesson firmly in your head. The lever trades off a long distance
and a small weight for a larger weight and a short distance. ie.
1 lb can lift 5 lbs but the one lb travels 5 inches and the 5 lbs
only travels 1 inch therefore both sides are the same - 5 inch lbs.
Remember work done is force times distance.
Norman
Thanks for the comment.
we can design a lever which keeps the weights in overbalance without consuming any energy.
people may laugh by reading the above line. but i believe the above lever can be achieved and without this kind of lever we cannot create gravity wheel.
cheers - SC.
Quote from: sudarsana on June 11, 2014, 03:03:56 AM
Thanks for the comment.
we can design a lever which keeps the weights in overbalance without consuming any energy.
people may laugh by reading the above line. but i believe the above lever can be achieved and without this kind of lever we cannot create gravity wheel.
cheers - SC.
If, as we know with some degree of certainly, that gravity is a conservative force then such a lever is simply not possible.
You would need to prove that the potential energy of a mass with a position in a gravitational field is somehow dependent on the path it took to get to the position rather than simply dependent on its location in the field. A full mathematical proof countering such a possibility was developed a long time ago. Nothing has changed since then.
One conclusion of the mathematical proof is that it implies no physical arrangement of masses can ever break this symmetry.
In essence you would need to modify the nature of gravity itself for your lever to be possible.
Let me comment it in weird way. In nature there are 3 types of reaction :
- unstable reaction which need input energy and has big looses - most common everywhere, it come to stable low energy state very quickly
- stable reaction which still need input energy, but has ability to maintain it's state (with some looses) - mostly human made
- unstable reaction which produce copious amount of effects around, which takes hidden background energy and dissipate at high rate - chain reaction, blow, explosions - fortunately RARE in nature
There is unclear why gravity should be restricted to the two former types.
One way or another you have to get gravity to act differently on the same mass at different times. If gravity acts the same on the same mass in the same relative position to other masses at all times then you are stuck with conservation. If the idea is that there is some background energy source, then the first task is to show that such an energy source exists and that there is some way to access it.
Quote from: webby1 on June 11, 2014, 11:44:01 AM
Not really.
You could also have the mass acting within a reactionary system where gravity becomes the constant that allows the mass to see a difference in the reaction as it interacts with the system.
I'm sorry but that is hogwash. As long as the gravitational field is conservative, then the amount of work that can be extracted by moving a mass in that field from one point to another is the same effort that has to be reapplied to return the mass to its initial position. In order to be able to extract net work each cycle, one must find a way around the conservative nature of gravity as we know it.
Quote
Kind of like a surfer,, the surfer is falling down the wave front and another force is pushing the water up to meet the surfer,, it is gravity being a constant force that allows the surfer to move forward over the water,, get rid of gravity and the surfer does not move,, get rid of the outside force lifting the water and the surfer does not move,, it is a whole reactionary system between the surface of the water and the surfer, the water being pushed up against the surfer, gravity pulling the surfer down, and the leverage the surfer uses by position on the board.
It's gravity supplying the force in both cases. And in both cases net external energy is being expended cycle by cycle.
Quote
Gravity is perfectly conserved, but it is a required component of the system.
As long as gravity is conservative, the machine cannot be made to use gravity to deliver net work each cycle.
Quote from: webby1 on June 11, 2014, 12:55:29 PM
Well MarkE,, you can have fun with that.
I did mention an outside force,, oops did you not read that.
What you seem to miss is that as long as gravity is conservative, then you cannot get net work out cycle by cycle moving objects around in that field.
Quote
Did I mention that the surfer does not NEED to have a change in THERE GPE?? maybe not :) Once elevated by the wave they can stay at that height while riding the wave along there merry way, giving the gained height back to gravity at the end of the ride.
First: the system loses GPE and does so whether the surfer is there to take advantage of it or not. There happens to be a whole bunch around so it takes eons to see much difference. Second: The surfer gets his ride out of a small part of that lost energy.
Utter facepalm.
The surfer gets a huge injection of energy from the wave, which is in turn powered ultimately by winds, which in turn are powered by the sun. The surfer is generally descending but the slope he's descending is rising, so he can stay at the same height on the wave as he is transported shorewards.
Gravity's only "function" is to provide an energy storage. You (or someone else, or the wave) put in work by elevating objects and gravity gives back that same work when the objects are allowed to fall. That's it.
