Generating more meaningful debate

[john.smith]

A reasonable question but no, there are no doubts in my mind, but I would still prefer to know that others are really working towards the solution too in case I'm wrong or something prevents me from finishing my work. That's why I intend adding information about some of my discoveries here.

Now, due to the unfortunate demise of my airline, Monarch, I am unable to return home just yet, but when I do, I'll put up some stuff which I hope will generate some new interest in Bessler's wheel.

JC

And I guess if I have it then ...... ? Would kind of show that working openly is for suckers, right ? That's really what devalues any discussion. after all, if someone wants to solve Bessler's wheel then why would they discuss it with anybody else ? That is what this forum has always been based on.
John, I try to avoid making things personal but building is a lot of work just as researching Bessler's work took a lot of time on your part. I do have it and I would explain it but no one in here seems to understand the difference between thermodynamics and conservation of momentum or conservation of angular momentum.
To understand some of this you would need to understand why velocity/0.5r = 4*velocity. The actual math problem is m(v/r) = angular momentum. I think I am the only person in this forum who understands this.

[preoccupied]

I'm overwhelmed by your meaningfulness.

You might feel physical pain as an anomaly to discontent, and I might have injured you when I've been stupid before. Oh lush reality for me to care about you sarcastic ass. Okay thanks.

[John Collins]

John smith you seem to think I'm an armchair theorist who has only done intellectual research, whereas I have always stated my firm belief that the solution when it is found and proven, will come from someone who has spent their life building, building, building and building - which I have done and continue to do. Only hands-on experience can provide new insights leading to new design concepts

But you also need to find a way that doesn't repeat what everyone else has done and doesn't conflict with the laws of physics.

JC

[raj]

Bessler is on record having said that he found his wheel, where others have looked.

So looking what others have looked at and done but found nothing, could require insight and farsightedness to see what others can't see.

Raj

[john.smith]

John smith you seem to think I'm an armchair theorist who has only done intellectual research, whereas I have always stated my firm belief that the solution when it is found and proven, will come from someone who has spent their life building, building, building and building - which I have done and continue to do. Only hands-on experience can provide new insights leading to new design concepts

But you also need to find a way that doesn't repeat what everyone else has done and doesn't conflict with the laws of physics.

JC

JC,
I think you'll find out I have known it. The problem I ran across was trying to work with other people. The thread is here. The biggest issue is people wanting green dots. Popularity. What I am building agrees with both physics and Bessler`s description.
I think I am the only person in here who has placed a "discuss" around the axle to retract a weight. At the same time it expends no energy to retract a weight but generates momentum.
If anyone in here wants to discuss physics I can go there. I have an experiment that I've been pursuing in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Maybe someone is familiar with
KE = {1/2 mv^2} = 3/2 KT? That's actually an incomplete expression. It's just that ideal gasses react differently to a change in pressure. That's not accounted for.

edited to add ; with conservation of momentum when the radius of the weight being rotated upwards decreases by 1/2 it's theoretical velocity doubles. This simply means that it's momentum goes from f = mv to f = m(2v). This means the descending weight has 1/2 of it's mass lifting the opposing weight and the other half accelerating the wheel.
Kind of doubt anyone will get a this.

[john.smith]

Actually John, never mind. FC Driver showed how to be credible in this forum. He stated that he had a working wheel but couldn't show it to anybody.
His demonstration was proof enough to be given green dots for his work. And AB Hammer was one of those people. And yet my work is only good when credit for it is being given to somebody else. This kind of tells me that no one really thinks that Bessler was successful. If people thought he was then my work would be somewhat appreciated but it's not.

[AB Hammer]

When people want something so badly to near obsession if not real obsession. They can fool themselves very easily with small successes of an action. But that doesn't make a true runner.

The question is more. Who believes Bessler did it, or believes he did not.
I believe Bessler did it.

I wish I had more time to build but life keeps throwing me a curve ball from one direction or another that keep me in need of more funds to help my family.

