Which "handful of devices" are you referring to?Ken wrote:So far, there have only been a handful of devices which demonstrate this law in action and that, of course, is why I feel it should be named in honor of Bessler and his achievement.
Pair of Pairs
Moderator: scott
re: Pair of Pairs
re: Pair of Pairs
Ken,
I was wondering the same thing. I suppose Bessler's four wheels could be considered a handful.
Before you can have a law you need to have something that clearly and repeatedly demonstrates that law. Before we start naming a law after Bessler I believe we must prove beyond any doubt some method of producing the proverbial gravity powered perpetual motion wheel.
I was wondering the same thing. I suppose Bessler's four wheels could be considered a handful.
Before you can have a law you need to have something that clearly and repeatedly demonstrates that law. Before we start naming a law after Bessler I believe we must prove beyond any doubt some method of producing the proverbial gravity powered perpetual motion wheel.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Pair of Pairs
Bill and Jim...
The "handful of devices" that I was referring to were, indeed, the wheels built by Bessler. However, there is the possibility that Asa Jackson's wheel might have to be included with these. I still do not know much about Jackson's wheel, but what little I have seen seems impressive.
Jim, I agree with you that my announcement of "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" may seem a bit premature. But, I was able to come up with it without yet knowing the complete details of how Bessler's wheels worked. What I found interesting about the 4th Law was that it described what was taking place inside an overbalanced gravity wheel independently of the actual positions of the weights involved. All one needs to use the 4th Law is the horizontal displacement distance of the weights' CG from the wheel's axle and the rotational rate (rotations per unit of time) of the wheel. The average net downward velocity of the weights in the wheel is then immediately determined.
For many years I had been bothered by the assertions of the skeptics that no overbalanced wheel could ever work because it would involve weights moving about a closed path in a gravity field and, because gravity exerts a "conservative" force, such a system can not produce any net output of energy.
Well, Bessler's 4th Law of Motion dramatically illustrates that this is NOT always true! The weights inside of Bessler's wheels, despite their motion around a closed path or "orbit", were able to continuously output usable energy. From the 4th Law this is easily rationalized because, in effect, the weights are, on average, always falling.
Overbalanced gravity wheels allow the falling of weights to engage in a cyclic process that will continuously convert gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy to accelerate the wheel or perform external work to it. Of course, as I've mentioned many times before, this gravitational potential energy that is transformed into kinetic energy is really just the transformation of the energies associated with the rest masses of the weights being directly converted into kinetic energy by the motion of the wheel.
In a sense, the successful operation of Bessler's inventions were supportive evidence for the concepts of 20th century relativity theory...a theory that would not exist for about 2 centuries after the demonstration of Bessler's first wheel!
ken
The "handful of devices" that I was referring to were, indeed, the wheels built by Bessler. However, there is the possibility that Asa Jackson's wheel might have to be included with these. I still do not know much about Jackson's wheel, but what little I have seen seems impressive.
Jim, I agree with you that my announcement of "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" may seem a bit premature. But, I was able to come up with it without yet knowing the complete details of how Bessler's wheels worked. What I found interesting about the 4th Law was that it described what was taking place inside an overbalanced gravity wheel independently of the actual positions of the weights involved. All one needs to use the 4th Law is the horizontal displacement distance of the weights' CG from the wheel's axle and the rotational rate (rotations per unit of time) of the wheel. The average net downward velocity of the weights in the wheel is then immediately determined.
For many years I had been bothered by the assertions of the skeptics that no overbalanced wheel could ever work because it would involve weights moving about a closed path in a gravity field and, because gravity exerts a "conservative" force, such a system can not produce any net output of energy.
Well, Bessler's 4th Law of Motion dramatically illustrates that this is NOT always true! The weights inside of Bessler's wheels, despite their motion around a closed path or "orbit", were able to continuously output usable energy. From the 4th Law this is easily rationalized because, in effect, the weights are, on average, always falling.
Overbalanced gravity wheels allow the falling of weights to engage in a cyclic process that will continuously convert gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy to accelerate the wheel or perform external work to it. Of course, as I've mentioned many times before, this gravitational potential energy that is transformed into kinetic energy is really just the transformation of the energies associated with the rest masses of the weights being directly converted into kinetic energy by the motion of the wheel.
