Friendly Little Note
Moderator: scott
re: Friendly Little Note
1 pound represents one system (the prime mover), four pounds represents the weight(weights) the prime mover pulls over.
re: Friendly Little Note
Axle, go back to page one of this thread.
Bessler is saying very clearly that he is writing a caution. He is not giving a note of advice as to how a wheel is to be built. He is answering Wagner's writings about rising and falling weights. He is being sarcastic. He's making fun of Wagner. He asks a very simple question. Who can make a heavy weight rise as a light weight falls? He than says that if you can sort out how to do it, then yes your wheel will perpetuate. But ... if you cannot ... then all your work is in vain.
I doubt Bessler ever thought people would think a light weight could lift a heavy weight. It goes against all scientific principles. This was Wagner's point ... for gravity to turn a PM wheel would require a light weight to lift a heavy weight. And Bessler was writing in reply to Wagner.
Then Bessler says he wants to make this very clear. Bessler says many wheel makers think all they need is OOB, and surely it will turn. Bessler then says everyone must learn this lesson through bitter personal experience. Bessler spent 10 long bitter years searching for an OOB PM wheel.
Wagner says that OOB wheels will never produce PM. Bessler agrees. Wagner says that Bessler's wheel cannot be PM. Bessler disagrees. Bessler claims to be right and he claims his wheel to be PM.
The only way that Wagner could be right and Bessler could also be right is if OOB wheels cannot produce PM but that moving weights can produce PM.
Bessler is saying very clearly that he is writing a caution. He is not giving a note of advice as to how a wheel is to be built. He is answering Wagner's writings about rising and falling weights. He is being sarcastic. He's making fun of Wagner. He asks a very simple question. Who can make a heavy weight rise as a light weight falls? He than says that if you can sort out how to do it, then yes your wheel will perpetuate. But ... if you cannot ... then all your work is in vain.
I doubt Bessler ever thought people would think a light weight could lift a heavy weight. It goes against all scientific principles. This was Wagner's point ... for gravity to turn a PM wheel would require a light weight to lift a heavy weight. And Bessler was writing in reply to Wagner.
Then Bessler says he wants to make this very clear. Bessler says many wheel makers think all they need is OOB, and surely it will turn. Bessler then says everyone must learn this lesson through bitter personal experience. Bessler spent 10 long bitter years searching for an OOB PM wheel.
Wagner says that OOB wheels will never produce PM. Bessler agrees. Wagner says that Bessler's wheel cannot be PM. Bessler disagrees. Bessler claims to be right and he claims his wheel to be PM.
The only way that Wagner could be right and Bessler could also be right is if OOB wheels cannot produce PM but that moving weights can produce PM.
One additional note. Bessler removed only one sized weight from his wheels. Maybe other sizes where not shown, but all indications seem to point to only one sized weight.
Bill keeps asking for an energy source. I keep pointing it out. But like Wagner, Bill cannot comprehend how moving weights might gain energy simply from moving. Bessler said that if the method was revealed, then you would say, "Now we know." The energy source is not like with a steam engine that requires fuel. The energy source is the "perpetual motion principle" whereby under certain conditions, the weight gain force, and keep the wheel rotating. The energy source is the motions of the weights. Is this any more crazy than expecting a light weight to lift a heavy weight?
Suppose you spin a toy gyroscope and set it down. It keeps spinning. What is the energy source that keeps it spinning? What is the energy source that make it seem to defy gravity? It is the motion of the spinning weight. It does not keep spinning forever, but while it is spinning and saying lifted upward resting on a post or string, what is the energy source keeping it lifted and rotating? It's the spinning motion of the gyroscope. If the gyroscope were to use some method that caused its motion to produce more motion so as to keep it spinning, then what would that energy source be? The energy source would be the motion of the gyro. Yes that sound crazy.
