Friendly Little Note

[ovyyus]

Speculation about how a wheel might be driven by gravity, inertia, or a combination of both, seem irrelevant without a defined energy source.

[jim_mich]

I guess I need you to answer a question first. For example, if you have a wheel with a 3 foot radius, what is the length of the travel of the weights?

The in and out motion on a 36 inch radius wheel could be as much as maybe 8 inches or as little as even 1 inch. The weights don't rise and fall. They move in and out. Thus they could cycle very fast over a short distance, say 1 inch, moving in and out any number of times per rotation. Or they could move at a similar speed in and out over a longer distance thus producing a very slow cycle time with maybe only one or possibly even less in and out cycle per rotation. The weights are so arranged that even while they move in and out, the wheel remains gravitationally balanced. The wheel is pushed forward by the impulse of the moving weights, and not by any OOB of the weights

http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/2008/07/cpe1794tks.html


Trevor, get lost! The video is not relevant. Yes, pulling a weight in against CF adds energy to the spinning weight as the weight accelerates. I was wrong. The energy ratio was not as I expected. I now fully understand how CF works in a situation where the spinning weight is free to accelerate as it is pulled inward. This situation is quite different from my CF concept.

Jim-Mich, Just show us how, or stop going on about it!

Trevor, why do you keep harping? I'm not going to "just show you how." My concept is my intellectual property and I'll keep it confidential until it's time to be released. If you don't like it, tough! I'll not go into details.

Years ago, we used to have intelligent discussions, like Ed and I were attempting to have here. But the newbies seem to lack the ability to discuss things in an intelligent and polite manner. Trevor, it was rude of you to jump into the middle of this conversation. Your comments are disruptive. You are like Murilo, jumping in where you are not welcome. Murilo will now insert a picture of his avalanche drive here because I brought up his name. And Trevor will now insert comments against me each time I post. Just watch and see Trevor's continuing rudeness.

And Bill, I've explained the energy source as a Maxwell's Demon type of arrangement, but everyone sticks their fingers in their ears and says, No, no, no. I'm not asking for anyone to believe me without proof. But at least let me discuss as much as I'm able to discuss. The alternative is no discussion at all. It's really up to the trolls whether I keep posting or go totally silent. "Going on about it" is why this forum was started.

[ovyyus]

"Going on about it" is why this forum was started.

Certainly true. I wonder if there could be any conversation here if everyone knew what they were talking about? :D

[Dwylbtzle]

christ what a bunch of know-it-alls that would be

ok tazmanian angel:
i percieve you agree that gravity alone being tricked (overbalanced-wartever) with internal gizmos alone won't work--but your idea, though consisting of internal gizmos--works from a demondrive(n) source

ok--so far our ideas don't conflict
neccessarily--
you would be saying it's using SOME source of energy other than gravity alone--
and indeed maybe wouldn't even need gravity

ok--i wouldn't know about that--take yer word on it
but it would take SOMETHINg other than just really crafty internal to the wheel gravity driven mechanical stuff
(in my gumball opinion)

[preoccupied]

Dwylbtzle, yeah it would be a regular bunch of know-it-alls, a real scientific journal. That would be fantastic

I hope I'm not being like Trevor and Murilo. I mean I did post an idea about springs... oops

[Dwylbtzle]

hope springs eternal from the human breast anew
if you think you see something involving getting a little cheat to add to the gravity thru messing with forces between atoms--and between molecules
in springs or anything else
i might consider that you are on the right track, probably
MAYbe
COULDbe
hehe
i might agree
that'd certainly prick my ears up
but then i've been called a prick with ears before
wouldn't be the first time

[Ed]

The in and out motion on a 36 inch radius wheel could be as much as maybe 8 inches or as little as even 1 inch. The weights don't rise and fall. They move in and out. Thus they could cycle very fast over a short distance, say 1 inch, moving in and out any number of times per rotation. Or they could move at a similar speed in and out over a longer distance thus producing a very slow cycle time with maybe only one or possibly even less in and out cycle per rotation. The weights are so arranged that even while they move in and out, the wheel remains gravitationally balanced. The wheel is pushed forward by the impulse of the moving weights, and not by any OOB of the weights

Jim, just to be clear, are you saying that as the weights move in and out the wheel's speed remains constant (after reaching top rpm), or are you saying the speed will fluctuate but that it will be imperceptible? I was working on the math, but will have to pick up on that tomorrow. I could be wrong, but it seems that even around 3 inches of movement would be noticeable. How much power can you get from only one inch?