In a sense, the successful operation of Bessler's inventions were supportive evidence for the concepts of 20th century relativity theory...a theory that would not exist for about 2 centuries after the demonstration of Bessler's first wheel!
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Pair of Pairs
Ken, a law in physics is, "a statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met."
Unfortunately, your "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" doesn't seem to describe any observed physical process or specified relationships inside Bessler's wheel. Therefore, I move that we downgrade your proposed law to that of a supposition.
Unfortunately, your "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" doesn't seem to describe any observed physical process or specified relationships inside Bessler's wheel. Therefore, I move that we downgrade your proposed law to that of a supposition.
re: Pair of Pairs
Ken
even though I have appreciated your input throughout the forum and in my thread and yours.
I see you are starting again to make up things as if they were already true.
Please for the sake of all who read, do not leave this statement as truth on a world wide viewable forum.
If you can or have proof of such, please show it or stow it away in your own web site.
even though I have appreciated your input throughout the forum and in my thread and yours.
I see you are starting again to make up things as if they were already true.
Please for the sake of all who read, do not leave this statement as truth on a world wide viewable forum.
If you can or have proof of such, please show it or stow it away in your own web site.
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Pair of Pairs
Bill...
You noted that:
Bessler's 4th Law of Motion is a mathematical "statement" that tells us that, in any overbalanced gravity wheel, there will always be a net dropping of the weights taking place and this effect will only occur IF the CG of the rotating array of weights is offset horizontally from the wheel's axle and the wheel is in motion (that is, has some non-zero rotation rate).
Therefore, in accordance with the definition you gave for a law in physics, we see that Bessler's 4th Law of Motion is "invariable" for all overbalanced gravity wheels IF certain specified conditions are met.
As I have previously stated, however, Bessler 4th Law of Motion only applies to overbalanced gravity wheels and therefore has limited application in mechanics.
But, I suspect that if Newton had visited Bessler and been allowed to examine his wheels, then he probably would have formulated this additional law of motion in about a half hour or so! It took me somewhat longer than that to finally come up with it...
ken
You noted that:
and, of course, I would agree with that definition.a law in physics is, "a statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met."
Bessler's 4th Law of Motion is a mathematical "statement" that tells us that, in any overbalanced gravity wheel, there will always be a net dropping of the weights taking place and this effect will only occur IF the CG of the rotating array of weights is offset horizontally from the wheel's axle and the wheel is in motion (that is, has some non-zero rotation rate).
Therefore, in accordance with the definition you gave for a law in physics, we see that Bessler's 4th Law of Motion is "invariable" for all overbalanced gravity wheels IF certain specified conditions are met.
As I have previously stated, however, Bessler 4th Law of Motion only applies to overbalanced gravity wheels and therefore has limited application in mechanics.
But, I suspect that if Newton had visited Bessler and been allowed to examine his wheels, then he probably would have formulated this additional law of motion in about a half hour or so! It took me somewhat longer than that to finally come up with it...
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
-
docfeelsgood
- Aficionado
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:38 am
re: Pair of Pairs
JIM ; when i was a kid and horses were still king my dad said "son , ya can't pound brains inta a horse !! :)
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Pair of Pairs
Wheeler wrote:
Jim...
I was expecting a more analytical response from you rather than the posting of childish graphics in an attempt to lampoon what I had to offer.
Doc wrote:
I can only re-iterate that I see the expression I derived for the average vertical velocity of weights with respect to the axle in an overbalanced wheel as being a quite logical way of rationalizing how an array of weights moving around a closed path in a gravity field might be able to continuously output usable energy.
If anybody else has a better explanation that could account for this, then I would certainly like to see it...
ken
I only presented the results of a mathematical derivation I performed which, to the best of my knowledge, are accurate. I did not "make up" any part of it. Did you even read the summary of the derivation I presented over in the Community Buzz forum in my "...Updates" thread of what I am calling "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" ? Did you understand the derivation and its implications?I see you are starting again to make up things as if they were already true.
Please for the sake of all who read, do not leave this statement as truth on a world wide viewable forum.
If you can or have proof of such, please show it or stow it away in your own web site.
Jim...
I was expecting a more analytical response from you rather than the posting of childish graphics in an attempt to lampoon what I had to offer.
Doc wrote:
I agree...I sometimes feel that the same could be said of some of my fellow mobilists......my dad said "son , ya can't pound brains inta a horse !!
