New guy, new idea?

[Gregory]

What was it? Simple. If the revelations that occurred to Einstein in 1905 are correct, then the very mass of the weights within Bessler's wheels were the "fuel" or source of energy that they were able to output to their environments in order to perform useful work.

The secret of continuously unleashing this energy is the mechanism Bessler found that managed to chronically maintain the CG of a wheel's weights on the descending side of the wheel's axle. Once we find that mechanism, then we should be able to replicate his wheels with all of their performance parameters.

ken

Ken,

I'm new here, and I don't want to be disrespectful with you and with others, but I can't resist to comment on this. Lets say I have no skills around the field of physics, but I also think what you believe is physical impossibility. You said that the weights lose their mass because they are enclosed in a case where they can drive a wheel, because their CG stay constantly on the descending side. Why? This is quite unlogical for me to say the least.

OK, we have a wheel runs cool, because able to deal with the forces on the right ways. And the weights lose their mass over time? How? Gravity converts the mass into energy? Or the motion converts the mass into energy? Or what? Reminds me something like a spontaneous nuclear reaction... Mass dissapears? I donÂ’t like to think about this.

Your theory sound like: There must be a source for the energy, so we can choose the weights for this. But this is not the right way of thinking, IMHO. It much more sound like a mysterious event, or magic, or something like this, and mystery will never drives our wheel. It drives our mind, and can make us feel like explorers on an unknow land, give the force to go ahead and donÂ’t give up, but directly donÂ’t make our wheel rotate.

What happens if I take my computer, put it in a box then fix the box on a wheel, and attach the thing to a motor, and let it spin for 200 years for example. Will my computer lose any of its mass? (except friction maybe) I donÂ’t think so. Why would be it different with a working gravity wheel? That also has weights inside, and rotate. There is no difference for me about the ability of losing mass. If the weights inside a working wheel lose some mass, my computer will lose too. :)

Gravity acts through the mass of the weights. This can be the source for the energy. Not the weights alone, and also not gravity alone. The interaction between them, that can be a source, the motion of itself, the difference. I consider the operation of the wheel in a simple way for myself: ItÂ’s a machine which has the unique property, an ability to use simple static forces to achieve continous motion, which means energy by todays science. With other words It can convert single forces into useful forces by its mechanics and its motion. Something like this, I think. There is no big mystery hereÂ… We donÂ’t need to consider EinsteinsÂ’ physics for a gravity wheel.

Of course it is only my personal opinion. IÂ’ve already read the mass losing theory for the sixth time, this the reason for my post, sorry if it sounds hard or bad. I am just wondering about the great old members on this forum, How many times theyÂ’ve read about this theoryÂ…?

The other repeating pattern is the CG of the system, which is not as important as you think Ken. Not the CG is which drive the wheel. For example now I’m testing a model in simulation, where the CG can be considered at the center of the axle, and the machine begin to spin by itself and accelerating to 8 rpm within 2 seconds. How this is possible? Not a big bang… Like Bessler said: „A driver drives, a runner runs…”

So Ken, please only for one tryoutÂ… Forget the CG and other usual thoughts, and open a clear, new book. That can be a journey to success, really. Take it and you will feel.

Respectfully,
Greg

[LustInBlack]

Greg,

Good luck trying to insert anything into Ken's brain .. He is going on a trip with no destination..

I am irritated when he comes up here, post his answer that he believes is the only real possible unique answer to everything and post 100000 worthless words to describe something that can be explained in 10 simple words.

Oh, and don't forget, he forged the Bessler's perpetual motion law, he should know everything .. But he does'nt have any working wheel ..

!???


I am presently visiting older threads, and he didn't act that way before, or to a lesser extend .. I don't know what happened ..

[Gregory]

Thanks LIB,

This is my first & last... I don't want to worry about a theory one more time. Also don't want to annoy myself with it.

Have a good time for reading!

[jim_mich]

I am just wondering about the great old members on this forum, How many times theyÂ’ve read about this theoryÂ…?

I've read it soooo many times it makes me sick! And each time I see it again, it upsets me. It is a bunch of horse crap! Ken feels a need to define where the energy to drive a gravity wheel comes yet he refuses to believe that gravity can be a source of energy, so he invents a fictitious way to power a wheel. Then he continually shoves his cockamamie theory in our face hoping some of us will buy into his absurd foolishness. He seems to believe, as Joseph Goebbels said, "A lie repeated often enough is eventually believed."

