Bessler's wheel as a 'gift' to mankind.

[Dwylbtzle]

i don't understand, turney
who cares what he does with his money?
if he comes up with something like that--he deserves trillions

it's not a zero sum game
if he gets a trillion it's because he created more than a trillion
not because he TOOK or cheated or defrauded someone from the trillion

the thing to do is just LET the greedy bastards try to satisfy their greed with it
get a bunch of people competing with each other to build the BEST version
if one uses the method i described, (to put it in the public domain), it would flash across the earth in a fraction of a nano second
and it'd be over
except we'd have to deal with the FORBIDDEN PLANET factor
our power, (unchecked by any wisdom i've ever much seen), might destroy us with monsters from the id
our OWN id

OR, the end might come from just a monkey blunder: "oh no, don't touch THAT!"
"Ooops--oh shit"

in other words: to be God i believe one would actually have to be GOD
which we ain't

i'm just counseling caution--because i think it CAN be done
well i think a gravity engine can be done
i don't know about his idea with the momentum mutiplying the centrifugal force or whatever--where it just creates endless energy from a first initial push
but i can't figure out how to PROVE he can't do it
so i'm willing to consider that maybe he could do it
weirder things have happened
like us just BEING here, for instance

[The Turninator]

I'll splain it this way, dwylbey....Marsa Jim rubbed me the wrong way with his tantrum resulting from me being in a kind of personal euphoria contemplating Jesus during Easter days and using a Jesus related Bible quote to exemplify my opinion about social responsibility and what I would like to see anybody do if they discover that they have become filthy rich.

So since Marsa Jim has splained to me that he wanted His Thread to be about what a lucky guesser would do As A Gift To Mankind if he guessed how to turn a wheel, I caved in to his overpowering charisma and realized that we need to be told what He (Jim) will do when one of us that do know how to turn the wheel tell Him (Jim) and give it to Him (Jim) and let Him (Jim) loose to do whatever.

So I have asked Marsa Jim to tell us what he will do, if not to spend 99% of his vast wheel income to relieve the deadly suffering of the billions of humans who live and die in terrible poverty. A rich man either spends all the money on hedonist pleasures or spends it on helping others or just sits on it and enjoys being the richest bastard in the whole graveyard.

I personally do not give a spit about Jim one way or the other. His condition after this life is completely up to whatever pagan idol or atheistic nothingness that he believes in.

But I seriously disagree with your optimistic assessment that it will be picked up by good hearted men and will flash across the face of the planet if it is given away. I believe that there are too many people who will not care about it in the first place, or will aggressively squelch it to protect the status quo. Big Oil and pals will not be deliriously happy to see that it will take the $10 Trillion US per annum out of their hands. Where are these good hearted men now? where are the good hearted men who have multi million incomes and give 99% pf it to the poor. Show me the beef.

[jim_mich]

I've not answered your question about what I'd do with $200 trillion because that is none of your business. I already answered that it would not be spent on foolish materialistic things like whores and fast cars and such. So what difference does it make to you what I spend my earnings on?

This thread was not started as a quest for how I might spend money. It was simply an exploration as to an alternate method of receiving compensation for inventing a working perpetual motion device. It was you who turned it into a rant.

I personally do not give a spit about Jim one way or the other. His condition after this life is completely up to whatever pagan idol or atheistic nothingness that he believes in.

You show your true religious bigotry.

[John Collins]

I don't know why anyone would think they were going to get trillions of dollars, maybe a couple of million.

I too, think there are many good-hearted people out there - and they don't need to believe in any kind of religious doctrine to behave like so-called Christians.

As Ghandi said," I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." The good people on this planet are from all religions and no-religions, don't include all of us in your pessimistic outlook.

JC

[rlortie]

Dwylbtzle wrote:

but i can't figure out how to PROVE he can't do it

A very substantial statement. Mankind, with the exception of Bessler has neither proved or disproved what can or cannot be accomplished. We live under the laws of conservation laid down by Isaac Newton and his Principia. We are told that they cannot be beaten.

Where is the proof, must we except them simply because man has yet to achieve in breaking a couple of them. There is no objective proof, proof based on observable phenomena is yet to be seen. It will take a convincing demonstration by the inventor to gain acceptance.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

but i can't figure out how to PROVE he can't do it

Of course you cannot prove that I can't do it, since I've never disclosed to this forum how to do it.

[eccentrically1]

I can prove it, and I have. What thread was it?
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... c&start=90
Maybe?

