Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[Michael]

that it was to be found in nature

Gives equal credibility to Bill's approach.

[Bessler007]

evgwheel,

People have differing motivation. Everyone here is interested in what and why other's think about Bessler's wheel.

Proof
Right
Wrong
Are we all aiming to discover a free energy wheel, with the main source of energy coming from gravity?
If so, is this forum meant to learn from each other by input from all members, and broaden our own minds?

Mr. Collins,

I hope you didn't take personally my rejection of your idea summed in the title of this thread. I'm a little slow, mentally. I suppose that's because I don't think as some do. I see a difference between a person and their ideas.

Some try to associate an idea to another to make them look ridiculous. Why do you think they call us cranks? The title of your thread could be restated like this:

Reasnons why physicists don't know what they're talking about

You put it a little more kindly but the meaning is the same.

[Bessler007]

Steve,

What is that Bessler quote?

Hey Bess...

...

Where is this natural path? ovyyus explained why the example of a fluid river isn't that path. Do you think differently and if so why?

Heck, if I knew just where it was I would tell ya! That was just a little tidbit that Bessler had mentioned as far as the principle goes....that it was to be found in nature, or something like that....the river example is just that, an example...that discussion had more to do with thermal cycle and the rise/fall of precipitation (if there is no rise, there is no fall....if there is no fall, there is no rise...chicken/egg)....that is not what I am alluding to here. Sorry if that came out wrong, Bess.

...


Steve

[John Collins]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me at all, Bessler. I put this thread up to see what people thought of my ramblings and although many obviously disagree with me, it has been a worthwhile effort for me at least. I have learned a bit more which might help me in the end. I hope it has aided others in their search too.

I'm coming around to Bill's way of thinking but not completely. I think some of our disagreements on this forum are due to terminology and what we understand by the names we use for different forces.


John

[Bessler007]

I think Plato put it this way, 'before we can discuss the matter we need to first define the terms.' That's a good philosophy that helps eliminate misunderstandings.

I wouldn't be too quick to agree with the position of egghead physicists. If you think Bessler's wheel turned without any fraud you have to conclude the weights were a 'river' of mass in motion. That, kind sir, is the very definition of rotational kinetic energy.

I'm coming around to Bill's way of thinking but not completely.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Bess....

AP...Pg. 269...J. Collins pub.

"After these solace-giving thoughts had veen digested, I became a new man! I brushed aside all notions about public office, and strengthened my religious faith. I would have success in my project! The right path is there - the thing is somewhere in Nature's laws. So I continued to put my faith in God..." and so on.....


Steve

[10x]

he Atmos perpetual clock is a great example - although the principle can't be made to do practical work.

The problem with the Bessler wheel is that from what was noted about it:
"wheel covered in canvas" such as the barometric pressure could have been an external force used to cause the help of over balance, along with inertia etc.

Simple reality is that it takes more than gravity to make such a device work.

Inertia, centrifical force, pendulums torque etc, have so far not been able to do such.

So what was available at that time to add the extra energy needed?

[wheelmaster]

Imo Bessler used what I like to call

The Cause Effect Cause Theory.

In order for a wheel to run the mechs inside must have cause and effect. We know this all to well. The difference would be effect must affect cause.

Any action will have an equal and opposite reaction that must be used to effect the original action. If you can master looping a reaction to the action then you will have a running wheel.

[daxwc]

10x wrote:

So what was available at that time to add the extra energy needed?

Energy is mass, mass is energy. We are only held back by our preconceived ideas on the subject. I have no problem calling Atmos perpetual clock a perpetual motion device. This clock was made by using the differential barometric pressure ... some of us are trying to get a wheel to work though the differential in gravity. Nobody I think is out to break Newtons laws and a perpetual motion machine doesn't have to.

[graham]

So far I have not contributed to this thread but have read it with interest.

For what it's worth I agree with John that we do not have to alter any of the fundamentals in the "Laws of Physics" to discover Besslers Method. His method works within the KNOWN laws and the major hurdle seems to be that he is able to create energy out of nowhere.

Gravity is a force that is far from being fully understood even in our 21st century,and may well be capable of being "tapped" for the production of energy under the right conditions. That's where people like us come into the picture.
I like the idea of shifting weights "out of phase then back in phase" to upset the balance.

He lived in much simpler times than we do today and to look for some mysterious force either inside or outside the wheel is probably an incorrect approach. Remember; Karl was surprised no one had thought of it before.

By saying "one side is heavy, the other empty and light", he is telling you that the wheel is gravity driven. That much seems obvious.

JMTC

Graham

[10x]

We are only held back by our preconceived ideas on the subject.

