Landgraf Karl von Hessen-Kassel

[rlortie]

First a witness wrote seeing warped boards, this was later challenged as elongated boards. Did we ever come to a conclusion of which is right?

'warped/elongated boards' was an earlier translation error. Stewart's translation of 'short perpendicular boards attached at the rim' is probably correct.

Thanks Bill,

It is possible that these short perpendicular boards were the supporting spokes to hold the inner rim in place as shown in MT135

[eccentrically1]

What is it that makes the water fall with such force to turn a water wheel or turbine? Water in a a lake, or container is simply a static mass, What is forcing it downward turning the water wheel or turbine?

Water wheels are solar powered. What lifts the water to a higher potential in earth's gravity? Gravity driven, solar powered. Do you think Bessler's wheels could have been solar powered?

[rlortie]

No, I do not believe Bessler's wheels were solar powered. Solar power relates to how water to raise and fall called rain. Solar power lifts moisture negating gravity to get there. This does not relate to my issue of why the water falls. Whether it be the sun or lifted by physical, mechanical force, it still makes for a potential of mass(Pe) falling by gravity.

Solar power lifts the mass, gravity powers the water wheel.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

What lifts the mass in Bessler's wheels?

[rlortie]

Cannot say what lifts the mass in Bessler's wheels as I know not the design or mechanical configuration he found that works. In fact I do not know that anything was "lifted" in Bessler's wheels.

I do believe however with diligence persistence and patient innovation a working design will eventually be found. I do not give much enthusiasm of it necessarily being of the same configuration as his!

I keep adding ideas and coming up with more approaches all the time. Most are inspired by collaborating with members of this forum. Members who are interested in varying designs and builders. I have little interest and patience for those wishing to play armchair philosophers discussing what makes a river flow downhill and where the source came from!

I could care less about what is driven and what is driving or the fact that the sun lifts vapor eventually turning to rain.

I have my own molecular design that I am of course biased toward. This does not stop me from showing interest and assist kindling ideas/innovation for those who wish to pursue weights and levers.

Will a gravity driven-powered wheel ever be found? Yes it will! Nothing is impossible if you have the imagination and strength to keep searching.

There is no theory that cannot be broke, but it takes a studious person with his mind away from what he has been taught to pursue it. Theories are nothing more than folklore, otherwise they would not be called theories.

What exactly is a "Theory?

A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

A particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles built on conjecture.

1. An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
"conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied"
synonyms: Speculation, guesswork, surmise, fancy, presumption, assumption, theory, postulation, supposition; More inference, (an) extrapolation; an estimate;
Informala guesstimate, a shot in the dark, a ballpark figure
the information is merely conjecture sometimes called a theory.

Antonyms: Fact: An unproven mathematical or scientific theorem.
"the Goldbach conjecture" (in textual criticism) the suggestion or reconstruction of a reading of a text not present in the original source.

Verb: conjecture; 3rd person present: conjectures; past tense: conjectured; past participle: conjectured; gerund or present participle: conjecturing

Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
"he conjectured the existence of an otherwise unknown feature"

Synonyms: guess, speculate, surmise, infer, fancy, imagine, believe, think, suspect, presume, assume, hypothesize, suppose
He conjectured that the theory was proven before the game was over".

In technical or scientific use, Theory, principle, and law represent established, evidence-based explanations accounting for currently known facts or phenomena or for historically verified experience: the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the law of supply and demand, the principle of conservation of energy.Often the word law is used in reference to scientific facts that can be reduced to a mathematical formula: Newton's laws of motion.In these contexts the terms theory and law often appear in well-established, fixed phrases and are not interchangeable. In both technical and nontechnical contexts, theory can also be synonymous with hypothesis, a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, serving as a basis for thoughtful discussion and subsequent collection of data or engagement in scientific experimentation in order to rule out alternative explanations and reach the truth. In these contexts of early speculation, the words theory and hypothesis are often substitutable for one another: Remember, this idea is only a theory/hypothesis; Pasteur's experiments helped prove the theory/hypothesis that germs cause disease.Obviously, certain theories that start out as hypothetical eventually receive enough supportive data and scientific findings to become established, but not always verified explanations. Although they retain the term theory in their names, they have evolved from mere conjecture to scientifically accepted fact.

Sorry but the game is not over! Theories are meant to be broke and then ridiculed, history is full of it!