Quote from: webby1 on June 11, 2014, 03:13:00 PM
No MarkE,
What you are missing is,,,, what function gravity is providing.
Do you know what is nice about any field force? you do not need to have any physical connection to the field to have the force manifest. No strings, no levers, no nothing,, action at a distance,, reaction at a distance,, try that with levers and pulleys,, they don't work so well without that physical connection thingy.
There is no less a connection with the surfer. The surfer is in contact with the water. The force at a distance that works on the surfer is almost entirely gravitational acceleration from his mass and the mass of the earth pulling him towards earth's center. All the work that is done is expended energy. There is no free energy in your example from any source including gravity.
Quote from: webby1 on June 11, 2014, 08:33:00 PM
Gravity is used,, yes?? that is exactly what I said and exactly what you just said,, so I guess then you are calling your own take on it face palm :)
The function of gravity,, is it actually used up or is it used to transfer potentials.
No, gravity is not "used up". Just as you can use a safe to store your cash, you can "use" gravity, or rather _relative position within a gravitational field_ as a place to store your energy. Do you expect to get more cash out of a safe than you put into it? If you give the safe to someone else, transferring potentials, will she be able to get more cash out than you put in? Of course not silly... you get out what you put in, minus losses. (It costs a little bit to open and close the door to the safe.)
Quote from: webby1 on June 11, 2014, 08:33:14 PM
Nothing is free,, something pays for it,, :)
In the case of your surfer analogy there is no mystery as to what "pays for it". In the case of wanting to get net energy out cycle by cycle from a field such as gravity, the field must be non-conservative. We do not know of any circumstances under which gravitation is non-conservative.
Quote from: MarkE on June 11, 2014, 09:32:13 PM
In the case of your surfer analogy there is no mystery as to what "pays for it". In the case of wanting to get net energy out cycle by cycle from a field such as gravity, the field must be non-conservative. We do not know of any circumstances under which gravitation is non-conservative.
thank for the comments and sorry for my poor English .
I believe gravity wheel is possible, in ancient India we have future predictor "veera brahmendra swamy", In Telugu (Indian language). In his writings, he said that "enimidhi muddalu thommidhi kakalathoti tirigedu chakram" means wheel rotates with help of 8 weights and 9 arcs. in my view the lever extracts energy from gravity and keeps weights in overbalanced position. Energy can be calculated using sum of : (sin (a + x) + sin (a + 2x) , sin (a+3x) + .. + sin (a+nx)) * length of max shifting * mas of weight.
where n is number of weight / 2 or (number of cross bars in wheel)
length of max shifting is depends on wheel radius.
cheers SC.
Quote from: sudarsana on June 12, 2014, 05:19:46 AM
thank for the comments and sorry for my poor English .
I believe gravity wheel is possible, in ancient India we have future predictor "veera brahmendra swamy", In Telugu (Indian language). In his writings, he said that "enimidhi muddalu thommidhi kakalathoti tirigedu chakram" means wheel rotates with help of 8 weights and 9 arcs. in my view the lever extracts energy from gravity and keeps weights in overbalanced position. Energy can be calculated using sum of : (sin (a + x) + sin (a + 2x) , sin (a+3x) + .. + sin (a+nx)) * length of max shifting * mas of weight.
where n is number of weight / 2 or (number of cross bars in wheel)
length of max shifting is depends on wheel radius.
cheers SC.
If you accept that gravitational fields are always conservative then it matters not how you move an object through such a field: The closed loop integral is always zero. IOW, the work: integral f*ds of any closed path is zero. Cycle by cycle you cannot release net energy out. In order for a working gravity wheel to be realizable, one must find conditions under which gravity is not conservative, a means to meet such conditions, and to do so in a way that one gains rather than loses energy.
Quote from: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 06:33:20 AM
If you accept that gravitational fields are always conservative then it matters not how you move an object through such a field: The closed loop integral is always zero. IOW, the work: integral f*ds of any closed path is zero. Cycle by cycle you cannot release net energy out. In order for a working gravity wheel to be realizable, one must find conditions under which gravity is not conservative, a means to meet such conditions, and to do so in a way that one gains rather than loses energy.
If you move the center of gravity in relation to a mass, and that mass is able to react to that change, then work will be done by that mass. Now we have to expend energy to move that center of gravity (you get nothing from nothing), but, if the amount of work needed to move that center of gravity is smaller than the work obtained by the mass reacting to that change, then you have an energy gain.
