Bessler,
This is a good point you bring up. It is also what confuses everyone.
You see, the red line represents the weight moving along a different axis of rotation than the wheel.
This is something people are not used to on a fixed axis system. Working with a multi axis system.
When the weight is suspended from near the axis by a warped board(s), by having a flatter curve than the wheel, the weight can not drop as much.
The beauty of this is that the fulcrum moves in line with the axis of the wheel.
In essence, energy is being conserved while it is being developed. Not sure if Johann knew all of this or if he just figured out it would make his wheel work.
We are more aware of things today.
The Clockwork approach
Moderator: scott
-
Bessler007
- Aficionado
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:19 am
re: The Clockwork approach
PM,
Understanding the cyclic nature of trig functions is a prerequisite for calc.
One of the relationships between trig and a circle is shown in the attached pic.
The red line is a radius of one. The circle has a center at A (0,0). Since the sin = opp/hyp and the hyp = 1 you can reduce the expression to the opp/1 or simply the length of the segment CB or the y coordinate.
In the same manner you can see the cos of angle BAC = x. Point B (x,y) is where the line forming the angle BAC intersect the unit circle.
Understanding the cyclic nature of trig functions is a prerequisite for calc.
One of the relationships between trig and a circle is shown in the attached pic.
The red line is a radius of one. The circle has a center at A (0,0). Since the sin = opp/hyp and the hyp = 1 you can reduce the expression to the opp/1 or simply the length of the segment CB or the y coordinate.
In the same manner you can see the cos of angle BAC = x. Point B (x,y) is where the line forming the angle BAC intersect the unit circle.
P-Motion wrote:...
But who uses trig on a circle ? Apparently Johann did. It is not taiught in schools. ....
- Attachments
-
-
Bessler007
- Aficionado
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:19 am
re: The Clockwork approach
hick up
Re: re: The Clockwork approach
Not Bessler, that is a poor example. Show one where it is used to show the potential for energy generation.Bessler007 wrote:PM,
Understanding the cyclic nature of trig functions is a prerequisite for calc.
One of the relationships between trig and a circle is shown in the attached pic.
The red line is a radius of one. The circle has a center at A (0,0). Since the sin = opp/hyp and the hyp = 1 you can reduce the expression to the opp/1 or simply the length of the segment CB or the y coordinate.
In the same manner you can see the cos of angle BAC = x. Point B (x,y) is where the line forming the angle BAC intersect the unit circle.
P-Motion wrote:...
But who uses trig on a circle ? Apparently Johann did. It is not taiught in schools. ....
But then, this would be why no one in 300 years has shown how Bessler DID do it. It's easier to say how he didn't.
Do you know what would really be sad ? For me to demonstarte the premise that Bessler used and have anyone that supports Bessler say, I don't get it. Then his supporters would sound like everyone else.
Go figure. That I think would have him crying. You know, people taking no interest in his engineering abilities.
-
Bessler007
- Aficionado
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:19 am
re: The Clockwork approach
PM,
Calculus is the basis for understanding mass in motion or kinetic energy. With trig you can know precisely where a mass is on a unit circle. By looking at the successive iterations of change you can calculate the momentary force of torque developed due to the force of gravity in order to quantify the power.
What you've done is calculate where you think mass is going and where you think it should begin its change. You haven't calculated instantaneous energy over time to see if it could happen being forced by gravity. The amount of calculations required would take forever to do. It would be much easier to make a model.
What I find fascinating is it seems wm2d can't figure out where it is starting from. That's a real issue. If you don't know where you are you sure aren't going to be too sure of where you end up at. :)
Calculus is the basis for understanding mass in motion or kinetic energy. With trig you can know precisely where a mass is on a unit circle. By looking at the successive iterations of change you can calculate the momentary force of torque developed due to the force of gravity in order to quantify the power.
What you've done is calculate where you think mass is going and where you think it should begin its change. You haven't calculated instantaneous energy over time to see if it could happen being forced by gravity. The amount of calculations required would take forever to do. It would be much easier to make a model.
What I find fascinating is it seems wm2d can't figure out where it is starting from. That's a real issue. If you don't know where you are you sure aren't going to be too sure of where you end up at. :)
Re: re: The Clockwork approach
Actually, I have. As long as the weight stays above the lowest point of the wheel, gravity will be affecting it.Bessler007 wrote:You haven't calculated instantaneous energy over time to see if it could happen being forced by gravity
This would be between the horizontal plane of the axis to the vertical plane.
