Friendly Little Note

[Fletcher]

Looks like we both had a busy night jim_mich ;7)

We are in agreement about this.

Last night I built a Momentum Calculator for Elastic Collisions in an Excel spreadsheet [download attachment] - momentum & KE are conserved - for non elastic collisions momentum is conserved but net KE is diminished as you have said & as I would expect.

The point is that KE is the capacity to do WORK & except in 1 to 1 relationships of mass 100% can never be transferred, only a portion of it.

Since the initial contact velocity of mass 1 is obtained by doing work on it [ f x d = J ] then after contact there is no acceleration to find a force in play - so we have to take the KE of mass 2 & convert KE to PE [i.e. convert speed to height] - this gives us how much work mass 2 could do - as we know that these joules are equivalent to f x d then it is apparent that force & distance/displacement are inversely proportional i.e. f1 x d2 = f2 x d1 - therefore mass 2 would be stopped by a large fore over a short distance or a small force over a longer distance.

N.B. this is for linear collisions, no KE above force x distance input, nor momentum, is created & it doesn't seem possible to transfer the full momentum of a large mass to the smaller mass without an intermediate energy storage device like a spring for example.

I = m

..........................................

I'll come back when I can to comment on your opening post to this thread, which you may not be surprised to learn I agree with almost in full with a few expansions.

[Dwylbtzle]

i agreed with it, too

so, does this mean the math for the non-gravity engine doesn't work?

(hehe--look at us..we've gone beyond--we're not even dealing with the impossibility of a gravity engine working, any more...
-that's how advanced WE are...now we're trying to see if the possiblilty of the non gravity engine is not viable)

lol

only here...God i love this place

[Ed]

ed = 0 'energy difference (lost) due to collision.

I have no energy due to collision? Dang, I always thought I'd be able to harness my restless leg!

[Dwylbtzle]

devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of "excess impetus" that people should look for in my devices

-bessie

ok--i will
lol
maybe he got it from the quantum level?
-maybe he tapped the coriolis effect?
maybe he tapped the magnetic field of the earth?
from heat from a pile of radioactive rocks?
geothermal heat?
solar energy?(now DID anyone ever see him running one at night?--lol)
an internal pre-loadable spring that he wound for weeks in advance before each public test?
a windmill hidden away off in the dell with jumper cables buried under the ground--leading to the wheel?
animals running in the hampster wheel?
SOMEthing

excess impetus doesn't necessarily mean from gravity OR momentum

but he had to get an excess
(originating from outside the wheel, i believe)
hell just to counter friction, alone
let alone to do "heavy work"
which it, apparently, did--(or it was a hoax)

edit: well, if he got the energy from the quantum level--but the material he used was contained inside the wheel--one might be said to have everything contained within the wheel
but it's outside of just gravity with just mechanical devices

and, actually the energy would be coming from another dimension
(hey don't freak out--even magnetism is energy from another dimension, technically)
so..outside/inside?
no longer relevant
it would look self contained
like maybe just the flippers inside were doing it, i guess, in that case
but i don't know freakin HOW
lol

-remember...my theory makes my brain think that you can use a small amt of energy from the quantum level to make it POSSIBLE to tap gravity
you'd still be getting all that huge amount of energy from/because of/amplified by/whatever gravity
(and God, i wouldn't use a wheel) frickinsicka
lol

[eccentrically1]

I don't know. It still sounds to me like the tail has to wag the dog in order to push a wheel on a fixed axis forward by manipulating inertial mass around the axis, that self regulates, while providing a positive feedback loop like this:



I'm trying to think of a known example that would compare, in a mechanical maxwell demon sort of way.

What rotates around a fixed axis at a fixed speed, after an initial force is given, by mechanically manipulating inertia?

The only example I can imagine is a two body planetary system. And it still follows physical logic.

[Dwylbtzle]

yeh--something stays in orbit because of sheer speed and momentum--making it fly fast enough so that the curvature of the parent body's surface curves away at the same speed the orbiting body falls toward the parent body's surface
because there is no friction and no force to hinder it

but as soon as you force "work" on that little "system"--it funks

[pequaide]

Look at it the opposite way; what would make anyone think that the Law of Conservation of (linear ) Momentum mv would not work. There are no conditions 'experimentally sighted' that show that it does not work under all setups and variations. It needs no helpers; heat or frame of reference.

