Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[John Collins]

Yes, Graham, there are many references to Karl's character and personality. The consensus was that he was a very honourable man, gracious but discerning; highly educated, a visionary; and very tough despite not having the best of health. He was a natural entrepreneur and he was also a highly pragmatic man.

I'll try to find some comments verbatim and post them here.

John

[Fletcher]

Both Fletch. The same information appears many many times (more than 12 now). In addition there are a number of other reasons for the inclusion of this clue which is leading me by the nose into other areas also encoded. As Bessler says, the clues are depicted in more than one drawing, and they show something along the lines I described earlier which does show the method of application to shift weights & achieve continuous overbalance?

I suspect you have an inkling yourself of that method?

Thanks John. If you mean bellows, pneumatics, air valves, greased weights & "breathing life" into a machine then I have looked closely at this previously but it wouldn't count it as gravity only, in my book ? My current design is an attempt to use modern information & technology to create the maximum shifting force possible to provide the maximum asymmetric torque that I think I can muster - still it doesn't look like weights would move very far, even on a very big wheel.

As soon as you find a publisher & we hunt down the codes along with you, I predict there will be a great comparing of notes between all of us ;)

[bluesgtr44]

Hey john...

The prime mover is the weights that move the wheel by producing torque due to their being in an OOB position, so the thing which moves those weights into their OOB position is what we look for.

That nails it for me...I would venture to guess there would be 3 parts...the third being that which holds it all together.

The wheels were permanently OOB because when the wheel was stopped and tied down, the secondary weights naturally fell into a position which forced the prime movers to adopt an OOB position. As soon as the wheel was released and began to turn because the primary weights were OOB, they fell into a neutral position (not OOB) but the secondary weights would then be pushed into their own OOB position and at some point in rotation they would succeed in pushing the primary weights OOB again.

...Very interesting, would the difference in the weights of the primary and secondary be about 4x? Just asking....

Going with the Draschwitz wheel, it is sitting at a dead stop...tied off. A line is attached to the axle or shaft routed through a series of maybe 2-3 pullies to lift a load of 40 lbs. Now, from a dead stop, he releases the cord that holds it still...and it takes off! I cannot see how this can be anything other than an application of weight leverage given what we know. It was OOB...(10 minutes...give me just 10 minutes with the Draschwitz wheel) as many a witness has alluded to...they felt it! And if it is OOB, does it matter what is pushing the weight distribution out of sync...it is still gravity pulling them down.

To me, there is no difference. My discussion with Bill about thermal gradients, water flow and the cycle in and of itself....see, if there is no rise...there is no fall. Now, which came first....chicken/egg....the fall is gravity....no gravity no thermal gradient activity as we know it....so, where does gravity come in here? Seems to me like it has a very important responsibility in this operation...

Fletch!

I see the prime mover as Aerodynamic Lift that causes the secondary weights into a position of overbalance & springs restore the weights to their original positions.

I had also thought about this! A little wing that would project when the weight was at about the 5:30 position (CW rotation). The position of the wing would accelerate the weight with a bit of a looping type action towards the axle, passing a one way latch that when it ran out of gas....it could not go back beyond that point and the OOB was maintained....never could really grasp a way to synchronize a wing release much less maintain the direction....I still have the little "spiderman" glider I bought for my Grandson to watch the wing responses...I say little...it has a 22" inch wing span, but it was the tail wing that I was interested in!

John....

Both Fletch. The same information appears many many times (more than 12 now). In addition there are a number of other reasons for the inclusion of this clue which is leading me by the nose into other areas also encoded. As Bessler says, the clues are depicted in more than one drawing, and they show something along the lines I described earlier which does show the method of application to shift weights & achieve continuous overbalance?

I suspect you have an inkling yourself of that method?

Bessler said..."one word could give it all away...." 12 times? how much is there to say? Don't have to answer this one, John, but...does MT24 and 25 play any part in this?


