Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: circle on February 04, 2013, 08:11:10 AM
-
Has everyone read this? i wonder how much of his devotion was in fact fear of the chuch?
anyone happen to know how much it cost his benefactor to produce this?
-
i was able to read the latin more easily than the german but i can get most of the meaning from either without running too often to the dictionairies
automated web translator services are comical
there are more reliable sources for word definitions and historical usages
-
for me the main thing to be gathered from this book was that he had no intention of letting his secret out too easily
but just like me he kept thinking he had handed out too much
but it seems that people just take the fragments and use them to confuse themselves with what they think they already know
-
anyway..
time for bed
i will put the rest of this book up later
-
The entire DT book (translated into English) is available from John Collins for $5.00 (US). All you have to do is purchase and download the PDF. You can also get all of Bessler's other books (also in English). Well worth the cost. AP and MT especially.
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/johncollins (http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/johncollins)
-
yea i know there are people out there trying to make a buck off it
i grabbed it for free off the german acrhives back in nov 07
missing a page though..
-
5 bucks is not too much to ask for an accurate English translation. My guess is very few people on this forum will be able to read the pages, so if you're not going to translate, then I would say your post will only pi$$ off Overunity for a big waste of their space.
For everyone else that doesn't want to save all the pages, you can do a Google search for DAS TRIUMPHIRENDE and you will find links to online sources. Below is one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=f0yV7mWwQgQC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA1&ots=wQDOQVZbWH&dq=Das+Triumphirende (http://books.google.com/books?id=f0yV7mWwQgQC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA1&ots=wQDOQVZbWH&dq=Das+Triumphirende)
Of course you will still need to translate ...
-
I case you care to look at just one drawing in this strange book, you will see that it it was driven by a weight. And like a pendulum clock, it would run a very long time untill the weight reaches the ground:
http://books.google.at/books?id=f0yV7mWwQgQC&pg=PA144&dq=Das+Triumphirende&hl=de&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3
Greetings, Conrad
-
I case you care to look at just one drawing in this strange book, you will see that it it was driven by a weight. And like a pendulum clock, it would run a very long time untill the weight reaches the ground:
http://books.google.at/books?id=f0yV7mWwQgQC&pg=PA144&dq=Das+Triumphirende&hl=de&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3 (http://books.google.at/books?id=f0yV7mWwQgQC&pg=PA144&dq=Das+Triumphirende&hl=de&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3)
Greetings, Conrad
No, Conrad, that is the weight the machine is able to pull up !
So it is doing real work !
Also at the left side it shows 4 stamping rods that are used as a stamping hammer mill for corn processing.
This is another mechanical output of the wheel.
This picture is a composition of 2 different side and front views !
So the Bessler wheel is shown 2 times from different view angles.
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
-
No, Conrad, that is the weight the machine is able to pull up !
So it is doing real work !
Also at the left side it shows 4 stamping rods that are used as a stamping hammer mill for corn processing.
This is another mechanical output of the wheel.
This picture is a composition of 2 different side and front views !
So the Bessler wheel is shown 2 times from different view angles.
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
Well, would have been too easy. Obviously, Bessler was not that blunt.
Sorry, Conrad
-
dont be discouraged conrad..
for about two hours after i first found that image i was under similar impression
my first idea was that there was a discharge of energy from the rope on display to the axle it winds around
i was sitting looking at my attempt to draw out a diagram detailing the function on display when i realized that was not the case
the force driving the motion is inside the wheel and not on display
but five days later i had the solution
i dont think my claim has much appeal to people
but consider the response i mentioned in a seperate post
a physicist told me i 'need to do something with this'..
i do not consider their insight as to what unseen obstacles might exist to be adequate to comprehend why i do not
how does the bessler quote go? when he said 'it makes no difference one ounce this way or that'
it really does not matter
and it can be seen as glaringly obvious when looking at the schematic
people are just not doing a through job at defining that which they are looking at
diagram your idea
then
draw a line down through the axle
and
identify what you see
by name i could cite that many ideas and systems that people present could be refered to as 'symetrical'
while any repetitive mechanical structure is going to have that as a characteristic many people somehow imagine that the design ends there; that the working wheel is somehow symetrical and ordered
i will point out that it is systematicly disordered with relation to the two halves
and i wonder what bessler was thinking when he wrote 'and still do you not see?'
it is so glaringly obvious once you know, it is litteraly amazing that one can dump so much clue and hint and others fail to gasp
that physicist i mentioned this to was led through it step by step
and agreed
-
but five days later i had the solution
i dont think my claim has much appeal to people
but consider the response i mentioned in a seperate post
a physicist told me i 'need to do something with this'..
i do not consider their insight as to what unseen obstacles might exist to be adequate to comprehend why i do not
how does the bessler quote go? when he said 'it makes no difference one ounce this way or that'
it really does not matter
and it can be seen as glaringly obvious when looking at the schematic
by name i could cite that many ideas and systems that people present could be refered to as 'symetrical'
while any repetitive mechanical structure is going to have that as a characteristic many people somehow imagine that the design ends there; that the working wheel is somehow symmetrical and ordered
i will point out that it is systematicly disordered with relation to the two halves
and i wonder what bessler was thinking when he wrote 'and still do you not see?'
it is so glaringly obvious once you know, it is litteraly amazing that one can dump so much clue and hint and others fail to gasp
that physicist i mentioned this to was led through it step by step
and agreed
@circle: Well, I still do not see, but I will keep trying. Thank you any way for the hints.
I am referring to the Google Books publication of the book and to the pages you already showed in this thread:
http://books.google.at/books?id=f0yV7mWwQgQC&pg=PA144&dq=Das+Triumphirende&hl=de&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3 (http://books.google.at/books?id=f0yV7mWwQgQC&pg=PA144&dq=Das+Triumphirende&hl=de&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3)
The contents of the book up to page 143 are just polite talk (necessary at the time when addressing a noble person like a duke). The book becomes interesting and technical starting with the drawing at page 144 and the list of components on pages 145 to 148.
Unfortunately I can not see anything after page 148 because Google blanks these pages.
Since you have a copy of the book, could you please tell us what one finds on the remaining pages in case it is just small talk again. But if it is technical, it would be nice if you could first show us these technical pages starting with page 149.
Are there more than one drawing page in the book?
Greetings, Conrad
Observation: The two "Perpendicul 8" (one on each side of the wheel) drive the axle of the wheel ("Hauptwelle 3") by help off the "Leisten 9" and the "Zapffen und Corben 10" (crank). Either the wheel drives the pendulums or the pendulums drive the wheel. In both cases the motion would stop after a while (till friction dampens all initial movement). So, this is just an observation and no solution or explanation of the riddle.
-
Can somebody post a simplified diagram, or a different page view.
I am looking & looking, but I cannot see the mechanism that causes the wheel to rotate.
.