I can only re-iterate that I see the expression I derived for the average vertical velocity of weights with respect to the axle in an overbalanced wheel as being a quite logical way of rationalizing how an array of weights moving around a closed path in a gravity field might be able to continuously output usable energy.
If anybody else has a better explanation that could account for this, then I would certainly like to see it...
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Pair of Pairs
Ken,
Someone once said, "A picture is worth a thousand words."
Until we find the answer I feel that any speculation as to a law concerning Bessler's Wheel is very much premature. Until or if an answer is found we will not know how or why such a wheel might work. Therefore any "statement" or "law" about how Bessler's wheel worked can not be proven one way or another. So when you keep spouting off about your self proclaimed "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" it irritates me. If you stated your ideas once or twice I could let it pass. But your continuous barrage of hogwash ideas being posted as a "law" or a "statement" of fact or as "Bessler's" I find insulting, especially to Bessler. It is NOT a law. It is NOT a know fact. It is NOT Bessler's.
Once you get an idea in your mind there is little chance of changing your mind. You're like a stubborn mule that just squats there and continues to bray and bray. You clutter up my Pair of Pairs thread with your nonsense speculation about Ken's (NOT Bessler's) 4th law of motion, with nonsense speculation concerning Newton and with nonsense speculation about "rest masses" being converted to kinetic energy.
I'm not going to analyze your "4th law" because I consider it foolish nonsense, or in other words pure hogwash.
Someone once said, "A picture is worth a thousand words."
Until we find the answer I feel that any speculation as to a law concerning Bessler's Wheel is very much premature. Until or if an answer is found we will not know how or why such a wheel might work. Therefore any "statement" or "law" about how Bessler's wheel worked can not be proven one way or another. So when you keep spouting off about your self proclaimed "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" it irritates me. If you stated your ideas once or twice I could let it pass. But your continuous barrage of hogwash ideas being posted as a "law" or a "statement" of fact or as "Bessler's" I find insulting, especially to Bessler. It is NOT a law. It is NOT a know fact. It is NOT Bessler's.
Once you get an idea in your mind there is little chance of changing your mind. You're like a stubborn mule that just squats there and continues to bray and bray. You clutter up my Pair of Pairs thread with your nonsense speculation about Ken's (NOT Bessler's) 4th law of motion, with nonsense speculation concerning Newton and with nonsense speculation about "rest masses" being converted to kinetic energy.
I'm not going to analyze your "4th law" because I consider it foolish nonsense, or in other words pure hogwash.
re: Pair of Pairs
I watched the video. It looks like some of the rolling weight transfer type wheels. I doubt that this is and actual working prototype. The video shows their modified bycycle wheel running for a couple of seconds. Too bad they haven't joined the board.
Vic Hays
Ambassador MFG LLC
Ambassador MFG LLC
-
LustInBlack
- Devotee
- Posts: 1964
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:30 am
re: Pair of Pairs
Uh..
What is the real subject of this thread ?! ..
And.. I also think that inventing a suposed law based on suposition is about the same as saying you have a working wheel when in fact you don't..
Which is, something you don't like (when people do that); Ken, am I wrong?!
What is the real subject of this thread ?! ..
And.. I also think that inventing a suposed law based on suposition is about the same as saying you have a working wheel when in fact you don't..
Which is, something you don't like (when people do that); Ken, am I wrong?!
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Pair of Pairs
Gentlemen...
I'm sorry if my last post here had a angry tone to it. I realize that it can take some time for new ideas and concepts to gain acceptance in any field of inquiry and my derivation of what I have dubbed "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" is really only about a half a week old! I had thought for many prior years that something like it might exist, but even I was taken by surprise by its sudden emergence.
Some seem perturbed by what appears to be my premature use of the word "law" in describing the outcome of the derivation I performed in those early morning hours while suffering from another bout of insomnia. However, I am confident that a curious reader who does make the effort to review my very simple derivation of it will be most impressed by what it indicates.
For many decades, if not centuries, skeptics have dismissed the entire quest for mechanical self-motive power on the assertion that weights moving in a closed path can not continously output energy to the environment because of the "conservative" nature of the gravitational force. My derivation indicates that this is not always the case and, I believe, offers the mobilist effective ammunition in refuting this age-old dismissive argument of the skeptics.
