My Original Idea

[Fletcher]

Actually, I don't think you have the slightest idea of a mechanism to accomplish what you propose & that's where the communication problem lies - most people here can use trig to calculate the torque around an axle [that's not high level math] - what they [& me] can't visualize is a way to test your hypothesis [that's what it is - untested theory] & you haven't come even close to describing or drawing an understandable mechanical means to physically achieve what you believe is possible.

If you've been researching this for 10 years & learning the math to increase your chances of success for the last 5 then you should know by now that a theory [no matter how sublime in your eyes] is full of potential road stops until it is translated into a physical build to see if the theory is indeed fact.

Right now, you are talking in nebulous terms, somehow trying to use trig & an imaginary secondary center of rotation to allow you to break the Law of Conservation of Momentum by getting asymmetric torque on one side of the wheel that leads to accumulated momentum - I can agree that this basic premiss of accumulated momentum is what is required to achieve a gravity only PM wheel - what I sincerely doubt is that without any physical evidence to backup your math [which is an analytical & predictive tool at best] then you are "pissing in the wind" & will never convince anyone with any practical experience of trying to turn theory into reality [because they have hands on experience of the difficulties & pitfalls of translating concepts into fact].

I see you have started a discussion about your math on overunity.com - a couple of members have done a reasonable job of laying out the math foundation of what it takes to analyse a rotating system - perhaps you will find more people with an academic interest there, willing to discuss the detail of your theory - my prediction is that there will be the usual bun fight as they strip away the camouflage from your theory & you start to defend the crux of your idea - there will be the usual call for more explanation, precision & detail & the melee will ebb & flow as ego's get bruised & imagined slights get personal - ateotd they too will say "prove it".

Look - you might be the new Newton but where is the upside for you if you cannot convince anyone that your idea is sound & worth a build & building is always the last word in PM wheels - good luck !

[Gregory]

Hey P-motion,

Talking about angular momentum & ice skaters, I can say I studied the law for some time, and it puzzled me a lot. I think most of the members here would usually say that conservation of angular momentum will kill your design here or there, doesn't matter how you arrange your machineries. I can say, they are exactly right from the classic viewpoint, but...

I found that it may be not true. I worked on an interesting design which failed because of CoAM, however it was a nice one, and it changed my understanding & thinking about the thing. With other words I learned from it and continued to search for a way. A bit later I found that instead of being enslaved by it, I can try to use CoAM to actually do something good for the machine, or for only a component of the mechanical system... and I believe I found a way where CoAM can be useful for some extent, and not just a usual hindrance.

My conclusion was: If I going to fight against an existent law, I will quickly fail. So friendship & compromise may be a better way.

Well, I doesn't mean I already worked out a true solution, but for me my own ideas got more & more interesting, and I don't feel any more that I have to be the first to come up with the answer as usually a lot of PM seeker feel time to time... And I like this. I became more & more calm about my design concepts.

After all, I don't think my idea is similar to yours or to the ideas of others, I think it's different. I just simply wanted to post some more thoughts here...

[P-Motion]

Hey P-motion,

Talking about angular momentum & ice skaters, I can say I studied the law for some time, and it puzzled me a lot. I think most of the members here would usually say that conservation of angular momentum will kill your design here or there, doesn't matter how you arrange your machineries. I can say, they are exactly right from the classic viewpoint, but...

I found that it may be not true. I worked on an interesting design which failed because of CoAM, however it was a nice one, and it changed my understanding & thinking about the thing. With other words I learned from it and continued to search for a way. A bit later I found that instead of being enslaved by it, I can try to use CoAM to actually do something good for the machine, or for only a component of the mechanical system... and I believe I found a way where CoAM can be useful for some extent, and not just a usual hindrance.

My conclusion was: If I going to fight against an existent law, I will quickly fail. So friendship & compromise may be a better way.

Well, I doesn't mean I already worked out a true solution, but for me my own ideas got more & more interesting, and I don't feel any more that I have to be the first to come up with the answer as usually a lot of PM seeker feel time to time... And I like this. I became more & more calm about my design concepts.

After all, I don't think my idea is similar to yours or to the ideas of others, I think it's different. I just simply wanted to post some more thoughts here...