Bill keeps asking for an energy source. I keep pointing it out. But like Wagner, Bill cannot comprehend how moving weights might gain energy simply from moving. Bessler said that if the method was revealed, then you would say, "Now we know." The energy source is not like with a steam engine that requires fuel. The energy source is the "perpetual motion principle" whereby under certain conditions, the weight gain force, and keep the wheel rotating. The energy source is the motions of the weights. Is this any more crazy than expecting a light weight to lift a heavy weight?
Suppose you spin a toy gyroscope and set it down. It keeps spinning. What is the energy source that keeps it spinning? What is the energy source that make it seem to defy gravity? It is the motion of the spinning weight. It does not keep spinning forever, but while it is spinning and saying lifted upward resting on a post or string, what is the energy source keeping it lifted and rotating? It's the spinning motion of the gyroscope. If the gyroscope were to use some method that caused its motion to produce more motion so as to keep it spinning, then what would that energy source be? The energy source would be the motion of the gyro. Yes that sound crazy.
re: Friendly Little Note
Jim, have to tell you that over the years, you are the only one I trust on this board.
The first page is all I did read. It's enough all right there.
So I agree too that it is impossible for a lighter weight to lift a heavier one, but I said, "pulls over".
I imagine B. had two systems in the device. One system, the one that gets pulled to one side could have been a radial group of weighted straight levers that were connected by springs. These levers had the heavy weights. The springs balance them all out so that even though most of them fall lower stretching the upper springs and compressing the lower ones, the system turns very easily, stretching and compressing as it goes.
I've built such a system before and ran a string through the center and then through a pulley near the end of a lever. Pulling on the string with a small force, pulls the lever to the side, which unbalances the whole thing just as if a weight was being lifted. But the weights are not being lifted per se.
The first page is all I did read. It's enough all right there.
So I agree too that it is impossible for a lighter weight to lift a heavier one, but I said, "pulls over".
I imagine B. had two systems in the device. One system, the one that gets pulled to one side could have been a radial group of weighted straight levers that were connected by springs. These levers had the heavy weights. The springs balance them all out so that even though most of them fall lower stretching the upper springs and compressing the lower ones, the system turns very easily, stretching and compressing as it goes.
I've built such a system before and ran a string through the center and then through a pulley near the end of a lever. Pulling on the string with a small force, pulls the lever to the side, which unbalances the whole thing just as if a weight was being lifted. But the weights are not being lifted per se.
re: Friendly Little Note
It's no different. Those who point to gravity and say it's an energy source can not demonstrate it. Those who point to inertia and say it's an energy source can not demonstrate it. Those who point to magic and say it's an energy source can not demonstrate it.jim_mich wrote:The energy source is the motions of the weights. Is this any more crazy than expecting a light weight to lift a heavy weight?
If someone could actually demonstrate that gravity or inertia or magic is an energy source, why would they claim anything before they were actually prepared to actually demonstrate it? Are they just having fun teasing, do they need attention, are they on a power trip, or on a mission from their god, or are they just trying to exorcise their own doubts? Perhaps they see themselves as a teacher? A teacher with a big stick and no explanations? Something isn't right, Jim.
re: Friendly Little Note
O. Maybe they're just trying to help the discussion along? But what gets me are the ones who post over and over but never give any details, pictures or anything except a reminder of their presence here.
2/Asgky267$tbsoflwvvdqpasqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm666.
2/Asgky267$tbsoflwvvdqpasqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm666.
re: Friendly Little Note
I've said before, I can either post or not post. Which would you guys rather I do?
Perhaps I'm just trying to share as much as I feel comfortable sharing? Perhaps I'm trying to move peoples thinking toward an alternate method of motion wheels instead of the common gravity wheel? Perhaps I really have found Bessler's "Principle of Perpetual Motion", but not yet in a position to release it?
I could make long detailed postings of my progress, my set-backs, my personal problems, my health problems, my wheel successes, their improvements, alternate designs, the fluid versions, the heat-pump versions, the warmer-plate version, the beer cooler trivet plate version, the window air-conditioner heating cooling unit design. If I was going to tease, I have much I could tease about. But I've attempted to guide the conversations toward Bessler's writings, toward Bessler's clues, toward why Bessler's wheel was a motion wheel and not a gravity wheel.