The thing is the movement of that center of gravity, in relation to that mass, must not see directly that mass, it is only that mass that sees the center of gravity has moved and not in reverse, if in reverse then you will have an energy loss.
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 11, 2014, 09:05:45 PM
No, gravity is not "used up". Just as you can use a safe to store your cash, you can "use" gravity, or rather _relative position within a gravitational field_ as a place to store your energy. Do you expect to get more cash out of a safe than you put into it? If you give the safe to someone else, transferring potentials, will she be able to get more cash out than you put in? Of course not silly... you get out what you put in, minus losses. (It costs a little bit to open and close the door to the safe.)
In relation to a flywheel that is totally correct, but read what I have posted above, this is the
relative position of the gravitational field, in other words move the field and not the mass, the mass will follow the field on it's own.
Can this be done? I say yes it can and has been done. The mass can be huge and take a lot of energy to move it, but if the gravitational field is moved with little energy, well think about it!!!!
regards
Mike 8)
How important is it to put a cost on tapping into gravitational force that
is free for all to use, in the first place?
Quote from: centraflow on June 12, 2014, 07:33:51 AM
If you move the center of gravity in relation to a mass, and that mass is able to react to that change, then work will be done by that mass. Now we have to expend energy to move that center of gravity (you get nothing from nothing), but, if the amount of work needed to move that center of gravity is smaller than the work obtained by the mass reacting to that change, then you have an energy gain.
The thing is the movement of that center of gravity, in relation to that mass, must not see directly that mass, it is only that mass that sees the center of gravity has moved and not in reverse, if in reverse then you will have an energy loss.
regards
Mike 8)
There is no moving masses in a gravitational field without exchanging work.
Quote from: centraflow on June 12, 2014, 07:48:55 AM
In relation to a flywheel that is totally correct, but read what I have posted above, this is the relative position of the gravitational field, in other words move the field and not the mass, the mass will follow the field on it's own.
Can this be done? I say yes it can and has been done. The mass can be huge and take a lot of energy to move it, but if the gravitational field is moved with little energy, well think about it!!!!
regards
Mike 8)
The field is a function of the masses. There is no known way to separate one from the other.
Quote from: camelherder49 on June 12, 2014, 07:58:19 AM
How important is it to put a cost on tapping into gravitational force that
is free for all to use, in the first place?
Force is not energy.
Quote from: webby1 on June 12, 2014, 08:19:29 AM
I know about this part TK,, it is not in how high things are , nor is it in actually how far they move from start to finish,, it is in how much gravity they use up,, I know, confusing term, but that would be that change in gravity that is not replaced or recovered.
So what did it cost the surfer for that free ride?
I fully believe that gravity is a conserved field,, that does not mean that it can not be used.
I ask you as well,, So what did it cost the surfer for that free ride?
Tom, it has been pointed out to you several times now that gravity is not a consumed item. GPE is conserved. The surfer's ride is all paid for with externally supplied energy. If you think both that gravity is a conservative field and that objects can be moved over some closed path and yield or take net GPE then you hold two concepts that are at fundamental odds with each other.
Where did I say force was energy??
But if you think, based on symantics, that gravitational force
acting on water falling 100 ft. to a turbine is a non-event
and man has not tapped into the force of gravity at no cost
and no overall destruction of the force, then explain away.
I would think the surfer's ride comes courtesy of the Sun and Moon.
John.
Quote from: camelherder49 on June 12, 2014, 09:01:22 AM
Where did I say force was energy??
But if you think, based on symantics, that gravitational force
acting on water falling 100 ft. to a turbine is a non-event
and man has not tapped into the force of gravity at no cost
and no overall destruction of the force, then explain away.
Gravity is a conservative field so you could not be about your wits and propose that gravity is a free energy source. The acceleration due to gravity, the apparent force is of course always there whether we want it or not.
Hydro dams are deferred solar energy. Solar energy does the lifting. We recover a small percentage of that energy as the water works its way back to the sea.
Standard theory shows that gravity is a conserved field and many careful experiments since 200 years have proven that.
Therefore, no amount of words and no amount of strange theories will do to undo that.
The only way forward for "gravity machine believers" is to show a conclusive and reproduceable experiment. And exactly that has never happened. All we get is words and strange theories. Kind of boring after 200 years.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 08:40:44 AM
There is no moving masses in a gravitational field without exchanging work.
correct, but did I say
work was not exchanged, no, the implication is how much work was exchanged and where the work was applied, and what work you end up with in relation to the work applied.