The other repeating pattern is the CG of the system

And I get tired of reading Ken's crappy CG formula. It is impossible for the average vertical velocity of drive weights to be anything other than zero. The average vertical velocity of a water wheel paddle is zero. The average vertical velocity of an internal combustion engine piston is zero. Time x Velocity up will always equal Time x Velocity down, when the machine in question remains vertically fixed. It might be possible for a gravity wheel to be powered by inertial momentum and have its CG always very close to balanced.

Ken seems to think this is his own personal blog. He posts a reply to every active thread every day. If every member were to do that the forum would soon come to a bloated halt. I voiced my complaint a long time ago but it did little good. He shortened his postings by a few paragraphs for a few weeks then went back to his old habits.

I've been accused in the past of not wanting Ken to post. That's not true. He has the right to post what he wants. I just feel that he abuses the forum by his verbose drivel. But who am I to tell Ken what he should or should not post?

Maybe Scott could set up a "words per week" limit. I would like to see a list of average words per day posted by each member. I think Ken's word count would be three to five time anyone elseÂ’s and probably ten to twenty times the average of the top 50 members.

Just my opinions.

[scott]

Before we hijack poor ozzy's first thread any more, please see my new thread in Off-Topic.

Ozzy, thanks again for joining the board and sharing your thoughts. I look forward to lots of *productive* discussion with you. Now, back to *your* topic.

-Scott

[bluesgtr44]

Gravity is a force. Therefore, one would think it to be a source. I agree with J. Collins in that it would be gravity powered...but, the secret...IMHO, would be the mechanical arrangement of the weights to allow gravity to just be the constant force that it is. Bessler basically states this...and when he speaks of the increase of power being directly proportional to the mass of the weights and the diameter of the wheel, gravity is just being gravity...he hasn't found a way to increase or decrease it. He learned how to gain that advantage (mechanical) that allows it to be a continous loop.

About pinning to the wheel...I have mentioned before that I do not believe that this is the way to go...if...if...they are left at bay to the reaction forces. Something has to interfere or offset these forces. For a good idea of what Ralph is talking about when he mentions pinning...go to Ken's thread and look at any of his designs. They are for the most part trapped into the "pinning" situation to which Ralph and I know will not work without that special something...and I am still waiting to see that in one of Ken's designs.


Steve

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich.

I know I said I would drop this subject! but Steve's above post only rekindles the debate. So I hope you will not mind a little rebut in a formal parliamentary way!

Often, centripetal force is confused with centrifugal force. While centripetal force is a real force,-that is, the force is due to the influence of some object or field-centrifugal force is a fictitious force. A fictitious force is present only when a system is examined from an accelerating frame of reference. If the same system is examined from a non-accelerating frame of reference, all the fictitious forces disappear.

This in IMO is to say that an object pinned to the wheel is experiencing a real force which is centripetal. That force maintains the symmetry of the symmetrical placed pins. As such it negates the fictitious force of CF.

I must state this is not always true. As a weight swings about a pivot (hinge) point on a turning (or not turning) wheel, CF from the swinging weight will pull or push upon the pivot point at various angles and cause the wheel to rotate faster or slower. So CF (a form of inertial momentum) can push or pull a wheel just as gravity can.

Now this is where I have my problem! CF is only induced after the wheel is turning it will only push if the pin is to the outer side of the weight. It cannot push or pull a wheel unless already active by inertial momentum which is a force you are attempting to create with a fictional force. Once the rpm forces the centrifugal to its extreme or retention by pin or rim then although still present if is useless except for applying kinetic energy by mass. And here again Kinetic energy produced by motion cannot by built without an inertial force to start and maintain it.

For example, a person on a rotating merry-go-round would experience a centrifugal force that pulls away from the center of the ride. The person experiences this force only because he or she is on the rotating merry-go-round, which is an accelerating frame of reference. If the same system is analyzed from the sidewalk next to the merry-go-round, which is a non-accelerating frame of reference, there is no centrifugal force. The individual on the sidewalk would only note the centripetal force that keeps the individual moving in a circular path. In general, real forces are present regardless of whether the reference frame used is accelerating or not accelerating; fictitious forces are present only in an accelerating frame of reference.

CF from the swinging weight will pull or push upon the pivot point at various angles and cause the wheel to rotate faster or slower. So CF (a form of inertial momentum) can push or pull a wheel just as gravity can.

This statement also poses another problem with the term "swinging" weight.

In the case of CF, the only way to get a pinned weight to swing is to pulse the acceleration then reduce the rpm. If one can accomplish this then you must consider that what you are gaining by slowing the wheel is the inertial force applied to the weight. This is lost upon re-accelerating.

