Part Three is the Charm

[johannesbender]

Imo there arent many known external sources that can demonstrate the amount of power and duration B wheel did ,or there arent many arguments for what went on that can hold up , sources like flowing water or air might be able to replicate the power and duration but we know the wheel was disconnected from these as sources , Wagner also had the exact problem of making a good argument for what the source may have be , his design of what he claimed B wheel was doing inside ,could not replicate the speed power and duration like B wheel .

Any other argument for 2 springs , each with a seperate direction as a source unlike Wagners ?
What else can you think of for a source even if it is fraudulent but makes a good argument for the source?

[Sam Peppiatt]

johannesbender,
Gravity / falling weights; that's it. It's the best and only choice you have, like it or not---------------------------------Sam

Live your days inspired anew: LYDIA

[eccentrically1]

Finding a thermal solution is almost as hard as finding a gravity solution. The only thermal solution that I can come up with, that might replicate Bessler's demonstrations, requires a fuel reservoir (energy source) and is an obvious 'true pm' fraud.

It shouldn't be as hard considering there isnot a non-contact force solution.
Think of it in terms of a magician's trick.
I don't think we've explored a thermal solution nearly enough to rule out replicating his demonstrations. There are more possibilities than the one you've come up with. If everyone thinks a force exchange with the earth would be a "true pm" (if it were possible), then a thermal couple with earth is just as legitimate. I've said before the demonstrations more than likely were carefully matched to the thermal design of each one. The short duration lifts (boxes, stampers, and water screw) could have been accomplished with a much smaller mechanism than the long duration test. Who knows what was happening inside when the two way wheels were in reverse? It's possible something else was going on besides the desire to show wheels that could operate in either direction. The 54 day test was demonstrated without an external load, so only nonconservative forces needed to be matched. Somewhere on the forum here I believe fletcher and I tried estimating what those frictions were, and it wasn't much.

Earth's angular momentum is a legitimate energy source.That doesn't come by too often in the pm world :P

No it isn't. The source used for satellites, for example, is the kinetic energy of its orbit. It's a KE exchange. Note that the satellite is not attached to the earth. Anything attached earth isn't in a position to gain KE from it. The object has to be off the earth to get the boost.

Unless I'm wrong, we aren't barking up the right tree yet.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Again,
Bessler talked about weights all the time. They were made of lead, lead is heavy, gravity is just a word meaning heaviness. Didn't he mention excessive weight, and it would take the devil himself to lift it. I think he also mentioned gravity.

I think the giant problem is; you don't know how to do it, so therefore it can't be gravity. Let me reiterate; just because we don't know how to do it, doesn't necessarily follow, that it can't be done, (with gravity)--------------------------Sam

[johannesbender]

To think further on the point im making , lets imagine the main source was springs instead of mainly or only gravity for example , imo it does not matter whether the main source was gravity or something like springs or even a combination of gravity and springs , it would still boil down to how do one close that loop , and how would you manage to produce excess above unity .

So to me its not mainly an issue about source/s of input but output and sustain.

it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.

Everything we eat runs through the whole body

And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
[11] Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
[12] Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
[13] But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
[14] Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
[15] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
[16] And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
[17] Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
[18] But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
[19] For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
[20] These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

[ovyyus]

Earth's angular momentum is a legitimate energy source.That doesn't come by too often in the pm world :P

No it isn't...

Earth's angular momentum is a legitimate energy source. Spinning mass has angular momentum that can be harnessed. Creating a mechanism that might harness Earth's angular momentum is another matter, but the energy of all that spinning mass is very real.

[eccentrically1]

Earth's angular momentum is a legitimate energy source.That doesn't come by too often in the pm world :P

No it isn't...

Earth's angular momentum is a legitimate energy source. Spinning mass has angular momentum that can be harnessed. Creating a mechanism that might harness Earth's angular momentum is another matter, but the energy of all that spinning mass is very real.

You didn’t quote the whole post. Anything that wants to harness earth’s motion can’t be attached to it, either the spin or the orbital motion.

No it isn't. The source used for satellites, for example, is the kinetic energy of its orbit. It's a KE exchange. Note that the satellite is not attached to the earth. Anything attached earth isn't in a position to gain KE from it. The object has to be off the earth to get the boost.

I’m pretty sure in a gravity assist all of the KE comes from the forward motion of the planet’s orbit. I haven’t seen any explanations that attribute any of the assist to the spin. But it’s a moot point for B’s wheels since they weren’t orbiting the earth.

[Fletcher]

Again,
Bessler talked about weights all the time. They were made of lead, lead is heavy, gravity is just a word meaning heaviness.