Smokin lamas and all my experiments can take very massive objects and give all the motion to a much smaller object. What would make you think that under these narrow conditions mv would fall flat on its face? These odd conditions are really just a ballistic pendulum reversed.

If you want into the castle you look for a week spot in the wall, but most of you cover the hole back up and pretend it is not there. It is there; get a shovel.

[Fletcher]

Read the following very carefully. Understand that Bessler is actually being sarcastic toward Wagner after Wagner wrote extensively about rising and falling weights turning a wheel.

But I would just like to add this friendly little note of caution:- A great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain. He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result will be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty! Have you ever seen a crowd of starlings squabbling angrily over the crumbs on a stationary mill-wheel? That's what it would be like for such a fellow and his invention, as I know only too well from my own recent experience!

I also think it's a good thing to be completely clear about one further point. Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience. There's a lot more to matters of mechanics than I've revealed to date, but since there's no urgent need involved, I'll refrain from giving more information at the moment.

Here Bessler is writing in reply to Wagner's writings. Wagner made the same assumption as everyone else. He assumed that Bessler's was claiming an over-balanced wheel turned by gravity. Wagner went to great length to explain that this would require a lighter weight to lift a heavier weight. So Bessler answered Wagner in a mocking fashion.

You will not see the humor in Bessler's words until you understand that Bessler is talking about what Wagner had said. Bessler is laughing at Wagner. Bessler says sarcastically, you would be a really great craftsman if you could get a light weight to lift a heavy weight. But if you are unable to sort out how to do that, then your wheel will remain motionless. Note that this paragraph starts out as a warning of advice to any would be wheel builders. At the end he says that if you keep adding weights in an attempt to make lighter weights lift heavier weights, then your wheel will remain motionless.

Yet, Bessler also said that he had found the solution where everybody had looked, so this might also imply the gravity OOB solution has a part to play as that was where everybody was looking & was the PM nut to be cracked.

Bessler claimed a perpetual motion wheel. He never claimed a gravity wheel. People simply assume his wheel was a gravity wheel. Many people can only imagine gravity wheels. Most people cannot imagine a wheel rotated solely by the in and out pumping motions of weights, like a child pumping a swing. They cannot envision anything other than gravity.

He claimed it was an Intrinsic Motion Machine AND a TRUE Perpetual Motion Machine - this might indicate that motion rather than gravity was the modus operandi of the Prime Mover - the weights gained force from their own swinging/motion.

XX Water-power especially is inadequate for perpetual motion

Wagner, red in the face, declares that, just as no arrangement of weights can circle round of its own accord, so too no device using water will work, because water, like other things, cannot artificially be made to rise against its natural tendency, and cause a certain fair Wheel of artistry to turn spontaneously. Oh of course! Its bound to stand still! Wagner says it can't move! Anyone who asks about water is no longer on board the ship.

XXI Here Wagner lists all mechanical implements.

Wagner seems almost to have run out of fancies. He says nothing can be achieved with "mechanical implements", the gist being that my Mobile must be impossible because I designed it to be driven by some "mechanical power". But did I not, in Part One, devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of "excess impetus" that people should look for in my devices? Once more I will humbly extol the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: "Now I understand!�

Note that Bessler explains that his wheel was rotated by "excess impetus". In other words his wheel was rotated by more (excess) impulse force in the forward direction than in the reverse direction. The wheel was pushed around by the motions of the weights, and not by gravity.

Bessler's early one-direction wheels stored OOB force when they were stopped and then used that OOB force to re-start. Bessler's two-directional wheels were always gravitationally balanced. They required a push so as to start the weights moving. Their reversed mechanisms simply coasted since any motions of its weights caused them to loose force rather than gain force. The forward mechanisms gained force when its weight moved and the moving of its weights inertially pumped the wheel rotation. Gravity force was not a factor in the later wheels. The two-way wheels could have operated laying down sideways if the structure could have supported such a position.