Ozzy's original drawing shows the weights on the top of one scissor section and on the bottom of the other per unit. Thus one is closing while the other is opening. The only one that will fully extend is at six o'clock, anything between 12 and six or six and 12 will equalize


Ralph

[Gregory]

Gravity is a force. Therefore, one would think it to be a source. I agree with J. Collins in that it would be gravity powered...but, the secret...IMHO, would be the mechanical arrangement of the weights to allow gravity to just be the constant force that it is. Bessler basically states this...and when he speaks of the increase of power being directly proportional to the mass of the weights and the diameter of the wheel, gravity is just being gravity...he hasn't found a way to increase or decrease it. He learned how to gain that advantage (mechanical) that allows it to be a continous loop.

About pinning to the wheel...I have mentioned before that I do not believe that this is the way to go...if...if...they are left at bay to the reaction forces. Something has to interfere or offset these forces. For a good idea of what Ralph is talking about when he mentions pinning...go to Ken's thread and look at any of his designs. They are for the most part trapped into the "pinning" situation to which Ralph and I know will not work without that special something...and I am still waiting to see that in one of Ken's designs.


Steve

I absolutely agree, you've written very well, it's my viewpoint too.

[jim_mich]

Ralph,
According to the academians you're correct about centripetal force being considered real and centrifugal force as fictitious. But many Americans just use the term centrifugal. The fact is that whenever the one force is present the other is also present. You cannot have one without the other. Frame of reference makes no difference as to whether there is a force or not, if only affects how we name those forces. Again we come back to my reason for just calling them by one name, centrifugal force. Did you ever stop to realize that both forces are always positive? We don't use one name for gravity and another for the earth force pushing up on our feet! When I write computer programs to analyze moving weights, I don't calculate one value for centripetal force and another for centrifugal force. No, I just calculate a single outward force. So I make a habit (right or wrong) of just using the more common term centrifugal force. So let's agree to leave the academic terminology to the academians. Suppose I just use the abbreviation CF and nobody will know the difference, OK?

CF is caused by inertial momentum. Objects like to stay put when not moving and they like to stay moving in a straight line when they are moving. So CF is just a subset of inertial momentum. CF is a unique case where a weight pivots around a pivot point. So what terminology should we use when a weight swings around a pivot point that is itself rotating around on a wheel? This is no longer a true circular arc and neither is it a true straight line. It's a hybrid between the two. Do we need to create yet another word for this type of situation? I don't think so. Again I just use the word centrifugal to get my meaning across. I must admit it may not be the exact right word to use but I think my meaning is conveyed.

So, Ralph, do we agree to agree with what I've stated so far?

Ozzy's original drawing shows the weights on the top of one scissor section and ...

Ozzy only posted a wheel with "L" levers and weights. I think you're referring to the post by Kas on the "New Bessler Code Theory" thread which has the unusual scissor jacks. I've not taken the time to analyze his jacks wheel so I'm not real sure exactly what will happen. Remember, I try to keep an open mind and try to never jump to conclusions.

Ralph, I think you look at a wheel with swinging pendulums as being swingingly static. In other words the weights swing to the outer most position and get held there by CF. I look as the swinging weights as being put into a situation where they are not static but are forever swinging about there pivot points. Under my proposed conditions the weights inertial momentum CF can cause the weights to push on their pivot pin and at other time pull on the pin. For instance, if a weight on a rotating wheel is straight out (as you might expect it to be) and that weight is suddenly forced to swing backwards inward it will be moved to a rotational path with a smaller diameter. It will be forced to slow down. It will push on its pivot pin. It will give up inertial energy to the wheel. Of course there must be a force applied to the weight to make it swing inward. But that force might come from another interconnected weight that is now allowed to swing outward driven by CF. The two weights might continually dance back and forth and never reach quietness. In the process they might pump the wheel. I have worked with a number of wheels where inter-connected weights swing back and forth as the wheel rotates. At times their momentum pulls the wheel at at other times it pushes the wheel. Now do we call all these inter-acting forces CF or momentum force or what. As I said, it is a hybrid force I'm dealing with.

I'm not saying that Kas's wheel will do this. What I am saying is don't assume that all swinging weights will automatically get "pinned" to the rim by CF as that is a false statement. And don't assume that CF can only pull. If a pendulum is inside of the pivot location then CF can push.

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich,

So, Ralph, do we agree to agree with what I've stated so far?

Yes we do! and as in most encyclopedias, if you look up Centrifugal force, it will simply redirect you to Centripetal force. They are both positive but not always equal. Strength of centripetal is a physical transference that can be overcome by CF. such as the ball flying off in a straight line when the string breaks.

