low friction mechanical roller bearing

[ken_behrendt]

Alden...

Is there any orthodox physics research anywhere (preferably performed in a university physics lab) that indicates that gravitons can, in fact, transfer energy to a mechanical system? In other words, has any physicist ever demonstrated that gravitons could, say, increase the rotation rate of a small wheel or rotor?

ken

[Jonathan]

I don't think there is any evidence that favors the existence of gravitons over a different entity in any other theory of gravity.

[AldenPark]

I am commenting on the post ken_behrendt, Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:51 pm (or 10:51am?) Post subject: re: low friction mechanical roller bearing, page 5. I don't currently know the answer to your question(s), "Is there any orthodox physics research anywhere (preferably performed in a university physics lab) that indicates that gravitons can, in fact, transfer energy to a mechanical system? In other words, has any physicist ever demonstrated that gravitons could, say, increase the rotation rate of a small wheel or rotor?". Maybe someone else knows. I will make some comments anyway (though they are not very direct). Maybe Thomas E. Phipps Jr. might know something along such lines. He has written concerning relativistic covering theories that are different but experimentally having agreement with many of the "usual or accepted" experimental results. One of his papers was rejected by an "orthodox" journal as his photograph of a 6000 revolution per second rotating disk did not show predicted line curvatures that were "expected" according to the "usual" Lorentz contraction thinking (but were not observed). See page 270 of Phipps 1986 book Heretical Verities: Mathematical Themes in Physical Description. Phipps indicated that his paper was published in Lettere al Nuovo Cimento 9, 467, 1974. Still if the usual or orthodox thinking is wrong, one should expect experimental conflict. Maybe he is not "orthodox" enough, as he had experimental results in his favor. I don't know what Phipps thinks about my viewpoints. Sorry.

I should note that Phipps made a very interesting parenthetical comment on page 27 of his 1986 book "(Thought problem for the interested reader: Can a perpetual motion machine be designed using delayed-action-at-a-distance forces?)". I think that that is in essence what Bessler did (with gravity being composed of two delayed-attractive force parts and with acknowledged help from God). I don't know how far Phipps followed up on his thought problem. I haven't read much of Phipps' book. Maybe Phipps knows the answers to your question(s).

I would imagine that someone else long ago came up with the obvious idea that gravitons are composed of E pointing parallel to the direction of motion of the graviton and E pointing antiparallel to the direction of motion of the graviton (both E fields originating from the opposite charges in matter). It seems that Tom E. Bearden made some comments along such lines but there are probably many others (I just don't happen to know who else would have said the obvious). I think that Bessler knew that gravity had two parts. About the time that the Maxwell and Hertz equations came out in the 1800's, I would guess that one or more individuals attributed gravity to having two E parts. I'm not claiming any new thinking regarding gravity. I am just trying to state what I think is the generally overlooked obvious. One thing that gave Einstein's theory of gravity quite an initial boost was the prediction of deflection of light by gravity (or as light follows its geodesic in curved space-time) and it was observed (in the shifting of starlight). This usual or standard result could also be easily predicted by two-part gravitons by downward pulling on pairs of positive and negative charge fluxuations in the Dirac sea associated with the passing of light through the vacuum. That would similarly create a red shifting of a light source shining up through a gravitational "field". I don't really want to debate the merits, etc. of the two-part graviton. I figure that the usual theoreticians can do that well enough by themselves. I would rather concentrate my discussion of this subject where practical on low-friction, torque-bearing, large-load-bearing, roller bearings.

One of my viewpoints is that someone or some people will eventually want to build the Orffyrean roller bearing for efficiency purposes alone and then the things that I think Bessler has predicted or shown can then be easily observed or tested. Then, it will be a matter of those usual or covering theories either keeping up with the experimental results or falling by the wayside.

