Where now then?

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
Gill Simo
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:26 pm
Location: Glastonbury UK

Where now then?

Post by Gill Simo »

Please...imagine that somewhere within Bessler's statements he leaves no doubt that gravity plays no part in the process/principle that drives his wheel perpetually about its axle.
Where now then for virtually each & every one of you here?
What ideas/theories might you care to post & discuss?
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7456
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Where now then?

Post by agor95 »

If we are forced to gravitate to a solution with that restriction
then it would be caused by the interaction of two different inertial masses.

These would interact in a rotating inertial frame.

However it is good to know I am not going into free space just yet.
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Where now then?

Post by rlortie »

I am under the impression that Bessler's statement about seeking but never finding equilibrium clearly refers to gravity.
e·qui·lib·ri·um
ˌēkwəˈlibrēəm,ˌekwəˈlibrēəm/
noun
noun: equilibrium; plural noun: equilibria

a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.
"the maintenance of social equilibrium"
synonyms: balance, symmetry, equipoise, parity, equality; stability
A state of balance between opposing forces or actions that is either static (as in a body acted on by forces whose resultant is zero) or dynamic (as in a reversible chemical reaction when the velocities in both directions are equal)
Sorry but to consider any other source other than gravity is beyond my comprehension.
User avatar
charly2
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:36 pm
Location: The City of the Mountains

re: Where now then?

Post by charly2 »

Gill, If that were the case, I suppose all aboard the gravity wagon would walk thru something similar to the stages of loss and grief:
1- Denial, and perhaps isolation, 2- Anger, 3- Depression (kind of mourning), 4- Bargaining, 5- Acceptance and peace.
I already walked that road time ago.
I told you so...
Sincerely, Your Gut Instincts
.·´¯`·.><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
User avatar
gravitationallychallenged
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:03 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

re: Where now then?

Post by gravitationallychallenged »

If the force of gravity wasn't used to rotate the wheel, we would be left with nothing since a self contained internal force would violate the law of the conservation of energy. Bessler made a reference to one of the weights gravitating to the center of the wheel and as already stated, the weights being continually out of balance. He was, therefore, indeed familiar with gravity and its effects. I believe he discovered how to manipulate gravity and inertia to his advantage.
"...it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of Nature."
Nikola Tesla
sleepy
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:53 pm
Location: earth

re: Where now then?

Post by sleepy »

Gill,
If your imaginary rule is "gravity plays no part", does that mean that it should operate in a gravity-less environment? Or do you mean that gravity can be used,just not as the motive power? I.e. hydraulic type mechanisms.
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
Gill Simo
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:26 pm
Location: Glastonbury UK

re: Where now then?

Post by Gill Simo »

Thank you for the replies thus far....

Agor...two different inertial masses interacting in a rotating inertial frame.
Is there a version for dummies please?

Rlortie/GTChallenged...with respect, I wasn't asking for arguments pro gravity, I was asking for arguments no gravity.

Sleepy...whatever lay within the wheel it's within the wheel, which is holding it at a single fixed point in the gravitational field....gravity will therefore do what it always & can only do in this circumstance...it will give weight to any mass held around that single fixed point & it will balance that weight about that single fixed point. But no more than this....gravity plays no part in the process/principle.....so it's gravity can be used, just not as the motive power in answer to your question.

Charly2...Thank you...you address the point of this thread. To entertain any notion that gravity can drive an axle just so long as gravity exists...perpetually...is an obvious nonsense & it renders one fairly & squarely as a crank....someone incapable of accepting the unequivocal truth.. And the reason why the majority here have no option but to play the fool is because they have no options other than gravity...without it they're defeated. And that's defeated, experienced as you so well define....not the defeated that they so obviously are from the very start...that defeated they can deny & thus avoid what you so well define...'til death they do depart.

Truth is surely that Bessler could have no Earthly reason to make it perfectly clear that gravity was not involved....because that always was, always will be, a given, to all bar cranks.

What he does appear to make perfectly clear, to me at least, is that his wheel is turning perpetually on its axle because it is being driven perpetually...same as any ole balanced wheel subjected to a constant turning force...driven by weights engaged in a motion that, by some Principle unknown, perpetuates....a Perpetual Motion si?

He appears to make it clear that there is such a thing as a motion which, by the very nature of that motion, must naturally (in accordance with all known Physical Laws) continue in that motion indefinitely.