-
I would say, these are the only drawings available:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/drawings.html
And since Bessler's time people are speculating what could be inside the big wheel, which offers a lot of space in its interior to hide some stuff.
My take is that the available drawings do not allow a definitive conclusion. Poster "circle" claims to have some insight, but so far he keeps talking in riddles instead of explaining. The pages of the book he published in this thread are of little help. May be he will come back with more concrete information.
Greetings, Conrad
-
conrad,
the pendelum retards the rate of motion.. governs it.. keeping it within a stable pace
look to the work of george bidell airy for the basis in mathematics
fatbird.. there is nothing to see.. "the force driving the motion is inside the wheel and not on display"
conrad..
you must find the peices of the puzzle and then solve them
it does not suffice to declare that there are not enough peices simply because you have yet to find enough of them
in four days i had all but one of them (actually two if you figure in the second of the two directional latches without which it will not function [this is your requested 'something more concrete'])
at the time i did not know how much yet was missing but i knew that i had sorted what i could not refute to the fullest extent posible within my own ability
on the fourth day i spent at least 5 hours reading an english captains log from the german archives that i had found besslers written work in
it is a habbit of mine to return to a language i am more familar with when i get to the point of burnout when dealing with linguistic immersion
even if only returning to a language that is poorly mastered it is a comfort to return to the familiar
i spent those hours immersed in the captains detailed log.. immersed in the visual descriptive detail of pacific natives, beautiful pristine beachs and the struggle to take from them that which is needed to survive
for those hours the first wheel of bessler was two years off in the furture and on the other side of the world
although it has not yet been my intention to offer my insight for free i have not been trying to speak in riddle ..even so you make a good point
the weights change what they are to the wheel as it turns
to make a reference to a riddle that indicates the nature of one aspect of the change;
"when is a door not a door?..
..when it is ajar"
its funny how well that riddle fits
-
@circle: You claim to have some insight. The only way to prove the validity or correctness of your self proclaimed insight is the replication of a Bessler Wheel that turns by itself for a considerable length of time.
Your claims and statements would be much more interesting could you show a turning Bessler Wheel.
We have books and claims since centuries and no turning Bessler Wheel. In the last decades we have numerous web sites, discussion threads and replication attempts, and still no turning Bessler Wheel.
In order to get some credit, you should offer more than words and insinuations. You are entitled to keep you secret, but show something tangible. Otherwise you are like the many people who have shown up in this forum with big words and nothing behind the claim but ego.
In case you want to guard a secret, well, shut up. What sense does it make to claim to have a secrete? A secret has to be kept secrete. Talk about it is either stupidity (because it puts the secrete in danger) or an attempt to make oneself interesting (which is more in the field of clinical psychology or mental health conditions).
Greetings, Conrad
-
I find myself in agreement with conradelektro. If you DON'T have a runner to back up your claim, you should NOT expect to be taken seriously no matter what you think you know or were told. History is littered with people making this claim, and to date, based on publicly documented eye witness accounts, it appears that only three people have produced runners: Bessler, Keno, and Jackson.
In the past I have defended others (such as christo4_99) to make such claims, and I would defend anyone's right to do so, but I also take their claims with a fair amount of skepticism.
I myself have spoken with a very qualified and respected mechanical engineer on two occasions regarding an idea I was working on and he was very interested to see what I was doing and urged me to continue. Well not long after that I came to realize I was coming to a dead end. So what I learned from this person is to not put so much stock in what other so called "experts" have to say. No one can be an expert in an area where only three others have previously succeeded. Really only two if you consider Keno was a Bessler descendent and probably had access to Bessler's original notes.
Only a build will substantiate your idea and prove your claim. Until then, it is just an unproven idea, maybe brilliant, but nonetheless unproven.
-
Please look at the attached drawing. I added two enlargements on the right side of the drawing.
The lever carrying weights W1 and W2 at its ends is not in balance because its turning points C1 (red) and C2 (blue) are off centre. The strange arc (instead of a bearing or hole) insures that the lever either rest with C1 or with C2 on the horizontal pole around which it turns. In case the lever rests with turning point C1 on the pole the weight W1 is on the longer arm (of the lever) and pulls the lever down on the left side.
In case the crank (or the wheel) stalls (stops) at the moment depicted in the drawing, the rods 9 and 9a will shift the lever so that its turning point becomes C2 which puts weight W2 on the longer arm (of the lever) and makes the weight W2 pull the lever down on the right side.
The "stalling mechanism" (blocking and unblocking mechanism) might be operated by what Bessler hides as an "open lock" and some little thing in a hole in the base of pole 4.
Now, this might explain the swinging of the pendulum 8 from side to side, but it still can not explain unassisted continuous motion as many experiments with pendulums have shown. Shifting the turning point of a pendulum by the pendulum itself, does not provide a perpetuum mobile. The shifting "costs energy" which has to come from an outside source and can not be provided by the pendulum itself (or it will eventually stop).
But inside the wheel there could be a wound up spring which imparts a little momentum each time the lever has to be shifted from turning point C1 to C2 or from C2 to C1. This could be a balance wheel like in a clock ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_wheel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_wheel) ) freeing and then blocking the wound up spring at the right moment. So, during each turn of the wheel the wound up spring would only act once to impart a little momentum.
Poster "circle" sees some asymmetry in the wheel. This could be the distance between the "teeth" or "poles". But this could just be sloppy drawing.
Greetings, Conrad
-
Conrad, none of the eyewitness accounts stated that the pendulums were present when the wheels were exhibited. The thought is they were added to the pictures as some sort of clue to their inner workings of the wheel, but no one knows for sure.
You mentioned the pivot point of one of the pendulums was not centered. That is because the pendulum in question is actually being viewed from an angle. The picture includes two views of the same wheel (front/rear view and side view). In the front/rear view (which is the wheel on the left), Bessler appears to have angled the pendulum to show it's connections. In the side view (the wheel on the right), you can see the pivot point better.
-
ok.. well ..i don't see much need to continue to entertain neophytes or naysayers
my time is limited enough as it is
i will respond only to those who are lucid and cognizant
-
@Circle
I have not heard back from you. Did you happen to see my message to you on February 07, 2013, 06:49:56 PM?
Or perhaps you consider me not lucid or cognizant, and not worthy of your response. I hope this is not the case.
Quote from Circle today at 06:36:39 AM
i will respond only to those who are lucid and cognizant
-
ok.. well ..i don't see much need to continue to entertain neophytes or naysayers
my time is limited enough as it is
i will respond only to those who are lucid and cognizant
@circle: I am looking forward to see something lucid posted by you.
So far I am only seeing "triumphierend nutzlose Seiten aus einem alten Buch" (Triumphantly useless pages from an old book.)
How about showing a continuously turning Bessler Wheel? That would be triumphantly impressive.
