Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy,
I've always thought, that if I built it right, it would work. 2023 right; no problem-----------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

.
I started paying attention to your thread when you were talking about the binary star model, Sam.

I think the math

• E (total)= E (translational) + E (rotational)

is exploitable because

• E (gradient) = E (translational) + or - E (translational) + E (rotational)

No creation necessary! That's above my pay grade anyway.

ETA

EEEEEEEEEEEEventualy---------------------------Sam

don't pull your hair out, Sam. There is an obvious gradient. You need a simple transmission, adding the energies, then taking the gradient out of the middle.

ETA sometime before Christmas?

[Sam Peppiatt]

Maybe,
EEEEEEEEEEEEventualy---------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

.

.
I started paying attention to your thread when you were talking about the binary star model, Sam.

I think the math

• E(total)=E(translational) + E(rotational)

is exploitable because

• E(gradient) = E(translational) + or - E(translational) + E(rotational)

No creation necessary! That's above my pay grade anyway.

ETA

EEEEEEEEEEEEventualy---------------------------Sam

don't pull your hair out, Sam. There is an obvious gradient. You need a simple transmission, adding the energies, then taking the gradient out of the middle.

ETA sometime before Christmas?

I had more to say about this

• I think the math
  
  • E (tot)= E(trans) + E(rot)
  is exploitable because
  
  • E(gradient) = E (trans) + or - E (trans) +
    E (rot)

The point

• E(gradient) < E(tot)

should be axiomatic. At least in the beginning.

Can the gradient ever exceed it's cause?

• Can God make a rock bigger than he can pick up?

Good question.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Waltcy!!
Who knows? I think the wheel, when it's all said and done, will be very simple. Years from now, there won't be any thing unusual about it----------Sam

ETA,
You're right, it all started with the binary star, almost a year now. It bothers me that it takes so long to make use of it.

[Robinhood46]

The only thing unusual about it, will be that many years ago we were stupid enough to actually think it was impossible.
It will probably be just as difficult to believe this, as it is for us to believe we actually burned witches and thought the earth was flat.

[JUBAT]

>Can God make a rock bigger than he can pick up?

I would say no because the created can never be greater than the Creator. I've run across people who argued this point, but they also were the same people who believed an inanimate object could be greater than the one who designed and built it.

I'm not necessarily specifically talking about God-level here, but rather a fundamental principle that one (whomever that
"one" is) can never create something greater than themselves. Taking inanimate objects and arranging them in such a way to create different inanimate objects does not a maestro make. Sure, that effort can be appreciated, but still what greater act of creation can one perform that is better than taking inanimate objects such as dust and making sentient life from it?

Regarding what God can do - there is no one greater than He and he wouldn't have to lift it - just will it someplace else and it would happen. When a pinhead sized piece of Sun could kill all life within a 90 mile radius of it and that's just one Sun from our solar system, we are talking a lot of power that we can't even begin to fathom. The Bible even says God is abundant in dynamic energy...Isa. 40:26 and it's His force that caused the movement of the celestial bodies.

So if one were to create a working Bessler Wheel...as noble as that would be...it would still be a machine no greater than the designer because without the designer, it wouldn't exist. It would be a GREAT invention...just not greater than whoever built it.

Who's it going to be? You WC? Perhaps Sam? Even my latest idea has merit, but I'm soooooooo done building that even if it worked, at this point, I wouldn't be too impressed. I'd probably just sit there and watch it and think about how much time and money it took to get to that point.

It's called burn-out!

[agor95]

So it would seem to me that you would prefer a design that keeps the path to a minimum distance for any given weight mass.

Does anyone prefer the minimisation of accelerations of the masses instead of distances.

[eccentrically1]

That was part of my inspiration.

[agor95]

That was part of my inspiration.

There are other parts; my statement was just the introduction.

Would you like to develop the line of reasoning?

What was your next step starting from this inspiration?

[eccentrically1]

Sigh.
If you minimize the distance, it follows that you minimize the acceleration.
But the inspiration isn't directly related to a minimal path. That was just a response I gave to JB that dealt with nonconservative forces.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Ring & Rollers,
They are the only thing novel. And if any change in radius has been eliminated, as a possibility, then a bell crank should drive the roller and, the roller will drive the wheel.

What say yee?--------------------------------Sam

[agor95]

Sigh.
If you minimize the distance, it follows that you minimize the acceleration.
But the inspiration isn't directly related to a minimal path. That was just a response I gave to JB that dealt with nonconservative forces.

ok we can leave this sub-tread. It is possible to increase the acceleration to minimize the distance.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Agor,
If you can explain how to accelerate a wheel, please continue------------Sam

[eccentrically1]

Yes, do continue.