You know, the lower right quadrant in a clock wise motion.
re: The Clockwork approach
I think like many of us with favourite theories [myself included] it will take less time & be far more persuasive to the wider Bessler audience to spend some time thinking of a simple experiment to test your hypothesis - very hard to refute hard evidence - there must be a way for you to show the proposed effect in real world terms that can then be studied in detail & discussed, if that is what you want ?
re: The Clockwork approach
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/p ... u6l1e.html
This one is for those interested in CF
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/p ... u6l1d.html
This one is for those interested in CF
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/p ... u6l1d.html
Re: re: The Clockwork approach
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:05 am Post subject: re: The Clockwork approach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think like many of us with favourite theories [myself included] it will take less time & be far more persuasive to the wider Bessler audience to spend some time thinking of a simple experiment to test your hypothesis - very hard to refute hard evidence - there must be a way for you to show the proposed effect in real world terms that can then be studied in detail & discussed, if that is what you want ?
Fletcher, I think this is where me and Bessler enjoy a good laugh. A working model would leave the supporters sounding like the nay sayers. Both would be saying, I don't get it.
What I am attempting to do is to get everyone to understand the math.
While the wheel functions on a single axis, Bessler used 2 different axis of rotation within the same wheel.
This is something that outside of perpetual motion has no useful purpose.
I have been in contact with a local reporter. Have told him that the engineering dept. of the local univeristy might appreciate the math.
And I did use Bessler's, my teacher erased the blackboard with her breasts got my attention to point out how interesting people find math.
It could be that to see the relationships does take someone that appreciates math and engineering more than the concept itself.
With the drawings I have posted, my only suggestion would be to draw it out for yourself. Then the relationship might be more to your understanding.
Even in school, a specific format is followed. And in discussing Bessler's Wheel, there really isn't something it can be compared to. It is unique, original or one of a kind. But the math is its' own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think like many of us with favourite theories [myself included] it will take less time & be far more persuasive to the wider Bessler audience to spend some time thinking of a simple experiment to test your hypothesis - very hard to refute hard evidence - there must be a way for you to show the proposed effect in real world terms that can then be studied in detail & discussed, if that is what you want ?
Fletcher, I think this is where me and Bessler enjoy a good laugh. A working model would leave the supporters sounding like the nay sayers. Both would be saying, I don't get it.
What I am attempting to do is to get everyone to understand the math.
While the wheel functions on a single axis, Bessler used 2 different axis of rotation within the same wheel.
This is something that outside of perpetual motion has no useful purpose.
I have been in contact with a local reporter. Have told him that the engineering dept. of the local univeristy might appreciate the math.
And I did use Bessler's, my teacher erased the blackboard with her breasts got my attention to point out how interesting people find math.
It could be that to see the relationships does take someone that appreciates math and engineering more than the concept itself.
With the drawings I have posted, my only suggestion would be to draw it out for yourself. Then the relationship might be more to your understanding.
Even in school, a specific format is followed. And in discussing Bessler's Wheel, there really isn't something it can be compared to. It is unique, original or one of a kind. But the math is its' own.
re: The Clockwork approach
Ever ask yourself what the outer pendulums depict if they were not used during the witness tests.
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/three_levers.html
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/three_levers.html
Re: re: The Clockwork approach
>>Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:49 am Post subject: re: The Clockwork approach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever ask yourself what the outer pendulums depict if they were not used during the witness tests.
<<
Not at all. Have you ever asked about this ?
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
It was published when young Johann Bessler was 7 years old.
And it does involve his work, his math and his understanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever ask yourself what the outer pendulums depict if they were not used during the witness tests.
<<
Not at all. Have you ever asked about this ?
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
It was published when young Johann Bessler was 7 years old.
And it does involve his work, his math and his understanding.
re: The Clockwork approach
I don't doubt your sincerity P but I have seen many confident people here before - confidence around here is not in short supply, working wheels are - I'll watch to see if your confidence is well placed - action speaks louder than words !
P.S. shifting the axis of rotation has been mentioned on this board before, in fact it is a favourite of Ralph's where he suggests that any forces traced back to the wheels natural CoR can never give rise to asymmetric torque - I guess he'll be watching to see how you manage the shifting of the axis without any significant penalty of torque & momentum.
You might consider starting your own thread for the purpose !
P.S. shifting the axis of rotation has been mentioned on this board before, in fact it is a favourite of Ralph's where he suggests that any forces traced back to the wheels natural CoR can never give rise to asymmetric torque - I guess he'll be watching to see how you manage the shifting of the axis without any significant penalty of torque & momentum.
You might consider starting your own thread for the purpose !
Re: re: The Clockwork approach
Fletch,
Sincerity has little to do with it. So far, the math has been above everyone's head when it is trig.
I think that is what's sad. But if I were to say work would be accomplished in different quadrants, then that is something to be discussed.
