Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Was Bessler for real?  (Read 130736 times)

kolbacict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #165 on: September 08, 2023, 08:23:07 PM »
You told perpetuum mobile doesn't exist. It seems me,I know how do one.
It is enough to make one magic wand (or philosopher's stone), and then touch any aggregate, it will become over-unit. We will have a huge number of perpetuum mobile...  :P 8)

onepower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #166 on: September 09, 2023, 02:09:00 AM »
stivep
Quote
In reality, the conservation of mass only holds approximately and is considered part of a series of assumptions
in classical mechanics
The law has to be modified to comply with the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity
under the principle of mass–energy equivalence which states that energy and mass form one conserved quantity.
For very energetic systems the conservation of mass only is shown not to hold,
as is the case in nuclear reactions and particle-antiparticle annihilation in particle physics

Apparently ChatGPT and I think your talking bullshit...

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

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

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

Question:does fission or fusion annihilate or destroy particles?

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

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

AC




onepower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #167 on: September 09, 2023, 02:54:20 AM »
Back to the actual subject were debating, the Bessler wheel...

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

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

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

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

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

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

AC







stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #168 on: September 09, 2023, 03:58:03 AM »
//With that, a big fuck you to all the critics and to everyone else happy experimenting...//
AC
Typically 4 levels of questioning constitutes discussion .
   https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/studystrategizesucceed/chapter/another-approach-four-levels-of-questioning/
       Rhetoric is language used to motivate, inspire, inform, or persuade readers.
           Some readers do not fit mentally and verbally into any level other than "street talk" level.
               https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/street%20talk
                   Wesley   
« Last Edit: September 09, 2023, 12:54:35 PM by stivep »

onepower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #169 on: September 09, 2023, 06:11:38 PM »
stivep
Quote
Typically 4 levels of questioning constitutes discussion .
   https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/studystrategizesucceed/chapter/another-approach-four-levels-of-questioning/
       Rhetoric is language used to motivate, inspire, inform, or persuade readers.
           Some readers do not fit mentally and verbally into any level other than "street talk" level.

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

For example, you said...
Quote
Some readers do not fit mentally and verbally into any level other than "street talk" level.

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

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

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

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

AC

stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #170 on: September 09, 2023, 08:14:42 PM »
Format of this forum  as a set of rules is directed to peaceful information  sharing.
  "Street talk" level doesn't require  Unorthodox  form of acting, to comply with such rules.
       Wording "Mentally" refers to anything  related  to your mind but doesn't
            qualify you as "Deranged".
-by that no "insult" but an opinion, was formulated by me explained in link you ignored to read
   Qualification of  processed  data, is always based on given individual ability to assign
       phenomena and events into category recognized by these skilled in art.
          explanation is here: https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/deranged-vs-mentally
               No manifested ("there") by you conduct and criteria of understanding and applying,
                   precise formulation in English Language (e.g. word "mental"), fit into level
                       of this  forum, causing direction of your conclusions oscillating as inflammatory.
                            That factor constitutes your " limitation" and level of recognition
                                in this  discussion. You are expressing yourself  in this forum,  and not
                                    in a nude  beach or swinger club where you can manifest something
                                         else too.
Wesley
   Wesley's wife, educationally skilled in art of psychology.
               

onepower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #171 on: September 10, 2023, 06:40:54 PM »
From https://besslerwheel.com/firstlaw.html

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

The 1st law claimed.
Quote
In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it.

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

Here is a bizarre statement from Helmhotz.
Quote
No one had ever succeeded, he wrote, in building a Perpetual Motion Machine that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the Conservation of Energy.

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

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

Bingo, we have a winner.

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

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

AC


adrouk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #172 on: September 10, 2023, 08:08:26 PM »
From https://besslerwheel.com/firstlaw.html

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

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

Bingo, we have a winner.

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

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

AC

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

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

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

lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5233
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #173 on: September 10, 2023, 10:00:09 PM »
Eppur si muove
Two relations are here to differ :

Galileo Galilei as scientist

and

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

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

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

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

wmbr
OCWL

onepower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #174 on: September 12, 2023, 06:29:47 PM »
adrouk

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

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

I agree but don't think it matters.

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

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

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

AC





lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5233
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #175 on: September 12, 2023, 07:55:34 PM »
'copyright'-inventor ?
The risk :  Plagiatscanner

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

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

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

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

wmbr
OCWL


onepower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #176 on: September 12, 2023, 10:17:33 PM »
iancaiv
Quote
The today 120 000 000 ideas applications in the ' patent archive' !
95% from the patent archive applications 2023 now licence-/fee free for use available !

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

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

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

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

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

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

AC






lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5233
Re: Was Bessler for real?
« Reply #177 on: September 12, 2023, 10:57:10 PM »
Clearly You ,as inventor case,are expressing ever an idea ,as individual solution/result !

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

A model design,concret and/or abstract

An utility model
A technical standart

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


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

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

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

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