I think this is what most people are missing. At present, it is considered impossible.
>>My conclusion was: If I going to fight against an existent law, I will quickly fail. So friendship & compromise may be a better way.<<
So true.
One thing I have come to realize is that the force of gravity / imbalance can be used once in a cycle.
In both of my designs, momentum is generated while balance is being re-established.
If you don't mind, I would like to hear about your design. Who knows, maybe I could make a useful suggestion.
And if you like, if there is something specific that you are having trouble with, only mention that if you can.
It is possible that if someone understands a design that they will build it and try to take credit for it.
I am of the mind that I would like to see this happen. I also hope that because of open sourcing that it will be known where it originated form. There is no gaurantee about this.
It is that once the mind can accept something, it is easier to reach a better understanding.
And I do believe that better designs will follow. But a start is something that has yet to happen.

[P-Motion]

Actually, I don't think you have the slightest idea of a mechanism to accomplish what you propose & that's where the communication problem lies - most people here can use trig to calculate the torque around an axle [that's not high level math] - what they [& me] can't visualize is a way to test your hypothesis [that's what it is - untested theory] & you haven't come even close to describing or drawing an understandable mechanical means to physically achieve what you believe is possible.

If you've been researching this for 10 years & learning the math to increase your chances of success for the last 5 then you should know by now that a theory [no matter how sublime in your eyes] is full of potential road stops until it is translated into a physical build to see if the theory is indeed fact.

Right now, you are talking in nebulous terms, somehow trying to use trig & an imaginary secondary center of rotation to allow you to break the Law of Conservation of Momentum by getting asymmetric torque on one side of the wheel that leads to accumulated momentum - I can agree that this basic premiss of accumulated momentum is what is required to achieve a gravity only PM wheel - what I sincerely doubt is that without any physical evidence to backup your math [which is an analytical & predictive tool at best] then you are "pissing in the wind" & will never convince anyone with any practical experience of trying to turn theory into reality [because they have hands on experience of the difficulties & pitfalls of translating concepts into fact].

I see you have started a discussion about your math on overunity.com - a couple of members have done a reasonable job of laying out the math foundation of what it takes to analyse a rotating system - perhaps you will find more people with an academic interest there, willing to discuss the detail of your theory - my prediction is that there will be the usual bun fight as they strip away the camouflage from your theory & you start to defend the crux of your idea - there will be the usual call for more explanation, precision & detail & the melee will ebb & flow as ego's get bruised & imagined slights get personal - ateotd they too will say "prove it".
Look - you might be the new Newton but where is the upside for you if you cannot convince anyone that your idea is sound & worth a build & building is always the last word in PM wheels - good luck !

With my concept of how Bessler would have made one of his wheels, the math is posted in detail. Outside of a build, the math can not be put to the test unless soemone can point out a mistake I made in the calculations.
Can you say where someone else is that open source on a design ?

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

I regret to inform you, that it is my opinion you are attempting to communicate with some one who has nothing better to do with his time. If you do not respond then he will write you by PM, not once but three times within a 24 hour period even though he has been told that he is being ignored.

With my concept of how Bessler would have made one of his wheels, the math is posted in detail. Outside of a build, the math can not be put to the test unless soemone can point out a mistake I made in the calculations.

In other words this alleged math that I have never seen, let alone in detail is to be considered correct until some one can point out a mistake.

The mistake I point out is attempting to make sense of this guy who is achieving nothing but taking up your time.

From hating foreigners to hating his father but yet being like his father and hating him. why I fear him and am hiding and how he is going to ruin my reputation and how I make fun of his spelling and how Southerners do not like him associating with a girl in the Ukraine and How I lied about being a Foreign Exchange foster parent and on and on and on. Oh and because his father who speaks four languages would not let him fix his car, he had to ride a bicycle and he was hit by a car driven by an American, and that was his fathers fault as Americans do not like his father and I am just like him.

Attempting to communicate on any level is a waste of computer space.


Ralph

[Clarkie]

Sounds like a complete nutter. Just ignore him and he will go away eventual.

Pete.

English and I like Americans.

[coylo]

Your reputation remains intact Ralph, everyone can see this fella for what he's worth. As if repetitive math worship isn't boring enough, Fletcher is right....he may have done the math, but there is a gaping hole that is - application. Where is the mechanism and arrangement that's going to make his math, reality? Or is this our job?