[Fletcher]

This is an interesting topic - before I can comment further I'd like an opinion from particularly both jim_mich & pequaide to check against my understanding of things in this example & perhaps how I structure my discussion points.

In the diagram below there is a yellow mass [1 kg] & a lower green mass [4 kg] - both have a different acceleration applied to them [they can only move horizontally] for the same period of time [1 second] - this means they have the same Force applied to them [F = m x a].

As you can see they have the SAME momentums, but DIFFERENT velocities & KE's as we are led to expect.

ETA: Correction i.e. SAME Momentums.

The Work Energy Equivalence Principle shows the KE gained equal to the Force x Displacement sums i.e. Nm or joules are equal.

My question is this to you both.

What is the FORCE of each mass after the acceleration is ceased after 1 second ?

Note that Force = mass x acceleration, but after 1 sec when the masses are coasting there is no further acceleration, so what is the Force of the masses when no acceleration is present, just a velocity ?

[Dwylbtzle]

This is so funny ! I'm enjoying a good laugh right now.
Let me get this straight, Wagner said water couldn't be used? and Bessler's answer was that having over balanced weights doesn't matter.
Of course, if you're pumping water, the lever/weight would be swinging down. So Bessler was telling the truth, moving a weight further to one side or the other wouldn't make a difference.
er, Jim_Mich, if you lift 16 ounces with a 4 ounce weight, you would be using gravity and leverage.
Myself, I could probably do it pumping water :-)

edited to add; I know with you guys that weights are solid. With Bessler, there is such a thing as being too literal. Bessler was quite capable of abstract tnought.
I'm gonna take it easy until I return to work. And then I'll be able to enjoy building Bessler's Wheel.

ok agent smith...
if you see something involving water-
(-i don't know anything about using it for "the weights"
havta take anyone's word on that right now)

but i always said IF bessler's wheel was real it very well could have involved water in some capacity
-certainly don't claim to know what the hell that was (so i guess that's not such a big help)
but i think it would involve probably some property water has because of the way its molecules work together--won't compress-but is elastic and sticky a bit -likes to creep over surfaces and into things-wants to do capillary action effects-is vulnerable to spin torque from the earth (well, aren't we all) etc etc
stuff like that maybe--where yer messing with forces and energies and relationships and potentials between atoms and molecules

so mentioning water would prick my ears off too

***************
maybe by finding a little cheat from between water molecules
to add to the gravity
--gravity can be used to magnify that cheat--or the resultant energy from the whole system
note--just frinstance: the same amt of force from the spin of the earth is hitting a small body of water as a large one--i mean it's a constant
that's the cheat one could be tapping--with this hypothetical construct
and it's a small one
but yer bathtub, when you pull the plug, won't do as much damage as the whirlpool you'd get if you put a huge drain in the bottom of lake michigan
so the energy gleaned from the cheat is amplified with/by the gravity
so, if all this could be so---yes- a little wheel could be made from that--but a big one like a big ol bessler wheel the size of a barn (as i guess some of them were) would be what you'd need to do heavy work

as always---MAYbe

and the above was just ONE frinstance
not saying besslers wheel necessarily used coriolis effect
or water
or if it's even real or not
but assuming for a moment he wasn't hoaxing (really well)
maybe it used one or both of those
or found another tiny energy to use--and then amplified it with gravity
but it wouda probably come from a quantum-level source
that initial cheatin' boon juice
and then ACTUALLY newton is never really cheated
just gotten around

[ovyyus]

And Bill, I've explained the energy source as a Maxwell's Demon type of arrangement, but everyone sticks their fingers in their ears and says, No, no, no...

Well I'm not everyone and my fingers are for pointing :P

The hypothetical Maxwell's Demon results in heat exchange. Heat is defined independent of process. You have not defined your energy source independent of your process.

[Dwylbtzle]

i also didn't plug my ears to the demon (though my mom always advised me to)
i remember he said it used a similar (or same) mathematical principle as the maxwell
and that's why he says "type arrangement"
no, angel?
but, yeah--if not heat
what energy does it selectively grab?

i remember it had to do with (seemingly) random/selective (there's an oxymoron for ya) choicing or grabbing something
at micro-levels
or something like that
right?