What I find curious is that there has hitherto been not much interest for developing the Orffyrean roller bearing for purely industrial purposes. If there happens to be other fringe benefits along the way from gravity, so much the better. I was talking to a friend of mine who works out in Trona, CA. It is a large expense to replace the bearings on the horizontally rotating kiln dryers, when the bearings are worn out. If such expenses could be effectively saved or reduced, then this would provide large savings for such companies. The outer containing cylinder walls would need to be thick enough so as not to deform when bearing large burdens. Since I wrote about the Orffyrean roller bearing four years ago in my 2001 copyright certified paper, I don't understand why many mechanical engineers have not been aggressively trying to develop the Orffyrean roller bearing [or rather redevelop it since Bessler first developed his roller bearing and supplied foresight-cryptic documentation of such]. I would think that the mechanical engineers would be quite interested in saving thousands if not millions of dollars for bearing efficiency purposes alone (not to mention the potentially more subtle extraction of energy from gravity in such horizontally rotating wheels which they could just ignore for now, as that won't be very visible until after the Orffyrean roller bearing is redeveloped). Could it be that the mechanical engineers are not interested in saving thousands or millions of dollars (or have they just not understood the obvious benefits of developing such bearings)? Bicycle manufactures should be anxious to see the Orffyrean roller bearing developed as it could mean very low friction and low maintenance costs. I wouldn't need to apply petroleum-based lubricants to my bicycle bearings (consisting of spheres held in place by their housings and sometimes rubbing where they have no business rubbing). A clean-pure mathematical solution is needed for the bearing problem.

I think it will become more clear as time goes by that Bessler has left behind for us (in hindsight) the primary or most important specifications for the Orffyrean roller bearing (especially for the intermediate Orffyrean rollers). We just need to be guided by the Spirit of the Lord, to more promptly understand the messages from Bessler.

With Bessler wheels surrounding Orffyrean roller bearings, maybe some hospitals might not have needed to be closed due to lack of power in New Orleans and some emergency rescue vehicles would not need to be as concerned about running out of fuel. The city would not have "run out of power". It is so sad, but no one has yet built and made generally available the Orffyrean roller bearing (not even hard-tough plastic versions). AEP - 30 Aug 2005

[AldenPark]

Another interpretation of "Turn the turner." is a pragmatic interpretation. One needs to turn the turner to get it to turning (and more rapidly acquiring additional angular velocity).

[Dave]

All data indicates Bessler used a standard roller bearing as it would have noticed when the wheel was moved from stand to stand. Witnesses would have picked up on that in a heartbeat. One could make a lower friction bearing but it is still lossy. Bessler needed something else besides a low loss bearing.

[Fletcher]

Quite right Dave. Here is the obvious flaw in Alden's case as I see it (I acknowledge that he has put a lot of effort into his hypothesis so I don't want to give the impression of off handedly dismissing it).

If a wheel were to exist, or has existed, that operated exclusively on the principle of a near frictionless bearing (or 2 of them) being absolutely integral to its success to self perpetuate motion, I would be surprised.

If even a tiny amount of load from a near frictionless bearing will not allow it to function, then there is no hope of it driving any type of load at all, big or small.

Alden says that the wheel must reach a tolerable rpm b4 the effects of the gravitons can manifest & do their thing. JB's wheels were relatively slow so that doesn't fit the proposal. Also some of JB's wheels started under load so that doesn't fit either. The bi-directional wheels needed but a small shove to self accelerate so that doesn't fit the criteria of spinning them up to great speed so that the gravitons could act accordingly.

Conclusion: Aldens hypothesis doesn't fit the generally accepted facts & therefore can't be considered a practical Bessler type solution to PM.

[AldenPark]

I am commenting on the post Dave, Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:13 pm, Post subject: re: low friction mechanical roller bearing, page 5. Does someone have a diagram of one of the observed bearings for one of Bessler's wheels? Were the visible bearings a sleeve type that allowed friction sometimes when the sleeves slipped with respect to each other? Were the visible bearings consisting of rollers surrounding the axle? If so, how many rollers were there, what were their diameters relative to the diameter of the axle, and what kept the rollers from bumping into each other? I think that there was a difference between the observed bearings from the outside and the actual bearings deep down within the Bessler wheel and actually doing the bearing. In other words, I think that the outer visible portions of the bearings were cosmetic by being adjusted to appear to be taking the burden, when they were actually only taking a small portion of the burden. Does anyone have proof to the contrary? References to the proof would be nice. On page 162 of Collins' 1997 book it mentions "two bearings of only three-quarters of an inch diameter." and "the only point of contact invisible to the onlookers would be under the bearing." Were there large air gaps in the bearings that allowed much light to go from one side of the Bessler wheel to the other side (sufficient to prove that there were no bearings within)? If no one can answer questions like these very precisely then it leaves open the possibility that Bessler was in essence hiding the real working bearings within his wheel(s) and showing to the outside a bearing facade. Based on Bessler's final figure and Collins' comment "... the bearings, then the axle and the wheel itself." on page 189, I would hazard to guess that the visibly observed bearings for the Kassel wheel were of a sleeve type. Can someone prove otherwise? There is something that is not clear to me based on that comment on page 189 below Bessler's final figure. For Bessler's Kassel wheel, going from the very center outward, was it visible bearings, axle, and wheel as Collins' comment suggests to me or was it axle, visible bearings, and wheel as Bessler's final figure suggests to me? I suspect that there was a large solid central axle for the Kassel wheel and not a hollow axle.