But hey, I can go silent. I can hang out on FaceBook. I could discuss world finance and the stock market over on other forums. Or the precious metals markets and coin collecting. These I already do. Or I could discuss the latest science concepts. Or discuss political conspiracy theories. But then people think you're a wacko, since the US government would never eavesdrop on every single phone call and email sent. I could spend time being political. I already do that, maybe too much.
Instead, I choose to spend a little amount of my time in an attempt to guide people's thinking toward a concept, which I feel very passionately, was/is the solution to the Bessler mystery. And I have a plan of how I intend to disclose Bessler's "Principle of Perpetual Motion". But is it really Bessler's principle? Or is it my own principle? Bessler never fully disclosed. But he did leave clues to his principle in his writings. I enjoy writing. I enjoy inventing. I love designing. Put me in front of a CAD program and I can crank out all sorts of designs of all sorts of things. I hate making parts. But do-it-yourself machining is a whole lot cheaper than hiring a machinist. And you still have to assemble the parts. And bang your knuckles. And cut your fingers. And bend your back. I hate that part.
But hey, I can go silent. Is that what you're asking, Bill? Would you rather denigrate and put down the possibility that Bessler's wheel was a motion wheel (which was his claim) or might I be allowed to post the limited amount of what I feel comfortable posting, thus limiting what I disclose?
But hey, I can go silent and then one day surprise everyone. Would that be the preferred route to take? But the choice, the decision, is mine to make, not yours. You ask where's the energy source. And I answer. But you refuse to understand. Wagner had the same problem. Wagner could not understand how motion could cause more motion. He thought only of gravity and falling weight. He demanded an energy source. And you, Bill, are also not willing to accept that motion is the power source.
I'm not ready and willing to disclose the principle whereby motion causes increased motion. In other words, a motion wheel that is forcefully rotated by the motions of its weights. The weights gain force from their motions. How much clearer can it be stated, except by disclosing the details of how to do it?
But hey, I can go silent.
Perhaps I'm just trying to share as much as I feel comfortable sharing? Perhaps I'm trying to move peoples thinking toward an alternate method of motion wheels instead of the common gravity wheel? Perhaps I really have found Bessler's "Principle of Perpetual Motion", but not yet in a position to release it?
I could make long detailed postings of my progress, my set-backs, my personal problems, my health problems, my wheel successes, their improvements, alternate designs, the fluid versions, the heat-pump versions, the warmer-plate version, the beer cooler trivet plate version, the window air-conditioner heating cooling unit design. If I was going to tease, I have much I could tease about. But I've attempted to guide the conversations toward Bessler's writings, toward Bessler's clues, toward why Bessler's wheel was a motion wheel and not a gravity wheel.
But hey, I can go silent. I can hang out on FaceBook. I could discuss world finance and the stock market over on other forums. Or the precious metals markets and coin collecting. These I already do. Or I could discuss the latest science concepts. Or discuss political conspiracy theories. But then people think you're a wacko, since the US government would never eavesdrop on every single phone call and email sent. I could spend time being political. I already do that, maybe too much.
Instead, I choose to spend a little amount of my time in an attempt to guide people's thinking toward a concept, which I feel very passionately, was/is the solution to the Bessler mystery. And I have a plan of how I intend to disclose Bessler's "Principle of Perpetual Motion". But is it really Bessler's principle? Or is it my own principle? Bessler never fully disclosed. But he did leave clues to his principle in his writings. I enjoy writing. I enjoy inventing. I love designing. Put me in front of a CAD program and I can crank out all sorts of designs of all sorts of things. I hate making parts. But do-it-yourself machining is a whole lot cheaper than hiring a machinist. And you still have to assemble the parts. And bang your knuckles. And cut your fingers. And bend your back. I hate that part.
But hey, I can go silent. Is that what you're asking, Bill? Would you rather denigrate and put down the possibility that Bessler's wheel was a motion wheel (which was his claim) or might I be allowed to post the limited amount of what I feel comfortable posting, thus limiting what I disclose?
