The application of Bessler’s Physics to Bessler’s problem!

[rlortie]

Chris,

IMO your last above paragraph deserves a Kudos! It is the method that I have been forced to take for years.

Without it, I would never be capable of properly analyzing submitted designs not based on Bessler ideals.

Ralph

[triplock]

I must be getting older and wiser (at last) !!!

[daxwc]

Trevor:

Daxwc wrote,
Quote:
You have not built a single wheel that works either. Wheels need to be built then understood why they don’t work. Then take the basic problem and attack it as it relates to physics. For example using any mechanical advantage in a wheel causes force for distance trade off; so you should be able to explain or calculate why you are beating it this time. To go on building wheels with the same fatal flaw is like Albert Einstein’s insanity related to running into a brick wall. The chances of finding perpetual motion using this method is the same as winning the Power Ball Lottery with one big disadvantage; you didn’t buy a ticket.

This when I knew you where trolling!!!

Actually I wasn’t trolling here; that is my belief. I have the right to an opinion, just as you seem to have a right to make up your own physics.


I have no idea why you would open up a thread “The application of Bessler’s Physics to Bessler’s problem!� and not only not want talk about real physics, but keep contradicting yourself without an explanation. Obviously asking you about it confuses you and is considered trolling even though you asked me to show you where. The stage I was trolling at was at the end and the 8P specifically was put there meaning I was teasing and joking around.

When looking at the tides movement volumes there has to be a extra input form some where to account for so much friction loss and mass movement, when added up over a year that is a hell of a lot of energy loss and mass movement, this can not be explained by the very small distance in the moons Orbital shift! This theory came to me on some of my built experiments…

Well least you admit it’s your own theory, don’t imagine it ever crossed your mind that any NASA scientists ever thought about it. Do you have any real scientific studies saying there is missing energy?


At any rate anyway welcome back to your thread and don’t worry I will not be discussing any more real physics here as I am no expert myself and you refuse to take the time to learn any of it; therefore my time would be better spent learning myself.

“I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.�

[pequaide]

Consider these two options.

What if the earth rotated on its axis but had no moon and no gravitational force from the Sun. There would be no tides.
 
What if the earth did not spin? The Sun (yearly) and the Moon (monthly) would cause tides.

If the momentum of the spinning earth were used to make tides the rotational motion would be rubbed out.  The Ocean has considerable mass. Lifting the ocean one meter twice a day would cost to much rotational motion.

The water on the ocean floor is moving at the same speed as the earth. The earth cannot run into, or cause, the tidal crest.  The tidal crest is an energy wave nearer the surface.  In the same way that the mountains can’t hit the atmosphere as they spin; the earth can’t hit the tidal crest. I think the energy wave pushes itself up on land as the tidal crest occurs by a body of land.

“Twice everyday the Bay of Fundy fills and empties of a billion tonnes of water during each tide cycle—that’s more than the flow of all the world’s freshwater rivers combined. In the Minas Basin, (Bay of Fundy) the height of the tide can reach an incredible 16 meters (53ft).� (resonance)

But on the other side of the Atlantic: the falling away side.

“In Brittany (France), where the highest tides in Europe are recorded, for example 5.45 m at Penmarc’h, 12 m in the Bay of Saint-Malo and more than 16 m in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, whereas the average worldwide is just 2 m.� How much energy would it take to lift the oceans two meters- twice a day?

No where in my reading did they mention momentum or the earth slamming into the crest. They attribute the cause to gravity from the Moon and Sun and centrifugal force. But by far the primary cause is lunar gravity.

The water in a tidal crest is a form of energy. The Law is “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another. “

Okay: what form of energy was transformed into this raised water?  What form of energy was used up?

I once had the privilege of visiting Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado. That source is nuclear energy from a star. If you turn the Sun off the water would quit flowing over (actually under) the dam.  Nuclear fuel is used up to make the dam produce energy.

A tidal crest is energy but what can be turned off to make it stop rising, what is used up.

It is caused by gravity but gravity is not used up.

[ovyyus]

Ralph, you seem to believe:

Bessler's clues are useless.
Known physics is useless.
Philosophy is useless.
Debate is useless.

Therefore you:

See no evil.
Hear no evil.
Speak no evil.
Do no evil.

Yet you:

Discuss Bessler's wheel.
Employ known physics.
Take philosophical positions.
Constantly debate.

Only to a certain point though, beyond which you tend to wave around your vacuum packed post holes :D

You must still think this fishing hole is useful to you in some way?

[Jim Williams]

With the minor exception of the Earth being toast in six billion years when Sol becomes a red giant, Earth tidal locks with the moon in 50 billion years; the same as the moon now tidal locks with Earth. The energy available from the tides rising and falling must be from momentum.

[ovyyus]

You Guys read a load of stuff on the internet and books, and you think you understand Known Physics, and tell me I do not understand, so if you guy truly understand all you have read and dictated to everyone, why is it you do not know there is a energy short fall between known physics and actual planetary movements, if you do not know there is a problem, then you are the ones who do not understand!!! At least I spend my time looking for the solution!

Ovyyus, I am sure this will make me deluded, as it will with anyone who does not agree with you lol!

Trevor, it has nothing to do with agreeing with me. Your above statement is not supported by anything other than your own assertion. That's because you choose to close your eyes to the already known physics of the matter. You can't seriously close your eyes to something and then describe it as wrong. There are mysteries in nature yet to be understood, but the definition of deluded is spending your time looking for solutions to made-up problems. Not that there's anything especially wrong with that :D

[rlortie]

Bill,

Your above post directed at me hits like a bolt of lightning out of a clear blue sky! First thing to cross my mind, did you mistakenly ms-direct this post? I find it hard to believe that I come across to my forum peers as you so vividly display below.