************

a concept was once explored in "the hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy" wherein a space drive was based on the mathematical algorithm that takes place in the fevered brain of a maitre de at a bistro when he calculates the bill
well--the algorithm it takes to PREDICT that
i mean:
the sum he will write on the bill
in that very (constantly changing quantum instant)
[or any given fevered instant]
whererin he makes the decision to arrive at that--or any particular sum
which changes and is determined by the algorithm
considering all the variables in the guy's busy work shift day
and the party at the table
and how much of a bitch the waitress or the cook is being
etc etc
and it's so energetic --that's what drives the space ship faster than light
hehe--it was then plugged into something called a mutually reciprocating exclusivity...or a mutually exclusive reciprocity or something like that: defined as that set of numbers which consists of only all numbers outside the set
so as soon as you have a set it becomes the other--and then THAT, by definition, has to become the OTHER again....--and that's infinite energy
as i remember

[jim_mich]

Jim, just to be clear, are you saying that as the weights move in and out the wheel's speed remains constant (after reaching top rpm), or are you saying the speed will fluctuate but that it will be imperceptible? I was working on the math, but will have to pick up on that tomorrow. I could be wrong, but it seems that even around 3 inches of movement would be noticeable. How much power can you get from only one inch?

Ed, without getting into details, trying to work on math for wheel speed fluctuation as a weight moves in and out will not give any meaningful results as there are many other factors involved, with the result being a smoothing of the rotation. There are a number of variables that would determine how "smooth" the wheel ran, in other words, the perceptible speed variation as the weights move in and out. Part of the equation would be weight mass to wheel mass ratio. Another factor is how many mechanisms are on the wheel. The wheel mass plus the mass of the mechanisms plus the mass of the other weights in the wheel all act as a flywheel to smooth out the impulse pulses.

Do you notice the imperceptible speed changes of an internal combustion engine as the pistons move in and out? A V8 engine runs much smoother than a single cylinder lawnmower engine. Obviously a very small mass moving one inch will give different power results than a very large mass moving one inch. There is so much room for variations that any specific wheel size can be made to turn within a very broad range of speeds and powers.

Please note carefully these facts:-
If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis. Further, I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold. If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw Wagner's calculations clean out of the window!

Now if only I can figure out what it is that Fletcher is asking...

[Ed]

You are right Jim. With multiple mechanisms at various positions in and out, it would act like a flywheel effect. That's what I get for staying up late posting. :-)

My next question will also likely generate a "without getting into details" response, but I will ask anyway. What force is drawing in the weights?

Just remember Jim, someone might be able to describe a way that gravity alone or in conjunction can work, but they also might say things like "I can't get into the details", so these conversations are only going to get so far, aren't they? At that point we have to ask what the point is. ;-)

[Fletcher]

It's a pretty simple request Jim .

Two masses have had the same Force [10N] applied to them for the same time - the Force causing the acceleration is stopped & they both coast along at their respective velocities.

Both masses collide with another stationary mass [e.g. 1 kg each] - what FORCE will they apply to the stationary mass ?

If all masses are perfectly elastic the 1 kg mass at v =10 m/s will stop suddenly & transfer all its speed, momentum & energy to the stationary 1 kg mass [like the Newton's cradle] - was the force or impulse it imparted momentum or energy related ?

The 4 kg mas traveling at 2.5 m/s will slow down after collision to 1.5 m/s & have 6 units of momentum while the stationary 1 kg mass will have 4 units of momentum & a velocity of 4 m/s - was the force or impulse it imparted momentum or energy related ?

[Dwylbtzle]

well, now.\, jimmi--i believe he (Ed) is right, there
you essentially reiterated that gears and wheels (fly or otherwise) and such are levers and multiply forces--(ahem-once!)

(i just threw that in, myself-that "once" thing-just to be snotty--my apologies--that was immature--hehehe)

(then they ALL have to be reset--IF yer using gravity)
but if not you have to be using SOMething
what would that be?

now if yer saying yer getting a free kickback from the nature of the liquid
even if yer wrong
yer saying yer grabbing energies at the quantum level from forces between atoms or molecules in some material
in some way
and then yer agreeing with me--that THAT's possible
and i should get a kudo

or a judo chop
whatever

or else yer saying it's from some "zero-point energy" or some such esoteric stuff i mighta heard of on the art bell show on the radio one night, or something
and didn't pay that much attention to
because i didn't understand what they were saying AT ALL??
so
if so
you'd have to explain that to me, too, then, i guess

and no i didn't read the demon theory book
i just remember you telling me about it once