But hey, I can go silent and then one day surprise everyone. Would that be the preferred route to take? But the choice, the decision, is mine to make, not yours. You ask where's the energy source. And I answer. But you refuse to understand. Wagner had the same problem. Wagner could not understand how motion could cause more motion. He thought only of gravity and falling weight. He demanded an energy source. And you, Bill, are also not willing to accept that motion is the power source.
I'm not ready and willing to disclose the principle whereby motion causes increased motion. In other words, a motion wheel that is forcefully rotated by the motions of its weights. The weights gain force from their motions. How much clearer can it be stated, except by disclosing the details of how to do it?
But hey, I can go silent.
re: Friendly Little Note
Jim,
I enjoy your posts, so I would not be in favor of you going silent.
But you do keep ignoring me when I ask the question 'why', which you've 'answered' above, but not really. Bill also asked this question, which your answer was more directed towards. I don't think my question gets into details you can't answer. I will come back in a few minutes and rephrase the question.
Also, I know you do preface 'in your opinion' most of the time, but Bessler saying it is a motion machine is definitely your opinion and your interpretation of the statements in the Bessler material.
I can assure you the line "The weights gain force from their motions" can also be applied to gravity. Bessler didn't quite say this though, but I will let Stewart get into it, since he is the better person to explain it than I.
EDIT: to clarify, Bessler didn't quite say "weights gain force from their motion" and variants passing around the forum. Again, Stewart is better equipped to explain, if he ever comes out from under HIS rock. ;-)
I enjoy your posts, so I would not be in favor of you going silent.
But you do keep ignoring me when I ask the question 'why', which you've 'answered' above, but not really. Bill also asked this question, which your answer was more directed towards. I don't think my question gets into details you can't answer. I will come back in a few minutes and rephrase the question.
Also, I know you do preface 'in your opinion' most of the time, but Bessler saying it is a motion machine is definitely your opinion and your interpretation of the statements in the Bessler material.
I can assure you the line "The weights gain force from their motions" can also be applied to gravity. Bessler didn't quite say this though, but I will let Stewart get into it, since he is the better person to explain it than I.
EDIT: to clarify, Bessler didn't quite say "weights gain force from their motion" and variants passing around the forum. Again, Stewart is better equipped to explain, if he ever comes out from under HIS rock. ;-)
Last edited by Ed on Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: Friendly Little Note
Jim,
I understand you don't want to give details, and I can respect that. I also appreciate that you spend some of your time here when you could be other places.
The question I have is, "why nudge people in a direction that you believe is correct, when you yourself have the most & best information on what it is you are trying to nudge people towards"? Hopefully my question makes sense?
Are you trying to get someone else to release it before you?
Are you trying to create a provisional announcement?
Are you trying to create your own pre-posthumous material?
I could go on, but I believe you when you say you aren't teasing people.
So what's the deal? :-)
I understand you don't want to give details, and I can respect that. I also appreciate that you spend some of your time here when you could be other places.
The question I have is, "why nudge people in a direction that you believe is correct, when you yourself have the most & best information on what it is you are trying to nudge people towards"? Hopefully my question makes sense?
Are you trying to get someone else to release it before you?
Are you trying to create a provisional announcement?
Are you trying to create your own pre-posthumous material?
I could go on, but I believe you when you say you aren't teasing people.
So what's the deal? :-)
I enjoy visiting the forum. It makes a nice social gathering spot for like-minded PM thinking people. So why should I not "nudge people toward more truthful thinking"?
So what's the deal? There is no deal. I'm very sure I know Bessler's Principle of Perpetual Motion. It is not complicated. I know all the criteria. I know why each criteria is required. I know many physical ways of implementing the criteria. And my procrastination allowed me time to discover some simple designs involving fluid flow. And that lead me to figure out how to use the wheel for heating and cooling.
So I'm working slowly on my plan. I have no need for fabulous fame or fortune. So why rush things? I simply enjoy life's ride at whatever speed it takes me.