If the work applied was to move the center of gravity in relation to a mass, does that mass absorb that energy? or does that mass have it's own energy which could be more than moving the relation of the center of gravity to it?
Lets use a TK type analogy, if a one ton block of concrete was balanced in the doorway of an airplane at 1000 ft up in the air, then a very slight tip of the plane changed the center of gravity relationship to that block of concrete, naturally it falls out, the potencial energy of that block is huge. Don't try to say it took energy to get it up there in the first place, I am not talking about that, just the energy to tip the plane, but the energy from stable to totally unstable and it's result, I expect quite devistating if it fell on your house ;D
SOOOO don't move the mass, move the center of gravity in relation to that mass, the mass has potencial energy and can be unlocked with little energy input, that's what it is about.
Now how do we do that? remember the mass sees the center of gravity move, but the center of gravity does not see what the mass is doing ;) and dosn't care ???
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: webby1 on June 12, 2014, 10:15:23 AM
Exactly Mark,, gravity is not consumed.
There is a cost the surfer pays for his free ride. So it is not totally free,, he just pays less than what "he" gets out of it.
Maybe you think riding a canoe down stream with the current is free energy too.
Quote from: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 08:41:51 AM
The field is a function of the masses. There is no known way to separate one from the other.
you do not separate them, just change the relationship to one another
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: centraflow on June 12, 2014, 11:04:18 AM
correct, but did I say work was not exchanged, no, the implication is how much work was exchanged and where the work was applied, and what work you end up with in relation to the work applied.
If the work applied was to move the center of gravity in relation to a mass, does that mass absorb that energy? or does that mass have it's own energy which could be more than moving the relation of the center of gravity to it?
Yes it's in relation to that mass called earth. And moving it either releases energy because the GPE in total decreases, or requires work because the GPE increases.
Quote
Lets use a TK type analogy, if a one ton block of concrete was balanced in the doorway of an airplane at 1000 ft up in the air, then a very slight tip of the plane changed the center of gravity relationship to that block of concrete, naturally it falls out, the potencial energy of that block is huge. Don't try to say it took energy to get it up there in the first place, I am not talking about that, just the energy to tip the plane, but the energy from stable to totally unstable and it's result, I expect quite devistating if it fell on your house ;D
You get to extract energy from reducing the GPE of something from one potential to another at most once. A cycle is not complete until you return every object to its starting position. If you choose to define the cycle start as the moment before the object starts falling, then you aren't done until you get the object back up from where you dropped it.
Quote
SOOOO don't move the mass, move the center of gravity in relation to that mass, the mass has potencial energy and can be unlocked with little energy input, that's what it is about.
Now how do we do that? remember the mass sees the center of gravity move, but the center of gravity does not see what the mass is doing ;) and dosn't care ???
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: centraflow on June 12, 2014, 11:12:06 AM
you do not separate them, just change the relationship to one another
regards
Mike 8)
That's nice, show that you can "change the relationship".
Quote from: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 11:14:07 AM
That's nice, show that you can "change the relationship".
An off set see saw, heavy weight on the short end and a lighter weight on the other, the fulcrum is your center of gravity
relationship, notice I said relationshipregardsMike 8)
Now how can we do that as a continual change?
It is related to time bending ;D well I call it that for what of a word :)
regards
Mike 8)
This is about as close as you can get it at this present time
http://www.overunity.com/14655/1939-gravity-power-multiply-power-by-1200/msg406284/#new
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: centraflow on June 12, 2014, 11:28:45 AM
An off set see saw, heavy weight on the short end and a lighter weight on the other, the fulcrum is your center of gravity relationship, notice I said relationship
regards
Mike 8)
A lever does not change the relationship between a mass and the gravitational field.
QuoteLets use a TK type analogy, if a one ton block of concrete was balanced in the doorway of an airplane at 1000 ft up in the air, then a very slight tip of the plane changed the center of gravity relationship to that block of concrete, naturally it falls out, the potencial energy of that block is huge. Don't try to say it took energy to get it up there in the first place, I am not talking about that, just the energy to tip the plane, but the energy from stable to totally unstable and it's result, I expect quite devistating if it fell on your house (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fgrin.gif&hash=48cd3b652a891d74b4b4ef746db528263b551e0c)
You must be talking about that other "TK", Kapanadze, because I don't leave out the energy it took to get the block up there in the first place.
