Overbalanced wheels, a waste of time ?

[Wheeler]

Jon J Hutton wrote

a recent rebuild of his storage device proved it to work

Jon
Can you say more on what you are talking about in this last statement?
I have not heard of any build of a storage device of this nature.

[ken_behrendt]

There are some problems with the "ether hypothesis" for gravity. Mainly, the concept of it is disregarded by modern physicists because, apparently, no one has ever managed to show that it exists! But, then again, gravitons and antigravitons are only hypothetical at this time. Yet, my approach to rationalizing the UFO phenomenon is dependent upon them.

It is an undeniable fact that gravity does exist and plays a major role in life on Earth. I think in the coming centuries, as we learn more about it, we eventually have such things as massless vehicles and other technologies based upon gravity modification/extinction.

Meanwhile, we need to get this Bessler mystery resolved. Understanding how his wheels worked will be a good place to start as we then go on to unravel the further mysteries of gravity.


ken

[Michael]

The core idea that reality has a first ground hasn't changed Ken, Jim, everyone, just the wording and the meaning has it depends on your cup of tea. The greeks originally called it the ether, or quintessence, and I don't believe they applied any fundamental property to it (I could be wrong) other than it came first. They hypothesized whether matter was capable of being infinitely small, or had a threshold point which they called the atom. If it was an atom model then the term they used called the ether could have properties they could assign to it. Scientists eventually thought they figured this out and thought they discovered the atom, only later to find out that there were actually smaller particles. The term and the new meaning of atom stuck though so they had to search around for new words. They started using sub atomic particles, and everything else after. The term the ether/ or aether also had properties assigned to it, even though an absolute particle hadn't really been found yet. The original term is good but the problem is it has had so many meanings applied to it by so many different people. Regardless the idea of a first ground has never been thrown out. Some people have ether/ or aether, Quantum physics has the virtual particle field, relativity has the fabric of space time, and string theory has it's own model. Each agree that there is something, it's the nature of this something that they are all trying to figure out and are at odds with each other with. The one who does figure it out will have figured out the unified field theory.

[ken_behrendt]

Michael wrote (with reference to ether):

The original term is good but the problem is it has had so many meanings applied to it by so many different people.

Alas, this is quite true. I have visited many sites that expend large volumes of disc space "discussing" the ether. Generally, the discussions are of a vague nature and it seems each writer ascribes whatever properties to it that suits his fancy. It seems to me that if a particular concept is valid, then it should yield itself to clarification via the scientific method. That is, if a concept is real, then it should be able to, at least, qualitatively (and, preferably, quantitatively) describe effects that were not originally used in the development of the concept.

It is for this reason that current String Theory is in big trouble. Since the mid-'80's, no real, experimentally verifiable, predictions have come from it. It can not, say, predict the velocity of light in a vacuum or the mass of an electron. Like many, eventually to be discarded theories, it is slowly sinking down to the level of the metaphysical as its remaining proponents dive deeper and deeper into a murky world of philosophy and pure mathematics...


ken

[Wheeler]

It is an undeniable fact that gravity does exist and plays a major role in life on Earth.

I think it can not have a word like gravity.

gravity does exist?
You are the athority on this fact?
First you must show us.
Then you may give it a word.
Something plays a role in life, is all we know right now.

[ME]

Rephrase:
It is an undeniable fact that attractive forces, like gravity, do exist and is vital for life on Earth and even more vital for the existence of Earth itself.

Let's call these attractive forces "love" (or "religion")
:-)

[ken_behrendt]

The term "gravity" is used somewhat loosely by the public. It can mean different things to different people. Usually when a person mentions gravity, he or she intends it to mean the force that holds all loose objects to the earth's surface. A physicist might use it to refer to the field or region around all objects with mass wherein a smaller "test" object with mass begins to display a measurable accelerating force acting on it.

However, if we think of the gravity field around an object as composed of the massless gravitons which it continuously emits, then it would seem that this field, by itself, has no energy which it can tranfer to other objects. So, that leads one to conclude that the increase in kinetic energy that is displayed by a test object that is dropping in a gravity field must come from another source. There would seem to only be one other source for this energy available to the object. That source would have to be the actual energy associated with the mass of the object itself.

It is for this reason that I have suggested that the energy that Bessler's wheels managed to continuously output had to be at the expense of some of the rest mass of the weights which drove them. Even the loss of a single milligram of mass from the weights by it being converted into mechanical energy would have been enough to power one of his work performing wheels for months!


ken

[Paul]

Title: Overbalanced wheels, a waste of time ?

Yes of course :-)

[rlortie]

Paul,

That is why I have changed my pursuit from overbalanced wheels to underbalanced wheels.

Ralph

[AgingYoung]

I checked in and noticed that there were 6 new posts and I had made 666 posts. I couldn't go to sleep knowing that.

I agree, Ralph that getting the weight to fall isn't the problem. The trick is getting it to move back up.

Gene

[Jon J Hutton]

This is really a crazy forum. We all try so hard at the same thing and then if we succeed just a little we cant tell anyone for fear of them stealing the idea and saying it was theirs. We try to encourage other ones not to give up, all the while we are hoping we discover the idea first. For what my two cents are worth.... the overbalanced wheel is not a waste of time!!!!!!!!!, .... I just put my latest idea into wm2d....air resistance high.....and was able to lift a 1 lb weight 1 meter using 1lb weight that traveled .8 meters!!!!!!!!!!! I am redesigning the capture device to work smoother and putting the whole thing inside a wheel. aghhhhh I would love to show someone this but, now I must know a small small percent how Bessler felt!!!!