Like some other people, I almost died some years back, but from hepatitis. My liver shut down from the toxic fumes where I worked. It caused me to slow down and smell the roses, and take life a lot slower. So that is the deal.
And I'm a truth fanatic. Bessler's wheel being turned by gravity is not truth, it is misinformation. My usual disclaimer applies for unbelievers.
I've already solved it. The solution is so simple, that once it's seen and understood, then there is no need to physically build it, except as proof to skeptics. My 'plan' takes time to implement. I postponed my plan for over three years while I worked out some personal problems. But I'm back working on the plan. And the three years allowed me time to better understand the principle and to resolve my marital problems. When I first saw the computer computations, I had a hard time believing. And at first my envisioned methods were crude. The last four or five years have given me time to gain a better understanding of why it works and to create many simpler mechanical arrangements. If I had filed for a patent back then, the patent would not be all it could be. Some people say, things happen for a reason. I've always had faith in that saying. I've insisted that religion be kept off the forum. And I've also at time stated that I have my own strong faith. But enough said. My point is that sometimes things seem to happen for a reason, and I think there are/were possibly unknown reasons why I've procrastinated so much. That all I wish to say about such. (So don't ask.)Ed wrote:Are you trying to get someone else to solve it before you?
No, I'm not expecting to die any time soon, though sometimes my fibromyalgia pain makes me feel like I'm dying. Most all my male ancestors lived into their mid-80. My female ancestors mostly died of a specific type of cancer, which is now more or less curable. I have one aunt that just recently died. She was in her mid-80’s and survived her cancer. Her death was simply old age. With advances of modern medicine, we are all living longer, and I have always tried to live and eat healthy. So I expect I should live another 20 or more years. Of course I could drop dead tonight or be killed in an accident. Anything is possible.Ed wrote:Are you trying to create your own pre-posthumous material?
So what's the deal? There is no deal. I'm very sure I know Bessler's Principle of Perpetual Motion. It is not complicated. I know all the criteria. I know why each criteria is required. I know many physical ways of implementing the criteria. And my procrastination allowed me time to discover some simple designs involving fluid flow. And that lead me to figure out how to use the wheel for heating and cooling.
So I'm working slowly on my plan. I have no need for fabulous fame or fortune. So why rush things? I simply enjoy life's ride at whatever speed it takes me.
Like some other people, I almost died some years back, but from hepatitis. My liver shut down from the toxic fumes where I worked. It caused me to slow down and smell the roses, and take life a lot slower. So that is the deal.
And I'm a truth fanatic. Bessler's wheel being turned by gravity is not truth, it is misinformation. My usual disclaimer applies for unbelievers.
re: Friendly Little Note
I like synchronicity too Jim. Just ask Sting. :-)
You say you'd prefer religion stay off the forum, then don't turn this into a religion, like being some sort of Johannah Witness. You weren't in Bessler's posse in the 18th century Jim, and that is about the only way we could know for sure the meaning on some of these statements.
Awe, I wish you hadn't gone and said that! Haven't you been following the mess that Trevor got himself into? By your standards I have solved it as well, many times. ;-)jim_mich wrote:I've already solved it. The solution is so simple, that once it's seen and understood, then there is no need to physically build it, except as proof to skeptics.
You say you'd prefer religion stay off the forum, then don't turn this into a religion, like being some sort of Johannah Witness. You weren't in Bessler's posse in the 18th century Jim, and that is about the only way we could know for sure the meaning on some of these statements.
At least put up a link to your disclaimer, otherwise people might misconstrue a statement like this and your 'highly regarded' status and think you have some inside information or something.jim_mich wrote:And I'm a truth fanatic. Bessler's wheel being turned by gravity is not truth, it is misinformation. My usual disclaimer applies for unbelievers.
re: Friendly Little Note
FWIW jim_mich if a working build confirms your statements IMO you have every right to call it "the Randall Perpetual Motion Principle" or "the jim_mich Inertia Drive" or "the James Intrinsic Motion Engine" or "the James Randall Energy Paradigm" or whatever name your prefer.