[AldenPark]

I am commenting on the post Fletcher, Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:46 am Post subject: re: low friction mechanical roller bearing, page 5.

One may want to go back and reread/study the comments I posted on Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:42 am, post subject: re: low friction mechanical roller bearing, page3, regarding the post Fletcher, Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:46 pm, post subject: re: low friction mechanical roller bearing, page 1. Various of my comments again apply. I probably should have said that I think that a one way self starting Bessler wheel (from zero angular speed) with a load attached would require, in my view, some sort of saved up mechanical energy from prior usage. I consider the storing up of prior acquired energy to be a much lower priority problem than solving the problem of sustained or repetitive acquisition or extraction of power from gravity (in the first place). The way I figure it, once we have solved the basic Bessler wheel problem (by say building the Orffyrean roller bearing), then people that are interested in the subject of building a one-way self starting (from zero angular speed, when released) Bessler wheel (that also "pulls" an external torque load) should be able to do so (and they will probably have fun solving that sub-problem). A reason for my saying that order of solving the problems, is that (as translated) Bessler wrote in his little book "My deeds will not be revealed prematurely." (see Collins, p. 225) which I think applies to that and many other things.

If a person doesn't understand fully what was said and the person paraphrases what was said, then distortions can easily be made. In such cases, direct and accurate quotations in the full context of what was previously said would be preferable. References to the quotes would be helpful.

As one example, I do not agree with the words "Even if a tiny amount of load from a near frictionless bearing will not allow it to function, ..." On the contrary, I think that (under proper conditions) a huge load may be pulled by a sufficiently large (massive/dense) Bessler wheel, with a low enough friction Orffyrean roller bearing, even under a worst case initial situation of a very low angular speed, as long as the nuclear ground states have had sufficient time (not a very long time) to initialize to near the Bessler wheel rotational angular speeds (and allow quenching of newly acquired angular velocities), and as long as more useful energy is being produced within the rotating nuclear ground states than is lost to the bearings (air friction, etc.) and to the load that is being "pulled". If that is the case, the wheel will speed up (in angular speed) while under external load.

As another example (and it need not be the last though I am currently stopping with it as a direct example), I do not agree with the statement "Alden says that the wheel must reach a tolerable rpm b4 the effects of the gravitons can manifest & do their thing.", if the words "tolerable rpm " are assumed or taken to exclude the possibility of "relatively slow" angular speed (but that appears to me how my supposed words were taken in the very next sentence "JB's wheels were relatively slow so that doesn't fit the proposal."). The gravitons do supply energy to horizontally rotating nuclear ground states even for small angular velocities but we more properly need to be speaking in terms of curves and situational context. I did write under Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:35 am Post subject: Simplest Mechanism of the Bessler wheel is Itself with Orffyrean roller bearing, page 1 "... (4) it needed to be given sufficient angular speed to start working ..." but I don't think that should automatically exclude the possibility of it working under conditions of very small angular speeds. I alternately or simultaneously also don't think that should automatically exclude the possibility of it pulling loads.

The gravitons would be supplying extra energy at the smallest of horizontal angular speeds but not at "zero" (assuming for the moment we can somehow define the context dependent zero angular speed or velocity). It is a matter of energy in versus energy out (and a matter of short initialization times for the rotations of the nuclear ground states). Saying this another way, very low angular speed would be able to exhibit the property of wheel angular speed speedup, if energy loss to friction is small enough and if there is enough time to initialize the slight horizontal rotations of the nuclei so that extra energy may be picked up from the gravitons. Even if the conditions for energy production were weak at low angular speeds, one should neither forget nor ignore the possibility of mechanically saving up energy from a prior time of higher energy production at larger angular speed, which possibility could further address the concern of starting up under a load (but we may not need to currently explore that possibility as much energy is produced from gravitons even at low stabilized angular speeds assuming that there are enough rotating nuclear mass points). Starting up with no initial push from zero angular speed would I think require mechanical storage of energy.

