It's something else...

[Sam Peppiatt]

To anyone,
Trying to lift a weight or weights of any amount is a mistake. The wheel has to be made in such a way that the weights are never lifted. It's the only way that it will ever work. Again, the concept of lifting and falling weights is a huge mistake. It's all wrong. It's been tried for a 1000 years-------------------Sam

[thx4]

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.

Tout simplement faux, Bessler sait que personne ne peut payer une telle somme et c'est la seule condition pour voir le principe, il lui est donc facile de prétende risquer sa vie.
Bessler est un joueur de poker tout simplement.

si vous avez 1000 kg d'un côté et 999 kg de l'autre plus votre 1 kg de la main c'est en équilibre, donc les côtés A et B sont en équilibre, vous devez appliquer plus de 1000 kg pour le déplacer (les 999 kg font partie de l'équation).

Tout simplement faux, si vous posez le poids de 1 kg ailleurs de quelques millimètres éloignés de vos 999 kg vous n'êtes plus en équilibre ce que voulait dire Kattia, vos démonstrations TOXIQUES deviennent ridicule.

[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.

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).

I did write slightly more then 1 kg , and that is for the person (or some other mechanics) to apply , so nope. it's not in balance. And yes, i meant for what the person applies , although i think it is a mistunderstanding that boils down to a couple different ways to interprete the word "you".

A bit like a Shishi-odoshi , the bamboo tube that fills with water until it gets too heavy, flip, empty itself and flips back and start filling again.

[johannesbender]

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).

I did write slightly more then 1 kg , and that is for the person (or some other mechanics) to apply , so nope. it's not in balance. And yes, i meant for what the person applies , although i think it is a mistunderstanding that boils down to a couple different ways to interprete the word "you".

A bit like a Shishi-odoshi , the bamboo tube that fills with water until it gets too heavy, flip, empty itself and flips back and start filling again.

Kattla the example i wrote is not that of a lever , its a weight and a person so "you" apply , i am writing to humans so "you" must apply.
I understand you wrote slightly more than 1kg , so did i , the point is it takes more since you cannot drop the 999 kg from the equation .

[johannesbender]

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.

Tout simplement faux, Bessler sait que personne ne peut payer une telle somme et c'est la seule condition pour voir le principe, il lui est donc facile de prétende risquer sa vie.
Bessler est un joueur de poker tout simplement.

si vous avez 1000 kg d'un côté et 999 kg de l'autre plus votre 1 kg de la main c'est en équilibre, donc les côtés A et B sont en équilibre, vous devez appliquer plus de 1000 kg pour le déplacer (les 999 kg font partie de l'équation).

Tout simplement faux, si vous posez le poids de 1 kg ailleurs de quelques millimètres éloignés de vos 999 kg vous n'êtes plus en équilibre ce que voulait dire Kattia, vos démonstrations TOXIQUES deviennent ridicule.

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.

thx4 , show me the lever where there is 1000 kg on one side then 999 kg on the other , where slightly more than 1kg to raise it is applied , if the distance is not the same , also show me where this distances are specified too , secondly have some common decency for other members.

[Kattla]

Let's see if i can add attachments yet , since an image is sometimes worth more then a thousand words.
Someone, or something, on the blue side can change the balance by pulling up a small, more then 1 kg weight on the other side.

Or like THX mentioned, changing the position of the red weight slightly can also do the trick. I'll admit i didn't fully think of that when i experimented with it.

[johannesbender]

Let's see if i can add attachments yet , since an image is sometimes worth more then a thousand words.
Someone, or something, on the blue side can change the balance by pulling up a small, more then 1 kg weight on the other side.

Or like THX mentioned, changing the position of the red weight slightly can also do the trick. I'll admit i didn't fully think of that when i experimented with it.

You are correct images are worth more than words , for example lets clear the last posts up with images i had in mind.

I wrote :
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 .

Kattla wrote:
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.

I responded :
if you have 1000 kg on one side and 999 kg on the other plus your 1 kg in your hand it is in balance, so sides A and B are in balance, you have to apply more than 1000 kg to move it (the 999 kg is part of the equation).

Thx4 wrote :
Simply false, if you place the weight of 1 kg elsewhere a few millimeters away from your 999 kg you are no longer in balance which is what Kattia meant, your TOXIC demonstrations become ridiculous.

Is it toxic for me to comment that more is needed ? the equations include the total force on each side and the total distances on each side for levers .