If my derivation is accurate (and I believe it is), then we can now predict the power output for a one-directional wheel simply by knowing its rotational rate, the total mass of the weights driving it, and the distance that the CG of those weights is maintained to one side of the wheel's axle. We do not need to know the exact mechanism needed to achieve the effect.
I've named this law after Bessler and not myself because if it was not for Johann Bessler's achievements, then I would never have sought a mathematical expression for the new law to start with. I feel that the term "law" is more appropriate for it because of its application to any type of chronically overbalanced rotary system regardless of the mechanisms employed to maintain the imbalance.
I, therefore, have to consider it a discovery of some significance, yet it still does not resolve the main problem that occupies most of the members of this Discussion Board...it does not provide us with the actual mechanism Bessler employed. So, it is, afterall, not the biggest discovery that one could make. It's kind of like winning a bronze medal in the Olympics when one had his heart set on taking home the gold medal.
At, a minimum, it does, however, indicate that mechanical perpetual motion IS physically possible...IF one has the secret mechanism that chronically maintains the imbalance of the weight carrying wheel. This is comforting in light of the assertions of many skeptics that claim even a chronically overbalanced wheel could not continuously output usable energy to its environment.
ken
I'm sorry if my last post here had a angry tone to it. I realize that it can take some time for new ideas and concepts to gain acceptance in any field of inquiry and my derivation of what I have dubbed "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" is really only about a half a week old! I had thought for many prior years that something like it might exist, but even I was taken by surprise by its sudden emergence.
Some seem perturbed by what appears to be my premature use of the word "law" in describing the outcome of the derivation I performed in those early morning hours while suffering from another bout of insomnia. However, I am confident that a curious reader who does make the effort to review my very simple derivation of it will be most impressed by what it indicates.
For many decades, if not centuries, skeptics have dismissed the entire quest for mechanical self-motive power on the assertion that weights moving in a closed path can not continously output energy to the environment because of the "conservative" nature of the gravitational force. My derivation indicates that this is not always the case and, I believe, offers the mobilist effective ammunition in refuting this age-old dismissive argument of the skeptics.
If my derivation is accurate (and I believe it is), then we can now predict the power output for a one-directional wheel simply by knowing its rotational rate, the total mass of the weights driving it, and the distance that the CG of those weights is maintained to one side of the wheel's axle. We do not need to know the exact mechanism needed to achieve the effect.
I've named this law after Bessler and not myself because if it was not for Johann Bessler's achievements, then I would never have sought a mathematical expression for the new law to start with. I feel that the term "law" is more appropriate for it because of its application to any type of chronically overbalanced rotary system regardless of the mechanisms employed to maintain the imbalance.
I, therefore, have to consider it a discovery of some significance, yet it still does not resolve the main problem that occupies most of the members of this Discussion Board...it does not provide us with the actual mechanism Bessler employed. So, it is, afterall, not the biggest discovery that one could make. It's kind of like winning a bronze medal in the Olympics when one had his heart set on taking home the gold medal.
At, a minimum, it does, however, indicate that mechanical perpetual motion IS physically possible...IF one has the secret mechanism that chronically maintains the imbalance of the weight carrying wheel. This is comforting in light of the assertions of many skeptics that claim even a chronically overbalanced wheel could not continuously output usable energy to its environment.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
-
LustInBlack
- Devotee
- Posts: 1964
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:30 am
re: Pair of Pairs
Ken, Ok I think I see your point now..
It wasn't that clear when I read the post !
What you are saying, is basicly that you provide more than faith in the phenomenon, you provide proof..
I am not sure of the steps you used to do that or how you implement your "law" .. The only thing I do not agree is calling it a Law..
It's only the syntax... I think you should call it a theory since nobody except you proved it right .. Which is why I believe we got a bit angry..
Anyways, now you can say that you not only believe in perpetual motion, but that you have more than faith .. Which is good motivation so I agree !
It wasn't that clear when I read the post !
What you are saying, is basicly that you provide more than faith in the phenomenon, you provide proof..
I am not sure of the steps you used to do that or how you implement your "law" .. The only thing I do not agree is calling it a Law..
It's only the syntax... I think you should call it a theory since nobody except you proved it right .. Which is why I believe we got a bit angry..
Anyways, now you can say that you not only believe in perpetual motion, but that you have more than faith .. Which is good motivation so I agree !