My Original Idea

[Bessler007]

Hello Jim,

This discussion sparked me to take the time to review some of the history of perpetual motion specifically the law of conservation of energy and matter. It's probably just me but I'm as fascinated with the history as I am with the math.

To that extent it's been a good discussion.

I am still disappointed in the clarity both of the principle behind your design and the details of it expressed mathematically. I have worked proofs and I'm sure I could follow the idea if you maybe dumb it down for me. :)

[Jim_L]

Debbie,
When some of what he does is lie, I should be upset. And if he was ignoring me, he shouldn't have been talking about.
When I posted an idea of how Bessler might have made one of his wheels, he said it would not work. No discussion and no reason for his comment.
He did say someone already tried that design and gave me a link to about 100. I didn't see one similar.
So at no time did he show or give a basis for his claims about my idea.
So if what you say is true, that we should be discussing how Bessler might have done it, you might mention that to Ralph.
As for your idea, if all 3 boxes are the same, your weights will always be in a balanced position and not able to develop torque or momentum.

finis

@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.



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

[Jim_L]

@Bessler007,
I've tried explaining it this way before,, but to no avail.
One way you might see the relationships on the disc is to get a frisbee or other round thing. Then draw 3 lines on it 120 degrees apart.
Put something under it like a spool of thread. You know, a round cylinder to hold the center of it up.
Then as you roll it around, you might see 3 or 4 different things happening.
Put one of the lines in the down position. Then as you rotate (going clockwise here) the disc, That line will begin to lift, the line on the right will begin to drop and the one on the top left will be going around.
For a little mind game, as you rotate it, you'll notice if you do so in a clockwise direction, it will be moving in a counter clock wise direction.
What this will do is let you look at something while you are thinking about it.

[Jim_L]

@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.



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

Debbie,
As drawn, your design won't work. If you put an arnm striaght up, the left and right sides are the same.
The low corner in the two boxes below the axis need to be on the same side. Either the right side or the left side.
This will allow for an imbalance that will allow for rotation at a given point.
It is a start.
Good luck with Ralph helping you :))

[DrWhat]

Hi Jim,

"For a little mind game, as you rotate it, you'll notice if you do so in a clockwise direction, it will be moving in a counter clock wise direction"

I'd like to ask you a question, what will be going in an anticlockwise direction? I am curious...

Thanks.

[Gregory]

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.

My conclusion is not really funny just straightforward, and has its premise.
I mentioned conservation of angular momentum. By existent I meant existent in Nature, not just in textbooks. So it can be observed, measured, expressed, and explained. What's the problem with this? Can you disprove any proven conservation law?

You must be at least a God to do that!
Btw, which law you are talking about?

And yes, perpetual motion would be an extreme thing in itself, doesn't it?


Here is a quote from Scott's collection, which is relevant regarding the subject. You should think of it once more:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

Thanks Scott, excellent collection! My favorite quotes are from your archive. :)

[Bessler007]

Gregory,

Can you disprove any proven conservation law?

You must be at least a God to do that!

The doctrine of the conservation of energy and matter isn't one that nature is obliged to follow. Particles at the quantum level appear then disappear. Quarky things happen.

Bessler described his wheel as:

On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be.

and we can know what it was full or empty with by this description:

these weights are themselves the PM device

Now knowing kinetic energy is a function of the motion of mass and according to Bessler's description he caused an imbalance of mass, the only reasonable deduction is that Bessler's wheel created energy.

So even aside from the point that nature doesn't abide by the doctrine of the conservation of matter and energy neither did Bessler's wheel.

So was Bessler God?

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Drwhat...

"For a little mind game, as you rotate it, you'll notice if you do so in a clockwise direction, it will be moving in a counter clock wise direction"

The frisbee will be actually moving in a counter clockwise direction on the spool...I suggest using a small glass. The higher the tilt for the rotation the more this effect is.


Steve

[rlortie]

This is getting hilarious for me. having Jim_L on my ignore list omits all his input. Reading the response without seeing the subject is more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

Steve: The hell with tipping the glass, just hand me the bottle! If its Jack Daniels, Make sure it is half full and not half empty. I hate baseball at the bottom of the fifth!

007:

So was Bessler God?

Please do not attempt to refute with your knowledge of math.

Gregory:

You must be at least a God to do that!

What! he did not say he was, he certainly gave the impression that the possibly existed.

Can you disprove any proven conservation law?

I thought that is what all the ruckus was about, his math did just that! Just ask him.