DO NOT MISREPRESENT ME OR PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.
Nobody denies that you can "extract energy" from falling weights. That energy does not come from gravity, though, and the "trick" is that you need to consider the _complete cycle_. How did that pesky concrete block get up there in the airplane to begin with? THAT is the energy that "devistates" your house. The little tipping energy "from stable to unstable" is just what it takes to get over the final potential hill (moving the CG of the block over the edge of the doorway) and that is returned almost instantly as the block begins to fall.
Quote from: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 11:40:02 AM
A lever does not change the relationship between a mass and the gravitational field.
what are you talking about, the see saw or the other thread?
If the other thread, you need to study it to see what changes the relationship, in reality it is the time domain relationship of the center of gravity (continualy moving) and the bottom weight trying to keep up with it, it's like a cat trying to catch it's own tail, the cat is the heavy weight, the tail is the moving center of gravity using very little energy to move, but the weight has a huge amount of energy once moving from gravitational pull (it never stops as long as you have that small input).
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: centraflow on June 12, 2014, 11:54:25 AM
what are you talking about, the see saw or the other thread?
If the other thread, you need to study it to see what changes the relationship, in reality it is the time domain relationship of the center of gravity (continualy moving) and the bottom weight trying to keep up with it, it's like a cat trying to catch it's own tail, the cat is the heavy weight, the tail is the moving center of gravity using very little energy to move, but the weight has a huge amount of energy once moving from gravitational pull (it never stops as long as you have that small input).
regards
QuoteQuoteQuote from: centraflow on Today at 05:28:45 PM
An off set see saw, heavy weight on the short end and a lighter weight on the other, the fulcrum is your center of gravity relationship, notice I said relationship
regards
Mike 8)
A lever does not change the relationship between a mass and the gravitational field.
Mike 8)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 12, 2014, 11:51:26 AM
You must be talking about that other "TK", Kapanadze, because I don't leave out the energy it took to get the block up there in the first place.
DO NOT MISREPRESENT ME OR PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.
Nobody denies that you can "extract energy" from falling weights. That energy does not come from gravity, though, and the "trick" is that you need to consider the _complete cycle_. How did that pesky concrete block get up there in the airplane to begin with? THAT is the energy that "devistates" your house. The little tipping energy "from stable to unstable" is just what it takes to get over the final potential hill (moving the CG of the block over the edge of the doorway) and that is returned almost instantly as the block begins to fall.
TK
Don't get heated, I was talking to Mark-E and not representing you in any way, I'm not that type of person, so calm down.
Yes I think I explained myself well that getting the block up there in the first place was not to be taken into the equation. It was to show that little in a moment of time can be used to create a lot. The trick is to be able to do that all the time without starting from the ground again, and of course with that analogy you could never do that, and was not the point.
Now what I call time bending ;D is another thing, it can be a way of maintaining a mass in continual fall with little energy input in relation to output. No laws are broken, just bent time a little ;D
If you look at that other thread, then you just maybe see something and see why I call it time bending, a mass that's always falling!!! how can that be? well thinkabout what I have said in other posts here, move the center of gravity relationship to the mass and don't try to move the mass. 8)
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 12:09:05 PM
A lever does not change the relationship between a mass and the gravitational field.
Mike 8)
?????????????????
Quote from: centraflow on June 12, 2014, 12:16:17 PM
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??
Except when the center of mass of lever is changing without any work spent, like when lever is free falling in space.
Never heard about parametric resonance ? It's very similar
Quote from: forest on June 12, 2014, 02:16:46 PM
Except when the center of mass of lever is changing without any work spent, like when lever is free falling in space.
Never heard about parametric resonance ? It's very similar
Forest my question marks were for what he was trying to pòint out in his post, I only see my posts one on top of other and nothing more
Parametric resonance I know
probably more than you, only saying because you do not know me, unlike some, and parametric resonance has nothing to do with this.
Again were you refering to the see saw or the other thread? I presume again the other thread as you are talking levers, though I supose a see saw could be deamed a lever, taken in the right context :-\
I really do not know what you are talking about!!
Please enlighten me, maybe I'm missing something ;)
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: webby1 on June 12, 2014, 02:54:35 PM
To the canoeist. :)
The surfer is stuck in the reference frame of the water he is sitting in,, to "ride the wave" he must accelerate himself relative to the water until he matches the relative "speed" of the wave,, then he can ride it.
