Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-set"

[jim_mich]

So we must forgo that train of thought and move on, either ignoring the math or levers.

No, we do not ignore the math. The math says that a wheel that attempts to remain continually gravity-unbalanced is impossible. The math agrees with hands on experience. You are the one who ignores the math.

Are you too old and feeble to take the time to learn the math?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

why all the fuss about maths, when we are looking for a unknown formular, first you need the imagination to find new concepts, then build and measure, then comes the maths, maths are helpful but only if you know all the factors!

Regards Trevor

[rlortie]

I am not only to old and feeble to learn the math, I do not wish to know the math. It will entrap me into believing that "a wheel that attempts to remain continually gravity-unbalanced is impossible"... I refuse to paint myself into a corner and be trapped with all the other "Armchair Theorists".

It is only "impossible" because we have not learned to utilize what is found in nature in the proper manner. When you address the problem as Daniel Bernoulli and Leonhard Euler did, you will walk away as they did, scratching your head! As so it is written.

"Fluid mechanics assumes that every fluid obeys the following

we are looking for a unknown formula, first you need the imagination to find new concepts, then build and measure, then comes the maths

Well put Trevor
Ralph

[Tarsier79]

Trevor

I think sometimes people don't see what they don't want to see. Maths disproves your Multi-Lever Phenomenon, but you choose not to see the relationship between the mathematical and the physical.

..when we are looking for a unknown formular, first you need the imagination to find new concepts...

Agreed

then build and measure, then comes the maths, maths are helpful but only if you know all the factors!

Here I think you will find a lot of variation in the way people do things. For me, usually something like:

research (including math), pop test, design(includes math), build, measure, more math, disappointment("why didn't I see/understand that before").

ADD: Ralph, physics is described very well by mathematics. Ignoring the maths does not change the physics.

Fluid dynamics and gravity, although there is interaction, are two completely different things. Saying your wheel is powered by gravity, is different to saying your wheel is powered by the Bernoulli Effect.

Jims basic description of the maths of potential energy in a gravity field is probably the best I have seen it described. Thanks Jim.

[rlortie]

WE all have our variation of how we approach a new design.

I use my imagination and empirical judgment. If and when i achieve a runner, then the math geeks can have there turn.

It appears that in your system, math is not helping or possibly hindering, but I see it as a waste of productive time.

research (including math), pop test, design(includes math), build, measure, more math, disappointment("why didn't I see/understand that before").

Ralph

[rlortie]

Saying your wheel is powered by gravity, is different to saying your wheel is powered by the Bernoulli Effect.

O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

[eccentrically1]

A tidal driven mechanism is not relevant to PM, so why bring up such subjects?

Because Ralph thinks it is relevant due to his misconception of what constitutes a system of forces. His defense of his position that gravity does work on the tides is a poor one, one that he can learn something from after being shown his misconception, similar to the misconception wheels can be perpetually driven by internal mass set in suborbital motion.

[jim_mich]

Ralph, it all boils down to what is the truth. There is truth and there is deceit. You can deceive yourself, stick your fingers in your ears, and hum, "Gravity can turn a PM wheel." But it is nature that decided what is true and what is not true. You can keep searching for a gravity-unbalanced wheels until you die, and you will never find one. Wagner was right. Wagner explained in great detail why gravity cannot perpetually rotate a PM wheel. Bessler admitted that Wagner was right. So if you continue to search for a gravity-unbalanced PM wheel, you will never find one. It is not because the math says so. It is because nature says so, and the math is simply a numerical representation of nature.

Does this mean that Bessler and Karl were frauds? I do not think so. It is my belief, backed up by my research, that tells me Bessler and Karl told the truth. Of course you must understand what they were truthfully saying, and not inject your own misconceptions about it being a gravity-unbalanced wheel.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Trevor

I think sometimes people don't see what they don't want to see. Maths disproves your Multi-Lever Phenomenon, but you choose not to see the relationship between the mathematical and the physical.

..when we are looking for a unknown formular, first you need the imagination to find new concepts...

Agreed

then build and measure, then comes the maths, maths are helpful but only if you know all the factors!

Here I think you will find a lot of variation in the way people do things. For me, usually something like:

research (including math), pop test, design(includes math), build, measure, more math, disappointment("why didn't I see/understand that before").

ADD: Ralph, physics is described very well by mathematics. Ignoring the maths does not change the physics.