Greetings, Conrad
-
Conrad, none of the eyewitness accounts stated that the pendulums were present when the wheels were exhibited. The thought is they were added to the pictures as some sort of clue to their inner workings of the wheel, but no one knows for sure.
You mentioned the pivot point of one of the pendulums was not centered. That is because the pendulum in question is actually being viewed from an angle. The picture includes two views of the same wheel (front/rear view and side view). In the front/rear view (which is the wheel on the left), Bessler appears to have angled the pendulum to show it's connections. In the side view (the wheel on the right), you can see the pivot point better.
i thought you were doing a fine job of explaining stuff that should have been obvious
very patient and considerate of you to take the time to do so
i was once as confused as conrad but i looked at my confusion honestly and confronted it
within minutes i had the points that i did know identified and was building on them
the fact that i did not understand it was not an amorphous blob in my mind; it was a starting point
i set out to find out if enough data existed to determine what was inside
i did not assume i would be able to solve it; i did however assume that i would eventually be able to say that enough pieces of data exist or do not exist (or remain not yet known by me)
if i could find enough evidence in the historical record then i would consider that
if he was a fraud i wanted to discover that, or at least to suspect it based on evidence
whatever the truth was i was seeking it
but to look at what was displayed
the evidence indicated he had done it
so i followed his lead
it is very cleverly done
i can honestly say i dont think i could have solved it on my own with out following him
even with no load a single pair of weights will almost stop when at the top about to fall a second time
this is seen as not being possible and effects kneejerk reactions
but once explained even a physicist can see why the device worked then and will work again..
every fragment of the descriptions on record that i have yet encountered conform with my insight on the matter
-
i was once as confused as conrad but i looked at my confusion honestly and confronted it
within minutes i had the points that i did know identified and was building on them
the fact that i did not understand it was not an amorphous blob in my mind; it was a starting point
i set out to find out if enough data existed to determine what was inside
i did not assume i would be able to solve it; i did however assume that i would eventually be able to say that enough pieces of data exist or do not exist (or remain not yet known by me)
if i could find enough evidence in the historical record then i would consider that
if he was a fraud i wanted to discover that, or at least to suspect it based on evidence
whatever the truth was i was seeking it
but to look at what was displayed
the evidence indicated he had done it
so i followed his lead
it is very cleverly done
i can honestly say i dont think i could have solved it on my own with out following him
even with no load a single pair of weights will almost stop when at the top about to fall a second time
this is seen as not being possible and effects kneejerk reactions
but once explained even a physicist can see why the device worked then and will work again..
every fragment of the descriptions on record that i have yet encountered conform with my insight on the matter
What can I say being confronted with such wisdom, genius and overwhelming mental capabilities? I bow my head and cringe in the dust.
It is a tragedy that the world had to wait so many aeons till the mental powers of "circle" emerged. How could we have confronted the challenges of the 21st century without the intellectual gifts of "circle"?
Oh "circle", great one, superior one, god like one, please do not enlighten us, we are not worthy. Keep your secret, the world and certainly me, we are not ready for it.
Greetings, Conrad
-
Conrad, none of the eyewitness accounts stated that the pendulums were present when the wheels were exhibited. The thought is they were added to the pictures as some sort of clue to their inner workings of the wheel, but no one knows for sure.
You mentioned the pivot point of one of the pendulums was not centered. That is because the pendulum in question is actually being viewed from an angle. The picture includes two views of the same wheel (front/rear view and side view). In the front/rear view (which is the wheel on the left), Bessler appears to have angled the pendulum to show it's connections. In the side view (the wheel on the right), you can see the pivot point better.
Zoelra,
In those drawings, the pendulum's I believe have 2 meanings. One is as Bessler said and is to allow a fluid movement.
There is another drawing with a pendulum that is a clue as to hoiw they work in the wheel.
I may need to wait until I get my tax return before I can make any real progress on my build. Had to miss a day and a half this week. About over my medical problems so need to do what I can when I can.
Still, it does allow me the opportunity to review and go into more detail what I am working on.
Johnny874
-
@conradelektro
I believe Circle knows what he is talking about. You really don't expect him to come here and just give away the secret do you. This used to tick me off about christo4_99, but after a while you get used to it. Spend some time on www.besslerwheel.com or http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com and you will see that no one is giving up what they know, and no one is asking them to do so. You will see the members on those forums from time to time bounce ideas off one another, and share some insight, but that is all you are going to get. This is not to say that there aren't some who do work openly, but they are few and far between. Cryptic clues are a way of helping others only if they are working in the same direction and can pick up on them. If you want to make sense of Circle's clues, you need to understand and be working on the type of design he has referred to in his posts. Just my thoughts.
-
@conradelektro
I believe Circle knows what he is talking about. You really don't expect him to come here and just give away the secret do you. This used to tick me off about christo4_99, but after a while you get used to it. Spend some time on www.besslerwheel.com (http://www.besslerwheel.com) or http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com (http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com) and you will see that no one is giving up what they know, and no one is asking them to do so. You will see the members on those forums from time to time bounce ideas off one another, and share some insight, but that is all you are going to get. This is not to say that there aren't some who do work openly, but they are few and far between. Cryptic clues are a way of helping others only if they are working in the same direction and can pick up on them. If you want to make sense of Circle's clues, you need to understand and be working on the type of design he has referred to in his posts. Just my thoughts.
Well, I do not understand the logic behind "keeping a secret but talking about it in cryptic terms". But I do not have to understand it. So far we still live in a free world where foolishness is not a crime.
May be some people are lonely and have a need to interact even when it is a strange way of conversing. For me the behaviour of "circle" is attention seeking and that annoys me. But it is my own fault, I should just ignore such people.
Greetings, Conrad
-
@circle,
In your understanding of this device, do you see the output torque from just the inner motions being constant?
once in motion it will reach a pace at which it will resist change whether forced to move slower or faster
although the tendency for constant pace can be overcome by sufficient force in either direction, faster or slower (at which point normal function of the parts will be disrupted) the output torque will be proportional to this ideal constant pace until the pace is sufficiently changed as it would be under excessive load
-
once in motion it will reach a pace at which it will resist change whether forced to move slower or faster
although the tendency for constant pace can be overcome by sufficient force in either direction, faster or slower (at which point normal function of the parts will be disrupted) the output torque will be proportional to this ideal constant pace until the pace is sufficiently changed as it would be under excessive load
I like the way you stated Newton's 3rd Law of motion;
Third law: When a first body exerts a force F1 on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F2 = −F1 on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion)
-
...
-
circle,
one of Bessler's clues states that his rim is not a normal rim.
One of his drawings shows/explains why.
Jim
-
i mentioned that i was missing a page..
