Anyone suffer health problems over this?

[Fcdriver]

The nay says are a odd group,,numerically correct but wrong,, from the heart doctors in the 70’s,, that said transplants could not be done,,,those that spoke against the sound barrier for airplanes,, those that said the Wright Brothers were foolish, and should seek money for their plane in Europe. Yet alone the scholars that said that man could not fly!

The age of the computer, should enlighten, and make people smarter, not ignorant!
I want to know do we learn from mistakes, from failed attempts?

To do the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome, yes is the definition of insanity, until a slight correction, redefines the same thing over and over again, and it become genius!

It’s a wheel powered by a oneway directional force! History tells us one was built!

[ovyyus]

The age of the computer, should enlighten, and make people smarter, not ignorant!

The Flynn Effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores that were measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century. When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.

[silent]

.

[ME]

The age of the computer, should enlighten, and make people smarter, not ignorant!

I don't want to ruin your day too much... so let's not talk about this.

I want to know do we learn from mistakes, from failed attempts?

Some people can do crazy and dangerous stuff where 'normal' people just die.

Sometimes succeeding at something is about just doing it: a mental hurdle thingy.
That's what this whole naive yes-can syndrome appeals at.
But that's hardly an innovation.
In the worst case it's simply reckless behavior and hope for the best.
But usually it's about copying something.
Don't get me wrong, that could still be hard.

Most often you need to know what Not to do, or how to learn and apply control-feedback to avoid catastrophic failure.
And all FC's arguments are in that category. We have an idea it can be done, because it extrapolates on things already known, like:
-'We' could already transplant things, like toes: just not hearts;
-'We' already saw birds do it and there were already glider machines: just not powered flight with steering capabilities;
-Things could already go faster than sound;
All required careful trial and error and some 'sacrificial' deaths...

Now Perpetual motion...
No known principles besides a burning sun (which we already use for the majority of things) work long enough to be regarded as "forever".
Engineering a machine without any idea on the working principle requires a lot of trial, a lot of failure, a lot of error, a lot of hoaxes, and apparently a lot of bullshit we can all simply counter with experiments and verifiable calculus.
The only arguably reasonable observed evidence which we historically have are vague statements from a guy named Bessler, maybe a hint from his patron Carl.

We are searching here for something simple, yet a totally unconventional engineering mistake.
But the questions are: What is 'simple', what is a 'mistake', and will it 'work' forever nevertheless, or work 'forever'.
As always, any discovery requires perseverance and a clear mind.
Otherwise it wouldn't be hard to do and hard to believe.
And yet..

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses.

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers.

But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Silent, does the combined weight raise up?

Would it be logical too when you'd reverse the explanation?
- The weight on the lazy tong drops slightly, this makes to long lever weight shoot up in direction of rotation.

[cloud camper]

@Fletcher If the Archimedes lever is the simple tool that explains it AND since we know that the effects of a weight on a lever are that the weight is "seen" at the pivot point....

Here is my latest sketch where we have the "horse" leading the cart in the form of a lever pivoting near the hub. As that weight falls forwards, it causes the weight on the lazy tongs to shoot upwards. Since the weight on the lever is seen at the pivot point, that should be fairly balanced around the periphery of the wheel. The weights on the lazy tongs will be seen on the framework they slide upon.

In the spirit of the BesslerWheel.com forum, feel free to criticize this drawing and trash me. I'm a cynic now lock, stock, and barrel.

silent

Yet another case where a 10 minute simulator test would show that this arrangement can not work.

Why waste everyone's time presenting simple testable ideas when one could easily find out for themselves?

What is being demonstrated here is sheer laziness and lack of interest in learning the simple physics that is involved.

If you're trying to break the laws of physics don't you think you should learn what they are first?

Sorry if I don't sound supportive but the poster has his own simulator but appears too lazy to be bothered to either learn it or use it.

[silent]

.

[ME]

Yeah well... I think you have to agree you sound a little bit Brexitty.
- You are sick and tired of all the good hopes and dreams because you suspect the whole endeavor is impossible. But instead of just quitting and leave you come up with yet another "sketch" that actually shows your own impossible solution without even trying to see the consequences.
Despite the highly ironic situation, of course you may stay. The Brits too.

Nowhere did I read that a working idea must be presented in order to qualify to post.

I could argue about the technicality of misrepresentation of the next statement, but I like to ask a question first:

As that weight falls forwards, it causes the weight on the lazy tongs to shoot upwards.

So I could repeat my previous question, yet the main question is actually: Are you sure?
But to repeat my other question anyway: Does it make logically sense to reverse your explanation of that Lazy-tong vs Lever principle?

And there are more questions:
-Would it help when the operation went differently.?
-And what should be needed to make this perpetual?
-What are the actual qualities of the Archimedes lever?
-How does it relate to this lazy tong design?

And another question to ponder:
-When this would work as 'claimed', doesn't nailing it on top of a wheel actually make the principle worse?

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Silent!!

Try and forget this forum; it's all about trashing people and there ideas. Speaking of *Ideas*, I think I know what the, so called, humble tool might be. Send me an e-mail if your are interested. And, tell me all about your trip.

Sam Peppiatt

[silent]

.

[silent]

.

[Johndoe2]

Hey silent keep up the good work and keep a positive attitude phuck everything and everyone else!

[ME]

Strange...
Or I missing something, or people misunderstand what they post themselves..

I think I asked reasonable and insightful questions to someone who was (quote and on-topic) "jaded and am sick of the entire thing.".
For the ones with fast conclusions, here's a guide:

When this would work as 'claimed ...

"This" relates to the claim that "As that weight falls forwards, it causes the weight on the lazy tongs to shoot upwards.".

I'm just stating that I'm not so sure about that.
So I try to ask for the third time: Please explain how this idea came to be, instead of howling around the bush...
Because this lift/raise could very well work in reverse... or not. And it's a common thing that happens in PMM-design... thus important... I think...

Let's discuss, or howl.

[cloud camper]

Silent you have been crying and whining that it's all so hard but in a year of pulling your hair out still don't even understand that dropping a weight of one pound is never going to lift a weight of one pound any higher than the dropped weight has lost.

This is so basic and elementary to the quest yet you haven't even grasped this simple concept.

This is why if you are too lazy to learn even the simplest rules of physics you need to use a simulator.

All you are doing then is making the same simple physics mistakes over and over again hoping for a different result.

[raj]

Learning a rule in a few minutes and repeating same like parrots would do for some.

Learning a rule to defend and counter-argue the reasoning behind the rule may take years for some.

Did Einstein rely on what other physicists were repeating, when he came up with his theory of relativity, working and sitting in a library.

Raj

[ME]

Einstein had to defend his "rule" once he brought it out in the open.
While all things are relative, there is still something to say about the time constraint of "too soon".


Usually a rule becomes a rule when there's a discovered pattern in consequences.
I could write out the pattern of this topic, but I'd rather not.

Instead I naively just try for the fourth time, and hope there's a different outcome:
The rule with the shown mechanism (I'm not discussing the whole wheel) where a lever interacts with the lazy-tongs is the same as always.
And this rule is: It moves in a way where the total GPE drops.
I'm curious about any counter pattern one can come up with.

Wasn't that the whole purpose of this forum?