Hello I Will Try to Help Your Gravity Problems

[Grimer]

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that impact is the key to the working of the Bessler wheel. Not original I know. From what I can understand from the 'sGravesande stuff he came to a similar conclusion.

My reason for this view is twofold.

First. Many years ago I wrote an internal research note which looked at momentum and kinetic energy in a hierarchical fashion. It lead to the conclusion that mass is simply some fine scale motion and not (as is seems to be generally taken) a measure of matter at all. A few years ago I met (Internet "met") who had come to the same result from a different direction.

Second. Impact or jerk is the derivative (d3x/dt3) where the wheel outflanks gravity in an analogous way the Ventomobil which outflanks the wind by moving one of its components faster downwind than the wind speed and so creates a negative wind. Planes do this all the time when they are flying with the wind behind them. Of course the difference between a plane and the Ventomobil is that the former uses a fuel whereas the Ventomobil uses the wind itself, jujitsu style, as the fuel to sail into the wind.

Now obviously, the Wheel cannot outflank gravity with the first derivative speed. For all practical purposes the speed of the gravitational wind is infinite. It could potentially outflank it at the second derivative since 32 feet/sec is not that great but this seems unlikely from the dimensions and rates of rotation of the wheel.

But gravity can certainly be outflanked in rate of change of acceleration. The acceleration due to gravity does change as one approaches the earth but the change over the distance between the top and bottom of the Wheel is infinitesimal and can easily be surpassed by internal impacts of weights within the wheel.

And internal impacts are the one thing we can be pretty confident about.

Just as the Ventomobil hauls itself up by its own bootstraps so to speak I think the Wheel is doing the same. It is inducing an anti-wind, an inertial wind.

[greendoor]

I have come to similar conclusions (not exactly the same, but similar).

"An anvil receives many blows" ... "shadow boxers" ... etc (English translation courtesty of author John Collins).

Some people prefer to think that the anvil blows refer to forged metalwork - maybe a lot of rivets in a scissor jack/storks bill. I consider that the comment about the mechanism being very simple, and a carpenters lad being able to build the thing, favour my preference (that the operating principle requires impact).

Then there is the obvious noise that spectators commented on - masked perhaps by the stamper box noise.

I view impact as a necessary evil - a lossy transformation that is required, but doesn't contribute to the energy gain. But that's just my personal theory that requires this. I'm also considering other more modern options that might achieve the same thing - e.g. a free-wheeling alternator that suddently has the field windings energised to apply a load. Or a free-circulating hydraulic pump that is suddenly switch to apply pressure to a load.

Thanks for the link to the Ventomobile. An interesting experiment, but frankly I think they have the concept wrong.

An idea that I nearly gave out yesterday but deleted (but since you have brought this up, I will offer this idea for inspiration) ...

Imagine a Vertical Axis Turbine (Savonius Rotor) on a land vehicle. The big advantages of a VAT over the Ventomobile design are these: a VAT is slow speed, high torque, self starting, can accept wind from any direction. OK - it's not that efficient - but the first advantages make up for this.

With a VAT, a vehicle could drive directly into a prevailing wind - slowly but surely. (A land yacht can't drive directly into the wind, but can sort of zig zag around and use the wind energy to make some progress).

[Grimer]

A Ventomobil is not a land yacht. It has a propeller not a sail. In fact what you describe (which coincidentally is what I am in the process of drawing) is just the same as a Ventomobil except that is is using a vertical axis instead of a horizontal axis.

In the Ventomobil competition held in Holland there in fact a very short clip of just such a vertical axis vehicle (I've referred to it before somewhere. I'll try to find the link).

I agree with you that a vertical axis machine is better in general than a horizontal axis machine - and also of course better as a analogy for the Bessler. I am working on such an analogy now.

Edit: Found it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBm6DU_t ... re=related

It's a very short clip at 52 second in.

Though he is using aerofoil section blades for efficiency rather than the hemi-cylinders of the Savonius rotor, the principle is the same.

[Grimer]

I hadn't seen the particular design before. That's really neat.

[Grimer]

Here is a diagram of a Savonius Ventomobil rotated through 90 degrees so that the wind is seeing as blowing vertically downwards to mimic the action of gravity.



In the case of the Bessler the equivalent to the ground reaction acts in the axle of the wheel.

One can see that in principle the Savonius Ventomobil could be run on an elevated rail which bears on the side of the axle to give the necessary reaction.