(due to duplicate copy overwritting a preceding image)
anyone able to post page 97? (page 105 in this series)
there are a total of 197 images in this series
-
..finally found a moment to go and get the missing page
if one can judge by the image view count numbers, there are very few people checking on this thread on a regular basis
i am just posting the book here because it seems to be a decent place to post it for people who will never bother looking on a library site that is not in their native language
seems to be no point to continue to make the claim but the facts stand
the only slight issues i would have in making a successful build might come down to spring strength and a few minor details in angle of alignment.. very subtle issues of contact of surfaces as the device is in motion
the concept itself is clear
there is no other possible method that he could have been using given the historical evidence
many people here have mentioned mechanical engineering.. i have yet to see a single post here speaking of knot theory (is there one i am not aware of?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_theory)
if you can not see how complex cyclical loops operate how can you even imagine you will find this solution? most of you have posted nothing that indicates to me that you have any idea what the objective is or the obstacles to it.. instead several who post here have done the opposite
most of you taking a direct linear path are approaching this as if you will be driving and removing screws with a hammer; you are approaching the matter with the wrong conceptual tools
-
A simple question: Why not link directly to the Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum (http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/load/img/?PPN=PPN513405828&DMDID=DMDLOG_0001&LOGID=LOG_0001&PHYSID=PHYS_0003) in order to view this book in full resolution? ???
And now a not so simple question:
»Finally, Herr Orffyreus supposedly gets to the root of the matter when he asserts that children in the lane play with his perpetual motion or so-called superior force.«
This is the English translation from Wagner's Second Critique (http://www.free-energy.co.uk./html/wagner_s_second_critique.html), so far I couldn't find the text passage in German, but I assume it is correct.
Hence what could it be this alleged »superior force« that children in the lane play with in the 18th century (http://www.historylives.com/toysandgames.htm)?
The only thing that could make any sense (IMHO) would be the centrifugal force of a spinning Whip-Top (image below). And strangely a search on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPC7a_AcQo) for »Gyroscope« brings up some interesting results especially when the term »Gyroscope« is combined with the term »Anti Gravity«. :D
And in effect »Anti Gravity« is exactly that what we are looking for in respect of the Bessler Wheel (although it sounds somewhat ridiculous) because otherwise a replica of the Bessler Wheel can and will never work.
There is no chance a weight can fall and can thereby pull a second weight to the height it was so that this second weight can fall and pull the first weight to the height it was. This will not work with two weights and it will not work with n weights and not with levers or cords of any kind if driven just by straight gravity.
So something very special is needed in order to do this special job, and the only thing I can think of that would be special enough and thereby within reach of the 18th century would be some kind of gyroscopic force.
Hence what could create a gyroscopic force that fits into the Bessler Wheel? The cylindrical shaped weights itself perhaps?
Regards
-
A simple question: Why not link directly to the Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum (http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/load/img/?PPN=PPN513405828&DMDID=DMDLOG_0001&LOGID=LOG_0001&PHYSID=PHYS_0003) in order to view this book in full resolution? ???
because it would deprive me the opportunity to respond to posts like your own and deminish the number of views considerably as my post fades away from the top of the list..
And now a not so simple question:
»Finally, Herr Orffyreus supposedly gets to the root of the matter when he asserts that children in the lane play with his perpetual motion or so-called superior force.«
This is the English translation from Wagner's Second Critique (http://www.free-energy.co.uk./html/wagner_s_second_critique.html), so far I couldn't find the text passage in German, but I assume it is correct.
would you go to war with 'something that looks like gunpowder' or would you make sure it is the real thing?
the rest of your dialogue and your post is a battle plan for facing the enemy with god-knows-what in your musket..
Hence what could it be this alleged »superior force« that children in the lane play with in the 18th century (http://www.historylives.com/toysandgames.htm)?
The only thing that could make any sense (IMHO) would be the centrifugal force of a spinning Whip-Top (image below). And strangely a search on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPC7a_AcQo) for »Gyroscope« brings up some interesting results especially when the term »Gyroscope« is combined with the term »Anti Gravity«. :D
And in effect »Anti Gravity« is exactly that what we are looking for in respect of the Bessler Wheel (although it sounds somewhat ridiculous) because otherwise a replica of the Bessler Wheel can and will never work.
conclusion jumps and conjecture here..
can you honestly imagine what matterials he could have been using that would have endured such forces?
There is no chance a weight can fall and can thereby pull a second weight to the height it was so that this second weight can fall and pull the first weight to the height it was. This will not work with two weights and it will not work with n weights and not with levers or cords of any kind if driven just by straight gravity.
you start with a conclusion and then presume to support it with your present understanding of what is occuring
the solution was confusingly simple to the Landsgrave because he did not understand what he was seeing
grasp the basics and the rest becomes clear
your comment about 'straight gravity' is a curious choice of words
i realize that there is the english usage of 'straight' to mean 'only' but its other usage would make your statement more pertinant
not to say that the device bends gravity.. but it does not allow the effects of gravity to press 'down' upon the two weights in any manner that prevents them from completing the cycle
i would ask anyone who is considering this matter to face a few glaringly obvious facts
if you are honest with yourself about the historical account it is clear that something unusual was displayed; there are no materials that could have performed without breaking from wear to acheive a hoax
the amount of work done by the device could not have been transfered through a hidden cord
so as you start on this puzzle.. just go ahead and find it in your heart to tolerate it as posible; that he did in fact build this and no hoax was commited
with that as a 'given' you can quickly throw away any idea that does not support the reality
i see not a single mention of any gyro effect in the historical evidence.. so consider what you are doing here.. you have allowed yourself to give time to a concept that you are introducing to the historical data
if you are going to muddy the historical fact, at what point will you turn and look again to the true record? how can you be on track to solution when you move the foundation it is built upon as pleases your sensitivities of the moment
i say all this with no intention of getting too specific
but i am not misleading; either by my many partial yet incomplete explainations, or by my claim that i know how he did it
still.. people should be able to solve this
if i say 'start from what you know.. and work your way up' i am presuming that you have as much conceptual geometircal spatial relationship data throughly comprehended as i do
and i know that this is improbable..
if i walk you through it you will feel it is so simple that i have done nothing of significance
i have often told people the detail and they dont realize how big a deal it is
the physicist i mentioned it to did..
-
your comment about 'straight gravity' is a curious choice of words
That's because the Bessler Wheel seems to be a curios piece of device.
Since in the last 300 years there was no successful replication of the Bessler Wheel announced working on the principle »one of two equal weights lifts the other one and vice versa« we can safely assume that this approach will never work (I figured that out within one week while looking at the laws of physics). Hence what's needed is a different approach.
The only way such a wheel can rotate in perpetual motion is that the weights on the ascending side are lighter than the weights on the descending side. The only way that this could be achieved (not only with 18th century technology) I can think of is by means of rotating weights, since -as it strongly seems- a rotating gyroscope (wheel) weights less than a not rotating one (see image below).
Therefore the solution to the Bessler Wheel should be to make the weights rotate while going upwards and stop the rotation just before going downwards, so one and the same weight is lighter going up than coming down. Actually simple, isn't it?
because it would deprive me the opportunity to respond to posts like your own and deminish the number of views considerably as my post fades away from the top of the list..