Well the available stuff to Bessler is the same as today. Short on nuke. LOL

the reality is if gravity formated as is suspected, one must over come the incline plane problem. Such is that even overcoming the friction of such gets no extra power. Were did such come from?

It was said it was simple. On that, I and most may be over complicating it in fact.

Am giving it a lot of though. Am looking at some ideas on paper that so far do not follow the drawing of such shown. It looks to simple to be true to my way of thinking.

[bluesgtr44]

Think about this....here we have a man who dedicated his life to basically, one pursuit. He knew the basics very well as to what would and would not work at the point where he had his epiphany...his dream. From this he came across the first motion...one that would actually, spontaneously revolve a little.

At the time he found this, he is called away to cure some patients and ends up getting married...comes to settle in Gera and builds his first working wheel....all in less than a years time...with horse and cart. It had to be fairly simple. Once he saw the movement, he knew what to do. Oh, and when he returned, someone had broken into his home...although his disassembled mechanisms were not bothered...he does mention this. I am not sure of the time period from when he actually settled in Gera and then introduced his first wheel, but I am very assured that it was just a few months. He knew exactly what to do once he saw that movement.

When you go through MT, his positive mentions on the possibility of some designs, leads one to believe that the principle is adaptable to many OOB situations. So, I have seen what doesn't work and why it won't work....now I look for what a typical system needs to make that spontaneous revolution he talked about....from there it is going to be a piece of cake.


Steve

[graham]

from there it is going to be a piece of cake

Let em eat cake. Can I have a large slice please?

I have an idea that has a heavy "energy sink" sort of flywheel at the center of the main wheel. Free to rotate independantly of the whole shebang yet at the same time coupled .
This is my "excess weight" and it will not only eliminate "back torque" from my swinging weights but will act as an inertial accumulator.

All I have to do is work out the details !!!!

Graham

[Fletcher]

For what it's worth I agree with John that we do not have to alter any of the fundamentals in the "Laws of Physics" to discover Besslers Method. His method works within the KNOWN laws and the major hurdle seems to be that he is able to create energy out of nowhere.

Many assume he created 'energy from nowhere' - he certainly needed a force to shifts weights around inside his wheels BUT there is no evidence that he created energy, even from nowhere - you cannot create energy from nothing but you can pilfer energy/force from other sources that can then replenish itself from the wider environment so that it appears that the wheel had continuous surplus energy available - but that energy did come from somewhere else so no CoE Laws need be violated.

IMO his wheels were energy wasters [just like any other mechanical engines, so well under OU] but he used environmental energy to replenish the source of force to his Prime Movers.

I like the idea of shifting weights "out of phase then back in phase" to upset the balance ... snip & add ... By saying "one side is heavy, the other empty and light", he is telling you that the wheel is gravity driven. That much seems obvious.

He lived in much simpler times than we do today and to look for some mysterious force either inside or outside the wheel is probably an incorrect approach. Remember; Karl was surprised no one had thought of it before.

He shows & describes many OOB wheel mechs as a method/principle to overbalance a wheel - but not continuously overbalance - you need a Prime Mover to shift/lift the weights at the appropriate time, which he hides from us, as 'one word' could give it away !

He [Bessler] knew the basics very well as to what would and would not work at the point where he had his epiphany...his dream. From this he came across the first motion...one that would actually, spontaneously revolve a little ... snip ... comes to settle in Gera and builds his first working wheel....all in less than a years time... It had to be fairly simple. Once he saw the movement, he knew what to do ... snip ... He knew exactly what to do once he saw that movement.

He would not have had any 'bankable' shifting force but a curious idea that he could experiment with - as he experimented he was impressed with its potential to be a Prime Mover of reckoning/power & was quickly able to see its favour over all else he had tried ... "he knew why everything else had failed".

When you go through MT, his positive mentions on the possibility of some designs, leads one to believe that the principle is adaptable to many OOB situations. So, I have seen what doesn't work and why it won't work....now I look for what a typical system needs to make that spontaneous revolution he talked about....from there it is going to be a piece of cake.

My suggestion .. Separate the secondary effect [WHAT = OOB mech] from the primary affect [HOW = Prime Mover] - It may help, or not ?!

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Fletch...if we are on the same page here...

My suggestion .. Separate the secondary effect [WHAT = OOB mech] from the primary affect [HOW = Prime Mover] - It may help, or not ?!

There is more than one system at work here and they are interdependant...I think that would be right...one affects the other....and the resultant is an OOB condition. OK, Fletch..Graham, Michael, Jim, Ralph, Bill, Mik, etc....once this is known, it does have to be regulated...would you not agree? I mean, OOB is not a problem...controlling (regulating) then becomes the priority or it would not be able to balance at it's new found PQ. I hope this makes sense....


Steve