[BAR]

So if gravity takes the energy away where does it put it?

It puts it in the 4th dimension. Gravitation is not a material entity, so there are no fundamental components with mass to carry away the kinetic energy (conserving it). The best way to understand is by gamma ray sources. Gamma rays are shown to change their wavelength in the gravitational field. Measured from a source, they become shorter (energy gained) as they fall down onto the detector (towards earth) and longer (energy lost) as they strike the detector above the gamma source away from earth. Since gamma rays are photons and photons are considered as energy, then it becomes difficult to see how energy is not created or destroyed by this experiment.

Following the line of this conversation ab if that were true then as more and more space debris fell to the earth the earth would get colder and colder, and as mass left the earth the earth would get hoter and hoter.

Though gravitation comes from the earth, the earth's mass does not give up its energy to generate the gravitational field, so there is no loss or gain to the earth' mass. Only material entitys influenced by the gravitation changes energy.

"Yes. Gravity gives and takes away energy. Creates and destroys." - BAR

BAR, as a statement, that is really interesting!

I thought that matter and energy could not be created nor destroyed except by mandate of their Creator, but rather, in the common case available to our realm of reality, only changed as to form.

As the representative of the D.D.G. (and it's sole subscribing member, so-far) I ask you the following: has it not been suggested by some rather impressive minds, that Gravity may be a thing ultimately ineffable due to it's being (supposedly) a direct manifestation of the action of the Divine Will?

If this were actually true, it might then explain why it is so very elusive as to it's deepest nature, if not it's more mundane effects, those which are here interminably discussed, and this practically without surcease? (Could there ever be an end to it?)

It seems the one thing in Nature that really does defy our chasing after it's ultimate secrets. (Is this not so?)

Again the 4th dimension is timeless so it can violate 3 dimensional things. 3 dimensional entitys must only obey conservation. Sure it is entirely possible the universe was created as we do not know the full scope of it's secrets. Computer programmers create virtual worlds in games so we may ourselves be living as programs in God's computer. Rules are rules, they are indifferent to a creator or by natural origins. The same can also be said of comprehension. God and magic appears when we have none, but it is not to say that creation by God is still not impossible when we ever have it fully.

Quote:
"Some of the other four forces". Huh?



Nuclear, strong/weak.

Actually the strong nuclear force is gravitation. There is absolutely no difference. Now it is getting the rest of the scientific community to realize it.

[bluesgtr44]

Besslers first two one directional wheels had no witness testimony of any impact sounds....just noted that they were "loud". Another take on this is from Wagners deposition on the first bi-directional wheel at Merseburg, where he makes a comparison to the one he witnessed at Draschwitz, the second one directional, and the fact that it made no such sounds as was witnessed at the Merseburg demonstration. Now, I know this may not be a point of an overall approach, but if one believes that Bessler actually had the real thing....it would seem that impact is not the "prime mover".

There are those of us who believe that the one way wheels are the very basic design and finding the solution to this will reveal the rest of the story. There are too many occurrences where witness testimony could be specific about the use of impact in those first two wheels. It was picked up immediately at the Merseburg demonstration and the cast of characters that were present at most of these demonstrations leads me to believe that if there were impact sounds in the first two wheels....someone would have said so.

Another tidbit I find very interesting, others may not, is the mention by J. Weise,who was present for the demonstration of the Merseburg wheel...J. Collins, GB....pg. 61. "It also retained this same speed and regularity of rotation when it was used to lift a chest containg 6 heavy wall-bricks (the total weight being about 70 pounds). The apparatus used was an arrangement of pulleys.....".

So, this thing rotated at the same speed whether laden or empty? Figure that one out!


Steve

[Grimer]

Another tidbit I find very interesting, others may not, is the mention by J. Weise,who was present for the demonstration of the Merseburg wheel...J. Collins, GB....pg. 61. "It also retained this same speed and regularity of rotation when it was used to lift a chest containing 6 heavy wall-bricks (the total weight being about 70 pounds). The apparatus used was an arrangement of pulleys.....".

So, this thing rotated at the same speed whether laden or empty? Figure that one out!

Not too difficult.

If it used "an arrangement of pulleys" then the Bessler may not have bee working very hard at all and a witness may well have judged that the speed and regularity was not affected. Personally I would want to see someone counting the revolutions per minute with a watch before I relied on such testimony.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Grimer....

Not too difficult.

If it used "an arrangement of pulleys" then the Bessler may not have bee working very hard at all and a witness may well have judged that the speed and regularity was not affected. Personally I would want to see someone counting the revolutions per minute with a watch before I relied on such testimony.

I have really tried to play this one off.....here is another exerpt from G.B. courtesy of J. Collins...pg. 68. This is J. Weise....

"The most noteworthy detail regarding this particular experiment was that the wheel, while under this considerable load, continued to rotate at exactly the same rate as when it was running "empty"."

Weise was the "Chief Official" for this demonstration and I do not think he would have blown this one. There are drawings as to how this lifting was performed and I fail to see how that specific type of pulley arrangement could have resulted in what Weise was pointing out......thus is why he found it most noteworthy.

I need to correct myself on the first exerpt I posted. That was signed by everyone present as to what was witnessed, not sure who actually penned the content, but there is no doubt that the consensus among all witnesses is that this was indeed noteworthy!

The one I presented in this post was signed only, it seems, by J. Weise....the "Chief Official".

Just suppose you found yourself in the presence of a demonstration of this nature, Grimer. Would you not, in the name of science, want to be as investigative as possible about such a claim? If so, would this not be a particular aspect that you would find as basic in trying to determine the reality of a claim such as PPM? And if you were watching this wheel and timing it's ability to do work, the simple scientific interest would be to see what is the systems loss due to the applied amount of work the wheel was doing? Would not the best way to do this is to see how much rotational loss the system had? Now, suppose you saw that it didn't have any rotational loss.....would you not find that "most noteworthy"? I mean, if a bunch of us just trying to figure this out can see the simplicity of this type of physical characteristic as to how the system was able to handle a load.........wouldn't they?

You may be right, I just have a problem letting this one completely go. Just because I can't seem to put together a "why" as to how this could be possible, doesn't discount the level of importance the witnesses at the time seemed to put on it. And it does present a quandry!


Steve

[justsomeone]

Steve, Could it be that the wheel had considerably more power than

thought? Maybe lifting 70lbs. through pulleys wasn't much of a load

for the wheel.

Just a thought.

[Grimer]

Hey Grimer....

Not too difficult.

If it used "an arrangement of pulleys" then the Bessler may not have bee working very hard at all and a witness may well have judged that the speed and regularity was not affected. Personally I would want to see someone counting the revolutions per minute with a watch before I relied on such testimony.

I have really tried to play this one off.....here is another exerpt from G.B. courtesy of J. Collins...pg. 68. This is J. Weise....

"The most noteworthy detail regarding this particular experiment was that the wheel, while under this considerable load, continued to rotate at exactly the same rate as when it was running "empty"."

Weise was the "Chief Official" for this demonstration and I do not think he would have blown this one. There are drawings as to how this lifting was performed and I fail to see how that specific type of pulley arrangement could have resulted in what Weise was pointing out......thus is why he found it most noteworthy.

I need to correct myself on the first excerpt I posted. That was signed by everyone present as to what was witnessed, not sure who actually penned the content, but there is no doubt that the consensus among all witnesses is that this was indeed noteworthy!

The one I presented in this post was signed only, it seems, by J. Weise....the "Chief Official".

Just suppose you found yourself in the presence of a demonstration of this nature, Grimer. Would you not, in the name of science, want to be as investigative as possible about such a claim? If so, would this not be a particular aspect that you would find as basic in trying to determine the reality of a claim such as PPM? And if you were watching this wheel and timing it's ability to do work, the simple scientific interest would be to see what is the systems loss due to the applied amount of work the wheel was doing? Would not the best way to do this is to see how much rotational loss the system had? Now, suppose you saw that it didn't have any rotational loss.....would you not find that "most noteworthy"? I mean, if a bunch of us just trying to figure this out can see the simplicity of this type of physical characteristic as to how the system was able to handle a load.........wouldn't they?

You may be right, I just have a problem letting this one completely go. Just because I can't seem to put together a "why" as to how this could be possible, doesn't discount the level of importance the witnesses at the time seemed to put on it. And it does present a quandary!

If I were there I would have timed it. The fact that he didn't shows the remark was made by a layman not a scientist. The term "exactly" just means that he couldn't tell the difference.

I feel sure that I have read another account where the wheel was in fact timed under load and was found to reduce in speed. Perhaps someone else whose memory of where they have read something is better than mine could confirm this.

[primemignonite]

BAR and Steve,

Might you please include attributions with quotes?

BAR, in your very last post, I recognized my own quote
but not the source of the others; I'm sure the case
is vise-verse for those others.

For instance, Grimer's postings always do include
them, so we know who was doing the writing to which
he responds.

Thank you, gentlemen.

James

[Grimer]

Hey Grimer....

Not too difficult.

If it used "an arrangement of pulleys" then the Bessler may not have bee working very hard at all and a witness may well have judged that the speed and regularity was not affected. Personally I would want to see someone counting the revolutions per minute with a watch before I relied on such testimony.

I have really tried to play this one off.....here is another excerpt from G.B. courtesy of J. Collins...pg. 68. This is J. Weise....

"The most noteworthy detail regarding this particular experiment was that the wheel, while under this considerable load, continued to rotate at exactly the same rate as when it was running "empty"."

Weise was the "Chief Official" for this demonstration and I do not think he would have blown this one. There are drawings as to how this lifting was performed and I fail to see how that specific type of pulley arrangement could have resulted in what Weise was pointing out......thus is why he found it most noteworthy.

I need to correct myself on the first excerpt I posted. That was signed by everyone present as to what was witnessed, not sure who actually penned the content, but there is no doubt that the consensus among all witnesses is that this was indeed noteworthy!

The one I presented in this post was signed only, it seems, by J. Weise....the "Chief Official".

Just suppose you found yourself in the presence of a demonstration of this nature, Grimer. Would you not, in the name of science, want to be as investigative as possible about such a claim? If so, would this not be a particular aspect that you would find as basic in trying to determine the reality of a claim such as PPM? And if you were watching this wheel and timing it's ability to do work, the simple scientific interest would be to see what is the systems loss due to the applied amount of work the wheel was doing? Would not the best way to do this is to see how much rotational loss the system had? Now, suppose you saw that it didn't have any rotational loss.....would you not find that "most noteworthy"? I mean, if a bunch of us just trying to figure this out can see the simplicity of this type of physical characteristic as to how the system was able to handle a load.........wouldn't they?

You may be right, I just have a problem letting this one completely go. Just because I can't seem to put together a "why" as to how this could be possible, doesn't discount the level of importance the witnesses at the time seemed to put on it. And it does present a quandary!

If I were there I would have timed it. The fact that he didn't shows the remark was made by a layman not a scientist. The term "exactly" just means that he couldn't tell the difference.

I feel sure that I have read another account where the wheel was in fact timed under load and was found to reduce in speed. Perhaps someone else whose memory of where they have read something is better than mine could confirm this.

From the John Collins' book

This wheel turns with astonishing rapidity, making twenty-six turns in a minute, when the axle works unrestricted. Having tied a cord to the axle, to turn an archimedean screw for raising water, the wheel then made twenty turns a minute. This I noted several times by my watch, and I always found the same regularity. I then stopped the wheel with much difficulty, holding on to the circumference with both hands. An attempt to stop it suddenly would raise a man from the ground.

Now that's what I call a scientific observation. The "exactly" quotation shows just how unreliable eyewitnesses can be. But we knew that didn't we.

[Michael]

It puts it in the 4th dimension. Gravitation is not a material entity, so there are no fundamental components with mass to carry away the kinetic energy (conserving it). The best way to understand is by gamma ray sources. Gamma rays are shown to change their wavelength in the gravitational field. Measured from a source, they become shorter (energy gained) as they fall down onto the detector (towards earth) and longer (energy lost) as they strike the detector above the gamma source away from earth. Since gamma rays are photons and photons are considered as energy, then it becomes difficult to see how energy is not created or destroyed by this experiment.

Two things bar. First of all the 4th dimension, as generally accepted, is the measurement of time in/on/ etc. space. Do you agree?
If not please explain. If so; again I am asking you where gravity puts the kinetic energy of the mass it took the energy away from. I am asking for the particulars. How is it stored. Where does it go. Gamma rays, although an interesting analogy, are measurable. For your theory to be valid the energy that is taken away has to be measurable in some form or frame, or else it is nothing but nothing, a pink elephant.

[erick]

...the heat of the sun, which is of course powered by gravity...

Erick, I'm learning to live with you being wrong :D

Oh. You've found some sort of mysterious magical force, other than gravity, that powers the sun?

Is it powered by unicorns?