It's something else...

[christo4_99]

Ever since I heard the name Bessler I have had the feeling or thought that "it's something else". If someone had an idea either partially explained or in detail it's been the same. Also I imagined that Bessler left us an image of the thing in plain sight and I used mirrors to look for something is his drawings. It's interesting how the mind woks in those instances. My efforts to date have bore no fruit. I have also dismmissed the efforts of John Collins to find hidden meaning or a code that may or may not exist because I feel that would require a certain duplicity, complication and risk on Bessler's part. In other words "a rabbit hole". Bessler implied that before he came along nobody in history had ever come close to the PM goal. I get the strong impression from the sheer volume of his words left to us in his writings he was going on about "something" as opposed to "nothing". Once when presented with an image of a scale that Bessler made a friend of mine exclaimed without much hesitation "he did it..." . One has to conclude something from the evidence. As I was reading AP the first thing that stood out to me (and turned me off) was how Bessler proclaimed his innocence; but only because Christians believe that all humans are guilty. Later he recanted and clarified and admitted he was a sinner and was actually an Atheist at one point. I'm sure he meant he was "innocent" of the things he was being accused of concerning his machine. My point is Bessler was a real person and must have had that "something else" within himself. I personally believe that he succeeded and fully expected to be rewarded for his invention and that his device would be replicated globally at some point.
There must be a point here somewhere. How about this: Gravity is a one trick pony. Someone has probably said that before. What I mean specifically in this case here now is that I have thought extensively about gravity acting on weights within a rotating wheel. I have made animations that show weights being lifted at what I assumed is the appropriate/required point to cause and overbalance. After all this I still feel that it must have been "something else". To use part of what Bessler said: "all parts must agree to make the run" and they're not in those cases. The weights are spending much more time and energy being lifted up than they are actuallly falling to producce any motion and additionally from what I've imagined they must be lifted twice which makes things even worse. So "something else" has a strong chance of being the thing in this case.

[thx4]

B avait un gros avantage sur nous il ne savait pas que c'était impossible...
Ensuite il était très croyant, selon lui c'est dieu qui lui aurait indiqué comment faire, à partir de là pourquoi montrer aux autres. Dieu le fera si dieu le veut...
Pour l'instant dieu est à Gaza et en Ukraine, rien à foutre de bessler...

B had one big advantage over us: he didn't know it was impossible...
Secondly, he was very religious, believing that God had told him how to do it, so why show others? God will do it if God wills it...
Right now, God is in Gaza and Ukraine, and doesn't give a damn about Bessler...

[johannesbender]

Also I imagined that Bessler left us an image of the thing in plain sight

This is what most do also believe , ergo why most try to interpret the MT toy page.

Gravity is a one trick pony. Someone has probably said that before.

I could not agree more .

What I mean specifically in this case here now is that I have thought extensively about gravity acting on weights within a rotating wheel. I have made animations that show weights being lifted at what I assumed is the appropriate/required point to cause and overbalance. After all this I still feel that it must have been "something else".

The weights are spending much more time and energy being lifted up than they are actuallly falling to producce any motion and additionally from what I've imagined they must be lifted twice which makes things even worse. So "something else" has a strong chance of being the thing in this case.

It is eye opening to think in simpler terms , like that of a ball being dropped from your hand , it is undeniable that the energy losses in the real world prevents the restoration of the original drop height for the ball to come back to your hand after the bounce , a weight on a wheel also having sidewards motion means nothing for height , imagine throwing a ball forwards and downwards it wont reach the same height unless thrown with more energy than just a simple release.

The same for a case like , imagining that you have to lift a heavy weight up , the force you must use against it to lift must always be more than the total force of the weight acting downwards ,shortly , input is always more than output ergo output is always less than input in the real world.

acceptance is key .

[agor95]

Hi Christo

Words exist because of their meaning. Once you've got the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find someone who has forgotten words so I can talk with him or her ?

I think your signature line has some truth. Once you have a foundational set of meanings. Then you can build up to word tokens for those meanings.

Using a set of existing words with their meanings, associations & history clouding the view; One has a hard time seeing clearly.

Where to start ?

Just start with the work required to translate an object and the work required to rotating an object around it's three principle axes.

Regards

[Sam Peppiatt]

Some thing else,
The great difficulty in lifting a weight back up; can be avoided by converting the force of gravity directly to rotary motion, thence to mechanical energy. Here again though, the problem seams to be acceptance--------Sam

[agor95]

... can be avoided by converting the force of gravity directly to rotary motion ...

... Here again though, the problem seams to be acceptance ...

There is a need to accept meaning and you are seeing the linier translation, due to gravity, being used to create rotation.

More work is done to translate a mass [i.e. a square bar 1x1x2 units] than rotating along it's length; it's principle axis. Also a bar can be rotated around the centre of mass across it's length or rotated at it's end. The first requiring less work than the latter.

Using the available motion to rotate and reconfigure the mass plays a part in PM.

At first glance we see the linier gravity motion being converted to a 'bar end rotation' as just stated.

And I for one have mused that this is like many small linier motions creating a curve.