Final word. Bessler was a genius and didn't stumble onto the idea by accident. I would love nothing more than to restore the family name of Besslers and have enough money to finish the school that I am currently building in Guatemala.....but do both in grand fashion!!!!!!!

I've worked on this idea for at least 8 hours a day for the last 4 month.

By and not sure when I can log on next, and yes I am being honest.

[graham]

Jon has noticed :

This is really a crazy forum. We all try so hard at the same thing and then if we succeed just a little we cant tell anyone for fear of them stealing the idea and saying it was theirs. We try to encourage other ones not to give up, all the while we are hoping we discover the idea first.

Yeah you're right Jon . The problem with a forum like this is that it's on the world wide web, and once a major breakthrough is made anyone in the world could grab it.
All your hard work and determination would be just given away to all comers.

There are some nice folks here on the boards and if it were possible to meet personally I think it might be a different story.

This does not apply to you Ken. You're to be commended for sharing your ideas in your thread ,even though you've yet to come up with something that might get Bessler turning in his grave. Possibly at 26 rpm.

Graham

[AgingYoung]

Jon,

How much money is it going to take to finish that school?

I think Bessler wasn't trying to model perpetual motion. He was looking for a model of a specific thing and he was pretty certain if he modeled that perpetual motion would be the result. I don't think it was an accident or luck but a deliberate design of an idea.

Most people want to be the first to prove that gravity isn't a conservative force. Whether you're the first to prove it or not, if you do happen to be the first to prove it to the Randi organization it's worth a million dollars. It doesn't really have to be your idea to win the Randi. If you take it and enter the Randi contest you'll get the million. I think that's why most people are a little cautious with what they want to share. That's why I am.

I'm not that cautious though. I've shared the fundamental ideas that I'm trying to model. I haven't couched those descriptions in vague language. I would be a little disappointed if someone were to win the Randi yet I've shared some of what I think is necessary to make a wheel turn. One of the reasons I think I do that is to see if anyone is thinking along the lines that I am. As far as I can tell what I've shared is off most people's radar.

Gene

[Fletcher]

There's a daily quote that appears from time to time that I think is quite fitting in this situation. It goes something like this ...

"scientists are like mountaineers except mountaineers don't establish a base camp every 10 feet & then try to throw anybody off the mountain who tries to pass them".

[ken_behrendt]

Interesting posts since last I checked this thread. Let me throw my 2 centavos on the table.


In my many past attempts that I have made to create a self-adjusting mechanism that would both shift the CG of its weights away from the wheel's axle on the descending side and then retract that CG back again nearer to the axle at the bottom of the wheel, I have noticed an pervasive and most annoying tendency.

If I could get the mechanism to shift away from the axle at the 3:00 position of a CW rotating wheel, then I could not retract it at the 6:00 position. And, if I could retract it at 6:00, then I could not shift it outward at 3:00.

It took over a dozen different approaches, but, only recently, I am managing to do both...yet, my wheels still do not Run perpetually. The problem is the exact same one all of you guys and tens of thousands of other inventors down through the ages have wrestled with: my designs still do not keep the CG of the wheel's weights on the descending side at all times.

However, I remain hopeful that this obstacle will, eventually, be surmounted by either myself or someone else. This is the final remaining barrier between us and the duplication of Bessler's one-directional wheels. I believe that this will be accomplished this year!



When it comes to Bessler, I respect him more for his tenacity and devotion to the goal of achieving perpetual motion rather than for him being a "genius". He certainly was not in the ranks of Newton or Leibnitz. Yes, he was a skilled craftsman. Of that there is no doubt. But, to tell everyone the truth, I have never been that impressed by the designs he presents in Maschinen Tractate. It's obvious to me that his knowledge of hydraulics and hydrostatics was not on a par with his knowledge of mechanics. However, often in life, a person can make up for a lack of theoretical knowledge if he has a lot of practical knowledge and an iron-willed persistence. Bessler certainly had these in abundance and it was enough to achieve success where all others had failed.

And, of course, I do not discount the element of luck. I think I heard a quote someone once made that said that anyone who achieves success in life and does not attribute a large share of it to luck is a liar.



There can be a certain bizarre nature to this forum when it comes to revealing what one is working on. The aspiring gravity wheel builder is fearful of disclosing too much about his design so that it can not be stolen by the imagined hordes of other inventors out there that are constantly surfing the web in search of other people's ideas to steal. Actually, if one ever does achieve a working device, then there are many ways of documenting its reality so as to minimize the chances of it being stolen.

Personally, since I am not interested in patenting what I consider to be Bessler's inventions, I am not concerned with obtaining a patent. The secrecy that this would cause me to adopt would only serve to hinder the re-discovery of this lost technology in the long run. I do not want that to happen.

How do we not know that there was some inventor back in the 19th century who did figure out how Bessler's wheels worked and actually built a working prototype of one, yet remained silent about it and the invention was then re-lost because something happened to that inventor that prevented him from ever disclosing the invention. No, I'm not talking about some weird conspiracy by the power industry of the day to suppress the invention. I'm suggesting that maybe the poor fellow got sick and then died before he even got to the point of applying for a patent!

I want to think less about patents, royalties, or prizes and think more about getting some undeniable results...


ken