greendoor wrote:As I and peq already said you do NOT need gravity. This experiment could work in the deepest of space continuously compressing a torsional spring past the initial compression length. All you need is a heavy base where the counter torque can work on. The center of mass of the whole experiment itself would not be moving, all the interactions happen inside of a black box so to speak. But once surplus energy is gained you can remove it from the system and put it in another system. This in my eyes is energy creation whether you were indoctrinated by past education will not change this fact.broli wrote:
But Part A by itself can't sustain self-resetting. We need the Part B transformation to get the velocity required for the fast rise.
Pequaide - sorry if i've got this a bit wrong. I appreciate your thoughts about why a spring won't work. I can see the Distance factor being a problem, so this helps to clear some things in my mind.
1) Torsional spring starts to rotate system. Base will rotate in other direction due to counter torque.
2) momentum transfer action happens.
3) lighter but faster system is then decelerated by compressing spring way past initial starting point. Again will the base have a counter torque acting on it, but this time the torque will not only halt it but change its direction.
4) Weights are folded back in and process start a new only difference is that the base has kinetic energy and spring is compressed much farther.
Another idea to add to the mix
Moderator: scott
Last edited by broli on Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The problem with this scenario is forcing the weights to fold back in. In every method (so far) devised by men it takes the same energy to reverse the motion (to fold the weights back in) as is gained by them moving out. At first look this may seem like an easy engineering problem. Many men have tried over the past 300 or so years. So far it seems that all have failed. To succeed you must device a method of reversing the weight movement using less kinetic energy than they produce when folding outward.broli wrote:4) Weights are folded back in and process start a new only difference is that the base has kinetic energy and spring is compressed much farther.
I'm rather confident that I have a solution using CF. The plans are drawn. Most of the wheel is constructed. If I can find maybe eight or ten hours of free time to finish the construction then I will know if I'm right or wrong in this manner. Unfortunately my first priority is my family, which means finishing the house painting and getting firewood in for the winter. (Of course if I had a working Bessler Wheel I would not need firewood.)
Go back and read about the Jim_Mich formula. It shows that when one weight speeds up and one weight slows down (thus momentum transfers from one weight to another weight) then kinetic energy is gained as one weight slows down and the other speeds up. Gravity is not needed! But gravity can be used to get things started moving and if the weights are lifted by the gained force then gravity can be used to keep things moving.
re: Another idea to add to the mix
Fletcher: this is energy, Ke = 1/2mv² An unequal mass bolas can have an energy increase.
By starting with only the heavy end of the bolas in motion; when the lighter end is release (say 1/10 mass) the energy of the system increases.
Have you done this experiment or does it go against your grain? You would not want to prove your concept wrong would you.
To continue to believe something that can be proven wrong for $25 (or less) amazes me.
By starting with only the heavy end of the bolas in motion; when the lighter end is release (say 1/10 mass) the energy of the system increases.
Have you done this experiment or does it go against your grain? You would not want to prove your concept wrong would you.
To continue to believe something that can be proven wrong for $25 (or less) amazes me.
You're kidding right? You're not increasing any potential energy so why do you need to use so much energy to get stationary weights closer to the center. All you need to reset the weight is a tiny momentarily force. The weights will then move to their starting positions, this is newtons first law. An electro magnet, a tiny torsional or linear spring...anything a child can think of can reset this effortlessly. I think people are just pulling up excuses to not collaborate on this experiment.jim_mich wrote:The problem with this scenario is forcing the weights to fold back in. In every method (so far) devised by men it takes the same energy to reverse the motion (to fold the weights back in) as is gained by them moving out. At first look this may seem like an easy engineering problem. Many men have tried over the past 300 or so years. So far it seems that all have failed. To succeed you must device a method of reversing the weight movement using less kinetic energy than they produce when folding outward.broli wrote:4) Weights are folded back in and process start a new only difference is that the base has kinetic energy and spring is compressed much farther.
This is getting irritating!
Draw a proposed device. As Ralph says, bolas and hockey pucks and such just will not cut the mustard! Show how and where and by what means the weights move and change speeds. Then close the loop by showing how and where and by what means the weights are returned to their original positions and speeds. If you show an actual proposed device that closes the loop then I'm sure I and others can calculate the energy and velocity changes. Thus we can discuss what happens and why it happens. Are we talking about rotating wheels? Or are we talking about flinging weights upward into the air and using gravity? Show a proposal of any kind. Then we can analyze it. But don't say that it just takes some engineering and it will work. Do some of the initial engineering by showing a mechanism that you think does what you propose. Once a mechanism concept is proposed THEN we can look at whether it will work.