Fletcher:

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

Well said! although I keep searching for a gravity wheel I do my fair share of scrutinizing before making my opinion known. If I feel my findings or opinion are questionable then I holler for help. It is rare for a design to come along that leaves one of experience scratching their head, and that is the type we all look forward to.

Is He gone yet? sure has been a lot quieter around here.

Sorry! I seem to be recovering from over exposure to an ego syndrome. All day I have been singing the "sour milk song" it goes; bum-titty, bum-titty, bum-titty :0)

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Ralph & all .. here's a little missive full of anecdotal thoughts as they relate to understanding different conceptual types of wheels & how Bessler may have had a far better & efficient filtering system to weed them out, than most, which ultimately led him to the solution to PM wheels.

This probably belongs in Stewarts Forum under Preston's thread about his thoughts on certain OOB drawings in MT .. but since you brought it up I'll bore you here ;

A couple of weeks ago I saw a doc on Nat Geo about whether genius is nurtured or innate - the story was about a women named susan polga [an immigrant to NY from Hungary] - as a child her father was a psychiatrist who wrote books on the nature of genius, with a belief that it could be fostered in the right stimulating & disciplined environment.

So to test his theory he began to teach his eldest daughter [aged 4] to play chess - he made it interesting for her & she began to excel with his tutorage - by the time she was 10 she was beating the wizened old players of her local towns chess club & entering national competitions, & winning.

Side note - why this program was a revelation to me was my own interest in chess as a youngster [my father plays & taught me the moves at about 8] - try as I might, up until about aged 12, when I gave up in disgust, I could not beat him at chess [he's still pretty good, methodical, patient, defensive, wears you down by attrition] - one day I asked him how come he could beat me so easily - he told me that before making a move he would 'think out' 5 to 7 moves ahead, depending on the quality of the opposition - well, I thought about that & not being overly slow at math quickly worked out the approximate permutations of moves that far out - I was in awe, how could he do it, retain that much information in his head & cover so many possibilities - needless to say, I found this a bit daunting & decided to quit the game while I was behind - so I never really thought about it again or played again, other than to have great admiration for grand masters & even competent players such as my father.

Back to susan - her family immigrated to the states & she entered competitions - soon she was a grand master herself - her speciality was winning demonstration 'speed' matches where the players had to move within strict time limits [no time for thought between moves] - incidently her father also trained her two younger sisters & one also became a grand master in the states.

Although susan was a genius at chess, by anybody's standards, it was a specialized talent, learned & reinforced & cultivated over years - the program was about whether it was a nurtured genius she exhibited & so they producers wanted to examine her extraordinary abilities - first they put her in an MRI [magnetic resonance imager] to take slices of her brain - what they discovered [& its implications was nothing short of astounding imo] was that everybody uses a small part of their brain for facial recognition, that's the ability to store thousands upon thousands of faces in our minds, that allows us to instantly recognize a face we haven't seen for years & years - we don't even have to study them to remember them, its a innate ability common to nearly all of us - when they showed susan images of chess games an amazing thing happened - this same area of her brain lit up like a beacon - this meant that the same part of her brain used for facial recognition had, thru repetitive training, been seconded & hardwired for the purpose of recognizing chess board positions, as well as faces.

Here's the really interesting bit - she didn't 'think out' 7 moves ahead at all, overly taxing her intellect - there were more efficient ways to have a winning strategy, contrary to what I'd been told as a kid.

It turns out that most people can comfortably remember up to 7 digits [like remembering phone numbers or licence plates] in their short term memory - you can even extend this basic 7 digit ability by grouping certain numbers together [by forming mental patterns] so extending the ability to recall larger strings of numbers for example [most of us know that as memory aid tricks] - what susan had done was to learn thousands of chess board representations of winning strategies, which over time had not been stored in her long term memory, but in her infallible & innate facial recognition software, so to speak - but there was a surprise - when shown for a few seconds a chess board she could instantly draw the position of each piece, but she couldn't do this when shown a board set up by a non player [i.e. they pieces were randomly placed] - she did this by a method called 'clumping' - she would take in the board & recognize up to 7 clumps of pieces which she could then reproduce, position perfect - so she never had to over extend her mental abilities but could apply a visual recognition or holistic approach to the problem - of course, she had spent years learning winning strategies & 'clumpings', those that gave her the best chance statistically of a successful outcome i.e. to win the game - that was why she was so expert at speed chess.

So, how does this tie into Bessler & how he finally found his PM solution ? - read the next installment when I get around to writing it next ;7)

[Fletcher]

So what does storing information, so well learned, in the facial recognition part of your brain as well as long term memory, have to do with Bessler ?

