NEWS FLASH!! Fcdriver has a working wheel!!!!

[Fletcher]

Jerk etc etc is like the "coastline Paradox".

The further you zoom the scale the ... ???

[WaltzCee]

and it takes a friggin' lifetime to find perpetual motion.

Perpetual motion is like the future; it's been a round a long time but we've just never gotten to it.

I never heard that before I just typed it.

[jim_mich]

If Bessler's PM wheels were NOT gravity-wheels then seeking gravity-wheels is in vain.

Just my thoughts.

[rlortie]

Sorry but I just cannot control myself!

If Bessler's PM wheels were NOT influenced by gravity, we would not be here seeking anything.

Just my thoughts!

[Silvertiger]

If Bessler's PM wheels were NOT gravity-wheels then seeking gravity-wheels is in vain.

So what you're saying is...if a witch burns like wood, then she's made of wood...but to know for sure you have to weigh her because if she weighs the same as a duck, then she also floats, because if wood floats and a duck floats then they both weigh the same...? o.O

My bad; axiomatic digression on my part lol.

[jim_mich]

Sorry but I just cannot control myself!

If Bessler's PM wheels were NOT influenced by gravity, we would not be here seeking anything.

Just my thoughts!

As usual, you equate gravity with mass. And you think that only imbalance of gravity can rotate a wheel.

I feel sorry for you, Ralph.

Weights have mass, even when there is no gravity. And even when the weights are symmetrically spaced so as to be balanced. Or when in outer space, weights still have mass.

Mass causes momentum resistance to being stopped. Mass causes inertial resistance to being accelerated. Both of these attributes of mass exist with or without gravity. Centrifugal force is the same when on Earth as when in outer space where there is no gravity.

We are here because Bessler built a PM wheel. And he was not a fraud, then we should be able to also build a PM wheel.

But there is nothing saying that Bessler's wheel gained its motive force from gravity. Bessler' never made such a claim. Yes, he said his wheel was rotated by the motions of weights. But NEVER did he claim his wheel to be a gravity-wheel. All such claims are made by Bessler's followers.

So, Ralph, saying that "If Bessler's PM wheels were NOT influenced by gravity, we would not be here seeking anything." is simply your twisted concept that his wheel MUST have been rotated by gravity.

[jim_mich]

Silvertiger, I said what I said. Don't twist my words.

Bessler said that if you don't yet know about such things (as whether a lighter weight can lift a heavier weight, thus referring to gravity-wheels) then your seeking perpetual motion is in vain.

Bessler then added (so as to make clear his meaning) that some PM seekers think when their stuff themselves just guide out a little further here as there - oh! so would it run for sure. Bessler said he learned about such by hard toil a long time ago. (Long before he discovered his secret.)

Bessler's wheel was NOT a gravity wheel. He said so himself, if only you read his words.

[Grimer]

Jerk etc etc is like the "coastline Paradox".

The further you zoom the scale the ... ???

Since you've raised the point I can't resist in enlarging on it.

In raising the scale you are effectively bringing in more independent points.

It's similar to Analysis of Variance where increasing the "independent" variables increases the interactions.

Two variables, A and B say gives one interaction, AB

Three A,B,C gives 3 first order interactions (AB,AC,BC) and one second order interaction, ABC.

As you increase the number of variables the number of interactions explodes.
Try 5 variables for yourself.

Now where the interactions between individual particles is ginormous, as in the case of a gas, say, then no one tries to analyse them fully since such an analysis is impossible. One uses average properties like temperature and pressure and develops simple law for regions of behaviour where, hopefully, high order interactions can be ignored.


In the case of Driver's wheel the higher order interactions can probably be ignored as negligible for practical purposes. Pi = 3.14 is quite good enough.

[ME]

increase the number of variables the number of interactions explodes

uh oh... guess the exponent.

[WaltzCee]

Driver, would you say your model is like swinging an axe/sledge?

That's what I simulated.

I was also wondering if your wheel starts by itself.

[daanopperman]

Hi FcDriver ,

Welcome to the club , I don't know when , but eventualy it will surface .

[Grimer]

Sorry but I just cannot control myself!

If Bessler's PM wheels were NOT influenced by gravity, we would not be here seeking anything.

Just my thoughts!

As usual, you equate gravity with mass. And you think that only imbalance of gravity can rotate a wheel.

I feel sorry for you, Ralph.