The common thread is a mass placed on a table has a force pressing down and above has a force pressing out radially.

The meaning I choose too follow is a force is pulling the mass into a curve and the force of the table is pushing up are equivalent.

Both are doing work against inertia.

That is a view I would like people to accept; in principle.

Regards

[Tarsier79]

I understand your point, but " work against inertia" isnt technically correct in the case of a weight on a table. Circular movement is something special (not in a way I have figured out how to use). I won't go on.

[agor95]

... work against inertia" isn't technically correct in the case of a weight on a table. ...

I agree technical correctness of the current word 'work' against inertia.
Or that matter 'work' of pressing against a wall is not work for similar reasons.

This all encompasses the associated concepts of 'energy accounting'.

There are magnetic breaks in some lifts. So if they free fall when the lift cable breaks.
Then they slow down to allow survival.

Testing the mag' break by forcing this assembly along it's rail; on the horizontal.
You will do work in a non-technical sense.

The work will produce heat in the rail and yourself.

You are correct rotation is special. You are not along in not seeing why.

Regards

[johannesbender]

The wheel's own inner force must come into being without external momentum being applied by such devices. It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of "excess weight", as I describe in Part I.

Even according to the ideas my enemies express in their writings, my Wheel is the true device, and is indeed, per se, a genuine Perpetuum Mobile. None better will ever be found upon this earth, for without the principle that I alone possess, there can be no real perpetual motion.

Whoever seeks another method is deceiving himself, for my device does not need winding; it runs according to "preponderance", and turns everything else along with it; so long as its material shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord.

On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be. That which hitherto has been impossible, was vouchsafed to me to discover.

Bessler goes on saying , that if there is anyone who does not believe they can bring the matter to an end by agreeing to his proposal , and it would come to light whether he talks the truth or not , if someone buys it and finds that the wheel does not work as he says but instead as his enemies says , then they may chop off his head .

If someone believes he was no fraud ,and bessler went as far as putting his life on the line to back up his words , then his words should be taken serious , but the question is how is it that weights are moved such that one side is empty and the other full , if the common problem faced is an energy shortage.

[agor95]

Hi johannesbender

There are two parts to the text. In the first; Do you chose to believe his claim is true or not? A person does not need to explain their choice. But their choice effect their thinking and actions.

I chose to believe he did. It is better to keep the option open than to slam the door closed on the subject. 'The Quest' is in part a journey to learn and explore new vistas.

The other part is finding the meaning in a word then forgetting the word and build on the meaning.

Therefore one meaning could be the observation below.

A pendulum supported horizontally; lifting the pendulum pivot point up takes less work than lifting the pendulum when vertical.

Also if the pendulum was moving from horizontal to vertical down then lifting the pivot point up would have excess weight. Or more work would be required to lift up when the pendulum reaches vertical.

Regards

[johannesbender]

Agor the moving pivot thing is an old idea , the reason it does not work is because the pivot when moved makes the "pendulum" drop height too (in most cases i have investigated).

[christo4_99]

On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be. That which hitherto has been impossible, was vouchsafed to me to discover.

the question is how is it that weights are moved such that one side is empty and the other full , if the common problem faced is an energy shortage.

I think I may have an idea how this could be possible. Bessler said that it was the weights themselves. That implication in and of itself fires my imagination. There are applications I've only recently considered where I can guess that it won't matter so critically "where" a given weight is located . Although I won't be sharing those ideas ATM .

[Robinhood46]

You've got a secret, but you're not telling us what it is, because it's a secret.
At least we know you have a secret, thanks for telling us that bit.

[Kattla]

The same for a case like , imagining that you have to lift a heavy weight up , the force you must use against it to lift must always be more than the total force of the weight acting downwards ,shortly , input is always more than output ergo output is always less than input in the real world.

acceptance is key .

Er, no. The force "you" must use don't always have to be greater. With a counterweight added into the equation, you can lift heavy objects with less input then the weight you are lifting. The word "must" is also a red flag , since it seeks to bind the mind, not free it.

IE, a 1 ton weight, and a 999 kg counterweight, you only need to lift (or pull, depending on the setup) slightly more then 1 kg to raise that 1 ton weight. Might be a pain in many places setting up that 999 kg counterweight though.

[johannesbender]

The same for a case like , imagining that you have to lift a heavy weight up , the force you must use against it to lift must always be more than the total force of the weight acting downwards ,shortly , input is always more than output ergo output is always less than input in the real world.

acceptance is key .

Er, no. The force "you" must use don't always have to be greater. With a counterweight added into the equation, you can lift heavy objects with less input then the weight you are lifting. The word "must" is also a red flag , since it seeks to bind the mind, not free it.

IE, a 1 ton weight, and a 999 kg counterweight, you only need to lift (or pull, depending on the setup) slightly more then 1 kg to raise that 1 ton weight. Might be a pain in many places setting up that 999 kg counterweight though.

if you have 1000 kg on one side and 999 kg on the other plus your 1 kg from the hand it is in balance , ergo side A and B are in equilibrium , you need to apply more than 1000 kg to move it (the 999 kg is part of the equation).