Computer Simulation...

[ME]

No it's an easy and repeatsble experiment that cannot be explained by Newtonian physics. You don't have to speculate about something that is not repeatable.

I don't get it.

A man standing. On the ground another man digs a 50 foot pit. Man A jumps in and same result. But how did the energy get into this system? He did nothing to acquire said energy so how did he get said energy?

I think you neither.

[spinner361]

Simulations have saved me a lot of money in building. They allow me to fine-tweak my designs and find what works and what does not.

The real proof will be in a successful build. It is difficult to simulate latches and ratchets if a design requires such things. A working device is needed to make the patent valid.

I believe ppm follows all tested and proven mathematics. It is not magic. It will never be created from weights going around an axis which is proven impossible, unless the mass on those weights are somehow changable at the appropriate times to get around the weight for space problem. Anyone who has been doing this for a while wishes they could do this kind of absurdity. How easy it would be then! This absurdity can be simulated and is real. Its all about perspective, not new physical laws. It is powered by gravity, centripital force and motion. All of these things are factors in a self-spinning wheel and using these things instead of overcoming them can be helpful. It's a completely different way of thinking, but could become a common way of thinking, and what will it evolve to from there? Someday, God willing, I will show you.

Simulations have been and will continue to be very helpful to me.

[Furcurequs]

" but I don't think it would be wise to share anything online under the circumstances."

Thats ok Dwayne , I'll send you my private mailing address by mail if you could give me yours so as I can do that ! . I promise to let you know before I drop in - if I happen to be in the neighbourhood to deliver a reply .

I'll be the one dressed in black ! :)

...lol

Maybe I should reconsider my reckless offline behavior?!

Normally, people I share my ideas with will perhaps show a little bit of interest and then will just go on about their business. Seeing that no one really seemed to stop what they had been doing so as to start building prototypes of my "inventions" (...or, of course, crazy half-baked notions), actually helped me get over any sort of youthful fears I had of getting my inventive ideas stolen.

(Heck, if I, being the one with the ideas, don't have the passion to get them built and tested, it's certainly not very likely someone else will.)

I was once surprised by an exception to what seemed to be people's typical behavior, though. I told a friend's new wife (who I found out had graduated 2nd in her high school class and taught college courses in molecular biology) about one of my most promising gravity related ideas. Not only did she seem to be excited about it, but when I saw her some time later, she told me she had actually been thinking about it and believed there might really be something to it and compared it to some process that happens in cellular biology!

Now that they've moved away, I can no longer keep tabs on her, either! I hope she doesn't get it working before I do! ;)

...or she's started wearing black!

Maybe I need my paranoia back!

[spinner361]

Simulations can have hiccups that may or may not be present in a physical model. A physical model shows instant results. I had to build a prototype to see it for myself, but it was too weak of a construction so I could not complete it. However I saw enough behavior to believe the hundreds of simulations. In the end, it has to be built. I need better materials.

[Fletcher]

One of the basic tenets is the Work Energy Equivalence Principle. It says that KE is the currency for Work (capacity to do Work ( f x d )). It also says that GPE and KE, as far as masses in a gravity field are concerned, are interchangeable in that as one loses GPE it gains an equal amount of KE. It also says that this linear exchange in energy form is completely independent of path taken, as we all know from pendulum drop tests and masses on wheels turning losing height and gaining velocity.

I guess my argument is that the fundamental building blocks may already be there in the physics laws that are already accepted but that there may be ways to assemble those blocks that mainstream scientists haven't been creative enough to consider.

If someone were to come up with a working device involving gravity, I suspect that DUE to the currently known and accepted laws of physics all of the energy would be accounted for if we used a rigorous physics/mathematical analysis. I don't AT ALL believe that a working device would magically create energy from nothing.

If all the energy could be accounted for based on the "currently known and accepted laws of physics" and a working device would not "magically create energy from nothing" then we seem to be following some sort of circular logic with your argument Dwayne ? At least it seems to me.

The Work Energy Equivalence Principle (WEEP) says that the integral of force times distance/displacement ( f x d ) is measured in Joules (N.m), as is GPE and KE, the capacity to do Work. Therefore they are directly interchangeable and we treat them so. We lose GPE of a mass and thru law of levers (leverage) get it to raise another mass a distance for which the product never exceeds the GPE Joules lost etc etc.

So, if we have a "Working Wheel" that ONLY uses gravity and/plus any associated dynamic forces in the immediate wheel environment, and can Output useful external Work ( f x d ) over and above normal system frictional losses, then that extra energy Output has to be accounted for because it is greater than the GPE joules lost and torque created etc. Precisely because gravity is considered conservative and path independent in the laws of physics !