Steve

[arthur]

arthur wrote:

All I'm trying to say is,
I don't think that people should give up on [{clever & simple), weighted, (spring assisted) lever system arrangements] just yet...

ovvyus wrote:

And I would never suggest that they do either. However, in the specific case of Bessler, I think there is good reason to suspect that his secret didn't violate any currently accepted laws of Physics - as would be the case if it was gravity powered.

back to the topic of this thread:)

does the currently accepted laws of Physics claim that an "over-balanced" wheel is impossible?

by "over-balanced" wheel I mean:
-----A simple wheel with 8 weights [attached to multiple, spring-assisted levers] - attached to the wheel.
-----The weights on the falling side of the wheel outweigh/overcome the weights on the rising side.

I would call this wheel gravity powered.
....and clearly there is good reason to suspect that bessler's wheel fits this "over-balanced" description.

If this "over-balanced" wheel violates the currently accepted laws of physics then I do not currently accept them!! lol

[ovyyus]

does the currently accepted laws of Physics claim that an "over-balanced" wheel is impossible?

No, of course not. A water wheel is one example of an over-balanced wheel that's clearly possible. Many different kinds of wheels are capable of over-balancing, using weights and levers, fluid, air, etc. The over-balance can be driven by the energy of lifted water, combustion, wind, beast, etc, - all proven and demonstrated prime movers capable of lifting weights against the force of gravity.

Every experiment to date shows that the conservative force of gravity only ever returns work that was previously invested in lifting a mass against it - never more. Therefore, based upon the currently accepted laws of Physics (arrived at through careful observation, measurement and testing), a gravity powered wheel is considered impossible.

If this "over-balanced" wheel violates the currently accepted laws of physics then I do not currently accept them!! lol

Your choice, however, how is it you can not currently accept a thing that you don't currently understand?

[Fletcher]

Hey Steve .. the difference there is John's interpretation of what is called the primary & secondary weight system. He calls the gravity OOB system the primary because that rotates the wheel. I & others call it the secondary because we must employ a Prime Mover force to cause the OOB weights to be OOB in the first place i.e. Primary = First , that is, without the Prime Mover First Force the other/secondary can't get past the keel & remains in balance & so no continuous rotation of the wheel.

Yes, I think many of us have toyed with the idea of flying aerofoils in a similar manner.

It is interesting to speculate about how something can "fall" into a neutral position, then influence another weight until it was in turn ready to "fall" into its neutral position - like a tumbling acrobat.

The wheels were permanently OOB because when the wheel was stopped and tied down, the secondary weights naturally fell into a position which forced the prime movers to adopt an OOB position.

As soon as the wheel was released and began to turn because the primary weights were OOB, they fell into a neutral position (not OOB) but the secondary weights would then be pushed into their own OOB position and at some point in rotation they would succeed in pushing the primary weights OOB again.

[arthur]

does the currently accepted laws of Physics claim that an "over-balanced" wheel is impossible?

No, of course not. A water wheel is one example of an over-balanced wheel that's clearly possible. Many different kinds of wheels are capable of over-balancing, using weights and levers, fluid, air, etc. The over-balance can be driven by the energy of lifted water, combustion, wind, beast, etc, - all proven and demonstrated prime movers capable of lifting weights against the force of gravity.

My question was if these "laws" deny the possibility of this:

---------The weights on the falling side of the wheel outweigh/overcome the weights on the rising side of the wheel-
I am not reffering to a water wheel ----I'm talking about a simple wheel with 8 weights [attached to multiple, spring-assisted levers] -attached to the wheel.

If this "over-balanced" wheel violates the currently accepted laws of physics then I do not currently accept them!! lol

Your choice, however, how is it you can not currently accept a thing that you don't currently understand?

I understand basic patterns and relationships of the physical world.

what I don't care to understand is how institutionalized science can claim the impossibility of a self-turning wheel composed of a simple weight/spring/lever arrangement.

[ovyyus]

My question was if these "laws" deny the possibility...

I certainly don't think a law determines what is or isn't possible.

LAW
(in philosophy, science, etc.)
a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
b. a mathematical rule.

It seems that people created laws in Physices to describe carefully observed and measured relation and sequence. I would think that any idea that challenges an accepted law must surely be subject to the same careful obseravation and measurement scrutiny. Give me an example of carefully observed and measured gravity acting differently to accepted expectations?

Sure, anything is possible.