As an aside, because of the presence of the lobes and lobe holes within the Orffyrean roller bearing and the lack of lubricants, I think that low friction properties of the Orffyrean roller bearing are maintained even during transfer of torques generated within the Bessler wheel so that those torques can drive external loads.

Logic Note. It is typically not prudent to reject a hypothesis based on Aristotelian logic, for a hypothesis that may be better specified by say fuzzy logic. In other words, it may not be especially wise to impose or imply hard yes/no limits to situations requiring very fine degrees of membership. I am referring to such root ideas as "Is energy picked up from gravity?". It depends upon such things as the very fine level amount of angular speed of the body about a horizontal axis (which is also not a pure yes/no idea). It (energy picked up) is a how much situation. To be correct, it is not an either/or situation (though in our desire for language brevity, we often mistakenly treat it as such). One must be highly cautious in applying binary thresholded Aristotelian logical language to such situations. The logical regime change is somewhat like approximating a continuous quadratic function by just a discontinuous binary 0 or 1 function and then in that highly distorted space proceeding to make conclusions from there.

If one arbitrarily assumes that the angular speeds being referred to are out of the region of the Bessler wheel angular speeds and then uses discrete logic, then one may arrive at conclusions that say that a mechanism doesn't apply to the Bessler wheel situation. One needs to carefully consider whether the arbitrary assumption is applicable or not.

The length of time or rotation of the wheel (even for very low angular speeds) is another variable that should not be ignored. It also is associated with the initialization time of getting the ground state nucleons to rotate about their own horizontal axes. It is very much like the quenching times but associated with "speeding up" to the body in which the ground states are embedded instead of slowing down to the body in which the nuclei are embedded. It would not be a hard on/off discrete variable but might be macroscopically associated with an initialization curve. It would also be another mistake to replace that variable by a discrete variable though we may somewhat do so in our casual conversation for the sake of brevity (but we really need to understand the underlying implications of the full variable and be careful about treating it lightly).

As I tried to write in the last paragraph, the initialization times for increasing the internal angular speeds of the nuclear ground states to that of the body in which they are embedded are very much akin to the quenching times of the rotating nuclear ground states or the time to decrease in the angular speeds of the rotating nuclear ground states to the lower speed of the body in which the nuclei are embedded. They would depend upon the gross disparities or differences of the angular speeds between the nuclei and the solid body in which the nuclei are present. It should also be understood that not all the angular velocities of the individual nuclei in a solid body are precisely equal (as each has its own individual internal angular velocity).

I would hazard to guess that for low angular speeds in a thick dense iron-like material that the initialization times are less than a few seconds but don't hold me to that as it is more appropriately an initialization curve and which properly would need to be measured rather than guessed. Also, the less effectual tails of the curve could be rather long. The quenching curves should be indirectly measured using the simplified Bessler pendulum and maybe we can initially just assume that the initialization curves are nearly identical reflections of the quenching curves.

I appreciate others considering my discussion words even it they do not agree with the words. Others according to their perspectives, form their own opinions. When alternate opinions are expressed, this can show other viewpoints that potentially can contribute. Discussion can be helpful to clarify viewpoints/aspects of mechanisms that might not be otherwise stated or considered. If people bring up questions or problems, then it may indicate that others may have similar questions or problems so discussion resolving the questions or problems may be needed. I like to go with the preponderance of the best quality, independent information when I search for reconstructing the past (for example, in the process of uncovering family history details). Sometimes sources of information are uncovered that were not previously known.

Does anyone know of the existence of any "fact" that my mechanism/idea does not fit? On "the other side of the coin" (to be fair about the situation), has anyone begun to try counting up any "facts" that my mechanism/idea explains that have been somewhat ignored otherwise? I would suggest that maybe such discussions could be better done at the subject of (Simplest Mechanism of the Bessler wheel is Itself with Orffyrean roller bearing), to help focus this subject (low friction mechanical roller bearing) on the important subject of low friction bearings. Maybe graviton discussion could be better done at the subject (two part "electrostatic" graviton). Similarly discussion mostly related to examples of rotating nuclear-ground-states could be done at the subject (rotating nuclear-ground-states). Also, Bessler pendulum discussion could be done under the subject (Simplified Bessler Pendulum). I understand that there is often much overlap in the ideas but where possible, I think that we should try to split out the discussions.