Is that impossible?....he asks a bunch of cranks who apparently haven't the tenacity to grasp that term.

Throughout human history 99.9% of us have had no interest/belief in PM.
Of the remaining .1%, 99.9% have been cranks intent on repeatedly proving a point already well proven....that'd leave precious few who have ever seen fit to study motions, gravity aside..to investigate if something inherent in one could possible cause it to, essentially, drive itself. So few that have actually searched for a Perpetual Motion.

Where best to dig? Where the fella who did it tells us, an area largely undisturbed...or the now near bottomless pit, piled high with millions upon millions of past failures.....where your lazy imagination tells you it is 'cos it's easiest.
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
Gill Simo
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:26 pm
Location: Glastonbury UK

Post by Gill Simo »

Although I didn't ask for arguments pro gravity I'm now driven to respond....

Rlortie....I understood equilibrium to mean exactly as you say....an object subjected to opposing forces that equal out as zero force at the objects centre....I wasn't aware that the forces in question had to be exclusively gravity?

GTChallenged....people in the countryside gravitate towards the industrial centre...it's a term expressing a preponderance surely, the force that keeps their feet on the ground doesn't walk them there?.
As already stated, the weights being continually out of balance? Already stated where?
He was, therefore, indeed familiar with gravity and its effects? An ape would be hard pushed not to be familiar with the effects of gravity, so I'm not sure why you see a need to offer examples supporting that Bessler was familiar?
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Where now then?

Post by rlortie »

https://www.quora.com/ From Your Digest

What modern perpetual motion machines are being made?

None, perpetual motion devices don’t exist.

So how do we know they don’t exist?

First, to address the inevitable conspiracy theorist nutcases, there is no possible way any group of conspirators, however powerful, could even hope stop the propagation of any actually functional over-unity device via the internet. Designs for hundreds of these proposed over-unity devices are freely available on the internet which literally anyone can build, test, and if found to be functional, patent and sell.

Second, to anyone who believes that one or more designs have already achieved real over-unity, if that was the case then absolutely anyone with even basic technical knowledge could simply scale the design up and attach it directly to the electric generator from an off the shelf wind turbine. Running even that small $1500 generator at its max output would generate over $2000 worth of US-price power every year. So if there’s so much money to be made, why hasn’t anyone built one? Hell, why haven’t you built one? Even if you still believe over-unity is possible this logic still holds.

Third, anyone who still believes over-unity is possible and plausible after reading the above argument is now just begging the question, a circular argument often confused with open-mindedness, caused by starting with a conclusion assumed to be true. The true route to an open mind, and to participating in the Scientific Method, is through use of rational skepticism to analyze whatever claim it is you doubt. The first thing to look for is reproducible empirical evidence both in support of and against the claim. If none exists, either design an experiment to create empirical evidence, or otherwise remain Agnostic, ie take the position of uncertainty on the grounds that the truth is unknown. The hardest and most important part is, if necessary, to change your mind to align with the evidence regardless of any preconceptions.

In our example, the First Law of Thermodynamics has been cast into doubt by empirical evidence in the form of some Youtube videos which appear to show operational over-unity devices. However, there is also an enormous amount of empirical evidence in support of the claim. So now we run some straightforward experiments ourselves to attempt to reproduce the results from before. Of course, the tests of the First Law will corroborate with the thousands of previous experiments. Given the logical reasoning in the second paragraph I expect that all the over-unity devices will in reality fail to corroborate with the Youtube videos, leading us to only one rational conclusion given the evidence: over-unity is impossible.

Note: rational skepticism is NOT a proof, it simply attempts to take the position which is most likely to be true given the available evidence.

Why do all these devices look like they should work, but don’t?

Some proposed perpetual motion designs make some basic assumption about physics which seems logical at first glance, but actually isn’t, for example Boyle’s self filling cup, which wrongly assumes the wider cup will exert increase pressure on the liquid in the tube to create an infinite fountain, which can obviously never be reproduced in reality.

However the majority of the popular mechanical proposals make no such assumption, seem to work in theory, and often even look like they should work. However, these resilient, simplistic ideas almost always have deceptively complex and unintuitive behaviors which require advanced math to properly model. This hidden complexity is actually the very thing that makes these proposals so compelling, particularly when accompanied by a convincing false ‘proof’, since they stand up to much more scrutiny than the many easier to model ideas that are suggested.

