Generating more meaningful debate

[rlortie]

justsomeone wrote:
Ralph, does this video answer your questions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=367s&v=DoZ6Sjy4LaU

To this,ME wrote: "Good & funny."

First off I also found it funny! Three geek's one with mouth wide open staring at a black board that an armchair philosopher is filling with math. Math that likely a very few will ever use. IMO it is this stuff we need to ignore and get back to the basics, your not going to find PM watching this.

As for it answering any question I may or may not have had, it is irrelevant. I do not remember asking any question that could not be answered with a blue collar mechanical description.

As {ME" points out: I look at things purposely with a different perspective. I ask questions, but I always try to follow with an example, such as catapults verses trebuchets. You will note (I hope) that I did not get a response,but rather some more off the wall physics bull-crap. For some reason I feel that members here avoid questions that the answer cannot be quoted out of a physics book!

How can anyone pursue and find Bessler's secret if all they are going to do is debate and argue over what they have been taught or read in a book. If that is what you wish, I suggest you move to a different forum.

Been a member here since 2005, read about the ice skater so many times it has become monotonous. What has a figure skater have to do with a horizontal axis gravity machine? So she spins faster when pulling in her arms, well "whoopee" that helps us a lot doesn't it? How many skaters lying in a supine and/or prone position will it take to make a PM wheel turn!

John is looking for new material to debate and research, I am only trying to be helpful!. To disagree makes for farther discussion, collaboration and debate. which in turn kindles ones imagination. Is that not what this forum is all about?

And to ME, I agree, Maybe not perfect but I can handle myself and claim having broad shoulders, insinuations can roll off of like water on a ducks back!

As for john.smith whom we all know who really is, I must say that he lasted longer than anticipated, but he finally blew it. Just could not stand not throwing stones at Alan any longer!

Ralph

[rlortie]

Ralph, does this video answer your questions.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=367s&v=DoZ6Sjy4LaU

I found the next episode more fitting to current topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b05Y1x1wcuo

[Silvertiger]

...a black board that an armchair philosopher is filling with math. Math that likely a very few will ever use. IMO it is this stuff we need to ignore and get back to the basics, your not going to find PM watching this.

That was AP Physics. Not armchair philosophy. It's the stuff that works and is proven to work - the "basics." It is physics 101, the entry-level coursework, the fundamentum primum, that which comes before everything else. Bessler used the same math, the same physics, the same calculus. He used the same math invented and used by other un-noteworthy "armchair philosophers" like Galilei, Newton, Huygens, Hooke, Leibniz, Hertz, Mach, Boltzmann,Torricelli, Descartes, Fermat, Pascal, Borelli, Wallis, Barrow, etc. What do they know, anyway? How can you claim no one will find pm with physics if you don't understand physics nor wish to learn it? So what, exactly, are the "basics" then? Mechanics alone?

The ancients considered mechanics in a two-fold respect; as rational, which proceeds accurately by demonstration; and practical. To practical mechanics all the manual arts belong, from which mechanics took its name. But as artisans do not work with perfect accuracy, it comes to pass that mechanics is so distinguished from geometry, that what is perfectly accurate is called geometrical; what is less so, is called mechanical. But the errors are not in the art, but in the artisans. He that works with less accuracy is an imperfect mechanic...But since the manual arts are chiefly conversant in the moving of bodies, it comes to pass that geometry is commonly referred to its magnitudes, and mechanics to its motion.

[AB Hammer]

Silvertiger

What I believe that Ralph is saying is physical test of action and reaction and effects there of, is what wheel searchers should seek for better understanding. How many times have we had eureka moments just to learn it doesn't work in a wheel like Bessler's wheel.





PS As for john.smith AKA James Lindgaard's BS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-3Iq3XQkAw

[john.smith]

@All,
Anyone can read my posts in this thread. I asked if someone like pequaide could do some testing.
rlortie has rejected the scientific principle of CoAM. I have said that when a weight is ascending it will not accelerate. Instead what happens is it's relative mass decreases.
Am sorry AB Hammer but from your description this is not talking wheel. What rlortie keeps ignoring is that as a string pulls a weight towards the axis of rotation is that an imbalance is also being created. BOTH of these things need to be considered.
And at the moment AB Hammer I am building. This means that I am showing my work. Come and get me if you can by showing your work. If not then are your games in pursuit of understanding Bessler`s wheel ? And I did ask you to become a part of the discussion more than once. It seems you can't change.

[eccentrically1]

As {ME" points out: I look at things purposely with a different perspective. I ask questions, but I always try to follow with an example, such as catapults verses trebuchets. You will note (I hope) that I did not get a response,but rather some more off the wall physics bull-crap. For some reason I feel that members here avoid questions that the answer cannot be quoted out of a physics book!

How can anyone pursue and find Bessler's secret if all they are going to do is debate and argue over what they have been taught or read in a book. If that is what you wish, I suggest you move to a different forum.

