Impact is the Key

[Grimer]

It really is as simple as that. And I can now see why.

But before going into into a more detailed explanation than before I would like to ask, is there any record of anyone who has built a Bessler wheel with weights impacting on one side and just being carried up without impact on the other? Does anyone have a reference or link to such an attempt?

If there is, I can't understand why they failed.

(I do seem to remember someone saying something about a machine with billiard balls which did achieve some rotation but then failed for other reasons.)

[Ben]

I've built wheels like that. At impact, the whole wheel jolts, and the impact is absorbed by the wheel and frame. The jolt is energy lost that I would prefer to be used in the transfer of motion. That's one of my current efforts- to figure that out.

I think the eyewitnesses described the weights as gently hitting the side going down.

If weights are swinging on arms, it makes sense that they must hit something. I think impact is part of the process, but I don't think it's the key, or the weights would pound the thing to pieces. (I think it was also fragile to some degree)

[Fletcher]

Grimer ... Impact/Impulse

Try hammer wheels in Besslerwheel.com>Links, also try >Ideas

Also google 'museum of unworkable devices'

http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelk ... pforce.htm

Chas Campbell made the billard ball wheel.

[docfeelsgood]

Grimer ;

I believe you are exactly right . i stated it in a thread on stewarts forum a long time ago IF he hasn't DELEATED it !!! AND if ya ask "Rainman" he'll just give ya a cock & bull story !!! go with your own gut feeling !!! you just might stumble onto something !!!

"Doc."

[greendoor]

Grimer - i'm intrigued at what you think you see, but I have to agree with Ben, that Impact is a lossy transfer of energy/momentum. I honestly do not see Impact (alone) as being the provider of surplus energy.

I would like to be corrected though. I recall an excellent video clip somebody posted here about something biological (can't quite remember what) that could demonstrate over-unity energy by using impact. Nature usually surpasses any hi-tech man made stuff, and this creature was amazingly strong and adapted to the task (which I can't recall). A lot of the stuff was about how it's materials were strong enough, although they did erode away with use. There was something about a secondary impact caused by the first, which was the source of unexplained surplus energy. It seemed very similar to the effects of cavitation, which I understand can also be used for surplus energy gain.

But somehow, I doubt Bessler stumbled onto anything that revolutionary. I'm pretty certain he was using simple gravitational acceleration of mass. As much as some people point to theoretical energy gains based on (what I believe) to be the slightly flawed maths of E=1/2MV^2 - I really don't think there is any real Power to be obtained without an obvious External Force. And Gravity fits the bill nicely.

My personal conviction is that Bessler's principle required impact - but this was a lossy link in the chain, necessary but not the source of power.

Here are some thoughts along these lines. (I will be interested to see how vigorously they are ripped apart :)

Impact can be cushioned to make it quieter. Unfortunately, that might result in more loss, if the energy is turned into heat (e.g. feather pillow). But if the cushion is highly elastic (e.g. closed cell rubber) then the energy is not wasted, but diverted into another vector. Depending on whether you want an elastic or inelastic collision, the choice of material will make a big difference. Bessler would not have had some of the materials we have today.

One reason why Impact can be useful is that it allows energy/momentum to be transfered from one mechanical system to another. Our text book maths gets a bit hung up on closed systems, and frames of reference. In reality, there are no closed systems - and frames of references can be changed at the drop of a hat.

For example:

Textbook would say that if you exploded a mass, and that mass broke into two pieces, each traveling at the same, fast velocity - but 180 degrees apart ... the textbook would say that the combined momentum of that system is ZERO. Because velocity is a vector, and because the directions are negative & positive, the academic is forced to sum these to zero.

But you and I know that there is a lot of real momentum in that system - even if we are not allowed to say so. This is a partial (crock) reason why the E=1/2MV^2 thing is favoured - because when you square a number it loses it's negative value. The academics are happy to say that this system contains a lot of Energy - but they are not happy to say it has any Momentum.

But all you have to do is choose a different Frame of Reference, and if one of those moving pieces of mass hits you in the head, there is no question that it has a lot of momentum (from your Frame of Reference).