I do not believe Bessler's clues are useless, they have there place for discussion, simplifications and sometimes innovation. What I have tired from is the years of attempts to build a sustained design based solely on his alleged clues.

Known physics is a long way from being considered useless, without them we have nothing to guide us into expanding or updating them to meet current new found technology.

Philosophy definitely has its place and is a long way from beinguseless, it plays a significant role in science research, socialism and all walks of life. To say I do not believe in it could be considered slanderous by some.

Debate is not useless, I go out of my way to encourage it, the more out of the box the initial input is, the farther you have to run with it and the more members you entice into collaboration regarding it.

I See evil and am a long way from being a non-believer

I Hear evil as much as any other member of this forum.

Speak no evil. No evil thoughts unless I get down right pissed!

Do no evil. I would rather keep my conscious clear and believe I do not,

Yet you:

Discuss Bessler's wheel.
You bet! we all have to start somewhere. whether you buy it or not, what we are after was allegedly in the damn thing. I am pursuing it down a different path, so I am lead to believe as no one mentioned fluid dripping from his demo wheels.

Employ known physics.
I hope so, I would be in one hell of a position without them.

Take philosophical positions.
Right on! Nothing like a good philosophical debate to stir enlightenment, enticement and innovative thinking.

Constantly debate.
Isn't that what we are all here for?

As for my vacuum packed post holes, a pun, a jest, which is run its time, wore out and ready to be put to bed. The new cliche is frozen band aids for cold cuts while on the trip to see the hole in the ice. Concentrated water, just add water and stir.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Bill,

Having second thoughts let me run this by you just for the fun of it.

Bessler's wheels and the acceptance of laws of conservation and motion are relative or approximately the same age, both transpired in the 1700's

Gravity is conservative because no one has proved otherwise.
Bessler's wheels must be fraud as no one has proved otherwise.

But that is not the case, we pursue the latter while most stand firm on the prior. why is that? :-)

Ralph

[ovyyus]

Sorry Ralph, I didn't mean to shock you. My response was to statements made by you on the previous page:

The continued debate regarding earth, moon, tides and motion is winding down... to continue will not prove anything.

It might prove that gravity does not create the tides.

The opponents (us) must ignore non productive debates...

Now its non productive debate? I guess that's one way to settle the matter. Another way might be to put forward an effective argument.

To be such a person, it is best if you are a builder and not an armchair philosopher, Nothing in your favor will be found with farther debate over it.

Same

Call me a troll if you wish, in one respect or another we all fit that description. More so for the philosophers who do not build, and apparently there is a high percentage of them.

Same

Normally I shy away from involving myself in these "earth, moon, rocket and planetary discussions. There is very little innovation to be found here.

Same

I find that attempting to unravel and debate alleged clues , attempting to duplicate Bessler's unknown design is futile.

So why even talk about it?

[ovyyus]

Gravity is conservative because no one has proved otherwise.
Bessler's wheels must be fraud as no one has proved otherwise.

But that is not the case, we pursue the latter while most stand firm on the prior. why is that? :-)

Gravity is conservative because it is proven so, not the other way around.

Bessler's wheel can not be a fraud until proven so, not the other way around.

Time to whip out the old vacuum packed post holes, or maybe some farm trivia? :P

[rlortie]

Ok Bill,

So you caught me in a weak moment! That's OK, like the Timex watch I wear, I can take a licking and keep on ticking.

Finally found some parts I wanted for my new design. I had give up
attempting to find a source for them and went ahead and assembled the thing using an alternative.

Recently I found what I was looking for and now I am facing the frustration of tearing it down for installation and then having to rebuild again for the fourth time.

I need to take time out to mow my lawn, my lawn tractor has headlights. Should I mow after dark or in the daylight?

Ralph

[triplock]

@all

In regards to the original Topic question, I don't believe there to be an as yet undiscovered field of Bessler Phyics which will enable a wheel to turn beyond what is deemed 'normal', rather, IMHO , any successful device will fit and comply with the Laws already laid down.

There is, it is hoped, a particular over-sight which , when considered, permits this marriage between 'science' and 'PM'. At least, I hope that to be the case as it forms a part of my next Patent application !.

As I've said previously, you need to forget about wheels or any other form of cyclic motion as that won't lead to the answer we all seek. If you try to get a mech to fit a wheel, you won't be able to as its the other way around. The wheel does not create PM, rather the mech inside. The wheel motion is just a take off of the advantage gained within.

Obviously, to an extent, I'm having to talk in riddles, but that , unfortunately, is the nature of the game at this stage.

So does Bessler Physics exist ? No

Regards

Chris

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Daxwc, you are still trolling, you believe that I believe in the conservation of energy, to do so would be a belief in the conservation of energy in it entirety , as I stated I do not then I made “no contradiction�, it was all in your mind. I await your apology!

Yes Daxwc, it is your right to believe you should look at the way the forces are acting on the wheels that you build, and I also believe that you should learn how the forces are acting on your wheel builds, but to do so first you have to build them lol, it may seem to the reader that you have built many wheels, and I am building the same sort of design over and over again, so I thought you was trolling! Hope you can see why I jumped to that conclusion!

Yes you can ague Known physic with me! But you do not ask clear Questions, mixing my words and belief in a deliberate way is not a argument, it is trolling, Because you openly admit to trolling my thread we are only arguing when did it start.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Chris,

So does Bessler Physics exist ? No

Then that would be the physics to apply! Read my signature.

With respect, Trevor