[AldenPark]

I am now making a referential comment on the post ken_behrendt, Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:51 pm (or 10:51am?) Post subject: re: low friction mechanical roller bearing, page 5. I just posted another comment but now under the subject ‘two part "electrostatic" graviton'. See 15 Oct, 2005 10:26 pm or 8? hours off, page 1.

[Techstuf]

One must be highly cautious in applying binary thresholded Aristotelian logical language to such situations.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."


Alden, your master cares nothing of applying binary thresholded Aristotelian logical language to ANY situations....why should you?


Truly I tell you, get your bearings man!

[ken_behrendt]

The implication of this thread, so far as I can tell, is that there must have been another bearing inside of the drums of Bessler's wheels and, most likely, this other bearing was an "Orfyrrean Roller Bearing". Clearly, the external bearings only consisted of simple tapered steel pivots turning on open half-cylindrical brass pieces.

However, I do not see any evidence in the Bessler literature for any kind of roller bearing within a wheel's drum. The drum, itself, was firmly attached to the solid axle, so there could be no roller bearing at that position. As far as some roller bearing mounted mechanism attached to the portion of the axle inside of the drum is concerned, that seems, to me, to be highly unlikely. Bessler allowed some of the witnesses who viewed his wheels to place their hands inside of the drum near the axle through a slit in the cloth covering there. If there had been a roller bearing mounted mechanism attached to the axle present, then surely they would have felt it and someone would have commented on it. There are no such comments.


ken

[Fletcher]

Whew, I've got eye strain. Alden, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Your commentaries remind me of Oscar Wilde writing to his friend & apologizing for writing a long letter because he didn't have enough time to write a short one :)

The use of logic in support of a theory ?!

A theory can be constructed for almost any observation made by man. It remains a theory until proven otherwise.

Often a theory is crafted around observable facts & they form the cornerstone of that theory. Applying linear logic & making logical deductions helps organise those facts into a coherent story that seems to make sense given what we know at the time.

Often we don't have all the facts b4 we start forming theories. As new facts come to hand we alter or discard our theories as they become redundant or just plain wrong. Sometimes there are competing theories that also meet these same facts. It is not that one theory is right & the other wrong, simply that we have insufficient information to favour one over another.

It takes only one errant fact to discard a theory no matter how sublime or beautiful it may appear. Then we must hastily reorganize our thoughts, apply our logic & form a new theory.

It is every mans duty here to find the errant facts so that better theories can be formed until they themselves can be disproved.

Eventually one theory of Bessler's principle will survive the evolutionary rigorous process of examination & rebirth & it will not be knocked easily from its perch.

[AldenPark]