Physically letting go of a mass, and allowing it to enter a seperate system is one way to have a machine (or two seperate machines) that work in seperate frames of reference. This can be relevant - because Momentum & Energy are both Conserved ONLY within one Closed system.

Energy & Momentum are both proportional to Velocity (we can argue about which maths is correct in a given situation - but both are directly proportional to Velocity). And Velocity is always Relative to a Frame of Reference. And with seperate systems you can pick & choose your frame of reference - this is not some cosmic thing - just everyday physics.

If you have a 'Closed' system, and moving mass that has been ejected from another system enters that system - there are possibilities that simply don't exist and would be illegal in a totally closed system. Not that there are any.

Just my 2c about impact.

[greendoor]

I would like to ask, is there any record of anyone who has built a Bessler wheel with weights impacting on one side and just being carried up without impact on the other? Does anyone have a reference or link to such an attempt?

If there is, I can't understand why they failed.

I can see many reasons why such a wheel would fail.

When you say weights 'impacting on one side' - that suggests to me that you are letting the weights freefall. The calculation for acceleration under freefall are well known, and we can easily calculate the energy they will have at point of impact.

Depending on whether this is an elastic or inelastic collision, we can have some idea of which direction the momentum will be transfered to the wheel, and how lossy this might be. It probably can't be elastic, otherwise the weight would probably bounce off and do a series of ever decreasing bounces like a ball ...

Either way - the total energy gained by freefall, with the lossy transfer, cannot provide enough energy to force the same amount of mass upwards on the other side.

AFAIK - this is a variant on the old overbalanced wheel idea that should have been well flogged to death by now.

On the other hand - if you have a wheel, and mass (from a seperate system) is chucked into the top at regular intervals, this wheel will deliver power. See how this requires impact, but impact is not the source?

[Grimer]

Grimer ... Impact/Impulse

Try hammer wheels in Besslerwheel.com>Links, also try >Ideas

Also google 'museum of unworkable devices'

http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelk ... pforce.htm

Chas Campbell made the billiard ball wheel.

Thanks for the info Fletch.

I knew the old-stagers would have the answer at their fingertips.

[Grimer]

The reason that the Bessler works is that the inertia of the wheel under impact (d³x/dt³) is greater than it is under acceleration (d²x/dt²).

Inertia (mass) is defined in relation to linear acceleration. To get change in acceleration you need more than commonal garden linear force. Think of it as a super-force. And matter resists this with a super-inertia.

The mistake people make with mass is they think it represents the amount of matter in a body. It doesn't. Mass (inertia) is a property of matter. This has been clear for a century. When bodies are taken close to the speed of light their mass (inertia) increases. The amount of stuff doesn't increase. We don't get a bigger and bigger lump of lead with more and more atoms. A nucleus of sodium doesn't pile on the protons and neutrons to become a nucleus of gold.

Think of mass (inertia) as a numerator/denominator fraction.

If we increase the number of lumps, the numerator, then the mass (inertia) will of course increase
just as the total amount of heat will increase or the total area will increase (providing the lumps are kept separate of course) or any other accidental property will increase.

However, if we change the denominator by increasing the internal rotary motion, the internal rate of change of acceleration then the inertia will increase. Think of a box full of gyros in their gimbals. If the gyros are stationary in relation to the fixed stars then it it quite easy to rotate the box. If the gyros are locked then it becomes extremely difficult to rotate the box. The inertia of the box has increased. The mass of the box has increased.

So when impacted the wheel has a greater inertia than when merely accelerated. So gravity does more work on the impacted side than on the unimpacted side.

Let's put it another way.

A force at right angles to a body in motion is of a higher order (d³x/dt³) than a force in line with a body in motion just as the ordinate y (rods) is of a higher order than the abscissa, x (blocks) and the third dimension z (layers) is of a higher order still.

When we treat a force at right angles to a body in motion (d²y/dt²)in the same way as we treat a force in line with a body in motion (d²x/dt²) we are using an analogy. The two forces are of a different rank. A captain and a major are both officers, they are both forces but the major is of a higher rank than the captain. He is of a different order.