Presenting a working Bessler Wheel replica in this thread might have the same effect (increasing the number of views), especially when a explanation is attached where this energy for free is actually coming from. :D
Regards
-
I believe the slide you are showing is from Professor Eric Laithwaite’s YouTube video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8)
In that video, the professor used a high-speed drill to spin the weight to 2500 RPM before attempting the lift. It would be interesting to see how slow the weight could actually be spun and still be lifted. Maybe he used the higher speed because of friction and he wanted the longest time interval possible to perform the overhead movement. Or maybe anything slower and the weight was just too heavy to lift. This would be a key fact to uncover if you want to use this principle in a wheel. I believe I have some information on spin versus weight but I will need to find it, and will post later.
Bessler’s one-directional wheels would self-start and his bi-directional wheels needed only a small push to get started. Both gained full speed only after a few revolutions. It would be hard to imagine that his wheels that turned at roughly 50 RPM would spin up internal weights to anything near 2500 RPM, but who really knows what was going on inside the wheel.
The principle is definitely worth exploring.
-
From the viewpoint of the rotating weight, it is not the weight which rotates but it is the gravitational field of the earth that rotates around the weight with high speed. So from its viewpoint the weight has no distinct direction to fall, so it can't fall at all because the angle of the gravitational pull on it changes constantly. Basically this principle is easy to understand, isn't it?
But it gives me headaches how to accelerate and stop the weights during each revolution of the wheel. Hence what about changing the direction of the axis of the weights in relation to the ground during each revolution of the wheel? The loss of weight should be greater when rotating in vertical than in horizontal direction. At least in theory,
-
I haven't had time to find the article yet but it is along the lines you are thinking. The gist of the theory (if I remember correctly) is a spinning weight will rise with less force and fall with more force. The axis of rotation would have to move along the rim of wheel. All the weights would spin in the same direction. It would be like putting bottle rockets along the rim of the wheel all firing to move the wheel in the same direction. Since the weights would all spin in the same direction, I would think it would be easier to engineer this.
I will get back to you as soon as I find the article. The early NASA moon mission rockets kept going to high and they realized it was due to the spinning of the stages of the rockets.
-
@Zeitmaschine
http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/ (http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/)
Here is an extract from the above article.
"Pendula utilizing bob weights which are rotating, swing non-sinusoidally with time
periods increased over pendula with non-rotating bobs".
This could be significant since Bessler’s wheel may have contained a large pendulum.
The link below is very good at the explanation.
http://depalma.pair.com/SpinningBall%28Understanding%29.html (http://depalma.pair.com/SpinningBall%28Understanding%29.html)
I have not found the article that discusses the early NASA rockets going off course due to their stages spinning. The entire program was almost abandoned, but in the final hours, they found the cause, only to cover up the significance of it. I will post when I find it.
-
This could be significant since Bessler’s wheel may have contained a large pendulum.
Much too complicated.
The above mentioned website states:
»The rotating ball given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster, and hit the bottom of its trajectory before the non-rotating ball bearing.«
Hence the cylindrical shaped weights of the Bessler Wheel accelerated to fast rotation would do what? Go up more easily and come down faster (than non-rotating weights)?
Stupid question: Could it be that the Bessler Wheel was in essence nothing more than a big roll-bearing of some kind?
Unfortunately I haven't the means to do extensive mechanical workings, but perhaps someone could find out.
-
Just a guess, but the wheel would have to be built something like this:
The cylindrical weights would be attached tangentially around the wheel (all interconnected like linked sausages) so that they all spin in the same direction (clockwise or counterclockwise). Their rotation would be geared to the rotation of the wheel. Due to the spin, the weights on the ascending side would rise easier (less mass effect) and the weights on the descending side would fall harder (more mass effect). As the wheel spins faster, so would the weights, increasing the spin effect on the mass, increasing the overall torque.
You are right, it would be difficult to build, and who knows exactly how fast the weights would need to spin to create the effect needed. An interesting idea though.
-
...
besslers solution is a geometrical configuration in which the asscending side has less of the weight suspended from itself as does the decending side
it is a tangible matterial structure subject to clear description and explaination
this is not asserted as a matter of mindless rambling
its interior parts are no more complex than the inner workings of a modern cucoo clock
there is is nothing 'future tech' about it..
-
I myself have not observed the reaction of self spin from large bearings that I blew dry after cleaning them,, they hit many thousands of rpm but as soon as I stopped with the air they stopped accelerating,, every time.
This could be because of the ratio between the rotation speed of the balls in the bearing and the rotation speed of the bearing itself, respectively between the ratio of the mass of the rotating balls and the mass of the rotating bearing.
its interior parts are no more complex than the inner workings of a modern cucoo clock
there is is nothing 'future tech' about it..
So much the worse. 300 years and no successful replication of a simple cuckoo clock mechanism. On the other hand, a fast rotating fly wheel is no future tech at all. But it could easily fall in the category »suppressed tech«.
Below: As soon as on the left side the right weight is released the balance scale rotates into horizontal leveled position at the right side. During the rotation there is a centrifugal force acting on the weights. The energy for this comes from the height difference of the weights. The lower weight goes up 20cm whereas the upper weight goes down 25cm, so the height difference of 5cm is converted into the energy needed for the rotation of the beam. If the pivot would be lowered to the center of gravity of the weights (middle blue line) then the heights the weights have to move up respectively down would be equal, but the beam would not rotate at all because there is no energy left for this.
So I can't see how a wheel could ever permanently rotate just with weights and levers going up and down.
-
@Zeitmaschine (http://www.overunity.com/profile/zeitmaschine.50641/)
between your most recent diagram and my most recent post i dont see you taking the steps toward solution that are available
you so clearly understand the problem and then procede to apply the same methodology that has evidenced its self unable to solve the matter
the same methodology taught in schools to insure that it is not the norm to observe how this is done
but it was done by bessler
and its not really that hard to do
-
less than 12 to 15 moving parts per set of two weights
depending on how one builds the needed subcomponent 'triger' to retract the wood dowel at the 12:00 position
it releases the device to a diversion in the path of least resistance
what would you do with the solution..?
convience me to do that which you would do and consider it done
this is where you stand as you read this
-
..whatever idea you are contemplating as functional,
take and divide the device into two conceptual sides
ascending
and
descending
if you can get past the idea of holding to one favored method you may use simple analysis to see that which will not work
dismissing pursuit of those that are doomed to fail will free up your time to determine the correct method
methodologically proceding to catalogue types and forms will help you narrow down the search
once you see enough of the types that can not work in a collected group you should begin to see their common trait
once it dawns on you that you must find something lacking that feature you will be on the rather short path to solution
-
there is a single mention in this website of knot theory
take a look
consider the caliber of the poster who presented this information
http://www.overunity.com/9638/gyroscopic-particles-how-they-work/msg296791/#msg296791
consider also..
