Ralph, you need to go back to physic 101.
You have some misconceptions about "weight". I've touched on it lightly in the past. You confuse gravity-weight with weight-mass. The two are related but they are different.
Let’s see if I can explain the difference and why your statements are not correct.
An object that we label as a weight causes a force when on Earth. We call this force gravity. When on the Moon, this force is different.
An object that we label as a weight resists being moved. We call this resistance inertia.
An object that we label as a weight resists being stopped. We call this resistance momentum.
Inertial resistance to motion and momentum resistance to stopping is the same on Earth as on the moon. These two forces are related to the weight-mass of the object. We use a short-cut on Earth to determine weight-mass by measuring an objects weight-force.
Mass and weight are NOT the same. On Earth, we use units of measurement that equate weight and mass as being equal. This is done to make calculation easier here on Earth. It is a short-cut. But if you have a weight on the moon it no longer weighs the same weight-force. If you try to move a weight-object on the moon, it takes the same force to accelerate it as on the Earth. And it produces the same force when decelerated on the Moon and on the Earth. Inertia and momentum depend upon weight-mass.
So, Ralph, you ask,
Ralph wrote: what is a weight worth without gravity?
As I've been explaining, a weight without gravity still has inertial resistance to motion and it still has momentum resistance to stopping. These characteristics of mass do not change when within the presence of gravity, of lack of gravity.
Ralph wrote:How do you achieve displacement to create motion without gravity?
You seem totally ignorant of inertia and momentum. These are the forces that cause turbine rotation and rocket propulsion. Gravity is not required to create motion. All that is required is an imbalance of force.
Ralph wrote:Your wheel that does not seek equilibrium will not seek anything, like a herd of lazy fat horses they will just float going nowhere.
Once again you are hung up on gravity. Floating is a gravity terminology. Floating is a fluid terminology. Forget gravity. Forget fluids seeking their own level. Gravity is not a requirement for rotation. Bessler's "herd of lazy fat horses" was in reference to Wagner's refusal to harness his fat horses and bring his lazy butt to look at and to test Bessler's wheel. Wagner was a typical skeptic. He was of the belief that PM was impossible, and therefore Bessler's wheel must be a fraud.
Ralph wrote:How about thinking "one side is full the other empty, as it should be".
But Ralph, that is not what Bessler said. Bessler's statement was a comparison of how his wheel worked, on the one hand lifting a heavy and full load, as on the other hand empty and light. (As shown during the demonstrations that had just been completed.) It is not my fault that the words were not translated correctly. Go back and read the original German text. Run it, word-for-word through any of the numerous on line German translation engines. Or have someone knowledgeable translate it. You have heard people compare two things, such as: On the one side are the Republicans, and on the other the Democrats. This is the same as saying, On the one hand are the Republicans, and on the other the Democrats. The German text equates to the same meaning: On the one side it is heavy and full, on the other empty and light. Then in parenthesis it says "(wies sol.)" "weis" means to point out or to show. "sol." is an abbreviated word in order for the poem to rhyme. It is most likely the abbreviation of "solch", which means so or such. Thus the words in parenthesis say "point so" or "shown such". Bessler was saying that during the demonstration of lifting heavy or light, he pointed out or showed as such (how his wheel worked equally well loaded or empty).
Ralph wrote:Does this thinking surpass the abilities of Physics 101 and require a Doctorate to comprehend?
Physics 101 says you cannot make a perpetually out-of-balance wheel. Physics says you cannot raise 4 pound by the falling of 1 pound a same distance. Wagner knew this 300 years ago. Bessler confirmed that Wagner was right. But Bessler was also right – he claimed his wheel was perpetual motion – and he never claimed it was rotated by gravity acting on out-of-balance weights.
Ralph wrote:Your continuous and repetitive criticism is to some an inhibiting factor, members stay silent for fear of getting involved in your one sided rebuking.
I assume this is directed at me, though "one sided rebuking" sounds more like clod camper.
Truth is truth. You cannot lift a 4 pound weight using a 1 pound weight. Such is impossible. Truth is truth. The translations being used to support lifting 4 pounds with 1 pound do not translate as people think. These words of Bessler were sarcasm. Bessler was making fun of Wagner's thinking that a light weight might lift a heavier weight. One pound lifting four pounds is not the source of rotation of Bessler's wheel. It is impossible for one pound to lift more than one pound a same distance. There is no mechanism that can cause this to happen.
People are free to search for any method of PM they desire. But when these wrongly translated words are used as an excuse for searching for out-of-balance PM wheels, I simply point out the error in the translations. If you believe, as I do, that Bessler invented a working PM wheel, then why use wrongly interpreted words in the search? And if you think I’m wrong about Bessler’s writings, show what you think his words say, using the original German as your source. Or just ignore me, as many do, and keep searching for some way to make 1 pound lift 4 pounds.
My opinion, based upon scientifically known facts, is that a gravity rotated PM wheel is impossible.
My opinion, based upon historically known facts, is that Bessler made self-rotating PM wheels, contrary to popular thinking that PM is impossible, which is most often based on the fact that gravity PM wheels are impossible.
My opinion, based upon logic, is that if Bessler wrote that his wheel was rotated by force gained from the motions of its weights, then that is where to look for a solution.