Most people have never heard of Bessler so would have no bias in that direction once it hit the world commercial & scientific headlines - a few here would pour over your patents & designs looking to tie up every loose end to satisfy themselves that it was at least closely related to Bessler's alleged PM principle & might continue calling it that even though they can't ever know for sure.
I expect that CF/inertia designs are often considered by most every casual & serious researcher then eventually passed up because a working configuration can not be found.
Persistence Beats Resistance. Good luck as always.
Most people have never heard of Bessler so would have no bias in that direction once it hit the world commercial & scientific headlines - a few here would pour over your patents & designs looking to tie up every loose end to satisfy themselves that it was at least closely related to Bessler's alleged PM principle & might continue calling it that even though they can't ever know for sure.
I expect that CF/inertia designs are often considered by most every casual & serious researcher then eventually passed up because a working configuration can not be found.
Persistence Beats Resistance. Good luck as always.
-
getterdone
- Aficionado
- Posts: 683
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:27 pm
Re: re: Friendly Little Note
ovyyus wrote:It's no different. Those who point to gravity and say it's an energy source can not demonstrate it. Those who point to inertia and say it's an energy source can not demonstrate it. Those who point to magic and say it's an energy source can not demonstrate it.jim_mich wrote:The energy source is the motions of the weights. Is this any more crazy than expecting a light weight to lift a heavy weight?
If someone could actually demonstrate that gravity or inertia or magic is an energy source, why would they claim anything before they were actually prepared to actually demonstrate it? Are they just having fun teasing, do they need attention, are they on a power trip, or on a mission from their god, or are they just trying to exorcise their own doubts? Perhaps they see themselves as a teacher? A teacher with a big stick and no explanations? Something isn't right, Jim.
Well Bill I've made claims, posted some pictures, and tried to explain what I see in the shop. But my lack of a proper education makes it almost impossible for me to explain in proper detail exactly what it is that I'm seeing. Is it inertia, impetus, motion, magic, CF ,momentum or gravity. I don't know. But if someone out there in cyberland would be willing to take 10 minutes to go on Skype, I'm always willing to share.
Perhaps that person would be able to explain it better to the forum. Otherwise I see people asking the same old questions, has anybody ever been able to transfer weight from the axle to the perimeter?, can one side be heavier than the other, with everything being equal on both sides?, can momentum be increased, with no negative adverse affect? blah blah blah
I'm going to be starting on a new design in about two weeks, gut the wheel and start over. I take what I learn and move onto the next one
Jim ,I think you've done a great job of explaining your position. I'm still not convinced that it'll work, but that's ok.
We all fallow our own path
Leo
Beer is the cause and the solution of all my problems.
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
If you keep posting the same thing to guide others, it's futile unless you show a video of a runner.
No one will " believe " your method is any more valid than anyone else's, and no one does believe your method, I guess.
Nothing you have said has shown me that your method using inertia of two weights swapping relative motion and doubling it and applying the excess in the direction of motion, would work. Children pumping swings is no good as a guide, they have an internal source of energy that sets the swing in motion. Skaters are the same. Just (lifeless) mass can't pump a swing, can't create its own centripetal acceleration. That's basically what we are expected to believe, that a lifeless mass can force itself around a pivot.
Good luck from me too.
No one will " believe " your method is any more valid than anyone else's, and no one does believe your method, I guess.
Nothing you have said has shown me that your method using inertia of two weights swapping relative motion and doubling it and applying the excess in the direction of motion, would work. Children pumping swings is no good as a guide, they have an internal source of energy that sets the swing in motion. Skaters are the same. Just (lifeless) mass can't pump a swing, can't create its own centripetal acceleration. That's basically what we are expected to believe, that a lifeless mass can force itself around a pivot.
Good luck from me too.
re: Friendly Little Note
What are you guys wishing Jim luck with?
Success with his builds and with following his Plan, or with converting people to a motion wheel mindset?
Of course he has my complete support with the former, and my curiosity with the later.
Success with his builds and with following his Plan, or with converting people to a motion wheel mindset?
Of course he has my complete support with the former, and my curiosity with the later.