that books about steam engines are also equally scarce in your local library.. and yet the electricity that we rely on is produced by them
even if not suppressed there are certainly subjects that seem to be discouraged from proliferation
without a working knowledge of knot theory you are ill equipped to approach this problem
i do not wish to be put in the pretentious spot of lording over you with vastly superior knowledge neither do i seek to offend by knowing that which you do not
persons other than myself had written textbooks on the matter long before i knew such existed
if you were fortunate enough to have found this information you might easily have beat me to the re-discovery of besslers method
honestly you are not able to appreciate how infantile your efforts at insight are in the absence of this single critical element of knowledge
between besslers clues and my own i would suggest that this assignment might not be beyond a 5th grader who had been thoroughly (exhaustively) exposed to the precepts of knot theory
-
@ Circle (aka "x" in another form)
I read your posts with great interest and anticipation. I'm not quite sure of your ultimate goal . You have stated that you know the solution to the age old perpetual motion quest and Bessler's design in particular. I believe you are very intelligent and may very well have discovered the design, however in other posts you have stated that you have not actually built a working prototype but may wish to have someone build it and allow you to share in any profits aswell be able to claim discovery title. It always comes to this, just like Bessler no one wants their design to be stolen or copied because they feel that money and status will be the ultimate reward. Unfortunately in today's world an idea will quickly become common knowledge and may be copied or stolen very easily. Profiting from something like this would be very difficult unless one could perfect a design that actually produces usable power, mass produces it, and puts it out for sale before copiers make their own version. Selling your intellectual property to someone that is willing to pay for it would give you your financial reward but puts the buyer in the same predictament.
Many in this forum have the means and the ability to build your device . I have been playing around with designs for years but reading your posts sparked my interest again. I came up with some basic design criteria that are both obvious and unique. Allow me to share my thoughts, and on a latter post I will show pictures of 2 one arm prototypes that I built.
Any gravity wheel must have certain elements to make it function.
First a weight must be moved to a outermost radius in it's structure at approximately the 12 o'clock position.
It must maintain that position throughout its falling arc to approximately the 6 o'clock position., at which point it must be retracted to an innermost radius and held until it again reaches the 12 o'clock position.
To move that weight, one must employ a slave weight that must be heavier than the torque generating weight and also overcome any springs tension that may be used to maintain positioning.
The movement and path of the slave weight must not interfere with the balance of the rotating structure unless it benefits the gravity actions of the torque generating weight.
Latching may be necessary to hold the torque generating weight in either the inner or outer radius positions. The use of latching would require a fixed outer trigger position or a non rotating axle with a fixed internal trigger to release the the latch mechanism. (My 2prototypes do not use a latch)
Rotation speed is paramount. A governor may be employed or some method of controlling rpm is essential because as speed increases centrifugal forces come to play and cause both slave weights and torque generating weights to assume set positions and become locked at those points.
There you have it, my simple thoughts on a gravity wheel design and by all accounts both my designs work. My wheel segments push weights out at 12 o'clock and retract them at 6 o'clock. My slave weights move in a constant radius and do not affect balance. The Torque generating Weights maintain position throughout the arcs and do not need latching. One would think I discovered the secret!! BUUUUT!
I will wait till my next post to show you the BUUUT.
Seems I am not that smart after all! Guess I will have to go back to 5th grade and learn Knot theory.(LOL)
In all fairness Circle , you are right. We cannot set our thoughts on simple traditional designs and not let our minds explore different ideas.
I watched the video you posted on the X site about knot theory , and read several sites about the subject but to tell you the truth I cannot correlate the subject matter to the bessler wheel. Your last post here shows a cross sectional view of a wheel ( not sure who's design) where the last activating mechanism has a
Conical drum and an endless rope arrangement that moves 2 outer drums or weights. Is this where knot theory comes to play in a looped drive?
Sorry for the long post , but the possibility of gravity wheels has always been a fascinating subject.
Vince
-
To claim one has a "solution" before one has proven it with a self running Bessler wheel is strange.
It is even stranger to think about "money making and fame" before one has proven the "solution" with a self running wheel.
Do the difficult (building a working wheel) first and solve all the other "problems" later. Most likely there will be no "problems".
Greetings, Conrad
-
@ Circle (aka "x" in another form)
I read your posts with great interest and anticipation. I'm not quite sure of your ultimate goal . You have stated that you know the solution to the age old perpetual motion quest and Bessler's design in particular. I believe you are very intelligent and may very well have discovered the design, however in other posts you have stated that you have not actually built a working prototype but may wish to have someone build it and allow you to share in any profits aswell be able to claim discovery title. It always comes to this, just like Bessler no one wants their design to be stolen or copied because they feel that money and status will be the ultimate reward. Unfortunately in today's world an idea will quickly become common knowledge and may be copied or stolen very easily. Profiting from something like this would be very difficult unless one could perfect a design that actually produces usable power, mass produces it, and puts it out for sale before copiers make their own version. Selling your intellectual property to someone that is willing to pay for it would give you your financial reward but puts the buyer in the same predictament.
Many in this forum have the means and the ability to build your device . I have been playing around with designs for years but reading your posts sparked my interest again. I came up with some basic design criteria that are both obvious and unique. Allow me to share my thoughts, and on a latter post I will show pictures of 2 one arm prototypes that I built.
Any gravity wheel must have certain elements to make it function.
First a weight must be moved to a outermost radius in it's structure at approximately the 12 o'clock position.
It must maintain that position throughout its falling arc to approximately the 6 o'clock position., at which point it must be retracted to an innermost radius and held until it again reaches the 12 o'clock position.
To move that weight, one must employ a slave weight that must be heavier than the torque generating weight and also overcome any springs tension that may be used to maintain positioning.
The movement and path of the slave weight must not interfere with the balance of the rotating structure unless it benefits the gravity actions of the torque generating weight.
Latching may be necessary to hold the torque generating weight in either the inner or outer radius positions. The use of latching would require a fixed outer trigger position or a non rotating axle with a fixed internal trigger to release the the latch mechanism. (My 2prototypes do not use a latch)
Rotation speed is paramount. A governor may be employed or some method of controlling rpm is essential because as speed increases centrifugal forces come to play and cause both slave weights and torque generating weights to assume set positions and become locked at those points.
There you have it, my simple thoughts on a gravity wheel design and by all accounts both my designs work. My wheel segments push weights out at 12 o'clock and retract them at 6 o'clock. My slave weights move in a constant radius and do not affect balance. The Torque generating Weights maintain position throughout the arcs and do not need latching. One would think I discovered the secret!! BUUUUT!
I will wait till my next post to show you the BUUUT.