The best way to disprove these is probably just to build your own and witness it failing yourself…

That’s not even going into the purely electrical suggestions, which are even further from reality, not to mention incredibly easy to fake. Unless you can tell me how it is you are generating electrons from nothing, it’s a joke.

But what about that Youtube video I saw of a working device?

Youtube is one of the very few ways to actually make any money off this myth. When you watched that video featuring an apparently functioning perpetual motion device powered by a small motor hidden inside it the creator got paid for every advert you saw on that page, which averages about $1-$2 per thousand views. Considering the level of interest and belief in this myth, and the number of video views it generates, it’s easy to see how it could be worth someone’s time spent building these fakes just to farm youtube ad revenue.

Again, you are free to build any of these designs yourself if you don’t believe me.
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

Re: Where now then?

Post by Fletcher »

Gill Simo wrote:Please...imagine that somewhere within Bessler's statements he leaves no doubt that gravity plays no part in the process/principle that drives his wheel perpetually about its axle.

1. Where now then for virtually each & every one of you here?

2. What ideas/theories might you care to post & discuss?
1. FWIW .. Bessler did say there was something special about Storks Bills (SB's). How many try to use them in their wheels .. or more importantly have found what is special about them ?

2. Assuming that a Perpetual Motion Law describes an innate unequal turning force within a wheel, that is either present at outset in stationary one-way wheels, or manifests thru dynamic motion in two-way wheels once set in rotation, then one is left with few candidates.

The first one that comes to mind is some inertial exploit, which science says is equally impossible to achieve as is using conservative gravity force.

The second one, in my mind, relates to Bessler and his times. He would not have described his world in terms of energy, but in terms of momentum. So his wheels would show excess momentum. How might he achieve that ? The Law of Levers and Mechanical Advantage (MA) is well documented and well known. They are the basis of Conservation of Energy Law (theory). They seem bullet-proof.

What if Bessler used SB's in such a way that by using multiple segments he he was able to circumvent MA ? To get more force times distance out than force times distance in. Sounds heretical. Sounds like breaking the Law of Levers. And by extension violating CoE.

What would be the rationale ? Consider this. We all know of linear momentum examples of collisions between different mass spheres/balls. The massive one is moving horizontally, the less massive one is initially stationary. The collision is fully elastic. Energy is conserved after collision. The smaller shoots off and the larger continues to move forward at a lesser velocity.

So we insert a partially anchored spring between them. The larger mass collision with the spring contracts the spring bringing the first ball to a stop. All its energy is contained in the spring as elastic potential energy. The other end of the spring then releases and is in contact with the second ball. The second shoots forward with all the energy of the now stationary massive first ball. Empirically we never have an increase of energy in the second ball for some reason - I'd hazard a guess and say because the spring is linearly contracted and expanded. IOW's there is a deceleration and acceleration gradient which is linear based. Linear being the problem here.

What if we could use a multiple segment SB device instead of a linear spring intervention. That SB might be so arranged to give logarithmic and/or reciprocal acceleration functions at each end of the SB simultaneously (I'll call it reciprocal leverage v's linear). Could changing away from linear accelerations to something more exotic allow a full transfer of momentum from a larger mass (and stop it) to a lesser stationary mass and accelerate it, so it had greater E than the original ? Such a thing would be full momentum transfer that raised KE i.e. violates CoE. Currently this is also heretical thinking with no empirical evidence of such an exploit FAIK. But it seems to me something Bessler just might experiment with. To see if he can lift something higher etc.

Alternatively perhaps the gearing function of multiple segments deployed creates more inertia (function of Gearing^2) and this is leveraged against the wheel inertia to force the wheel around. This would be a 1. type proposal.

Other than those two possibilities I come up short on what could be so compelling and special about ordinary SB's. They are simple force multipliers that trade force and distance and conform to MA and Law of Levers like hydraulics and pulleys etc. So to have special properties they must have a different arrangement than an ordinary SB, IMO.

And as said earlier IMO that may well relate to exotic reciprocal simultaneous leverage deceleration and acceleration gradients at the two ends of the SB, by geometry of design.
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7456
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Where now then?

Post by agor95 »

Agor...two different inertial masses interacting in a rotating inertial frame.
Is there a version for dummies please?
In the spirit of your original post was put.

I kicked back got a large glass of Californian Red win.
Knock out my cognition and imagined.

My post is what came back - after the Headache.

As you appreciate, imagination can go were reality fears to tread :-)
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
Post Reply