So far there have been no full complete proposals. There are only claims that kinetic energy increases. This fact has been known for centuries. Kinetic energy is 1/2•M•V^2 so the KE changes by the square of the velocities while momentum transfers by the sum of the velocities (ME = M•V + M•V). In the first case the kinetic energy is relative to some background frame of reference. In the second case the momentum energy is relative another movable object. In the first case it requires ever increasing amounts of energy push between the reference frame background to effect a change in speed. In the second case the change of speed is one object's inertia pushing against or transferring to a second object.
In order to harness this energy one needs to have one object transfer its inertial energy to a second object, which pequaide shows can be done. But to continue to gain energy perpetually then the objects MUST resume their initial speeds and positions for the cycle to repeat. If you simply reverse their paths then usually it takes the same energies that were gained to reset the system. What is needed is a method of resetting the system without requiring additional energies. Show us such a method else stop barking!
Draw a proposed device. As Ralph says, bolas and hockey pucks and such just will not cut the mustard! Show how and where and by what means the weights move and change speeds. Then close the loop by showing how and where and by what means the weights are returned to their original positions and speeds. If you show an actual proposed device that closes the loop then I'm sure I and others can calculate the energy and velocity changes. Thus we can discuss what happens and why it happens. Are we talking about rotating wheels? Or are we talking about flinging weights upward into the air and using gravity? Show a proposal of any kind. Then we can analyze it. But don't say that it just takes some engineering and it will work. Do some of the initial engineering by showing a mechanism that you think does what you propose. Once a mechanism concept is proposed THEN we can look at whether it will work.
So far there have been no full complete proposals. There are only claims that kinetic energy increases. This fact has been known for centuries. Kinetic energy is 1/2•M•V^2 so the KE changes by the square of the velocities while momentum transfers by the sum of the velocities (ME = M•V + M•V). In the first case the kinetic energy is relative to some background frame of reference. In the second case the momentum energy is relative another movable object. In the first case it requires ever increasing amounts of energy push between the reference frame background to effect a change in speed. In the second case the change of speed is one object's inertia pushing against or transferring to a second object.
In order to harness this energy one needs to have one object transfer its inertial energy to a second object, which pequaide shows can be done. But to continue to gain energy perpetually then the objects MUST resume their initial speeds and positions for the cycle to repeat. If you simply reverse their paths then usually it takes the same energies that were gained to reset the system. What is needed is a method of resetting the system without requiring additional energies. Show us such a method else stop barking!
But after you get the stationary weights closer to the center you must make them move in order to gain energy by transferring momentum from one weight to another weight so as to gain KE. Either but up a proposal or stop barking!broli wrote:You're not increasing any potential energy so why do you need to use so much energy to get stationary weights closer to the center.
Then think of some way to reset this effortlessly! Stop barking and start working on a solution!broli wrote:...anything a child can think of can reset this effortlessly.
re: Another idea to add to the mix
Show me a link! Point out the proposal! Where were the diagrams?broli wrote:If it's propositions you want I made them so no need to bring out another excuse.
Now close the loop and bring the lighter end to a stop while bringing the heavy end back into full motion. This is the hard part. There is no arguing that KE increases by the square of the velocity. Also there is no arguing that momentum is conserved while KE in not conserved. But returning the weights back to their initial condition has been shown to usually take the exact same energies as were gained. Show a method whereby the weights can be reset using less energy than produced and you will have perpetual motion! This is the goal! This a is the problem to be solved. Measuring KE gain by changing the speeds of weights is OLD knowledge, though it is seldom discussed because it conjures up thoughts of perpetual motion. This is why it is seldom discussed in university class rooms. The professors don't want their young students wasting time and thoughts on impossible perpetual motion schemes involving momentum and KE that all academia knows are impossible.pequaide wrote:An unequal mass bolas can have an energy increase.
By starting with only the heavy end of the bolas in motion; when the lighter end is release (say 1/10 mass) the energy of the system increases.