Seems I am not that smart after all! Guess I will have to go back to 5th grade and learn Knot theory.(LOL)
In all fairness Circle , you are right. We cannot set our thoughts on simple traditional designs and not let our minds explore different ideas.
I watched the video you posted on the X site about knot theory , and read several sites about the subject but to tell you the truth I cannot correlate the subject matter to the bessler wheel. Your last post here shows a cross sectional view of a wheel ( not sure who's design) where the last activating mechanism has a
Conical drum and an endless rope arrangement that moves 2 outer drums or weights. Is this where knot theory comes to play in a looped drive?
Sorry for the long post , but the possibility of gravity wheels has always been a fascinating subject.
Vince
i like to be thorough.. but there are many points to respond to in your post
i see four basic concepts to address here.. maybe more if we are to get into the details of your design
first, as far as objectives go.. i consider it improbable that i could become the title holder to such a device.. despite the fact that i hold the concept
in this modern world things can be controlled in ways people seldom consider
for example; how very few people can say that they have seen the college newspaper front page photo of young clinton living in a tree on campus? the article detailed how it was being done in protest to the vietnam conflict and mentioned that the fire department had come out to spray under the tree due to the stench (as he never left the tree.. even having assignments and books brought to him)
with over 3000 copies you would think that one had run the gantlet and made it to the public.. but no.. that was not to be
..as with the buzz saw device, an exclusion process was carried out
it is a select few who even are inclined to be aware of such things
if not to disclose it.. my idea of using the device for profit would probably involve hiding its output by running several other systems; wind, solar, water and such
otherwise, it will take more than simply building it to capitalize on it
second, you describe a system that has many similarities to the device as bessler arranged it and you seem to have several of the concepts broken into clear independent elements.. the system that bessler used was a very efficient method of accomplishing several things at once so gracefully that it is deceptively simple
the simple parts are tasked to so many functions in a moment of turning that it can become disorienting trying to assign them simple names based on their function
the two weights are equal and seem to accomplish all the functions you assign as needed though i am not making a through comparison here
third and fourth..
the connection of knot theory to the wheel is in the path of the weights
and
the device that you take note of was bessers idea of a motorized wagon
although i do not have a full understanding of his diagram for it,
the conical set up with the belt drive was pretty advanced stuff for its time
to further address the third point i singled out as a topic..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mdEsouIXGM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mdEsouIXGM)
-
if you turn the number 8 on its side you get ∞
look at the path..
down up down up
with four points of transition
the solution to besslers device.. is anti-climactic
-
@circle
Your clues are intriguing! I commend you with your ability to captivate.
Vince
-
didnt forget that the clue was stated clearly that the two weights switch position did you?
look for when and where this happens
preferably after figuring out why most catagories of design are not feasable in and of themselves
the solution has one design affecting the assending and
another affecting the decending
one weight truly does lift the other
and then they reverse roles
of course the battle that most people think they are fighting is to make one single undivided weight lift itself over the top
this also truly can not happen
the most recent images show 90 views
is this really the number of people who have taken note of what is on offer here?
that the design needs not to be built to know its viability is a matter of comprehension
if you do not comprehend it then you will need physical evidence of function
the function of the correct design is as clear as that of a simple hole
if you do not comprehend what will happen when you step in it perhaps you need to find out by experience..
please do better than to compare the evaluations of a mechanical engineer to those of an employed physicist who is tasked with inspection of reactors across the globe
-
The solution is now becoming more clear
Though most will still jeer
And will never come to see
Just how simple it can be
Two will lift two
And reverse in full view
The weights on one side
Will never collide
They follow a gate
That is akin to an eight
Gears will rotate to an outer condition
While the opposites are now reverse that position
Making it turn
Is still a concern
Latching has still eluded the quest
But I'm confident I'll give it my best
-
As promised I am showing my two designs that I mentioned on an earlier post. Proof of concept #1 was my first quick trial. It did what I expected, that is extend the torque weight at the top and retract it at the bottom of the arc. Proof of concept #2 was a new twist on the design and I went to a more substantial build in steel with 2 arms. It also did what I expected, that is extend and retract at the correct positions.
Both these designs are conventional thinking,ie. " what many would think of in a design".
Would they work? Maybe! But probably not.
What is wrong with them?
Both are extremely RPM sensitive, they will lock up with any increase in speed.
#1 does not extend until 1:30 to 2 o'clock and retracts at 6:30 to 7:00 o'clock. Too much arc lost in down stroke and stays extended to long on the upstroke.
#2 extends at about 1:00 and retracts at about 7:00. It will drop about 100 t0 120 degrees if brought just past 12:00 o'clock
Both have very little net falling weight when the other weights are factored in, so any runner would have very little torque.
#2 might actually rotate on its own but the actual torque would be so small that it was not worth the build. The amount of slave weight relative to the torque weight is quite large and means little torue left over to do any work. Adjusting the stroke eases the weight but decreases extension of the outer weight. #2 was a definite positive . With more arms it might just rotate, but I'm sure it will have so little torque that I am abandoning that design.
Circle is right. These designs cannot work.
My little poem in the previous post eludes to my new line of thinking after considering all the clues circle has given.
Vince
-
...
-
if you set a (non metric) ruler on the edge of a desk.. with 6.5 of the 12 inches resting on the surface of the desk and 5.5 over the edge you have no doubt of the effects of placing a coin (weight) at the end of the ruler that has nothing supporting it from falling
the imbalance of the correct design is that clear and pronounced and that simple
after all, as the evidence shows, it did function and was displayed
and clearly, i am 'claiming' to be able to describe it in detail to the extent that it could be built by anyone who happend to read my description
i suppose i am still on the fence about the whole open source thing..
as i ponder this i have come close to posting the definitive details here
but look at how small a group of people we are reaching here
(how about a 1% finders fee for anyone bringing me a buyer? ..to make it clear that an opportunity exists; my price {stated in previous post on this site} will increase to besslers original asking price {mentioned on page 96} if i have to build it prior to the begining of structuring a sale)[in this modern world the device is worth 100 times what bessler was asking and still there are those who suppose that i should offer it for free to people who can not even interpret the visual diagrams accurately.. as well as to those who have malicious intent alike]
otherwise, i would be interested in hearing from persons who have the ability to assist in gaining ownership control over this design
they will not be disapointed in the quality of my information
-
i am 'claiming' to be able to describe it in detail to the extent that it could be built by anyone who happend to read my description
i suppose i am still on the fence about the whole open source thing..
as i ponder this i have come close to posting the definitive details here
but look at how small a group of people we are reaching here
(how about a 1% finders fee for anyone bringing me a buyer? ..to make it clear that an opportunity exists; my price {stated in previous post on this site} will increase to besslers original asking price {mentioned on page 96} if i have to build it prior to the begining of structuring a sale)[in this modern world the device is worth 100 times what bessler was asking and still there are those who suppose that i should offer it for free to people who can not even interpret the visual diagrams accurately.. as well as to those who have malicious intent alike]
otherwise, i would be interested in hearing from persons who have the ability to assist in gaining ownership control over this design
they will not be disapointed in the quality of my information
Mr. Circle, stop going in circles.
