Bessler Wheel Theory by Alex

[Alexioco]

Alex,

[Sir, if I have caused you any stress then I'm ashamed of myself, Im sorry for being so secretive and I will indeed post my wheel once me and you have sorted it out privatly.]


Sir!  I may be your elder, and I appreciate the intent. But when it comes to forum talk I am your peer, one of equal standing. And you did not cause my stress intentionally, it was brought on by myself due to concern of your innovation-invention not getting the recognition in a scientific manner I deemed it deserves.

As for posting your wheel, it appears to me that you have already done so!  I will get a private message off to you later this evening.

On an open source forum things tend to go astray in a hand basket, sometimes in a hurry! I did not wish to see it happen here and to you!

Now that that is off my chest!  I am wondering what if any connection there is between your design and the WM2D just posted by Stefan for Hans?

Ralph   

They are nothing like eachother lol, thats not to say that his or my ideas are bad, his is quite creative and I hope he goes far...

I talk to you on email it will be better...

[rlortie]

Hans,

I am not familiar with your above WM2D concept, I fail to see why springs are mentioned.

I do not see any elliptical gradient therefore no "Out of Balance" a circle drawn around the perimeter of the weights is somewhat if not very symmetrical or a true circle.

I do see a very good example of Newtons law of motion part # 3.. [If any force acts on two bodies, the change in momentum in both of them is the same.] Now it is obvious that your design allows for accelerated impact in a counter clockwise rotation while being dampened (squeezed)on the ascending side.

Base on this assumption and if Newton is correct then WM2D should show a slight inertial acceleration compounding with the fall of each descending weight. That is of course will cease once the falling weights match velocity with the container they are falling in.

This is all I am going to comment on this subject as I do not see the relevance to thread title.

Ralph 

 

[fletcher]

Alex .. I suggest you take a deep breath - expect the same outcome that you laughed about with Hans WM sim attempt [he's obviously trying out the program] - your concept admirably demonstrates the fallacy of 'trading height for width' - end of story.

Nevertheless, as I've said all along, build it & see, even get Ralph to build as well to be doubly sure, but look at things with a critical eye - your lifted superior weights are redundant i.e. not required vis-a-vis add nothing to the design - you would do just as well to have weights located at the folding pivots only - the school of hard knocks is the best teacher for sure so I can't fault you for skinning your knuckles.

[Alexioco]

You are right, just build the thing and see what happens, the more talking I do, the less testing I do...

lol I do know one thing, trying to get perpetual motion is not easy haha you have to laugh though...

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

As usual you and I agree or this time I should say I agree with you.

Alex .. I suggest you take a deep breath - expect the same outcome that you laughed about with Hans WM sim attempt [he's obviously trying out the program] - your concept admirably demonstrates the fallacy of 'trading height for width' - end of story.

So why am I overly interested? Its because when Alex first passed this by me, I saw the fault and brought it to his attention. I also say what I believe is potential for negating the hight for width scenario that seems to pop up in almost every design we see.

I cannot go into depth as it is not mine and in my eyes considered confidential prior property rights.  Alex can post all  he wishes but I am still bound to only that which has been stated or he gives me authorization to proceed.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, I do expect Alex to keep my responses to him confidential.

Ralph