Yet if we were to look at the physics of it, this would suggest that the work is being accomplished at the expense of momentum.
And when considering the law, Conservation of Momentum, the only way momentum can be conserved is if the body creating it reduces its' oribit.
And when all bodies effected by the one that creates momentum maintains their orbits, how is the only way it can be conserved ?
This would leave only the source as needing to reduce its' orbit without expending energy. Otherwise momentum is being converted to work by moving another body differently than its' orbit.
Sincerity has little to do with it. So far, the math has been above everyone's head when it is trig.
I think that is what's sad. But if I were to say work would be accomplished in different quadrants, then that is something to be discussed.
Yet if we were to look at the physics of it, this would suggest that the work is being accomplished at the expense of momentum.
And when considering the law, Conservation of Momentum, the only way momentum can be conserved is if the body creating it reduces its' oribit.
And when all bodies effected by the one that creates momentum maintains their orbits, how is the only way it can be conserved ?
This would leave only the source as needing to reduce its' orbit without expending energy. Otherwise momentum is being converted to work by moving another body differently than its' orbit.
re: The Clockwork approach
Well said Fletch!
Under present conditions; "watching is probably all I will be doing for a while. I am not interested in understanding the math, I would rather let the constipated mathematician work it out with a pencil. It is not going to put physical proof before our eyes.
Too many times we have seen new members come aboard with such enthusiasm. They soon fade into oblivion. Some come back with a new sure thing using a different name. None have ever submitted any physical objective proof, nor do they admit to there failures.
I applaud Victor, one who has always posted his failed designs after taking me into his confidence.
Scott does a fine job keeping an eye out for these weekend warrior
returnees, but he does not catch them all.
Speaking of failures I have had two this last week one for a client member and one of my own augmentations based on another members confidential input. One is dead and the other I plan on pursuing farther.
And then of course it is public knowledge that I have a facsimile of another die hard forum member that is setting in such a manner, it is the first and last thing I see when I enter and leave my shop. When you have confirmed eye witness reports that it once ran, it is hard to give up on.
P-
Why discuss it? "Does" "but" and "if" simply imply speculation. Put it to work, show us how you can have the last laugh on us. Are you just another armchair philosopher or are you a doer? The preceding are like a paradigm, worth four inflated nickels.
Ralph
Under present conditions; "watching is probably all I will be doing for a while. I am not interested in understanding the math, I would rather let the constipated mathematician work it out with a pencil. It is not going to put physical proof before our eyes.
Too many times we have seen new members come aboard with such enthusiasm. They soon fade into oblivion. Some come back with a new sure thing using a different name. None have ever submitted any physical objective proof, nor do they admit to there failures.
I applaud Victor, one who has always posted his failed designs after taking me into his confidence.
Scott does a fine job keeping an eye out for these weekend warrior
returnees, but he does not catch them all.
Speaking of failures I have had two this last week one for a client member and one of my own augmentations based on another members confidential input. One is dead and the other I plan on pursuing farther.
And then of course it is public knowledge that I have a facsimile of another die hard forum member that is setting in such a manner, it is the first and last thing I see when I enter and leave my shop. When you have confirmed eye witness reports that it once ran, it is hard to give up on.
P-
But if I were to say work would be accomplished in different quadrants, then that is something to be discussed.
Why discuss it? "Does" "but" and "if" simply imply speculation. Put it to work, show us how you can have the last laugh on us. Are you just another armchair philosopher or are you a doer? The preceding are like a paradigm, worth four inflated nickels.
Ralph
Last edited by rlortie on Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.
re: The Clockwork approach
Well P, I must admit I haven't paid full attention to your 'proofs' though I do understand a little trig, math & physics - what I do truly believe is that the Law of Conservation of Momentum is called a Law for good reason - that being that when an object changes orbiting radius Angular Momentum is always conserved aka CoE - in your theory it appears that you hope to shift the CoR for part of the cycle & then presumably shift it back again at a later time - I'm guessing you expect the act of side shifting the axis to result in greater torque & more momentum to the wheel while the pendulum swings itself to its closer in radius again [then the axis shifts back again] without undue penalty - I would suggest that even the act of side shifting the axis the first time will effectively be like releasing the pendulum from the wheel for a short period - in that time it will be unable to apply its full compliment of torque to the down going side & so a penalty in momentum will be incurred - strangely this will be equal to any imagined advantage you may or may not get after normal system losses.
But I digress - in reality I have know idea of the actual physical detail of the wheel & mechs you are proposing so there is no real point in continuing this light sparring & I might as well leave you to get on with it ;)
But I digress - in reality I have know idea of the actual physical detail of the wheel & mechs you are proposing so there is no real point in continuing this light sparring & I might as well leave you to get on with it ;)