I feel sure that if impact is used in an intelligent way it will lead to a Bessler wheel. From the look of the Abeling patents that has already been achieved although I'd be very surprised in Sjack really understands why his wheel works - which leaves tons of room for others to make improvements, eh!

[greendoor]

Chas Campbell's wheel tried to exploit the mechanical advantage between two different diameters around his wheel. The same old overbalanced wheel that Bessler & history shows will never work.

CC was clever enough to avoid allowing the balls to fall further on the outside. He arranged things so that the outer balls fell the same fixed distance as the inner balls needed to rise. But what he unfortunately didn't factor in is the velocity difference. The outer balls travel much faster than the inner balls. This means that although the outer balls have more torque, this torque is available for a lesser amount of time. This means that the outer balls are simply not there when they are needed. This 'timing' problem that CC mentions is not a mere synchronisation problem - it's a fundamental flaw.

[greendoor]

Grimer - thanks, very interesting. Please allow me to make the standard knee-jerk responses. (If I don't, someone else will, so let's clear the air).

Inertia (mass) is defined in relation to linear acceleration. To get change in acceleration you need more than commonal garden linear force. Think of it as a super-force. And matter resists this with a super-inertia.

Eh? In who's textbook? AFAIK - ordinary Force causes Acceleration - no need to invoke a super-force. Maybe if you want a Jerk/Jolt (an Acceleration of Acceleration) you need a Force that increases over Time, but I don't see a need for a super-force just to create Acceleration ...

The mistake people make with mass is they think it represents the amount of matter in a body. It doesn't. Mass (inertia) is a property of matter. This has been clear for a century. When bodies are taken close to the speed of light their mass (inertia) increases. The amount of stuff doesn't increase.

I have serious trust issues with Einstein. I don't even know if Einstein believed in Einstein. Do people really believe that matter would have infinite mass if accelerated to light speed? It's a theory. The idea is invoked to help solve some things, but imo it creates more problems that it solves. A large part of the problem is Einstein rejecting Aether theory.

What I don't get is that Einstein suggested that Photons of light have material mass which can be attracted by gravity - in which case every Photon is an example of matter traveling at light speed, and are they all infinite mass?

I don't think so.

Think of a box full of gyros in their gimbals. If the gyros are stationary in relation to the fixed stars then it it quite easy to rotate the box. If the gyros are locked then it becomes extremely difficult to rotate the box. The inertia of the box has increased. The mass of the box has increased.

I still don't think so ... does conventional physics believe that mass changes like this? Where does this theory come from?

So when impacted the wheel has a greater inertia than when merely accelerated. So gravity does more work on the impacted side than on the unimpacted side.

I would tend to say that impacts create greater peaks of force, but the energy is spread over a shorter period of time ...

As peaks of force shudder into the wheel, the equal & opposite normal forces have to match it - which puts greater stress on the working parts. But I see this as just your basic momentum transfer - elastic or inelastic collisions at work ...

I still tend to think that the mass of an object doesn't change (unless stuff gets broken off it). Weight/Force obviously changes all over the place. Aren't you simply confusing Mass & Weight?

Inertia - AFAIK - is simply Momentum. Something moving is basically at rest and doesn't want to change speed or direction. It will require Force to Accelerate that Mass to change either speed or direction, and that is Inertia.

[BAR]

Ok impact does not gain anything. Energy is always conserved in 3 dimensions. The only possible advantage of impact would be to deliver it's force through a medium and be absorbed by another mass. However if all the energy of a mechanical system is studied, the total path loops to zero. Energy in = energy out, minus losses.

The concept of relativistic mass by Einstein is like I always quote only apparent. Mass has an apparent increase because its actions simulate that of more mass. However using Greendoor's gyro analogy can an increase of weight be measured by gyros spinning fast enough? The velocity of light is the limit and rest mass contains motions within it, so any entity of mass with velocity can not add its velocity to exceed that of light. It experiences the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and the same mass with its inherent motions is forced to move perpendicular to the direction of its body. This force causing the mass to change shape is what I believe stores energy and simulates an increase of mass.