Ralph

[Silvertiger]

Ralph, how's it going? This is a great subject: theory and law. What are they? Are theories really meant to be broken? Let's see. Basic fundamental physics tells us that Law describes WHAT happens, and Theory describes WHY. However, if the LAW is wrong, so will the THEORY be as well. Law is purely observational, which leaves it vulnerable to being misinterpreted. Theory on the other hand, once the "why" is established, has two requirements to satisfy - testable and predictive - meaning that if the law is correct, then the theory has far less room to fail. Some laws are contained within theory; some are not!

Can anyone bring to mind any laws that may be falsely interpreted observations that cannot be tested with predictive outcomes?

Here's mine: Newton's First Law of Motion - INERTIA. There is no theory in existence for this. Yes, the law is testable and predictive, but the "why" requirement that precedes the other two requirements has not yet been satisfied, and so there is no theory, just a law; an observation.

Does anyone here know that inertia has no mathematical framework with the exception that it is proportional to mass, and is still to this day untestable without motion, and that no scientist or physicist exists who can actually explain why this resistance within matter exists? The debate over inertia, so they say, rages on.

The good news is that without the theory we can still use the law. The bad news is that if we do use a law without a theory to actually test, we are working within a finite framework of a "house" that may or may not actually BE the correct address to begin with...flying blind. Technically, law by itself cannot be tested and predicted with accuracy, as there is no quantifiable foundation of "WHY" to build upon. Inertia could be "falling off of the edge", but it also may be "rounding the curve." Both LOOK exactly the same...but each "WHY" opens up completely different avenues of discovery and math. But what do we do when NOone knows the "why"...ANY kind of "why"? I'd settle for just one. :D

[agor95]

@rlortie

Keep this a short post.

I value your "Greed is an evil root" post.

Your experience in practical builds keeps us in reality.

I want to keep tied to your insight and the clues present in Bessler's work.

The Latch

That to me is implied as after the rod is move up it does not slide back down again.

This maybe a language point; I assume Level, rod and cross-bar are all the same object. I use rod as it is less typing than cross-bar.

[eccentrically1]

Cannot say what lifts the mass in Bessler's wheels as I know not the design or mechanical configuration he found that works. In fact I do not know that anything was "lifted" in Bessler's wheels.

If you think his wheels were gravity powered, then it would follow that you think gravity is lifting the weights in his wheels. If something is dropped from a height, to be dropped from that same height again it has to be lifted, so I don't see where you don't know that anything was "lifted" in his wheels. From the threads on tidal bulge, those comments make me think you think the moon's gravity could have been lifting the weights.

That's why the water wheel analogy fails - by ignoring or misidentifying what is lifting the water, then if you apply the same logic to bessler's wheels, you ignore or misidentify what is lifting the mass in them.

The theory and law argument doesn't prove or disprove what powered bessler's wheels, but the evidence and observations and formulas up to this point all support the thermodynamic laws, as well as the relativity theories. To refine the laws, to refine the math that supports the laws, you have to build a gravity powered wheel. Then you can say bessler's wheels were gravity powered, said the armchair philosopher to the other armchair philosopher.

[agor95]

@eccentrically1

I could explain why gravity [warping of space-time], C/F calculations and even airo-dynamic lift are mathematical approximations.

All to save the need to really look at the fundamental cause of these effects and the real hard work to calculate them at the fundamental level.

However time is short.

Regards

[eccentrically1]

Any formula is going to reflect the newest evidence. General relativity formulas reflect newer evidence than the law of universal gravitation. When new evidence comes along that improves on general relativity, then the formulas that reflect that new evidence will be used. For what it's worth, both formulas are used; newton's for most calculations, and einstein's for greater precision, or when the values get so large that newton's formula no longer works for the application.

The thermodynamic laws are actually what apply here. If you are looking for and attempting a sim or build of a gravity powered wheel, they are the formulas that would seem to be "saving the need to really look at the fundamental cause of these effects and the real hard work to calculate them at the fundamental level."

[rlortie]

eccentrically1,

May I emphasize and attempt to make perfectly clear!

I am searching for a design and force to power a PM wheel, I am not attempting to find or build one under the guidance of Bessler's Red Hearings!

Yes I believe his wheels were gravity powered. But it does not follow that I think gravity lifted the weights. Better said to read: "The gravity on a falling OB weight causes the raise in a weight of equal value closer to the fulcrum". But this is all irrelevant and does not take place in my present research and design. My goal and aim in life is to prove that Newton and thermodynamics is in bad need of updating!

I discuss Bessler's alleged version of weights and levers to accommodate and hopefully assist others,members that seem to forget that Bessler stated their work shall be in vain! Something about moving weights closer to the axle on the ascent and farther out on the descent. As I have explained to agor95 this maybe possible if limited to a very short stroke. But "Greed" gets the best of us, and we all know gravity applied in this manner is not going to work, and to this I totally agree.