Modern Day Bessler-like Wheel. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and looks like a duck, it just might be a duck. Using a superconductor repelling magnetic field to produce a very low friction bearing, if it looks like a modern day Bessler-like wheel, initially increases in angular speed like a modern day Bessler-like wheel, proceeds in angular speed to a "limiting" angular speed according to friction like a modern day Bessler-like wheel, and continually combats air friction (without slowing its angular velocity) like a modern day Bessler-like wheel, it just might be a modern day Bessler-like wheel. See my 15 Jan 2007 words under the subject-topic two-part electromagnetic graviton. Also under that same subject-topic see my 19 Feb 2007 - Presidents' Day words.
Study Bessler Principle Now. See the 20061223 front page for my Internet site regarding the Bessler principle, the low friction magnetic-superconductor bearing, the low friction air bearing, and the low friction Orffyrean roller bearing being born in bearing. We can begin now to study some of the physics of the Bessler wheel. We don't need to wait for the low friction Orffyrean roller bearing to begin to study the Bessler wheel. We may need to wait for the Orffyrean roller bearing to begin industrial or many practical applications of the Bessler wheel though. I have provided reasoning why the principle works. I have seen a demonstration of low friction that I consider a demonstration of the principle. Unless people want to be medieval nay-sayers, I figure that they need to actually do the experiments and get negative results before they can be qualified nay-sayers. Even if people want to be nay-sayers, they need to spell out what they did and what the negative results were. Yeah-sayers need to also explain their experiments and what they found.
Safety. If the demonstrators (at McKinley Junior High School, Albuquerque, NM about 1968) had located the wheel mass closer to the axis and had not provided sufficient air friction, then it could have been dangerous, but as it was, it made a nice safe fine demonstration. In toto, it was low friction as the demonstration was labeled, rather than very low friction which could have been dangerous.
Simplest Explanation of McKinley Demonstration. The simplest explanation of the about 1968 McKinley JHS demonstration is not that the demonstrators were cheating when they demonstrated low friction (which was all that was claimed), but rather they were showing precisely what would actually happen when one had a condition of low friction for horizontal axis rotation. (Unfortunately it took me almost 40 years to figure that out.) Bessler was accused of cheating but he wasn't as he was demonstrating the Bessler principle, though people then didn't figure out what he was doing fundamentally. Maybe it would be wise for demonstrators of the Bessler principle to (similarly to the McKinley demonstrators) initially just claim that they are just demonstrating low friction so that they not be deluged with all sorts of accusations of cheating this or cheating that. They can do their studies and not be hassled by the nay sayers. People who understand what is really being demonstrated can quietly take notes and increase in their understanding of the Bessler principle and better understand the implications. For those who understand the implication (and that the demonstrators are not cheating), it would serve as motivation that the tiny technological marvel of the low friction Orffyrean roller bearing needs to be reinvented for technological, commercial and many other purposes.
Belief Without Seeing. Just because one can't see the gravitons doesn't mean that they are not working within the wheel but one must have a very low friction bearing to see their cumulative effect. Remember Bessler wrote "greed is an evil plant" (see Collins' 1997 book p. 225). For the plant to grow and thrive, it must be highly greedy energy wise. Remember on the opposite chiastic side of Bessler's little book he wrote what would happen if he, Bessler, were to uncover his wheel. His enemy would be thwarted in his desire to grow wise. The implication is that people would see the interior of his wheel and learn nothing of direct value (aside from seeing many stiff fops as they would not see any gravitons nor see any rotating nuclear-ground-states).
Low Friction. We may think of the near 1968 demonstration of low friction (at McKinley) in another way. The demonstrators said absolutely nothing about them nudging the wheel with their own hands. They said absolutely nothing about them using fans to get the wheel moving. They said nothing during the demonstration. They merely showed what would actually happen, if one did have a condition of low friction (the advertised purpose of the demonstration). Sometimes the truth speaks louder than words. The demonstrators and students were all silent during the demonstration. Because of the McKinley demonstration, I think there are hundreds of people (ages now about 51-54) who should be able to say/state what they actually observed (according to their memories) when there is low friction. When new results confirm that demonstration, they should not be surprised as they saw it almost 40 years ago.
Feel Air. The McKinley demonstration of low friction appeared to somehow be cordoned off (by a long line on the south end of the wheel) for safety so that students could not get too close to the wheel, but it would be interesting to ask students that were nearby if they could feel any air blowing off from it. I was too far away to feel any air coming off of it. I only moved a little closer when the crowd began to leave. Based on what I saw, I think that nearby tangential and forward students would have been able to feel the air coming off the wheel. If I had been a little more curious about the situation, I would have tried to get an even closer look afterwards but despite it seeming a little peculiar, it seemed to be a somewhat ordinary subject that they were indeed demonstrating modern low friction. It was like "OK", one can have low friction. It didn't occur to me then that it just might be demonstrating that power was somehow being extracted from elsewhere by some method because of the low friction being able to save up and grow the captured power. (The more it captured the greater its capacity to capture more power.) I saw the ridges between the radial colors on the wheel when it was stationary and I heard the fluttering later when the wheel was fully rotating, but I didn't quite connect the dots then. Alden Park - Monday 19 Feb 2007 - President's Day