If a wheel "Works" and is self sustaining and can do external Work then something in the laws of physics must give way. As dax and myself discussed some time ago a likely candidate could be Mechanical Advantage and Velocity Ratio being reciprocals adding to 1. Perhaps there is a way to break that relationship mechanically, with a Working machine that produces excess impetus or impulse in one direction ? It doesn't seem possible to have perpetual imbalance and seems only temporary imbalance conditions that null the torques are possible with gravity.

Either way .. some law of physics must give ground ! And the laws are not therefore coherent !

JMO's.

[Wubbly]

The only way I could see a gravity wheel working without violating any laws of physics is if the wheel extracted energy from the rotation of the Earth, and transferred it to the wheel. Angular momentum would be conserved, Energy would be conserved, the wheel would speed up, and the Earth would slow down. NASA uses the gravity assist maneuver to accelerate a spacecraft. If only someone could figure out a mechanical arrangement that did something similar without leaving the surface of the Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi,

Gravity needs to be a conservative force if we want to use it, but that does not mean the mechanism has to act conservatively when using the force of gravity, and that is where the answer will be found, with efficiency, wherein the reset take less torque than the torque gained in the rotating of the mechanism in the field of gravity.

Energy saved to do external work, the books still balance but the wheel does not.

Known experiments say it is less than fifty fifty with friction loses, so a more efficient mechanism is needed. Bessler found it, so it is there for the finding.

Forget fraud, and clues, the wheel tests speak for there selves, nobody has been able to prove Bessler wheel as a fraud.

[eccentrically1]

The only way I could see a gravity wheel working without violating any laws of physics is if the wheel extracted energy from the rotation of the Earth, and transferred it to the wheel. Angular momentum would be conserved, Energy would be conserved, the wheel would speed up, and the Earth would slow down. NASA uses the gravity assist maneuver to accelerate a spacecraft. If only someone could figure out a mechanical arrangement that did something similar without leaving the surface of the Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

But you couldn't call it a gravity wheel, or a perpetual motion machine.
Maybe Bessler did, but we'll never know for sure without more evidence.

[Fletcher]

Hi,

Gravity needs to be a conservative force if we want to use it, but that does not mean the mechanism has to act conservatively when using the force of gravity, and that is where the answer will be found, with efficiency, wherein the reset take less torque than the torque gained in the rotating of the mechanism in the field of gravity.

Energy saved to do external work, the books still balance but the wheel does not.

Known experiments say it is less than fifty fifty with friction loses, so a more efficient mechanism is needed. Bessler found it, so it is there for the finding.

Forget fraud, and clues, the wheel tests speak for there selves, nobody has been able to prove Bessler wheel as a fraud.

Hi Trevor .. if something is 90% efficient it is still less than 100% efficient, and it needs 100% efficiency just to balance the books, with no extra energy to do external work.

The discussion here is if the Laws of Physics would allow a gravity PPM. If one were demonstrated then clearly the Laws of Nature allow it. The man made Laws of Physics would still say no, it can't be done, so they would obviously be wrong at some fundamental level.

Wubbly's suggestion is the only one that seems to have any potential to obey the Laws of Nature and Physics but no one has managed to figure out the mechanics for it.

A long time ago I looked at where Bessler's five public demonstrations were held. The first was in a town square IIRC exposed to the elements. Others were indoors. But I could never find out if the compass orientation was always the same direction or not etc. Not even the translocation test said anything about it. So it was unanswered but it would have been an excellent clue should it have been so.

Because JB demonstrated in many places it is hard to imagine that a room was available in each place that just happened to allow a correct compass orientation etc e.g. opposite side from the door and face on to it. So without evidence I must conclude that compass orientation was not important to its operation.

[WaltzCee]

It is my opinion that a simulation will prove nothing.

You have no experience with a simulation. That's a key reason you are so wrong.

[spinner361]

It's two devices that feed each other, but one is faster than the other, so a third device is needed for timing. It is two completely different motions that work well when in time with each other.

[spinner361]

It causes a shift in rotation. They climb. They fall. Sometimes they weigh an awful lot but then disappear. But that's okay because they come back when you need them.

[John doe]

Just curious if anyone knows what simulator bessler used and if it is compatible with a iMac?
Thanks in advance.

[agor95]

@John

I expect he used compatible software with an iMac.

The i stands for imagination is his time.

:-)

[spinner361]

Very clever and nice.