Greendoor inerta is not momentum or energy. An entity can possess zero momentum and still have inertia. It is simply the ability to resist change of motion.

[greendoor]

"Greendoor inerta is not momentum or energy. An entity can possess zero momentum and still have inertia. It is simply the ability to resist change of motion."

Agreed - I didn't explain myself very well there. The way I see it - Velocity & Momentum are relative to an abitrary reference frame. Whether an object has zero momentum or high momentum is purely relative. So when we say an object is at rest, to somebody else that object may well be speeding along at a million miles an hour, relative to them.

But regardless of what relative number we put on an object's velocity (hence momentum) it has it's own state of motion that it doesn't want to change. So perhaps the word I was searching for was Motion. It's pretty similar to Momentum if we don't think about assigning numbers.

[Grimer]

Grimer - thanks, very interesting. Please allow me to make the standard knee-jerk responses. (If I don't, someone else will, so let's clear the air).

Inertia (mass) is defined in relation to linear acceleration. To get change in acceleration you need more than commonal garden linear force. Think of it as a super-force. And matter resists this with a super-inertia.

Eh? In who's textbook?

In a textbook that hasn't been written yet. That's the problem.

AFAIK - ordinary Force causes Acceleration - no need to invoke a super-force. Maybe if you want a Jerk/Jolt (an Acceleration of Acceleration) you need a Force that increases over Time, but I don't see a need for a super-force just to create Acceleration ...

Nor does anyone else apparently. That's the problem. That's the confusion at the heart of mechanics. And that's why Bessler was successful in relying on his instincts and people who rely on textbooks haven't been.

You wrote: "I don't see a need for a super-force just to create Acceleration ..." You don't "....need for a super-force just to create Acceleration ..." And I didn't say you did. I said you need a super force, a force of a different order to create a change in acceleration.

The force needed to create d²x/dt² is different in quality from the force needed to create d³x/dt³, as different as the electric and magnetic forces. It's a force of a different order.

Think of a box full of gyros in their gimbals. If the gyros are stationary in relation to the fixed stars then it it quite easy to rotate the box. If the gyros are locked then it becomes extremely difficult to rotate the box. The inertia of the box has increased. The mass of the box has increased.

I still don't think so ... does conventional physics believe that mass changes like this? Where does this theory come from?

You are not going to solve Bessler by relying on conventional physics. After all, you have already ditched Einstein and you can hardly be more unconventional than that.


I realise wot I rote gives rise to enormous cognitive dissonance but I am confident that it is correct - though I realise that doesn't count for much in a Bessler Forum. We are all confident we are correct or we wouldn't be here. Well, most of us anyway.

Perhaps the following pages from an Internal Note (suppressed) I wrote on the nature of mass when I was working for government will help.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171 ... page04.jpg

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171 ... page05.jpg

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171 ... page06.jpg

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171 ... page07.jpg

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171 ... page08.jpg

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171 ... page09.jpg

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171 ... page10.jpg

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q171 ... page11.jpg

[BAR]

Grimer I am trying to have respect, but if you are an engineer, then alot of what you say totally disagrees with what you were taught. I mean I too disagree with the establishment, but I can not ignore the measured physics of reality. The truth is the concepts of mainstream science explaining the reality we observe is incomplete. BUT that explanation can not violate other known laws that are observed and measured.

[Grimer]

Grimer I am trying to have respect, but if you are an engineer, then alot of what you say totally disagrees with what you were taught.

It does indeed.

But you know, it's a funny thing. When I wrote that note my director, Dr Rex Watson (they got rid of him from Porton Down and dumped him on us), tried to have me suppressed. To that end he sent my note to all the senior scientists in the Establishment in order for them to pick holes in it and tell him where I had gone wrong. And none of them could (or would). Rumour has it that in desperation he even sent it to the Chief Scientific Advisor to the government, Herman Bondi, and he couldn't (or wouldn't) pick holes in it either. Consequently I was allowed to carry my appeal against suppression right up to the then Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service, Robin Butler, (now Lord Butler). Of course, not being a scientist he had to side with the establishment but, nice chap that he is, he was very apologetic about it.