Susan's example shows us anecdotally, that if you have extreme perseverance & learn your craft very well, then things will become second nature to you [much in the way an elite athlete has muscle memory to perform certain complex or repetitive physical tasks at the top of his field].

I can't help feeling that Bessler spent 10 years learning from his failures & from the failures of others - he must have instantly recognized almost every variation of an OOB wheel design conceivable, without the effort of analysing each variation to death [just sighting it] - to some degree that's what each of us does as well [we recognize common principles of design or concept] - where we have the disadvantage is that most of us keep coming back to them in one guise or another, primarily because we either don't have a better alternative or we doubt that we know our subject well enough to rule them out entirely as unworkable, without further investigative augmentation.

Imo, I don't think Bessler would have suffered from this self doubt - he would have trained his mind so well, & so completely, as to feel entirely comfortable identifying what each & every design had to offer in terms of strengths & weaknesses [& so he says in the MT translations, with the benefit of hindsight no doubt] - he would not have to do the math or work out sine of angles for torque etc - he would just recognize it as a variation of a previous unworkable design & dismiss it - this would be a liberating experience & position to be in, a mind free & uncluttered, not racked by self doubt or over analysing, so that he could press on to find an eventual winner [in some ways like susan, not over analysing, just instinctive knowing, seen it before recognition].

If you look at MT it shows a rough progression of his experiments & the avenues of exploration he probably took, until he found the answer - granted some OOB designs [first up & simplist] for example, are mixed around a bit, but overall there is a pattern - this starts with OOB wheels & then by & large progresses onto experiments with accessorizing his wheels with springs & storksbills for example, & then into a new direction where he uses hydraulics & pneumatics, bellows & pendulums etc i.e. he attempts to supplement gravity's action to find constant overbalance.

He, of course, near the end of the sequence in MT purportedly took out the 2 or 3 drawings that proved the possibility of PM & substituted the enigma of the toy page - then effectively says the answer is contained herein so work it out, if you can.

Although he said the answer came to him in a dream [attributed to God] I have no doubt that he had prepared his mind by being so familiar with his chosen subject [familiar with what wouldn't work] that he was eventually able to expand his search & think more clearly & laterally for a solution without the miasma of doubt to rack him & hold him back.

What is the moral of this story ? Life's too short for chess ;7)

[Bessler007]

What is the moral of this story ? Life's too short for chess ;7)

Mr. Fletcher,

These are the rantings of a lunitic. :) I do have some thoughts of your other ideas. I'm sure Dr. Lasker is rolling over in perpetual motion in his grave by all of this! I never....

[Fletcher]

The rantings of a lunatic, *grin*, no doubt :7)

[Bessler007]

Hello Fletcher,

A flaw I see in your idea of the development of Bessler's genius is this. There are many grandmasters but there is only one Bessler. Why do you suppose that's so?

The modern concept of genius is that it is intrinsic to the person. The ancient understanding is that genius is outside the person. There have been a lot of people before Bessler and after with excellent comprehension of mechanics and many better than Bessler. Yet some how he managed to find a needle in a haystack the size of the known universe.

What are the odds of that?

[Clarkie]

Fletcher,
I completely agree with you. Bessler spent 10 years working on his passion; he honed his brain to simulate ideas before build. Something Nicola Tesla was known to do.

It takes years but mental simulation of previously unseen mechanics is possible to develop in some people. Who knows, some one out there may have been born with the ability.

Once you have tried and tested many different concepts over several years, and you are wired up in the right way, it is possible to review, simulate and reject what will not work. This is without doing the math or building something.

The ability to reject early gives the brain more time to work on what might work.

I think the main objective is to not get sidetracked, something a lot of people do on this board. I call it flocking, like a flock of birds swooping on a cornfield, and then they move on to the next one.

It is my opinion that just building wheels with the hope that you might discover the secret is not the way. Nor is the math approach, if this could have been calculated, it would have been done many years ago.

We are looking at something relatively simple to build but would take a super computer to calculate after programming. That’s assuming someone has the data needed for the program. Springs come to mind.

My approach is to lock on to one idea and not let go until I have proven, to myself, that it can’t work, even if it takes years.

Once you have the right concept, and you wont know this for some time, you will find the secret is in the detail of that concept, the fine-tuning and the precise configuration.

The laws of conservation of energy are broad brush. There is a loophole but it will be a needle in a haystack. Others believe it and so do I.

It is my opinion that Bessler’s wheel used gravity as its driving force; the prime mover used both speed and gravity to over balance the wheel. It’s the speed bit one needs to understand.

Pete.