1. Build a functioning Bessler wheel.
2. In case it works, patent it.
3. Once you have filed the patent, show it.
4. Then you might find believers and money givers.
Whatever you want to do, never forget point 1, which is to build a functioning Bessler wheel. What comes afterwards is trivial. And we never see "point 1" from any OU-inventor, only ravings about what comes after the elusive "point 1".
There are many thousands of patents about non functioning machines, so please, do not start with "point 2".
Greetings, Conrad
-
as bessler said it he was supprised and relieved when he found that he had correctly guessed the solution after he built it and set it in motion
but from the vantage of knowing that there exists a solution.. it can be discovered in obesrvation of the principals involved
typical of those who desire the results without persuing the task of developing them is the notion that the physical model has greater value than the conceptual one
if bessler had not started with the correct concept he could not have done any different than the many thousands of failed efforts
my concern is that this has already been built and pattened and title 35 has taken its toll
in this circumstance i can offer it to the public up until i cross the line and disclose to the pattent office
-
the way people study this matterial is misleading them into overlooking what can be done
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis)
these are some of the concept that figure in significantly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improper_rotation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improper_rotation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum)
if you know what you are looking for you can see that the discussion is (deliberatly?) being limited to topics that can not result in the outcome that we all seem to have come to this website to either research, prove or reject
-
...
-
its pretty basic once you see what is taking place
for solving the device one of the first elements of data is the fact that people saw the weights
the cylinder shape seems to indicate the orientation of the weight inside the device
and the fact that people saw him try to fit a weight in place when instead the tension on the spring was accidentaly released with a slaping noise and a twanging spring noise
consider the small hole that was left for access and his comments about same when 'detractors' inquired
these clues can be exained in considerable depths
i hate that i have the solution for the bessler wheel and that i have still done nothing with it
it would be one thing if i were stating that i knew how to set something into a balanced motion.. the principal of that might be debatable
but to actually produce useful additional energy the concept has to be solid
as basic as it is, the process still seems to be beyond the conceptual grasps of most people
it has the effect of folding the looping path of the weights over with between .2 and .25 of the weight set in motion left hanging into empty space
-
...perhaps i hate even more that no one from amoung the few here are able to tell for themselves the solution to this device
as simple as this knowledge is.. it represents a world very different than the one we find ourselves living in
-
Circle said
"...perhaps i hate even more that no one from among the few here are able to tell for themselves the solution to this device as simple as this knowledge is.. it represents a world very different than the one we find ourselves living in".
Just because no one here is proclaiming they have a solution is no reason to believe it has not already been found. Also, many here have learned the hard way that having a solution is not having a solution until you have a runner.
Regarding your most recent PM, sorry, I have attempted to grab all of Docs notes, of which there are numerous posts. It has turned out to be a more time consuming process than I thought. It's not a simple copy/paste process. I will keep at it though, if only for my records. Consider joining BW. You can search for all posts under his name. It makes for many hours of enjoyable reading.
-
Circle said
"...perhaps i hate even more that no one from among the few here are able to tell for themselves the solution to this device as simple as this knowledge is.. it represents a world very different than the one we find ourselves living in".
Just because no one here is proclaiming they have a solution is no reason to believe it has not already been found. Also, many here have learned the hard way that having a solution is not having a solution until you have a runner.
Regarding your most recent PM, sorry, I have attempted to grab all of Docs notes, of which there are numerous posts. It has turned out to be a more time consuming process than I thought. It's not a simple copy/paste process. I will keep at it though, if only for my records. Consider joining BW. You can search for all posts under his name. It makes for many hours of enjoyable reading.
your use of the indefinite article sums up the matter at hand..
i do not have "a" solution..
i have THE solution
and having had it since 2007 has left me with adequate time to evaluate the issue to the extent that i am confident that their exists only a single method that could have been used given the factual data that remains on record to show the events of the life of johann bessler
those who can not tell the difference between the two can assume or presume themselves to be awash in an ocean of potential solutions to no avial
square peg.. round hole
you have helped make it clear why people are not excited to action by my announcement
additionaly, in quoting me, you omited a space from my statement changing the character of what was said..
acuracy is a significant point
and, for gathering data, observation that does not wash aside all points that are not sought is a must..
by "recent pm" i assume you are refering to the information that you offered to send on feb 18..
not exactly recent
sure.. it sounds interesting
probably should have its own thread
i would be more interested in tangible evidence that there is biological or associative relation between the two inventors, keno and bessler
i am already aware of the claim of the presence of an annotated personal book..
[previously in this thread.. did we seriously see high velocity certrifugal forces considered as possible motive force for besslers device?]
-
I don't remember seeing any posts about high velocity centrifugal forces but I will have to go back and search. Eyewitness reports of the Kassel wheel said it would self start once a certain, but slow, rotational speed was attained. This would indicate that once a minimum speed was reached, the overbalance shifting would begin.
-
I don't remember seeing any posts about high velocity centrifugal forces but I will have to go back and search. Eyewitness reports of the Kassel wheel said it would self start once a certain, but slow, rotational speed was attained. This would indicate that once a minimum speed was reached, the overbalance shifting would begin.
if you know what is inside the wheel the reasons for the evidenced effects are clear
the entire design is repeated in reverse inside the kassel wheel
the wheel only needs to be turned to lock four sets of weights and release the other four so that the device will reverse the direction of operation
the reason for doing this was to satisfy his 'detractors' who thought the device was operating on a single stored energy supplied before the demonstrations began
by showing that the device could be reversed that particular arguement was made much more untennable
the single structure made of four sets of two weights is self starting
there is no position in the looping posture of the weights that does not have more or less weight suspended from one side or the other
there is no 'overbalance' shifting.. (as might be seen in the wheel of asa jackson)
the looped path secures that there is no moment when the imbalance is not in effect
i honestly get tired of looking at all the posts by people who start with supposing that certain things that they have assumed, unexamined, 'must' be the case
they persist in assuming themselves correct while i sit here able to show them the truth of the matter
i am good with puzzles
for many persons the most significantly difficult aspect of this particular puzzle is the mental aspect of breaking with the established society
a great segment of those who might be able to solve this stop themselves from success due the the lack of community support
others are drawn to this subject like a moth to flames for exactly the opposite reasons
the psychology of those who persue this matter is a seperate subject worthy of study in its own right
bring me one other person who has had an employed physicist respond to their elaborated insights on the matter with enthusiastic exclamation to the effect that they 'really should do something with' their conceptual design
i, for one, would be very interested to speak with anyone who was honestly able to make such a claim
it appears that i am very nearly alone in this sentiment
-
Whatever happened to this circle guy? I find his posts fascinating and convincing!
silent