Eric Laithwaite was a genius who deserves some serious attention. His work with gyroscopes seems to be very relevant to Bessler wheel designs. Plain experimental evidence of anomolous weight loss from a simple rotating object should never have been ignored by so-called professional scientists ...
I am tending to believe that the Bessler wheel was a large precessing gyroscope ... and simple 2D modeling will never get there. I believe modeling software is flawed anyway (on top of the notable bugs and quirks), because the formulas are based on the 'known laws' of physics and will never yield true unexpected experimental evidence. It will merely uphold the current beliefs of the majority. I believe 2D modeling is doubly wrong because the complex movements of a precessing gyroscope require 3D modeling at least. Personally, I am very suspicious of the individuals who come out of the woodwork to rigorously steer discussions into 2D modeling dead-end streets ... but that's just me.
Look at these words from Bessler:
Seen sideways or full face it is as glorious as a peacock's tail.
It turns to the right and to the left.
It spins around in any direction whether laden or empty
The axle (or shaft) passing through the center is 6 feet long and 8 inches thick cross-sectionally.
While in motion it is supported by two almost one-inch-thick tapered steel pegs, whose two bearings (or sockets) with two curves around the axle provide the rotational motion of the whole vertically suspended wheel through application of pendula, which can be somewhat modified, as the attached figures at the end of this treatise clearly show.
This strongly suggests to me that the wheel is designed to wobble. A simple gyroscope precession describes a cone ... I suspect the Bessler wheel wobble may be described by two cones ...
When trying to design a gravity wheel, we tend to think of the driving force coming from weights on the perimeter of the wheel. Maybe the driving force comes from the axel ... "two curves around the axle provide the rotational motion of the whole vertically suspended wheel through application of pendula" ...
Imagine we are holding a shaft in our two hands, palms upright, and on this shaft is a flywheel in the middle. Is there a way to get this shaft to rotate, without provide a twist/torque motion? I believe there is ...
If we alternately raise and lower our palms vertically we can apply a wobble to this flywheel ... which by itself won't cause rotation. But if we also move our hands in and out horizontally, we can impart a forward motion - and the combintation of both linear motions will cause the flywheel to rotate ...
(I've also experiment with shaking bottles of water with a similar combination of linear movements, and it's possible to create a rotating vortex with simple horizontal and vertical linear movements.
If you have a rolling pin in the kitchen, see if you can get it rotating without turning it - just linear hand movement. It's too easy. And not totally remarkable - just a version of the conversion of reciprocating motion into rotary motion. BUT - note the use of 3 dimensions, not 2. A Vortex exists in three dimensions, and a precessing gyroscope exists in 3 dimensions - this is basically 3D conversion of two reciprocating motions ...
Bessler described driving this axle with pendula ... I believe some pendula with heavy weights could provide necessary vertical and horizontal motions ... so I could imagine the Bessler wheel being rotated (or at least constrained) by these two pendula manipulating the axle shaft in this simple but unconventional 'wobbly' fashion ...
Of course - we are looking for surplus energy gain ... "The qualities of the elements are necessary to keep things going." ... "Poltergeists wander freely through locked doors. " ... these might be 18th century terms for what we might describe as 'tapping into electron spin' or whatever phrases we might use as we are struggling to define what is really happening ...
Laithwaite and others experimenting with the effect he discovered have certainly glimpsed a potential for extracting free energy, if they haven't actually stumbled upon the elegant solution yet ...
I'm just throwing these ideas in to encourage speculation from a different angle ...
As useful as 2D modeling might be, I think we have to look beyond that - and return to simple experiments with rotating objects ...
I fully agree with you on your perspective of the 2D programmes.
To your quote: "If we alternately raise and lower our palms vertically we can apply a wobble to this flywheel ... which by itself won't cause rotation. But if we also move our hands in and out horizontally, we can impart a forward motion - and the combintation of both linear motions will cause the flywheel to rotate ... "
It seems to me that a combination of up-down and in-out movements would give you what is called rotational movement...unless it's done in straight lines i.e. rectangular...?
It's an interesting thought and reminds me of an idea I suggested earlier this month: A doubble acting oscillating pendulum....
In fact my design was to give Milkovic's oscillator a pendulum on both sides of the lever's fulcrum.
The weightlessnes of one pendulum reaching the top (G=0) position will result in a rise of the opposing side of the leverarm including the opposing pendulum.
Ofcourse this arrangement needs to be syncronized, having a 45 degree differens of the pendulum arm (swing).
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
I absolutely agree with the idea that we must look at this problem in 3 as opposed to 2 dimensions. That (the restriction to 2 dimensions) is WM2D's biggest flaw when it comes to its usefulness as a tool to achieve our collective goal.
I'm a 3 dimensional designer, designing tradeshow exhibits, store fixtures and museum installations. One of my most powerful tools is 3D StudioMAX which I've come to discover does have a gravity/physics simulation plugin called reactor. I'm still pretty green with this aspect of the software but I am very interested in putting it through its courses.
Anyhow, I am willing to offer my services both in terms of 3D modeling as well as experimenting with reactor (free of charge of course) to anyone who has a coherent design.
Eric Laithwaite did deserve better treatment by the Royal Institute in 1974 when he presented his findings about gyroscopes. However coming from an engineering background other fellow members ignored and even stopped the publishing of the presentation.
At least part of it was seen on Television during Christmas.
I would not be to harsh on 2D modelling as with any simplification one can remove a critical element.
But clearly gyroscopes would need 3D modelling; However some insights can be found with 2D modelling if you know what you are looking to prove.
Last edited by agor95 on Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Any modeling, whether 2D or 3D, simply models the 'laws' that the developer implements. Obviously, at best, a prudent developer will stick to the textbook formulas that rigidly enforce conservation of energy. The simple, repeatable, effect that Laithwaite found would never be discovered using such a model.
There are plenty of other anomalies and undiscovered effects that will simply go unnoticed if we limit ourselves to using software models. They are the skeptics best tool. They have a place for weeding out bad designs that have no merits, where the operating principle is flakey and we just want to prove they won't work with conventional physics. But for real discovery of whatever Bessler found - forget it.
I read somewhere about a huge anomaly in space craft trajectories that was a major hinderance to the early space programs. I believe there are people who know there are limitations to physics as it is taught, and don't really want these anomalies widely known or accepted.
We should not lose sight of this basic Laithwaite experiment, that shows a way to raise a mass with much less energy than expected. Bessler indicated that a trick of this nature was the secret of his Wheel ... it would be crazy to ignore this effect, or to let Professor Laithwaites efforts go unrecognised.
You have expressed such compelling logic that I am forced to buy a gyroscope. Then to repeat, in a modest way, at least two of Professors Laithwaites effects.
I do have a little hope that the interaction of existing laws can be used to explain the effects of gyroscopes.
I remember reading about the first American Space satellite taking more time to orbit the earth. There was to much delta v and they could not account for it.
Agreed with all, except that 2 D modeliing does have many uses, as long as you understand that it is actually 2 D modelling, and not the real world :)
You want to test the "bent axle" model. Heck, it's ot complicated, you don't even need a computer. You dont need any special metal machined up. Just take a bicycle fork, a wheel with a long spindle (not one of those quick release things wgich have only 3 mm of axle each side). Two solutions: bend one side of the axle up, the other down. Just a few mm, and say 200°.
Or tape a 1 m dia nail to the axle on one side, it'll make a bump.
What you will need to do is tighten down the cones pretty hard so that the axle is solid with the wheel.
That will give you a good idea of the effects you can get. It won't be perpetual motion, but you will be able to physically see what happens.
So, you have one week to do this or I shall do it, and keep the results secret and make a massive fortune :)
The other one is an oscilatting fork, but I'm already working on that.
Erick, hi!
Above you said:
''I absolutely agree with the idea that we must look at this problem in 3 as opposed to 2 dimensions. That (the restriction to 2 dimensions) is WM2D's biggest flaw when it comes to its usefulness as a tool to achieve our collective goal.
I'm a 3 dimensional designer, designing tradeshow exhibits, store fixtures and museum installations. One of my most powerful tools is 3D StudioMAX which I've come to discover does have a gravity/physics simulation plugin called reactor. I'm still pretty green with this aspect of the software but I am very interested in putting it through its courses.
Anyhow, I am willing to offer my services both in terms of 3D modeling as well as experimenting with reactor (free of charge of course) to anyone who has a coherent design.''
About the very important last phrase, you got any comments, at least in open.
For the other side, about this same phrase, I sent you a pvt msg and up to now you sent me no attention. Is this really the way you play? Some misunderstanding, maybe? Some personal trouble or accident, maybe?
Any way, I'm sorry for this.
Thanks and regs. Murilo
Excerpt from the Eric Laithwaite lecture #7 (see on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRCq3wLMfIM between 2:00 and 2:50)
What is interesting here is the deviation of the plane where the weights are rotating.
By combining two sets rotating in opposite direction, we get the famous 'V-shaped' design.
Attachments
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
Bessler's wheels were thinner than a typical coin so I find it difficult to believe that the third dimension is necessarily involved in its solution. If it is then that would certainly explain failure to find it.
nicbordeaux wrote:Just take a bicycle fork, a wheel with a long spindle
Just think why the axles of the Bessler wheel are so much elongated.
An important clue I discovered just few days ago: the length of each elongated axle is equal the half radius of the wheel. The wheel is in fact located in an ellipsoid.