[preoccupied]

I don't think any forum member believes that FC Driver built a runner. A perpetual motion machine will be part of a broader understanding of mechanics, and that science will be the only profitable part of the invention, because it will not be allowed to be used for energy by a conscientious society. I believe that when this science is discovered that it will lazily claim that the relationship of gears focusing at a right angle has a magic because what binds the Universe faces one direction when a force is applied to anything. You can't change direction instantaneously without infinite energy but hopefully there doesn't have to be fair trade, where those that try to change direction instantaneously must so that those that don't and those that use perpetual motion machines can. Then if the force is material operational and not a fuel, then by using it for anything would be equivalent to breaking something harmlessly. Why should one material have more structural support than another?

The gravity thing, I already produced my hypothesis that gravity is heat energy formed in vacuums of space as buoyancy. So if that's right then if we use gravity for energy we are using up heat from our internal planet temperature and doing this will also change our rotation around the sun, and could also make gravity different like heavier.

[john.smith]

AB Hammer,
Maybe I should be thankful to Jesus that I am not you.

[preoccupied]

john.smith is James Lingaard since he is insulting ab hammer already. Or everybody who loves MT 20 hates AB Hammer. I'm not a forensic scientist but I think everybody can agree that within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty john.smith is james lingaard now. He just went on a rant insulting AB Hammers ability to earn a living quoting the bible and deleted it.

[eccentrically1]

edited to add ; with conservation of momentum when the radius of the weight being rotated upwards decreases by 1/2 it's theoretical velocity doubles. This simply means that it's momentum goes from f = mv to f = m(2v). This means the descending weight has 1/2 of it's mass lifting the opposing weight and the other half accelerating the wheel.
Kind of doubt anyone will get a this.

L=rmv

L=(1/2r) m (2v)=rmv

If the radius is halved and the velocity doubles, then the angular momentum must remain the same. Otherwise it would not be conserved (unchanged).

This means the weight at the half radius has to work against the opposing weight at the full radius, and the work done on accelerating the wheel is also conserved (unchanged). Everyone needs to get this (or some version of it, however they can understand it correctly) so we can have a meaningful debate.

[john.smith]

L=rmv

L=(1/2r) m (2v)=rmv

If the radius is halved and the velocity doubles, then the angular momentum must remain the same. Otherwise it would not be conserved (unchanged).

This means the weight at the half radius has to work against the opposing weight at the full radius, and the work done on accelerating the wheel is also conserved (unchanged). Everyone needs to get this (or some version of it, however they can understand it correctly) so we can have a meaningful debate.


When you say > This means the weight at the half radius has to work against the opposing weight < it's resistance to the opposing weight is reduced by 1/2. And then as you say > the work done on accelerating the wheel is also conserved (unchanged). <
The work done accelerating the wheel does change. Otherwise the wheel would not be accelerating. The reason about all designs fail is because the energy generated by the wheel's acceleration is used to move the weight being lifted back to it's inner most position. With a retraction disc doing the work that energy is conserved. In Bessler's writing of the Triumphant Perpetuum Mobile he calls it the principle emchanism.

[eccentrically1]

it's resistance to the opposing weight is reduced by 1/2.

That's right, but its decrease in radius reduces its moment of inertia as a square function.

The work done accelerating the wheel does change. Otherwise the wheel would not be accelerating. The reason about all designs fail is because the energy generated by the wheel's acceleration is used to move the weight being lifted back to it's inner most position. With a retraction disc doing the work that energy is conserved.

Yes, the energy is conserved, so a retraction disc wouldn't provide any energy gain, so the acceleration would remain unchanged.

[john.smith]

I think when I have the frame mounted and you can see how the retraction disc works you'll understand it. Give me a few days.

[preoccupied]

You are quoting formulas. Well when you learn pre algebra you will piece things together using blocks to understand what an equation is. If you have a lever and you put velocity closer to the axle, then you have the exact same amount of speed traveling a shorter distance. What you want is speed to equal power, to turn a shorter distance traveled on a wheel that is faster to also be more leverage because it is faster.

If a weight moves towards the rim from position 5 to position 6 while another weight moves from position 4 to position 3, is it the same as moving a weight from position 6 to position 7 while moving a weight from position 4 to position 3? How would you go about it? Would you move a single weight incrementally towards the rim while moving several weights a short distance towards the axle. Or would you move a single weight closer and closer to the axle and several weights a short distance towards the rim?