Re: re: Another idea to add to the mix
Why, so I get to see another excuse? No not need to waste my energy on people who are not optimistic about something.jim_mich wrote:Show me a link! Point out the proposal! Where were the diagrams?broli wrote:If it's propositions you want I made them so no need to bring out another excuse.
So you want ME to waste my time searching through posting of yours showing a proposal. Give me a break! I did an image search and found this:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9663#59663
The problem is you don't show how to reset the system!
I'm probably one of the most optimistic members here. I know what might work and more importantly what does not work. If you want someone not optimistic then take a look at Bill AKA Ovyyus.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9663#59663
The problem is you don't show how to reset the system!
I'm probably one of the most optimistic members here. I know what might work and more importantly what does not work. If you want someone not optimistic then take a look at Bill AKA Ovyyus.
re: Another idea to add to the mix
broli,
Jim_Mich is IMO one of the most optimistic members of this group, (besides myself). :-)
So I ask; Who is making excuse's to whom? You simply avoid the facts by attempting to verbally reinforce your own opinions and blame others.
It is said that no man is a failure until he starts blaming others for his mistakes. You are a failure without attempting to do something objective. It is up to you to prove or disprove your point, You gain nothing by arguing about it.
Its easier to set back and blame others for not doing your experiments that people such as Jim, Fletcher, I. and many others already know what the results will be. It is up to you to prove us wrong, debate is futile without substantial backing.
I beg of you one last time; PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Ralph
Jim_Mich is IMO one of the most optimistic members of this group, (besides myself). :-)
So I ask; Who is making excuse's to whom? You simply avoid the facts by attempting to verbally reinforce your own opinions and blame others.
It is said that no man is a failure until he starts blaming others for his mistakes. You are a failure without attempting to do something objective. It is up to you to prove or disprove your point, You gain nothing by arguing about it.
Its easier to set back and blame others for not doing your experiments that people such as Jim, Fletcher, I. and many others already know what the results will be. It is up to you to prove us wrong, debate is futile without substantial backing.
I beg of you one last time; PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Ralph
What excuses are you talking about. Peq has put forward the experiment and data so logically replications should follow but where are they? I have helped him and still am in the best way I can be it by setting up simulations ,designing new experiments or spreading the concept. What have you done to help the cause besides brag about your mechanical skills without applying them.
I'm not going to build something that I know I cannot build myself just like an Olympic swimmer is not going to do banking. It's simply put not my area of expertise. You on the other hand have this big balloon of supposed mechanical skills but the day it bursts we all find out it was only filled with hot air. So I'll bounce the ball right back at you. Start to put more effort where your mouth is. If you used all the time talking about this subject building an experimental setup you could have achieved something worthwhile. Either contribute or move aside.
I'm not going to build something that I know I cannot build myself just like an Olympic swimmer is not going to do banking. It's simply put not my area of expertise. You on the other hand have this big balloon of supposed mechanical skills but the day it bursts we all find out it was only filled with hot air. So I'll bounce the ball right back at you. Start to put more effort where your mouth is. If you used all the time talking about this subject building an experimental setup you could have achieved something worthwhile. Either contribute or move aside.
re: Another idea to add to the mix
Broli wrote;
Ralph
Obviously if that' the best you can do, then you are hindering him more than helping. You have been told time and time again by a number of forum members subtlety and out right brief that the experiments are not worth a damn until you come up with a way to reset and utilize the mechanisms.I have helped him and still am in the best way I can
Ralph
broli, you are the one full of hot air! What is it you think should be built? What do you want the device to do? Please define the concept!
Do you want us to replicate Pequaide's experiments? Why should we? The experiments are valid and good. You say you want collaboration. You say, "... so logically replications should follow but where are they?" Why do we need to replicate Pequaide's experiments? The results of Pequaide's experiments follow known scientific principles. There is no need to replicate them other than as a demonstration of known scientific principles. Building a demo of known principles is NOT something worthwhile, other than helping one to understand more clearly those principles.
So what are you barking about?
Do you want us to replicate Pequaide's experiments? Why should we? The experiments are valid and good. You say you want collaboration. You say, "... so logically replications should follow but where are they?" Why do we need to replicate Pequaide's experiments? The results of Pequaide's experiments follow known scientific principles. There is no need to replicate them other than as a demonstration of known scientific principles. