Are you optimistic ?

[AB Hammer]

Thanks

We all have to be optimistic, or it will be beyond our grasp.

[Jon J Hutton]

Ok Fletcher and others,

Bessler fought with the weight for distance problem, which has been talked about and posed by Jim and others very eloquently. If water can displace more weight than it takes up.....then the answer using water to solve pm....should be ummmm obvious, or am I missing something. a cylinder with a float moving a lever out such as in mt22....anyone like to comment on this.

JJH

[DrWhat]

In MT22, shouldn't the cord at D (at the periphery) be on the other side of the spool at the periphery?

[edit by scott: http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... -40#MT_022 ]

[AB Hammer]

DrWhat

I have looked at MT22 for along time and it seems that it is on the wrong side. But even on the correct side it would take a weight 4 times or better just to lift it. Here take a weight on a stick and set it over a bar and leave just a little for you to hold on to. You will find it very heavy and and then try to lift it with a finger over the bar from your short end of the stick. You will then understand what people mean by (being left with the short end of the stick). LOL

Jon J Hutton

Control of the water is the problem. evaporation, leakage, how to keep water in a wheel configuration. Bessler did work with fluids like quicksilver, but what he mentions is a prime mover to make wheels work, but I don't think he ever mentioned fluid in the same context. And I have found where I can move a 1 lb weight 2 feet with a 1 1/2 lb moving only 3 inches in 1 second. I have found that quite fasinating.

[Jim Williams]

I remain optimistic the World can still do well even without the uncovering of Bessler's wheel.

I sense if Bessler's wheel is uncovered or otherwise discovered the difference in the World's future would be so profound that, although I would remain optimistic, I would be shaken at the prospect of the change.

[KAS]

Optimistic is an understatement with me.

I don't think that gravity based energy will be discovered, I am convinced it will be.

I believe we are in a unique position because we are not afraid to peer through theoretical barriers based on axioms and explore areas where most academics wouldn't even bother venturing.

In effect, it has been left to the "amateur" physicist to find the answer.

And I don't mean that in an insulting way. But lets face it - thats what we are - unofficial mavericks.

If in the past, acidemia could have only accepted that a solution just might be possible, I believe it would have been discovered long ago.
Just imagine the vast resources that would have been available to research it.

Anyway, thats by the by. The answer's there people - so lets keep on trucking!

Kas

[Jon J Hutton]

Can the force of water be simulated with wm2d by using the force tool.

[Fletcher]

Yes, but you can only make an approximation as Rainer & I did some time ago - you have to create your own formula that changes the pressure force with depth, or surface area for example, & set a datum somewhere on/in the apparatus so that the changing variables have something to refer too - it's not that easy but is a reasonably accurate approximation - the formula force approach shortfalls are that the force works in one direction unlike real fluids that apply a differential force [with depth representing pressure] on every face of the container or vessel - in this case we had the force pushing down on the bottom of the bucket container & as depth of fluid increased [by dipping a float into it] the pressure at the bottom of the bucket increased accordingly, making the pressure force asymmetric relative to its opposing bucket mechanism on the other side of the wheel - where it got complicated was that you had to have a complimentary buoyancy force also acting on the pivot of the float.

After Rainer built it he was trolling thru the WM2D tutorials & found something very similar to what he'd built in the 'oil rig' tutorial, so that was a good cross check against his approach to a mathematical approximation to fluid pressure & buoyancy - I suggest you start with the same tutorial to learn about the variables you will encounter in trying to duplicate the effects of fluids & gravity.

Here is the relevant thread post to see the force tools used [red] - go to bottom of post & open the sim then click on the buoyancy & pressure forces to see the formulas etc - also included is a picture of the sim in question [one of many].

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 8774#38774

[rlortie]

Cohesion or surface tension may also be considered. An object that would normally sink or submerge must first break the surface cohesion.

An example of this is an old parlor trick of my generation. You can actually float a steel needle in a saucer of water providing you do not break the surface tension. Ever notice that when you force a floating object to submerge it takes a little more effort at first than required after the surface has been penetrated?

Ralph

[John Collins]

Nice upbeat post Kas - I liked it.

I was invited to join in a discussion on another forum recently and it became obvious almost from the start that they weren't interested in what said; they just wanted me as a punch bag. No matter how hard I tried to show that there was a case for further research into Bessler's claims, they just tore my 'evidence' to pieces. They would not accept anything other than a working model as proof of the claims. They said that no amount of written evidence would do - it was merely hearsay and thus inadmissable. So that it what we are up against so the sooner we can 'prove' Bessler was real, the better.

As you implied Kas, we are the experts in this field.

JC

[AB Hammer]

John Collins

That type of people wouldn't believe it when they see it. For that type can only see there elusion of what they think is reel and can't except opposing proof. I have had the same problem with historic armour, if it is not in there books it didn't exist and they still resist when proved wrong. The closed minded are just a waist of time.

[KAS]

JC,

I put it down to egotistic oneupmanship. I have experienced this many times but it occurs only with people that has the attention of a influential audience.
Remove this audience, and you get a rational response.

They have this belief that to rebuff concrete evidence that has been painstakingly researched will somehow make them appear to others as more of an expert than the expert.

And what is more annoying is that if they are charismatic enough, they can undo months of research in a single debatable response.
Its a human trait that raises its ugly head from time to time in life and I tend to judge the character of people I meet by this very process.

In this business, it doesn't take long to discover who your real friends are.

I wish these people would just be silent and listen to the facts.

I know I am one for apt quotes but as Mark Twain said " Sometimes it is better to remain silent and appear stupid than to speak and remove all doubt".

Kas