I do not attempt to lift anything (mass), I only seek it to search for its own equilibrium which with the right design it will never find.

If something is dropped from a height, to be dropped from that same height again it has to be lifted, so I don't see where you don't know that anything was "lifted" in his wheels. From the threads on tidal bulge, those comments make me think you think the moon's gravity could have been lifting the weights.

Forget about the moon and tidal bulge, this was only used as an example. The the water wheel analogy fails, you and and both know that!

There is however a possible way to accommodate a water wheel within a closed loop if encapsulated in an ambient environment.

By ignoring or misidentifying what is lifting the water, then if you apply the same logic to Bessler's wheels, you ignore or misidentify what is lifting the mass in them.

Well stated but totally of base. It is you and fellow members that are misidentifying, I am not applying the same logic, nor am I attempting to apply anything to Bessler's wheels. Nor am I misidentify That which I wish to ignore, because I am not lifting any mass. The mass in question seeks its own level at any proposed or given elevation. It never finds it because of its own cohesive and self-leveling property given it by nature.

The theory and law argument doesn't prove or disprove what powered Nessler's wheels, but the evidence and observations and formulas up to this point all support[/b] the thermodynamic laws, as well as the relativity theories. To refine the laws, to refine the math that supports the laws, you have to build a gravity powered wheel. Then you can say Bessler's wheels were gravity powered, said the armchair philosopher to the other armchair philosopher.

That's because not unlike all armchair philosophers, You indulge in books and what you were taught in School. If you wish to be an inventor and discover new laws and theories, you must think and perform hands on research outside of the so-called box. What ever your aptitude and empirical skills have to offer, throw away the book and grab a wrench, hammer, microscope or test tube. Let your imagination and innovation take over from there. You are looking for something that the learned public says is impossible. Your not going to achieve anything if you let them and their books influence you.

Physic books are good for testing static inertia as you shove them (inertia in motion) off the edge of your desk testing the Pe as they hit the floor. You are not going to find Bessler's wheel construction, power or driver within them.

Ralph

PS: Ed was right when he said: Ralph doesn't need a tape measure, he does it on the wing."

[eccentrically1]

I do not attempt to lift anything (mass), I only seek it to search for its own equilibrium which with the right design it will never find.

That is a paraphrase of Bessler's statement about the weights never finding the point of rest. Your design is the same approach as the members you're attempting to help. Any mass seeks its own level, or center under gravity. It doesn't matter if the mass is a fluid, solid, or gas. Cohesive properties included.

of course The the water wheel analogy fails, you and and both know that!

I'm not sure we do. This was about powered vs. driven, and you're misidentifying the power behind a water wheel as gravity, rather than solar. A fundamental misconception that leads you to think gravity can be a source of power.

Physic books are good for testing static inertia as you shove them (inertia in motion) off the edge of your desk testing the Pe as they hit the floor. You are not going to find Bessler's wheel construction, power or driver within them.

I disagree.

[WaltzCee]

I have in the past speculated that since gravity is a uniform static force field, it might be substituted, in a working design, with any comparable source of such a force, since force is just force, regardless of its provenance.

Fletcher was in a discussion of synthetic gravity here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 8666#38666
Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:16 pm

I know it isn't a new idea.

So in summary, we are looking for a permanently-OB design, that is dependent upon, if not fueled by, the action of gravity, but which isn't violating the laws of leverage

I'm just looking for something that works. I also get the distinction between an out of balanced wheel and how it is driven. I don't understand why a wheel should be "dependent upon" gravity

[rlortie]

What is it that makes the water fall with such force to turn a water wheel or turbine? Water in a a lake, or container is simply a static mass, What is forcing it downward turning the water wheel or turbine?

Water wheels are solar powered. What lifts the water to a higher potential in earth's gravity? Gravity driven, solar powered. Do you think Bessler's wheels could have been solar powered?

You are side-stepping and twisting words, reminds me of jim_mich who was well noted for this capability.

I did not ask what lifts the water, I asked what makes it fall. I do not think solar power has anything to do with it. Water falls during the night and all day. Even in daytime it is in the dark once it enters the intake gates, passes through the turbine or wheel and is expunged via the Bernoulli draft tube.

Let's face reality: we are going to agree to disagree and sit at the forum table and only stare at each other.

I find that your album seems to be rather bare of your hands on experiments, did it get overloaded?

Ralph

[WaltzCee]

I'm speechless.