We can only follow the math with a detailed plan/arrangement diagram of the wheel design. Then, if someone likes what they see, they may attempt a build.

It's basic communication.

Ralph would usually offer his services to newcomers, but.......

[Gregory]

If you don't mind, I would like to hear about your design. Who knows, maybe I could make a useful suggestion. And if you like, if there is something specific that you are having trouble with, only mention that if you can.

Thanks, but I am happy to work on it myself, and there is no trouble. It is just a bit complex, and would be a pain to explain what is for what... Otherwise I already posted a few parts & hints on it. It is just a theory without any math, but with much more physical / mechanical ideas in it. I am only in a stage of theory development. It will or will not fruitful, but just like all the other members think and as I already said once before, I too think it has (almost) nothing to do with math, unless a working principle have been found.

In my thinking mathematics is to apply for... ...for what?
The problem is we do not know where & what to apply for in this research!
It's like when crazy math teachers write many strange things on the board, and you have no idea what they are talking about or at least why, because they usually do not mention any real-world application for it. Just raw numbers and symbols for... for what? (students usually hate this and in this sense they are quite right)

You can use trigonometry through any way you like, but not sure it will do any new for you, and for Bessler research. Most likely we need a working principle / mechanism, or at least a very good theory to try to apply the math to it. Without this we are stepping in pitch-dark.

[Jim_L]

Is this what you call ignoring me ? Of course, I'm not worried about your reputation.
The first thing you said about my Bessler concept is it won't work.
And based on what ? The working model you have ?
Didn't say you didn't have exchange students. Wondered how you could attack someone for their spelling. Something is missing there.
And yes, Americans do have a problem with my dad. The last factory I worked in had 2 temps from Europe. They were going to college. Some of my co-workers told me what they thought of them. They didn't know my dad was an immigrant.
Yet math can be tested and challenged, yet no one is willing to try to do that.
And how quickly is a person supposed to go from concept to prototype ?
Some of the comments people make are not based in reality.
Myself Ralph, I think you and your friends are jealous because I can both do and understand the math.
And I think I will say it once again, I do think you are jealous of me because I did come up with an idea that would be simple to test. And yet many posts said trying it would make me look stupid.
So when many people in here are willing to say someone would look stupid for trying an idea then say they are all mouth for not doing it is pretty lame.
So if you want to go back over the posts, before I said anything, I was being attacked for my idea. Especially by you.
So you can say how you like foreigners, but maybe you don't like someone who can out think you.
I did say it would cost me about $70 to build a prototype starting with no tools. Means I have no need for you Ralph.
Is that why you did not like my idea ? I wasn't hoping you would do something for me ? And now all you can do is attack me which is all you've done since the first time I posted that idea.
And if you were ignoring me as you say, you would not be talking about me.
But now I can see why others do not open source their ideas in here. It will make them a target of people that claim to support Bessler, perpetual motion or over unity.
I think it is funny that the skeptics and supporters sound about the same.
@Gregory, math can be used in this. I think Bessler used leverage in everything he did. This would let him keep the math simple.
It is a necessity to be generating momentum/torque while balance is being restored. And math will let you know when this is happening.
It is possible Bessler did not use math in one of his designs. Read a little about the Trebuchet. That is engineered in reverse. The heavy weight near the axel moves the weight that is further from the center.

Fletcher,

I regret to inform you, that it is my opinion you are attempting to communicate with some one who has nothing better to do with his time. If you do not respond then he will write you by PM, not once but three times within a 24 hour period even though he has been told that he is being ignored.

With my concept of how Bessler would have made one of his wheels, the math is posted in detail. Outside of a build, the math can not be put to the test unless soemone can point out a mistake I made in the calculations.

In other words this alleged math that I have never seen, let alone in detail is to be considered correct until some one can point out a mistake.

The mistake I point out is attempting to make sense of this guy who is achieving nothing but taking up your time.

From hating foreigners to hating his father but yet being like his father and hating him. why I fear him and am hiding and how he is going to ruin my reputation and how I make fun of his spelling and how Southerners do not like him associating with a girl in the Ukraine and How I lied about being a Foreign Exchange foster parent and on and on and on. Oh and because his father who speaks four languages would not let him fix his car, he had to ride a bicycle and he was hit by a car driven by an American, and that was his fathers fault as Americans do not like his father and I am just like him.