The following is an email that I sent on Saturday 17 Feb 2007 to Infinite Energy, except I am here leaving off the three address lines at the beginning.
Date: 17 Feb 2007, Saturday
Subject: Repeat McKinley Low Friction Demonstration
Email to the Managing Editor of Infinite Energy, The Magazine of New Energy Science and Technology, http://www.infinite-energy.com/,
Many years ago I witnessed a relatively simple demonstration of low friction. The demonstrators at McKinley Junior High School in Albuquerque, NM (circa 1968) showed to hundreds of students what would actually happen if a wheel were allowed to freely rotate with low friction about a horizontal axis. The wheel's axis was aligned with the true north-south direction. The large black wheel had radial colors and radial ridges between the colors. It was stationary until a liquified gas was added to its center. Apparently this created a superconductor that excluded magnetic fields by the Meissner-Ochsenfeld (1933) effect and thus created a very low friction horizontal axis bearing. There was an initial damped wobble of the wheel, as the very low friction bearing was created. The wheel began to pick up angular speed until it acquired a maximum angular speed that was in my estimation between 20 and 50 cycles per minute. The wheel appeared to be made of a hard black plastic (presumably with magnets near its center). It had a diameter of about six feet. Neither the demonstrators nor the students said a single word, to my hearing and memory, during the entire demonstration. At maximum angular speed, the wheel made a constant fluttering noise, apparently due to the ridges interacting with the air. Based on reactions of students and the movement of their clothing and hair, the students sitting on the floor near the cordoned-off base of the wheel felt continuous air currents produced by the wheel. The low friction wheel remained turning at the same constant maximum rate for as long as students desired to watch it. I estimate that I watched the wheel turning at its maximum speed for at least 15 minutes, and the flutter frequency did not decrease. I think effectively that this was a demonstration of a modern day Bessler-like wheel, even though it was not labeled as such.
Experiments related to the McKinley demonstration may provide a basis for probing or helping to explain various physical anomalies, including the Bessler wheel (IE #21, pp. 53-55) and the solar corona (IE #53, p. 7). Designing a wheel with less air friction, will decrease the friction of the wheel. A two-part electromagnetic graviton would tend to provide a nonzero net torque of (R)(F)(sin(A1) - sin(A2)) about the center of two equal but opposite charges embedded in neutral matter. This would tend to increase their angular speed because of the slight time delay between the application of the two equal downward forces (assuming the lower charge is pulled down with force F slightly before the upper charge is pulled down with the same force F). Relative to the center between the two charges, the two charges rotate at opposite ends of an approximate circle of radius R. The charges would be located at the ends of diameters of the circle. The values A1 and A2 represent the angles with respect to vertical that the diameters of the circle make at the two times when the two downward forces, F and F, are applied by the graviton. Thus, with a greater initial angular speed of the opposite charges, there will tend to be greater net torque to increase their angular speed. Bessler's most massive wheels apparently used special low friction mechanical roller bearings that could bear up massive wheels. The ground state nuclei at the outer edges of the sun's atmosphere are generally allowed to rotate freely with very little friction about horizontal axes, without interference from neighboring nuclei, so they may acquire very large angular speeds. This assumes that the nuclei are not subjected to near vertical magnetic fields. For the McKinley demonstration, the north-south axis alignment may have been chosen so that the wheel would begin rotating spontaneously according to the initial angular speed of approximately one revolution per day. Alternatively, such a small angular speed may have been negligible compared to slight angular speeds incidentally imparted to the wheel during the creation of the low friction bearing. The latter may be more likely, as I recall the wheel rotated in the opposite direction from the earth's rotation. The final direction would not be repeatable, unless the slight initial conditions of the unstable equilibrium can be controlled. This might occur if a portion of the superconductor repeatedly becomes a superconductor before another portion. Experimenters are warned that though low friction may allow power to be extracted from gravity by a horizontal-axis-rotating wheel, a very-low-friction horizontal-axis-rotating wheel could generate a dangerously large amount of power from gravity, as power produced from gravity increases with wheel angular speed.
There is a need to either demonstrate qualitative repeatability or qualitative non-repeatability of the McKinley results. I imagine that the experiments would be relatively straight forward, simple, and highly repeatable. Higher strength magnets and higher temperature superconductors are now available. A low cost replication of the McKinley demonstration might also be possible using an air bearing for horizontal axial rotation. I don't know if an air bearing would require a slight initial push in one angular direction to get it started. I suspect that no initial push would be necessary, unless a particular direction of the final angular velocity is desired.
Alden Park
Ridgecrest, California

[Dave]

Low friction does not equal zero friction does not equal negative friction to do work!

[Mollie Hatchie]

While you are talking about the Rolamite ....
Have you run across the Rotary Rolamite ?

http://www.erikbrinkman.com/

Check out the "Scrollerwheel"

On the left side of the page is both the detailed report
and a video of one spinning in hand.