Author Topic: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved. (Read 365219 times)

MarkE · « **Reply #735 on:** June 10, 2014, 02:51:45 AM »

Quote from: Dusty on June 10, 2014, 02:02:35 AM

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.

phaedrus · « **Reply #736 on:** June 10, 2014, 03:44:31 AM »

Quote from: Dusty on June 09, 2014, 10:29:52 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).

Dusty · « **Reply #737 on:** June 10, 2014, 04:19:18 AM »

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

Dusty · « **Reply #738 on:** June 10, 2014, 04:23:49 AM »

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

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #739 on:** June 10, 2014, 04:31:53 AM »

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

MarkE · « **Reply #740 on:** June 10, 2014, 05:41:13 AM »

Quote from: Dusty on June 10, 2014, 04:19:18 AM

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.

Tomasz · « **Reply #741 on:** June 10, 2014, 09:53:58 PM »

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.

sudarsana · « **Reply #742 on:** June 11, 2014, 09:03:56 AM »

Quote from: norman6538 on June 07, 2014, 03:41:57 AM

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.

LibreEnergia · « **Reply #743 on:** June 11, 2014, 12:55:51 PM »

Quote from: sudarsana on June 11, 2014, 09:03:56 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.

forest · « **Reply #744 on:** June 11, 2014, 01:08:14 PM »

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.

MarkE · « **Reply #745 on:** June 11, 2014, 03:56:21 PM »

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.

MarkE · « **Reply #746 on:** June 11, 2014, 05:58:44 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on June 11, 2014, 05:44:01 PM

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.

MarkE · « **Reply #747 on:** June 11, 2014, 07:43:27 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on June 11, 2014, 06:55:29 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.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #748 on:** June 12, 2014, 01:48:38 AM »

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.

MarkE · « **Reply #749 on:** June 12, 2014, 02:05:27 AM »

Quote from: webby1 on June 11, 2014, 09:13:00 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.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved. (Read 365219 times)

MarkE

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

phaedrus

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

Dusty

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

Dusty

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

Pirate88179

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

MarkE

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

Tomasz

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

sudarsana

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

LibreEnergia

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

forest

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

MarkE

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

MarkE

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

MarkE

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

TinselKoala

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

MarkE

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.