Kattla responded with a different image :

Unbalance.gif (6.22 KiB) Viewed 881 times

[thx4]

Let's see if i can add attachments yet , since an image is sometimes worth more then a thousand words.
Someone, or something, on the blue side can change the balance by pulling up a small, more then 1 kg weight on the other side.

Or like THX mentioned, changing the position of the red weight slightly can also do the trick. I'll admit i didn't fully think of that when i experimented with it.

Il n'y rien d'autres à ajouter mais le monsieur (chef d'escadrille), veut briller avec CON-DESCENDANCE. Fin pour moi avec ce TDC je le met en invisible.

[johannesbender]

Let's see if i can add attachments yet , since an image is sometimes worth more then a thousand words.
Someone, or something, on the blue side can change the balance by pulling up a small, more then 1 kg weight on the other side.

Or like THX mentioned, changing the position of the red weight slightly can also do the trick. I'll admit i didn't fully think of that when i experimented with it.

Il n'y rien d'autres à ajouter mais le monsieur (chef d'escadrille), veut briller avec CON-DESCENDANCE. Fin pour moi avec ce TDC je le met en invisible.

Il n'y rien d'autres à ajouter mais le monsieur (chef d'escadrille), veut briller avec CON-DESCENDANCE. Fin pour moi avec ce TDC je le met en invisible.
There is nothing else to add but the gentleman (squadron leader), wants to shine with CON-DESCENDANCE. For me, with this TDC, I put it in invisible.

Applause .

[johannesbender]

Let's see if i can add attachments yet , since an image is sometimes worth more then a thousand words.
Someone, or something, on the blue side can change the balance by pulling up a small, more then 1 kg weight on the other side.

Or like THX mentioned, changing the position of the red weight slightly can also do the trick. I'll admit i didn't fully think of that when i experimented with it.

Simply false, if you place the weight of 1 kg elsewhere a few millimeters away from your 999 kg you are no longer in balance which is what Kattia meant, your TOXIC demonstrations become ridiculous.

I understand perfectly well how even less than 1kg can lift 1000 kg (given a very strong long lever with one weight at less distance on one side) , but kattla was not talking about different distances (as the member pointed out too) , and i was not talking about a lever to start with .

thx4 is not incorrect for saying if there was a 1kg mass further away plus 999kg closer to the pivot that it would lift the other side of 1000kg but we weren't talking about different distances , If the distances were the same on both sides as the member kattla pointed out - then the force on one side must be more to move it , this was my point , the force needed to be more (since the distances are the same).

In the end on a lever it comes down to force & distance ,and will always lose more than gain (until proven otherwise) either in distance or mass , the law is that the lever never gains energy on the output .

I guess i am just toxic , anyway i wont part take in this conversation any further , facts are to condescending .

btw this image text was suppose to be in the previous image .

[thx4]

[christo4_99]

Wow this thread really came to life! So, after a couple year break give or take a moment or two or relapse I'm back at it trying to solve a mystery with "baffling" clues, to put it mildly. I'm referring especially to this:

"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

The part that's the most baffling to me is: "and when they come to be placed together". Instant brain fart on that one. For all this time I wondered where the weights "come to be placed together". Do all of the weights come together? There are infinite points within a wheel where these weights could possibly do this.There are infinite possibilities. And I was lost. But now I'm thinking if Bessler says "and" it's time to pay attention! Btw he says it twice in the above quote.

So it's all down to the wire for me. I have an idea that I thought of at the very beginning that has progressed slowly over time and I've made a lot of animations based on this concept. The fact is something was missing and as of lately (today) it's staring me right in the face (because I made a drawing of it). This could be the key to this whole thing. And yes it's "something different".

[thx4]

So it's all down to the wire for me. I have an idea that I thought of at the very beginning that has progressed slowly over time and I've made a lot of animations based on this concept. The fact is something was missing and as of lately (today) it's staring me right in the face (because I made a drawing of it). This could be the key to this whole thing. And yes it's "something different".

Hi Chris, I had the same idea, but I promise not to say a word...

[christo4_99]

To anyone,
Trying to lift a weight or weights of any amount is a mistake. The wheel has to be made in such a way that the weights are never lifted. It's the only way that it will ever work. Again, the concept of lifting and falling weights is a huge mistake. It's all wrong. It's been tried for a 1000 years-------------------Sam

Sorry, wrong answer but you actually know better than that. Try to make a mobile with weights moving horizontally...Oh! Don't bother, I tried that already.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Christo4_99,
No; I didn't know I was wrong, if I understood you correctly. I have no knowledge of mobiles, horizontal or other wise--------------Sam