Didn't he mention excessive weight, and it would take the devil himself to lift it. I think he also mentioned gravity.


I think the giant problem is; you don't know how to do it, so therefore it can't be gravity.

Let me reiterate; just because we don't know how to do it, doesn't necessarily follow, that it can't be done, (with gravity) -------------------------- Sam

There are 3 main things in play inside a runner imo Sam ..

1. obviously >> gravity acceleration ... gravity is an acceleration between 2 or more objects that have mass (f = ma > [a = f/m or 'g' = f/m]) i.e. if free to move the objects begin moving towards each other, whereupon their speeds attained at any same time interval are proportional to their masses [inertia] (n.b. the acceleration is the same for each but the speed gained and distance covered is different) .. effectively the acceleration pull/attraction is a gradient or field of potential .. objects move towards each other losing potential energy (after first having been given it) and gain kinetic energy as the distance apart closes.

** a wheel at the earths surface is always subject to gravity acceleration, and any mass making up the wheel and its internals is always subject to gravity force. This is inescapable. IOW's it is there, and always there, causing things to fall towards the earth, if they are free to reduce their potential energy.

2. all real objects have inertia .. for the linear, mass = inertia (Newton's Laws of Motion) .. and this inertia is why altho gravity acceleration is the same for all different masses in point 1. above (objects are made up of many individual atoms with mass, and the acceleration applies to each atom) the speed achieved is proportional to the total masses inertia.

3. Spinning objects that have mass also have inertia, in the angular form, from which is derived angular momentum.


Therefore imo inside a closed path runner there is always the interplay of gravity force, inertia, and angular momentum. 3 legs of a tripod supporting a center.


IMO .. B. coordinated these 3 main players ( ' influencers ' , 1 or other sometimes taking the lead, sometimes following ) via a unique (never before seen he says) combination of mechanical principles resulting in his excess impetus, excess-weight, preponderance. [ fwiw I prefer to think of it as an excess thrust force (boost) ]. And not a 1 of the 3 was more important than another, or could work alone to give a runner. IMO gravity force is just 1 leg of that tripod, which without the other 2, spread out and mutually supporting the center, falls over.


I know you will disagree but there it is - a runner needs a source of energy so it can output mechanical Work and remain self-moving. And gravity force is not energy. Therefore the source of the runner mechanical energy output is given to the runner from outside of it, and the mechanical Prime Mover apparatus is the conduit.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Fletcher,
This is what I'm thinking. Bessler did use gravity; so gravity isn't the problem. The problem lies more with knowing how he did it, or lack there of. You just said yourself, it's one of the three legs, and it's the only one with any force behind it. I just don't see how it, (gravity), can be ruled out completely-------------------Sam

[ovyyus]

You didn’t quote the whole post. Anything that wants to harness earth’s motion can’t be attached to it, either the spin or the orbital motion.

We have tides powered by earth's angular momentum. Oceans are 'attached' to the earth.

[Tarsier79]

Sam, I don't think anyone rules gravity out completely, as Besslers wheels required gravity as a transformer to convert energy. (Or at least Bessler believed it was). Many who have been at the game however have ruled gravity out as the sole source of energy for the power source.

Energy from rotation due to gravity only cares about its height, not its horizontal displacement. It is the same height up the wheel as it is down.

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,
This is what I'm thinking. Bessler did use gravity; so gravity isn't the problem. The problem lies more with knowing how he did it, or lack there of. You just said yourself, it's one of the three legs, and it's the only one with any force behind it. I just don't see how it, (gravity), can be ruled out completely-------------------Sam

Fair enough Sam - that's your view.

I didn't and don't rule out gravity completely Sam .. Otherwise how could MT's 44 and 48 work at all as they are clearly conservative OOB gravity-only wheels. That is, without additional structures and applications present and doing their jobs.

All the MT's that are gravity-only wheels (GOW's) can not output mechanical Work and be self-sustaining as they are. I stand by that 100% !

[eccentrically1]

You didn’t quote the whole post. Anything that wants to harness earth’s motion can’t be attached to it, either the spin or the orbital motion.

We have tides powered by earth's angular momentum. Oceans are 'attached' to the earth.

No, tides are powered by the moon and sun gravitational pull.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher, Forget it; forget every thing I ever said, if you haven't already------------------------Sam

[ovyyus]

No, tides are powered by the moon and sun gravitational pull.

Gravity doesn't power the tides. Gravity can't power anything (uh-oh). Earth's angular momentum is constantly diminished by the work constantly done pushing it's mass through the moon and sun tidal bulges. Without Earth's rotation there are no tides.