I am of the opinion that Bessler's wheels contained two elements - first the Prime Mover structure that used motion of weights - realistically Cf's are one of the few available forces that are strong enough & comes about from inertia & a push start to do the work required - setting aside from the debate what special form the device might take.

The second element might be the OOB system that provides the imbalance & rotation - so the PM influences the OOB system in a feedback loop ?!

This seems to fit the statement that it was a force found in nature that could be seen by children playing in the streets - it is generally accepted that the hoop tapping/rolling game is an excellent candidate for this - all his wheels had an impacting noise heard on the descending side & he admits this is part of the action which he later ceased to disguise - the hammer men [two] in the toys page also indicate that impact impetus may play an important part in his wheels.

You can either believe Bessler's words, or you can believe what you THINK Bessler said. I'm simply pointing out things. I've attempted before to point out that Bessler never claimed to have a gravity wheel, but was slammed real hard for it. People have this preconceived idea that the only way for a "weight" to rotate a wheel is by using gravity. Weight has more meaning than simply gravity weight force. Weight also implies inertial weight, inertial resistance to motion, and momentum resistance to being stopped once in motion. You cannot have inertia or momentum without weight. In Bessler's early writings he tried to convey the concept that his wheels worked without weights. He was trying to convey the thought that gravity weight was not the motive force. Wagner condemned Bessler by pointing out that obviously his wheel had weights. Bessler said his wheel was turned by weights. But it was like the two of them were speaking different languages. Wagner, like most people, never grasped the concept that it was the motions of the weight and not the gravitational force of the weights that produced the impulse to rotate Bessler's wheels.

If there is both a PM structure of moving weights & a secondary structure of OOB weights then it would seem plausible that the PM could itself be OU - this seems to be where you have focused your efforts in the last few years - I don't deny that is a logical direction.

For those who aren't familiar with the jim_mich formula & some of your supporting posts from the past I put up a selection & a diagram as a P.S.

Personally I don't think it was a CF induced inertia drive Prime Mover that gave the wheel impetus but I must admit your confidence is hard to argue against - it's not a bet I'd like to take & that's out of respect for you & what I know of you.

I truly wish you the best & hope you have solved this vexing mystery, & I hope the rest of the world [including us here] finds out the detail soon - in the mean time I keep a few doors ajar for a bit longer.

Best -fletcher

P.S.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 5294#35294

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 7132#37132

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 0675#40675

[jim_mich]

Yet, Bessler also said that he had found the solution where everybody had looked, so this might also imply the gravity OOB solution has a part to play as that was where everybody was looking & was the PM nut to be cracked.

I spoke of this five times before...
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 600#105600
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 045#102045
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 8099#98099
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 4173#84173
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 0457#70457

Bessler said he found the solution where everyone had looked. Everyone looked at weights moving in and out. Bessler's wheel (we all assume) had weights moving in and out. The solution obviously involves weights moving in and out. This is where everybody has looked and where everybody does looks. This is where Bessler looked. And this (I believe) is where he found the answer. But the answer is/was not gravity. The answer does not involve gravity weight. But it does involve inertial weight and momentum weight. I believe Bessler's mechanism manipulates inertia (the resistance to starting of motion) and momentum (the resistance to stopping of motion) in such a way that that it pumps the weights in and out and this in and out produces perpetual forceful rotation.

I am of the opinion that Bessler's wheels contained two elements - first the Prime Mover structure that used motion of weights - realistically Cf's are one of the few available forces that are strong enough & comes about from inertia & a push start to do the work required - setting aside from the debate what special form the device might take.

This goes against what Bessler wrote. He said (I'm paraphrasing it) that the weights were the "perpetual motion". I'd need to look up Bessler's exact words. Here they are...

NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the "essential constituent parts" which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity.

This seems to indicate only weights, and no secondary mechanisms.

Note that in the many translation certain phrases get mixed and matched - "preponderance" - "centre of gravity" - "out of balance" - "over balance" - they all convey the thought of more force in one direction than in the reciprocal direction.