[jim_mich]

We can't "allow CF to move weights in". We can allow CF to move weights out. To change an outer weight's direction from circular "inward" to a smaller, slower radius requires the interlinked inner weight, that has less kinetic energy, to do all the work, from a slower, less energetic, radius. It's not going to happen.

Never say never. The weaker CF of the more inward weight moves it outward. This motion pulls the more outward weight inward. I'm leaving out some proprietary details of how its done, but it is very simple to do. There is no doubt. The outward motion of the more inward weight can cause inward motion of the other more outward weight.

Without getting into proprietary details, just assume you have a mechanism that always results in the more inward weight moving outward as it pulls the more outward weight inward. When they are both at a same radial distance from the wheel center then their forces are equal and they might be able to stop at that position. But if they are moving (which will be the case) then they move right past that position where their forces would be equal. The two weights will oscillate in and out much like any oscillating mechanism, except that they don't oscillate downward by gravity, they oscillate one weight moving one way as the other weight moves the opposite way, then they swap directions and move back the other way. Back and forth they keep moving, their oscillations driven completely by the CF's of the weights.

CF does not pin these weights outward. That is false crap that I keep reading.

The moving of the weights is called unsymmetrical parametric oscillation. The amplitude of the oscillation increases each time the weights move. And no, the weights do not accelerate out of control. There is a natural frequency at which the amplitude maxes out.

[Dwylbtzle]

but i can't figure out how to PROVE he can't do it

Of course you cannot prove that I can't do it, since I've never disclosed to this forum how to do it.

exactly--as is wise
so i give everyone the benefit of the doubt

i start with--"ok--IF that works...let's consider THIS"

in your case, IF it's real that'd be great--because our only limits would be internal
but let's consider THAT

check out Japan/three mile/chernobyl..."oh, everything is fine...ooops! oh shit"

THAT was the monkey blunder--and there'll be plenty of those
but just think what crap we could pull on purpose
when we were broke, busted and disgusted, we couldn't be trusted
how much less when we're all filthy rich playboy trust fund Krell babies?

oh well, money isn't everything, but neither is poverty
and fuck poverty
so hell....
let's go fer it!
(ah you poor bastards out there in the galaxy...here comes Bonzo)
:{/

[Dwylbtzle]

The moving of the weights is called unsymmetrical parametric oscillation. The amplitude of the oscillation increases each time the weights move. ]

I have pointed out, in another post, that when you ALMOST turn of a water faucet--the sympathetic or harmonic (or whatever you'd call it)
vibration oscillation amplification that results can not just be from the gravity forcing the 17 drops of water down the pipe
and if you don't turn it off--i've had it act like it WILL shake yer walls apart

maybe he's onto something

[eccentrically1]

The nonsymmetric parametric oscillating weights have no more force given to them than that given by the axis of rotation. No torque, no nonsymmetric parametric oscillation. Nice words, though.

[Dwylbtzle]

i don't know where the enrgy in HIS idea comes from
but i believe the energy in the pipe rattle partially comes from quantum forces between molecules--probably the molecules in the pipe (and others between the water molecules)--acting in synchronistic tandem

when water freezes and cracks rock--where does that energy come from?
from quantum forces between water molecules
and that energy is not depleted with use

you could freeze that same water over and over again
and the energy comes from another dimension

most important to remember is:
it doesn't come from the energy you expended to freeze the water
you HAD to do that, yes
but don't be confused by it
that's NOT the point
and YES, you HAVE to expend some energy to get the 17 drops of water positioned above the pipe
but that's not the point

[jim_mich]

Did anyone ever stop to think that when water freezes, heat energy is being removed, but energy is increased as the water expands enough to break rocks. Somewhat contrary to Thermodynamic Laws.

[rlortie]

Jim,

Of course you cannot prove that I can't do it, since I've never disclosed to this forum how to do it.

Oh! but your next post certainly does, and it does not take much of genius mechanical aptitude to get the picture.

This of course is irrelevant if you already know how to do it and have patent pending notification. Advise you be careful, you may end up with another "width for height" operating on a mechanical design using CF that has been tried and tested.

Tested but not in the way you leave the door open to imagine.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

eccentrically1, do you understand nonsymmetric parametric oscillation? Are you interested in learning? Or are you just trolling?

For discussions about parametric oscillation:
Parametric oscillation thread.
Parametric oscillation from older forum.