Attempting to communicate on any level is a waste of computer space.


Ralph

[debbie]

@Jim-L

IMO this forum should be for solving the puzzle of Bessler's wheel. Ralph has put you on ignore, but you register as a different user just to piss him off. (ooops did I swear?)

I don't usually take sides, but on this one I must.

Ralph has shown fairness and tolerance towards you. But it seems to me that you are now stalking him.

Please can this stop? It is destroying my enjoyment of this site, and I'm sure it is getting in the way of serious study of the BW puzzle. Or is it that you are hell bent on stopping any interesting thread with your mind games.

Just because you can do your sums doesn't mean you are any better than anyone else here.

My humble advice would be to go away and play on your own.

Phew, I feel better now I've got that off my chest.

Debbie

PS Why don't you get that chip off your shoulder and try to get on with people ... please have some respect.



-----------------------------------

[rlortie]

Kudos Debbie!

Well stated, I too am at a loss to see what good it will do P-Motion to re-register with a new name "Jim-L"... It is jim lindgaar any way you look at it. He uses a Yahoo address via an IP service called Windstream communications inc. covering parts of and surrounding states of Kentucky U.S. A.

For the record I have hit your green Icon and his red and will do so every time he re registers under a different name. And yes as Coylo stated, I usually offer assistance to newcomers providing they show me the empirical aptitudes and innovation worthy of involvement. I do not see any of that here.

To reiterate I once again quote Fletcher, Who put it in plain English that all but Jim-L seems to understand.

Actually, I don't think you have the slightest idea of a mechanism to accomplish what you propose & that's where the communication problem lies - most people here can use trig to calculate the torque around an axle [that's not high level math] - what they [& me] can't visualize is a way to test your hypothesis [that's what it is - untested theory] & you haven't come even close to describing or drawing an understandable mechanical means to physically achieve what you believe is possible.

Ralph

[Jim_L]

[quote="rlortie]And yes as Coylo stated, I usually offer assistance to newcomers providing they show me the empirical aptitudes and innovation worthy of involvement. I do not see any of that here.

To reiterate I once again quote Fletcher, Who put it in plain English that all but Jim-L seems to understand. [/quote]

That does sound arrogant to me. I don't recall saying I needed your help. Just because you can't follow the math is not my concern.
Yet, I am not sure how you can be a self proclaimed expert when you have not demonstrated any knowledge that would make me think you undestand perpetual type behavior.
The last time I checked, I pay my own bills. I don't need your approval.
Yet you and some of your friends would say I have yet to build a working model. And neither have you. But then, I haven't seen your math either.
But for some reason they say Bessler was a bitter man. I wonder if he knew you. Maybe you are reincarnated ?
p.s. good job of ignoring me :)

[Fletcher]

Ralph .. I'm pretty good at just ignoring who I want - I just don't read them & skim read everything thereafter looking for some question or artful point that I may consider - no sweat !

It occurred to me that some members may think I have a tendency to 'bash' gravity only designs - not so - I usually try to give an honest opinion [my opinion] about a designs potential workability & rather than leave it as a closed statement - [reminds me of that famous Clint Eastwood line - opinion's are like assholes, everyone's got one] - I usually try to back it up with some observations & at least some analysis of how it might work or not, as the case may be, to winnow out what I hope one day will be a design that can't be logically dismissed.

P.S. I think you may find that the rules of joining this forum discussion board preclude the use of multiple registrations, we've seen that tactic before - in this case I think P asked Scott to change his name on his original registration - as for the rest, just move on.

[Bessler007]

What a funny conclusion. The laws or doctrines of materialists make strange bedfellows for the nutters hoping to find the extreme case of motion that is perpetual.

Mother Nature confided in me just the other day she often disregards those laws.

My conclusion was: If I going to fight against an existent law, I will quickly fail. So friendship & compromise may be a better way.

[Bessler007]

@Jim-L

IMO this forum should be for solving the puzzle of Bessler's wheel. Ralph has put you on ignore, but you register as a different user just to piss him off. (ooops did I swear?)....

hell no.