How many principles did Bessler have?

[WaltzCee]

"Turn a negative into a positive"

Fletcher,
or a zero. Negative or positive are directions in time. The Fletcher takes invariant
time and warps it. Makes time a variable that can be stretched or compressed.

[agor95]

Does he now?

[WaltzCee]

Some context. I think we have a pronoun problem here.
The Fletcher is nonbinary.

I appreciate all the comments yet especially yours Fletcher. I intend to name this
prime mover The Fletcher. It doesn't disprove N3, yet it does nullify it. That's
the first case, a mechanical answer to N3.

• The Fletcher: A mechanical contrivance that catches and stores RKE using
  some of that energy to negate the counter torque produced to collect it. This
  mechanism will sense the appropriate time and place to send that energy then
  create an arrow (hence The Fletcher) and strike the proper point at the precise time.

The second case is the death knell for N3. Calling Newton a liar maybe was a bit harsh.
He just wasn't telling the truth. :)

• Walter's First Law of Motion: For some actions there exists a reaction that is
  neither opposite nor equal. This absolutely is a function of time and space.

[WaltzCee]

It is all very intriguing and fascinating but the main point remains obscure. Where would the excess energy come from?

unstable,

You do it the old fashioned way. You create it.
2 Peter 3:8

[Georg Künstler]

Hi WaltzCee,

the patent has the number DE 10 2021 001 686.6

It is expected to be published by the patent office on October 6, 2022

I have no clue up to now, but I think I will give it free to use after a specific time.

My aim to patent it was that no one else can block this invention.

[gravitationallychallenged]

Georg-

Congratulations for your patent application being approved to be published! I sincerely hope you are able to benefit from your diligent work and that your mechanism will be used to perform usable work from gravity!

[WaltzCee]

Georg,

Thank you. You must know back yard experimenters can make your model and tinker
with it. The underlying principle (of PM) can't be patented and might have multiple
manifestations that can be.

Since Bessler thought of the principle of PM and the mechanism to be a principle
I'd bet he was selling a machine yet not the PM principle.

That rascal.

[WaltzCee]

Being on the same page is a good idea, although not that easy to achieve.
It is as though we are all inventing a new language, to try and explain our way of understanding the alternative approaches we hope will get us nearer to understanding what it is we are collectively understanding wrong.

In my view, if the weights are lifted by levers then this is one theory of operation. If they are lifted by ropes and pulleys this is another theory of operation.
In both cases the weights take the same path, so they would be one and the same principal.

I don't think Newton lied, i think he made a mistake when he applied his logic to a rotating frame.

I'm modeling this glitch in Newtonian physics, changing different variables in the
mathematical expression that's emerging but have yet to examine it in a rotating
frame of reference.

I'll SIM a comparison between the maximum torque compared to torque
180° out of phase. It's going to be a static comparison.

[WaltzCee]

Does anyone know where Bessler said his mechanism would throw
Wagner's math out the window?

Something like that.

[Fletcher]

Mornin .. my goodness things have moved on rapidly. I'll try and address what I can remember as important rather than quote chapter and verse. My apologies to Dr Zeus.

Where does the energy come from ?

Under current understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion, the Physics of Mechanics, and the universal Math that frames them, it is not currently possible to explain how a wheel self-accelerates and gains mv and RKE. If it were possible to rearrange the formula's to show a mathematical solution desk jockeys would have pounded out the path long ago. That does not stop us having our suspicions about where to look - starting with time as Walt alludes to, and others suspect. My personal feeling is that this will remain a completely grey area until a working device confronts us. Where it can be studied closely and figuratively pulled apart at leisure. Then perhaps a 'genius' will drill down and mathematically show how it can be linked together logically. And in hindsight we will sigh and go 'oh that was obvious', 'why didn't that occur to me'. 'In my defense I don't have a math PHD or work at the Max Plank Institute'. I know I won't feel bad.

OK .. in general terms then, where can we squeeze the system, or at least put it under a bit of pressure, hustle it towards the microscope ? Under current Newtonian understanding we can call it an N3 break/violation (Newton's Third), non-binary Action and Reaction Forces, full transfer of mv between a donor and recipient, nulling or cancelling torques, redirecting torques, etc. We have a number of 'generic explanations' for some unknown physical form and action required (the cause), that results in a downstream physical gaining of system energy and momentum (the effect). That's not exactly an electron microscope level of magnification of the problem, and more like a candle held to a Dr Zeus book at bed-time. Nothing we can do about that - it's a start !

Keeping with the analogies (sorry), B's. MT is full of both simple and complex 'theoretical' mousetraps. They look like they could be mousetraps but they're not proven under the Consumers Guarantee Act to actually be mousetraps. He made many colourful 'potential' mousetraps. His book shows a progression of mousetrap designs. Many are variations on a theme, only with slightly different DNA. But you can see back to the common ancestor in most cases. The trouble was, altho some had tassels and bows, and baubles, that looked good to him, they did not look or smell good to a mouse and give any reason for a mouse to enter them, so none ever caught a mouse. How many of us continue to design and build, and spruik, another type of mousetrap that will surely entice a mouse ?

One day B. added a Prime Mover to his 'mousetrap'. That Prime Mover did its job. It enticed a mouse to move towards and enter his mousetrap, and finally a mouse was caught. It was no longer a potential mousetrap and was a real mousetrap. A gold standard mousetrap, never to be repeated since.

The Prime Mover question is related to the energy gain question of before. Without Prime Mover no energy gain. With Prime Mover energy gain. What physical form could a Prime Mover be ? The low hanging fruit (imo) is to say it added energy into the system. Convenient, because the math works beautifully. Job done, let's have a pint.

But there are a number of objections to that, and anecdotal evidence, to say it was a physical device and interaction with perhaps a family of mousetraps. Some were just not suited to being married with the Prime Mover and visa versa. As a last resort perhaps a working mousetrap could be bolted to a faux-mousetrap, just to let it stretch its legs, and impress the audience ?

The Prime Mover was imo a physical structure that interacted with elements of the faux-runner, so that the non-binary PM Principle could physically manifest, and it became a true runner. IMO !

The End !

[Fletcher]

Does anyone know where Bessler said his mechanism would throw
Wagner's math out the window?

Something like that.

XXXIII (b) Wagner's childish calculation, of which he, not I,
should be thoroughly ashamed.

At this point Wagner seeks to correct a point made by my patron.

The point concerns the power of my machines. Wagner
calculates the total power of these three wheels, and says that
the figure given should be reduced considerably - so much so, in
fact, that good Master Orffyreus, the great mathematician, should
be thoroughly ashamed of himself! Ashamed also that I,
Orffyreus, did not force my patron to write the correct figure.
Listen, Wagner, I'm not your slave! Who is right? You're the one
who calculates badly! So I'm to be excused, having done nothing
wrong that reflects on my patron. Please note carefully these
facts:-

If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I
wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more
force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2,
or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis.
Further, I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I
can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get
the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as
much as fourfold. If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the
machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself
at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys
and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw
Wagner's calculations clean out of the window!

[Sam Peppiatt]

To@,

I think Bessler only had one principle; and that is, to keep every body guessing----------------------------Sam

[Leafy]

Frame of reference coupling.

You put a force into something non moving and this force accelerate the same thing but moving. How can something not moving and moving at the same time ?(frames coupling).

[Tarsier79]

George, what did you actually patent? a synchronous pendulum mechanism?

[agor95]

Hello All

Has anyone translated this page?

https://orka.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/v ... 70615/127/

Regards