Fluid dynamics and gravity, although there is interaction, are two completely different things. Saying your wheel is powered by gravity, is different to saying your wheel is powered by the Bernoulli Effect.

Jims basic description of the maths of potential energy in a gravity field is probably the best I have seen it described. Thanks Jim.

Hi Kaine,
That is a good example!
My model against your maths, my latest video will shows transverse levers, which has no geometry advantage as the prior designs but still shows the potential for closed loop with a small energy take off, and all I did was make the lever shorter and heavier, I will now try the same with a lever system that has the geometry advantage.

While you are about it why not try the maths on the self opening air filled reservoirs in my above post, say it is on a wheel 4m OD with the 20 reservoirs transverse mounted at the outer rim that hold 5 litres of air each when open, that is about 0.4 of a bar water pressure differential , + 0.2 bar greater air pressure to self open the reservoirs , so it will take 0.7 bar to close the reservoirs one at a time, now see how much torque force is gained by the 10 open reservoirs, and how much torque is required to close one reservoir! The above will drive a generator which will drive a small compressor, pneumatic pistons close and latch the reservoirs, and to help the efficiency when the pistons air is dumped it fills open cups at the bottom of the wheel, also the reservoirs are shaped like hydrofoils and are moveable!
With much respect Trevor

Edit, I also have a mechanical option, the open reservoirs are the source of the leverage in both designs, one side full, and the other empty so to speak!
Edit, the mechanical option has a number of frame fixed wheels that compress the reservoirs closed at the top of the main wheel, thus all that one sided leverage to compress one reservoir about 10cm !

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich wrote with good intentions;

Ralph, it all boils down to what is the truth. There is truth and there is deceit. You can deceive yourself, stick your fingers in your ears, and hum, "Gravity can turn a PM wheel." But it is nature that decided what is true and what is not true. You can keep searching for a gravity-unbalanced wheels until you die, and you will never find one.

In 2002 I experience a severe heart attack, the Lord had 27 chances to take me when I "flat-lined"... He did not! after being released from the hospital I was aroused by the insatiable urge to pursue that which I now do.

I am not necessarily an ardent religious man, but I feel that there is something I must accomplish before the great call to the sky.

I may never find one before I die, or I may die after finding it. Either way I will stick my fingers in my ears and hum to keep out the negative input I receive.

You do not seem to understand that not all is based on levers, weights and the related math that precedes them. There are other choices open for the bidding!

Ralph

[John Collins]

I write with some trepidation in the face of these good folk who deride Ralph's personal conviction that gravity turned the wheel, for I too share that opinion and stand by in support of his oft stated view.

I believe that I will show you how you are right and so is he, later this year - I hope I'm right.

JC

[rlortie]

A tidal driven mechanism is not relevant to PM, so why bring up such subjects?

Because Ralph thinks it is relevant due to his misconception of what constitutes a system of forces. His defense of his position that gravity does work on the tides is a poor one, one that he can learn something from after being shown his misconception, similar to the misconception wheels can be perpetually driven by internal mass set in suborbital motion.

The subject is found in nature and it is a natural source of energy that man has learned to utilize. Bessler said it was to be found in nature and that he found it where others have looked. Therefor I consider it relevant.

As for a misconception that wheels can be driven by internal mass set in suborbital motion. Is probably the most ridiculous statement to date. I am surprised to hear it from a member who's posts are of better taste.

Ralph

[rasselasss]

And you guys wonder why we are not taken seriously.......agree to disagree and move on please...

[rlortie]

rasselasss,

If the "naysayers" did not keep saying " that is impossible" or you cannot do that. Those such as I, who fail to crumble under their mass would not have the incentive to push forward.

The louder they hail! the bigger the footprint left behind by those who use their negative input as an incentive to keep trying. I would have probably ran out of patience years ago if it was not for being told that:"You cannot do that" or "it is impossible"... Can't, cannot, impossible, are words not in my learned dictionary.

If man has done it before it can and will be done again. If man can imagine it, eventually it will come to be. Seek and ye shall find.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

The subject is found in nature and it is a natural source of energy that man has learned to utilize. Bessler said it was to be found in nature and that he found it where others have looked. Therefor I consider it relevant.

So your wheel is moon-powered?

As for a misconception that wheels can be driven by internal mass set in suborbital motion. Is probably the most ridiculous statement to date. I am surprised to hear it from a member who's posts are of better taste.

Prove me wrong, then! This is the forum for it, let's hear it!