His cost is that input, once done then he is not moving relative to the wave and sees the water move past,, where as stuck in the water he sees the wave move past and pick him up and set him back down in that passing.
You almost have it right. The surface tension between the water and the board is only enough to support relatively small accelerations. If the surfer gets himself to the same speed as the wave then the surface tension will be enough to carry the surfer at a constant speed or through small accelerations. Too much acceleration and it's wipe out time.
Quote
His forward movement was created by that input,, so a mass in motion,,,,, the change is in the distance he has traveled and the input to get there, and that is relative to his starting point and reference frame and ending point within the starting reference frame.
No energy was hurt in this trip, not harmed in any way, nor eaten nor were any energy babies made,, but to the surfer, he expended less energy to move from point "A" to point "B" by riding the wave. The losses he would of incurred were hidden from him by the wave,, not that they were not there because they are.
It is no different than the guy in the canoe. If your neighbor treats you to a meal, you may not have paid the cost of the meal, but it wasn't free.
Quote from: centraflow on June 12, 2014, 06:18:47 PM
Forest my question marks were for what he was trying to pòint out in his post, I only see my posts one on top of other and nothing more
Parametric resonance I know probably more than you, only saying because you do not know me, unlike some, and parametric resonance has nothing to do with this.
Again were you refering to the see saw or the other thread? I presume again the other thread as you are talking levers, though I supose a see saw could be deamed a lever, taken in the right context :-\
I really do not know what you are talking about!!
Please enlighten me, maybe I'm missing something ;)
regards
Mike 8)
I have only a foggy idea. If a kind of lever is falling in gravity without restrictions and there is a rotational movement like in in principles presented here and there is a movement inside lever to change center of mass then the angular momentum may be much bigger then normally. Just idea...
Quote from: webby1 on June 13, 2014, 07:36:45 AM
Bingo!
Cost is cost,, or is it? Is it not YOUR cost that counts, not how much it cost, it is what you have paid for it.
It depends: Will your neighbor always be around treating you to your supper, or will you eventually have to fend for yourself?
Quote from: webby1 on June 13, 2014, 07:51:58 AM
If nature is your neighbor,, and it is a process that you are eating,, then I think that could be given to you every day :)
There is a big ball of fire in the sky, nuclear heating underground, and gravitational force variations (tidal forces) sloshing the seas around above and beyond the wind effects. Any of these energy sources can and have been tapped directly or indirectly as "renewable" energy sources.
What is unknown is any cheat on the conservative nature of gravity. No one but no one has figured out a circumstance where they can move a mass over a closed path and end up with net energy over the course of traversing that complete path.
Quote from: webby1 on June 13, 2014, 11:21:45 AM
There is always a cost,, even in an open path.
Yes there is always a cost. We just have to figure out how to get more value out of our expense.
Quote from: webby1 on June 12, 2014, 08:19:29 AM
I know about this part TK,, it is not in how high things are , nor is it in actually how far they move from start to finish,, it is in how much gravity they use up,, I know, confusing term, but that would be that change in gravity that is not replaced or recovered.
So what did it cost the surfer for that free ride?
I fully believe that gravity is a conserved field,, that does not mean that it can not be used.
I ask you as well,, So what did it cost the surfer for that free ride?
Well, first, the sun had to input energy to heat the earth in an uneven manner which causes the wind which makes the waves. Then, the surfer had to not only paddle out to be in position, he had to expend energy to "catch up" with the wave as it passes over him. He must match the velocity of the moving water or...he will be left behind. Other than that, no energy whatsoever was expended for his "free" ride.
Bill
ETA: I left out gravity as surfers are almost always running downhill not unlike a skier. (I used to surf)
http://youtu.be/UAnMpw08v7A (http://youtu.be/UAnMpw08v7A)
here is my first hammer test based on mt 143
Quote from: nblt on June 14, 2014, 06:09:30 PM
http://youtu.be/UAnMpw08v7A (http://youtu.be/UAnMpw08v7A)
here is my first hammer test based on mt 143
Nice test. It appears that Mr. Hand is inputting a lot of energy there. Please try TK's method of using a string and a weight to establish the revoloutions of the wheel without anything added and use this as your baseline for tests with your devices added to the wheel. This method will show right away if the things you have added to the wheel are helping, or hurting the rotation.