Been a member here since 2005, read about the ice skater so many times it has become monotonous. What has a figure skater have to do with a horizontal axis gravity machine? So she spins faster when pulling in her arms, well "whoopee" that helps us a lot doesn't it? How many skaters lying in a supine and/or prone position will it take to make a PM wheel turn!

Trebuchets store and release more potential and kinetic energy than catapults mostly because the lever arm is longer. Catapults that use torsion are limited by the materials used to provide the torsion. The mangonel used a cantilever type spring. Others used twisted ropes. The materials would lose elasticity over time and distance was reduced.

Trebuchets using counterweights are mainly limited to the size they could be built. The biggest was Warwolf. That's the blue collar explanation. The white collar explanation is here, which is math heavy:

http://www.real-world-physics-problems. ... ysics.html

But this lever example doesn't tell us why an inward moving weight would increase its KE, or more importantly, disprove an inward moving weight increases its KE. It's just another example of leverage.

The thread about the batteries experiment to prove CoAM was the most enlightening. I think over 21 pages it shows inward moving weights (the batteries ) increase their KE.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... es&start=0

[ME]

AB Hammer, let's scientifify that flush and get everyone satisfied and learn something in the process.

Combine these two:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDorTBEhEtk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihv4f7VMeJw

You're welcome.

[eccentrically1]

Inward moving weights increase their KE because it takes force and energy to move the weight inward. If that force and energy comes from a paired weight, then the paired weight loses an equal amount of force and energy, and slows down, ("swapping places all the time", in Bessler's words) and moves to the outward position the inward moving weight had. That is why physics says the "swapping position weights" theory was not the reason it worked.

[AB Hammer]

Thanks Marchello E.

That was very appropriate. LOL

As for discussion and not arguing. Experiments tell a greater story than just math equations.

For instant this test with a pendulum, by Walter Lewin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXXF2C-vrQE

Also something that affects a wheel with movement inside is The Coriolis Effect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mec3vgeaI

Another thing to look at is The Physics of Swings. Bessler was well educated on such and shown in some of the MT drawings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWyCYsDyr9Y

What ______ don't understand is arguments over equation details is for the class room. Real world experiments is the only way to show progress. Also I am getting back to builds shortly.

[john.smith]

eccentrically1,
What you posted is scientifically correct. I am sure at this moment that AB Hammer, rlortie and ME are all glad that you posted what you did. From my perspective you are identifying the obstacle that prevents everyone from understanding what allowed Bessler's wheel to work.
quoting Bessler;
Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine.

I have said that both CoAM and the role that the disc plays need to be considered together. I find it humorous that AB Hammer and ME would rather discuss flushing a toilet than the principle that allowed Bessler's wheel to work.
Bessler's disc pulled the ascending weight in while performing no work. This is seemingly a clear violation of any law found in physics. It is the exception to the rule. This is why Bessler said 90° to the axis. Since I am building I'll continue with that and if no one is interested in trying to demonstrate this then that's okay.

@All,
The video shows a build I did to test CoAM with a retraction disc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNGw46sG6EA. It is what my current build is based on.
And if anyone looks in the thread Simple Tests http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic ... 257#154257 they will see I have significantly increased the radius of the retraction disc. That's the 2nd to last post;

[ME]

I have said that both CoAM and the role that the disc plays need to be considered together. I find it humorous that AB Hammer and ME would rather discuss flushing a toilet than the principle that allowed Bessler's wheel to work.

Yes it indeed was funny. Plus it was all about Angular momentum and the Coriolis effect.

[agor95]

@AB

It is true to say experiments tell a greater story.

Maths guide just quicker and with less cut fingers.

Regards

[AB Hammer]

agor95

You said (Maths guide just quicker and with less cut fingers)

Answer; Keep fingers out of way of tools. LOL

For Math guide? for some it is quicker for that individual to see, but they should be looking for the missing equation that has not been found. Then you have to put it in a real world build to check your findings.

I have been accused of looking at things differently all my life and getting the answer or job done quicker. It is kind of like my eyes and brain see things differently. It allows me to be able to shoot skeet with a pistol, and as a kid could look down at a tile floor and the design of the lines would lift up almost to my knees and seem to float like a ghost. Doing things in 3d became one of my best talents. When I come up with designs of wheels I visualize them and see how they may function. After a few non runners I started to look more at what might stop the possibility. Experience of trial and error is the best teacher. When close I go into repair mode to see what can fix a problem so it may work. Being sick these last couple of days sucked for I need to be out working but you don't work in a metal shop with balance problems and dizziness come to play with fever.

[john.smith]

I have said that both CoAM and the role that the disc plays need to be considered together. I find it humorous that AB Hammer and ME would rather discuss flushing a toilet than the principle that allowed Bessler's wheel to work.

Yes it indeed was funny. Plus it was all about Angular momentum and the Coriolis effect.

That's a stretch butt as AB Hammer said, he wants to "talk wheel" which he is doing.

[agor95]

@AB

visualize them and see how they may function

That is the best way imagine build refine and re-imagine.

I am trying to convert what I imagine into images that can be
seen by others.

When you get better look at a controlled rotation rate wheel.

There some vibration modes that need some experimentation.