[Patrick]

Every experiment to date shows that the conservative force of gravity only ever returns work that was previously invested in lifting a mass against it - never more. Therefore, based upon the currently accepted laws of Physics (arrived at through careful observation, measurement and testing), a gravity powered wheel is considered impossible.

Perhaps every experiment thus far conducted on earth, (except Bessler’s), But what about experiments we see in the overall universe.

For example consider the following thought experiment:
What would happen to objects on the surface of the earth if the earth slowed down or stopped?

No scientist has ever fully explained a relationship between gravity and rotational motion/speed.

Newton said: Fg = G x (m1*m2)/r2

(Fg = force of Gravity, G = gravitational constant, m=mass of first object etc, etc.)

I would like to propose:

Fg = G x (m1*m2)/r2 x 1/Vrm

Where Vrm = velocity of the rotational motion

So this inverse relationship equation now states = as the earth slows down, gravity increases and as the earth speeds up, gravity decreases. Think about it, as the earth slows down we get heavier; as the earth speeds up, we get lighter(or in relation to forces we get heavier) and are flung off the surface. If the earth stops completely, perhaps gravity 'reverses' again and we float off into space. How can this be if the force of gravity is based on/defined as a constant that is related to mass and distance only??

I believe Bessler succeeded because he discoved a slow/leveraged/precessional construct that allow gravity to move objects/mass in a continuous (forward or backward) motion.

Or in other words, Bessler discovered a way of moving weights in an reversionary/oscillatory fashion that allowed gravity to ‘work’ the weights in a continuous orbital cycle. He converted gravitational energy into rotational motion. The planets convert gravitational energy into rotational motion. Energy is not being created.

--Patrick

ps:

Give me an example of carefully observed and measured gravity acting differently to accepted expectations?

Ovyyus, on a simple scale, any object that has a displaced center of gravity (outside of itself) will act differently to accepted expectations.
On a more rigorous scale, rotational/oscillatory objects like complex gyroscopic devices will act differently than expected. And on a large scale, some would argue comets do not follow the accepted 'laws' of gravity.

[Fletcher]

At the equator we weigh less [by about 100th] than we do at the earths poles - this is due to CF's flinging us tangential to the earths surface - at the poles we weigh the full quotient so it wouldn't matter if the earth stopped spinning & probably proves that gravity is not related to rotational velocity, if I was understanding you correctly.

[arthur]

the conservative force of gravity only returns work what was previously invested in lifting a mass against it - never more.

this statement is certainly true for a weight traveling in a vertical line.

what about this,
Let's use horizontal velocity, and transfer it into a vertical velocity.

I am certain that:

--------you can swing a sledge hammer and apply a larger force to the nail than the force you put into the lift/swing.
(given you lifted the hammer from the same height as the nail).

Is this statement not true just because we didn't learn all about free energy in science class?

[Fletcher]

Arthur .. you are investing extra chemical energy [joules] to increase the kinetic energy of the sledge hammer. You had to eat food first.

[DrWhat]

Arthur, the force is the same except it is spread out over time when you lift the sledge hammer and is localised and more instantaneous when the hammer hits the nail.

Also if you hammer a piece of rubber the force seems less because the impact is "smeared" over a short distance yet the force remains the same. Force can be predicted to be extremely large if a hammer is made to stop very suddenly, but because the time is so short it can do little work.

[John Collins]

Bill wrote,

Every experiment to date shows that the conservative force of gravity only ever returns work that was previously invested in lifting a mass against it - never more.

I completely agree with that statement Bill, but doesn't it fail to take into account the situation where more than one weight is rising and falling. Before gravity returns the work it previously invested by making the weight rise again, another weight has been made to fall, and maybe another one after that. Everyone seems to consider only the situation of one weight against another and in that case the weight which is rising never completes the full rise for reasons we all understand.

Could there be an arrangement where the path of a weight overlaps the path of a previous one and creates the OOB we seek? Maybe some weights operate on the opposite side of the wheel giving them more room to follow a longer path?

John

[Wheeler]

John
Sorry to jump in on your question to Bill, but
I think all paths will cause equal resistance weather short or long, or in a redirected path.

Maybe you can have the weight exit the path, while the descending weight helps momentarily.
Just a thought.