Weights have mass, even when there is no gravity. And even when the weights are symmetrically spaced so as to be balanced. Or when in outer space, weights still have mass.

Mass causes momentum resistance to being stopped. Mass causes inertial resistance to being accelerated. Both of these attributes of mass exist with or without gravity. Centrifugal force is the same when on Earth as when in outer space where there is no gravity.

We are here because Bessler built a PM wheel. And he was not a fraud, then we should be able to also build a PM wheel.

But there is nothing saying that Bessler's wheel gained its motive force from gravity. Bessler' never made such a claim. Yes, he said his wheel was rotated by the motions of weights. But NEVER did he claim his wheel to be a gravity-wheel. All such claims are made by Bessler's followers.

So, Ralph, saying that "If Bessler's PM wheels were NOT influenced by gravity, we would not be here seeking anything." is simply your twisted concept that his wheel MUST have been rotated by gravity.

Centrifugal force is the same when on Earth as when in outer space where there is no gravity.

I'm afraid you're incorrect there, Jim. In outer space there is gravity. Two small masses will be pushed together by shadowing each other from the surrounding gravitational fleid (sic). The push is very small but it is there and it has been measured.

Mind you, I completely sympathise with your promoting the case of inertial mass which is much more important in engineering than gravitational mass. The two masses are of course quite different from each other, in spite of what Albert might have thought.

Since centripetal pressures have three orthogonal and therefore independent components I think your belief that you can get energy from their action is probably correct - and very prescient. However, I think you are mistaken in believing that Bessler's wheel did not involve the interaction between NG and EG; between gamma atmosphere pressure on gravity mass and beta atmosphere pressure on inertial mass.

Just my opinion of course - but since, if Driver is right, Walter Clarkson Jnr's thread will become the most important thread in the history of any scientific forum, I thought I may as well firmly nail my heretical opinions to the page while I've got the chance. .... ;-)

[Silvertiger]

Silvertiger, I said what I said. Don't twist my words.

Bessler said that if you don't yet know about such things (as whether a lighter weight can lift a heavier weight, thus referring to gravity-wheels) then your seeking perpetual motion is in vain.

Bessler then added (so as to make clear his meaning) that some PM seekers think when their stuff themselves just guide out a little further here as there - oh! so would it run for sure. Bessler said he learned about such by hard toil a long time ago. (Long before he discovered his secret.)

Bessler's wheel was NOT a gravity wheel. He said so himself, if only you read his words.

Try not to read into it, I was only joking. Just keep an eye on axiomatic statements like that and you'll be fine. For instance, IF Bessler's wheel WAS a motion wheel as you define it, how is that in and of itself proof that seeking a gravity-powered solution is in vain? To me, it's axiomatic and thus is really no different than the duck and the witch; no twisting of words took place. It's the same as saying "That's the way it has always been done which is why we do it the same way now, since there is no other way of course." Fallacies in reasoning 101 right there imho. :)

[AB Hammer]

Grimmer

Maybe you should post a link to this thread of Walter Clarkson Jnr's. It sounds interesting.

[Fcdriver]

Lift=F=MA vs Down stroke=F=MA, in a extreme example, if you took a 4500 lb weight and dropped it 4 feet, and cabled it to a number of well greased on rollers 3000 lbs weights equal spaced placed on a 1.66 degree incline, how many 3000 lbs weights could you pull till the next weight reaches the top of the ramp? Yes the ramp is longer than four feet much longer, it's 96 feet which means the weights are only lifted up the ramp 4 feet, but how many? It would be easy to say, you have to lift them 24 feet up the ramp. That would wean I'm only lifting them 1/8 of the way which would require only 32 being lifted. This would be 24 arms being lifted, to match the difference of 4ft and the 24 ft of the ramp, Compromising on the amount of force to lift increasing that force and adjusting for speed of lift. Means leveraging the lift increasing the 3000 lbs, but reducing the number of lifted.

The reason I say a 4500 lbs instead of a 3000 lbs weight is because I push down further from center of the wheel than I lift. Being circular each time the weight falls it returns to the back of the line, to be pulled back up the 1.66 degree lift incline. It does not take much effort to pull the 3000 lbs weights up the incline, which means I can increase the force there, to adjust for timing and the number of weights being lifted. The number of arms used for down stroke is determined by the amount of drop, but because I'm dropping further from center I'm also dropping further than four feet. This means putting another incline plane while pushing down furthers the distance again to equal the spacing distance difference of the weights being lifted.