I've asked myself, what phrase would Bessler use to describe more forward rotational motive force than rearward rotational motive force? The only logical way to rotate a wheel requires more force in one direction than in the reverse direction. It requires unbalanced force, over balanced force, a preponderance of force. And I keep coming to the conclusion that he would have said over balance or out-of-balance or a preponderance. And thus the same words take a different meaning depending upon whether the weights are moved by gravity of by their own inertial momentum force. In other words the weights gain force from their moving.

This old thread might be of interest here... Not a Gravity Wheel?

Initially Bessler attempted to say that his wheel was not turned by weights. Wagner called him out on this, saying that obviously his wheel contained weights. But how could Bessler keep his secret and at the same time explain that it was the motions of the weights that rotated his wheel? Go back and read Bessler's words with a different perspective in mind. Then you will see what I'm saying. Bessler said absolutely as much as he could say concerning the matter, without out-right blabbing the exact details of how his wheel worked.

Unfortunately many think that the 1 lb raising 4 pounds was somehow a hint as to how Bessler's wheel worked. It was not a hint. It was sarcasm and ridicule directed toward Wagner.

[getterdone]

Fantastic debate, I'm speechless

[eccentrically1]

Well i don't know. It's the same debate since 2000 something.

The mechanical demon would still only be a "sorter" of motion. He would sort inertial kinetic energy. He wouldn't increase it. So the masses would have to allow the demon mechanism to mechanically bleed off part of their KE that is represented by the "X" in Jim's formula from rolling on the spot:

(V - X)^2 + (V + X)^2 > (V - 0)^2 + (V + 0)^2
where V = Velocity and X = eXtra velocity of weights traveling in a circle with X not zero.

And toque the axle with that Xtra velocity. I don't know about that formula. Wubbly? Dwayne?


Quote from Jim from the same post in "Rolling on the spot"
"For every action there is an opposite reaction. So you must have something to push against. In my 'train in a circle' example one weight moves forward against the second weight moving rearward. With Milkovic's pump you have the pendulum's weight against the lever's weight with both the swinging pendulum and the swinging lever having CF. But the CF varies due to the complex swing pattern. The combined CF of two pendulums swinging at two different speeds is more than the combined CF of the same two pendulums swinging at an average of the two speeds. "

The first sentence negates the rest of the paragraph because a wheel on an axle is a closed mechanical system. Any thing inside it has to push against the other side. The demon can't torque the axle from inside by mere mechanical means, he is countered by the anti-demon.
There isn't extra velocity to push the wheel forward, or I could be totally off base.

[cloud camper]

Yes, you do know ECC1 - this is the same old regurgitated pablum we've been subjected to since 2003.

JM is back to his same tired and unsubstantiated assertions that CF is non-linear and therefore must be nonconservative.

But this can easily be proved false by noting the direction any object on the rim of a high rpm wheel departs when CP loses it's hold on that object.

If JM's theories were correct, the object would fly away radially from the center at high speed. But unfortunately for Jim, this never happens.

Loose objects departing a high rpm wheel always depart tangentially, 90 degrees to the developed CF vector. This shows that even tremendous values of CF developed at high rpm instantly and completely vanish the moment that CP loses it's hold on the object.

CF simply cannot exist apart from the exact opposing force CP. This leaves nothing left over to power anything.

Very sad that an individual with amazing quantities of useless verbiage cannot crack a Physics 101 book and learn the truth.

[getterdone]

I still think that it's a worthy debate.



Cloud Camper, since none of us know the answer to this riddle, I don't think that we can rule anything out.

Just wanted to show you a pic I posted a few months ago, as an example of how it's possible to hang on to the axle on one side, and then let the weighted lever push on the perimeter on the other side

I still stick to my claim that I don't shit

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... er=user_id

With regards

Leo

[ovyyus]

...this is the same old regurgitated pablum we've been subjected to since 2003.

That must be the royal troll 'we'? You've only been a member here since 2011. Either that or you're a previously banned member back for a re-run? Hmmm...

[jim_mich]

...this is the same old regurgitated pablum we've been subjected to since 2003.

Must have a rodent in his pocket. I thought I smelled a rat.