So what terminology should we use when a weight swings around a pivot point that is itself rotating around on a wheel? This is no longer a true circular arc and neither is it a true straight line. It's a hybrid between the two. Do we need to create yet another word for this type of situation?

I am kind of biased to Bacons description by Ted of Chicago that already has a created terminology for such hybrid. Note that the word "Axis" that you rebuked me on is employed here. And the term is "Vortices"

These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium (or point of rest) for themselves but incessantly seek with their admirably fast swing to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside and are proportional to the size of the housing.

Ozzy only posted a wheel with "L" levers and weights. I think you're referring to the post by Kas on the "New Bessler Code Theory" thread which has the unusual scissor jacks.

Your are right and I stand corrected. With all the commotion going on over Ken, I confused the two threads. I apologize for this oversight.

It will push on its pivot pin. It will give up inertial energy to the wheel. Of course there must be a force applied to the weight to make it swing inward. But that force might come from another interconnected weight that is now allowed to swing outward driven by CF. The two weights might continually dance back and forth and never reach quietness.

Pair of pairs or just pairs. To overcome the balance between CF and CP, I agree that you need to build a hybrid force. I believe that this is easiest accomplished by using gravity induced AM to amplify or augment CP allowing CF to become a more potential force, or to state that there is gradient between them.

Now maybe we both can understand where each one of us is coming from.
I say that Ken in all his designs, never showed a concept that contained a glimmer of these possibilities.

Spell check seems to be down, forgive any spelling errors

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Ralph, we seem to be in agreement. :)

[Michael]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Ralph ALL forces are paired. I say this to you because you cannot overcome one force with its pair, no matter how you think of augmenting it. To do so would be the same as having a one sided coin, or a true inertialess drive.

[bluesgtr44]

Ralph, we seem to be in agreement. :)

Crap...now I'm confused. First day off, it's early and need more coffee. If the weights are not attached to the wheel, are they still feeling CpF. Cf is outward and CpF is inward...if the weights are not attached, it would be the rim that holds them in (CF). There being no attachment to the center how would CpF have any affect on them? Probably going to look pretty dumb for this one....


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

I absolutely agree, you've written very well, it's my viewpoint too.

Thank you very much, Greg! I have done a lot of testing with WM2D to try and see just what is happening with these reaction forces. I use smaller weights a lot of times and force things to turn just to get a good grip on how these forces work together and for me...this way just seems to work better. I guess my approach would be kind of like..."know your enemy..."

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Ralph ALL forces are paired.

I agree, Michael...if they are connected...what if they aren't? You would have two separate mechanisms with two separate reactions, would you not? And they might not equal out...

I am wondering if WM2D is not affecting the basic set up and premise of what we have come to accept as a visual concept. If one were to just look at the most used configuration by this program...it would stand out that we mostly start with the circle function and work from there...(i.e. a wheel). Maybe, we are letting this program lead us instead of us leading the program....notice how little we see experiments or tests with crossbeams? hmmmm, just a bit easier to draw a circle, perhaps.


Steve

[rlortie]

Steve,

Crap...now I'm confused. First day off, it's early and need more coffee. If the weights are not attached to the wheel, are they still feeling CpF. Cf is outward and CpF is inward...if the weights are not attached, it would be the rim that holds them in (CF). There being no attachment to the center how would CpF have any affect on them? Probably going to look pretty dumb for this one....

Confusing yes, dumb no!

If the weights are not attached CpF is still present. As you state the rim holds them in and that is your physical force of CPF. not CF.. CF forces the weights to the rim or a 'stop', that impediment is your point of CpF.

Once a weight is extended to it's physical limits. Then CF no longer can force it outward as CpF is now playing the major role. If CF becomes strong enough to break through the physical retainment of Cpf then your weight will leave the wheel in the trajectory that it parted from.

As Jim and I agree, CF is a fictional force, It is just simpler to describe and relate to than the true force of Cpf. One is materialism (philosophic theory that physical matter is the only reality) and the other gains induced equal potential only after the rim, stop or pivot point is reached.

Twirling a ball on a string over your head. The string is the material CpF. Cf keeps the string tight, they are equal. If not equal then the string is either slack or the ball is gone! Once the string breaks, then you loose both CpF and CF as they are both replaced with inertial induced kinetic energy.

Now how does this relate to building a gravity wheel? "The Bow Twangs" 'the Jack fires" An intermittent hybrid force is created to disrupt the equal potential of CpF and CF. In doing so you have the kinetic energy working with and by gravity to turn the wheel.

Ralph