Bill
Hi all
I have made a wheel with one cross bar . as per me(or theoretically) crossbar has to be in equilibrium only in y - axis (90 degrees). but I am seeing the rest(equilibrium) position of crossbar at +/- 60 degrees. it is reaching the y - axis when i left(with out any force/ free fall) the arm from x - axis position. If i let it fall above the x -axis it is crossing the y - axis but not able to continue the rotation. by adding the more cross bars can i achieve rotations?.
cheers SC
Quote from: sudarsana on June 16, 2014, 02:47:13 AM
Hi all
I have made a wheel with one cross bar . as per me(or theoretically) crossbar has to be in equilibrium only in y - axis (90 degrees). but I am seeing the rest(equilibrium) position of crossbar at +/- 60 degrees. it is reaching the y - axis when i left(with out any force/ free fall) the arm from x - axis position. If i let it fall above the x -axis it is crossing the y - axis but not able to continue the rotation. by adding the more cross bars can i achieve rotations?.
cheers SC
My expectation is that unless you give it some sort of initial push, it will be unable to make one full rotation. Unless the changes and additions that you might make reduce friction and/or binding of what you have now by more than the additional friction and binding that any additions introduce, the angle of any unassisted rotation should become less and less.
Any new developments?
Quote from: gurangax on April 24, 2014, 08:12:21 PM
a testimony from the one who have seen the mechanism is this
Interior of the machine was a simple arrangement of weights and levers. - Prince Karl, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, eyewitness account
so there you have it
This was found to have never been said by Karl , rather it was a fictional quote ... the internet has many of these mis-directions .
Quote from: christo4_99 on August 04, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
This was found to have never been said by Karl , rather it was a fictional quote ... the internet has many of these mis-directions .
Good post. I could not agree more.
Bill
Quote from: gurangax on April 24, 2014, 02:40:13 PM
How do you open source it? By putting it on this website, thats how.
It is easy to say that you have solved the problem without giving the details, many (including myself) won't believe this kind of position without facts to back it up. I'll stay with the notion that it never worked, ever, because if it had the world would have gone wild over it.
This Bessler wheel is like all of the 'legend' FE inventors- all talk with no mechanism to prove their claims.
Firstly, how do you open source it? I'm afraid that someone will steal it and patent it for himself.
Secondly, what will this benefit me? What will I get by doing this, will this harm anyone?
I know why everyone keeps failing to replicate a Bessler Wheel, its because they keep on repeating his mistakes. there is none of his published drawings that works! You are looking it the wrong way. The clues are there but lets keep that for another time.
The reason why I am saying that the mystery is solved is because of a very simple mechanism which he wanted to protect so much. You wont believe how simple it is, thus I understand why he destroyed and hidden all the evidences. With this lost knowledge (not anymore), every written history about the wheel fits in the puzzle. All questions regarding the clues that were gained in the past can now be fully understood. And finally Johann Bessler will be accepted as a genuine Perpetual Motion inventor.[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
Regards[/font][/size]
Written history?
If there is no proof of this solution, there is no solution.
You open source it by putting it on this website. So lets see it.
-Russ
Referring to the diagram I have posted below .
In the shaded region labeled 'A', I think there could be either :
( 1 ) - A magnetic mechanism that swings( or releases ) the weight down( in the direction of rotation ) 'BEFORE' it would normally be swung/released down if it just relied on gravity
( 2 ) - A mechanical mechanism that that does the same as ( 1 )
( 3 ) - A spring ( or, a spring latch ) mechanism that that does the same as ( 1 )
( 4 ) - OR, a combination of any of the above
OR, In the shaded region labeled 'B', a mechanism could be raising/returning the weight back to it's position close to the rim of the wheel, BEFORE that would normally happen if just relying on gravity .
The mechanism/mechanisms would be activated by it's angle to gravity, to cause things to happen earlier ( or later ) than they normally would by just relying on gravity ).
POSSIBILITY 1
This mechanism could exist either on the wheel itself, or, on a static structure next to the wheel .
( Could it be that the force from one weight falling at 9:00-O'clock then re-lifts a weight at between 9:00-O'clock and 6:00-O'clock , or pushes a weight( between 9:00-O'clock and 12:00-O'clock ) to fall early . Could that mechanism be magnetic or cog-wheels , to transfer the force collected from a falling weight to help budge another weight to fall early, or to be re-lifted early )
POSSIBILITY 2
Each weight has it's own individual mechanism ( activated by it's angle to gravity, to cause things to happen earlier ( or later ) than they normally would by just relying on gravity ).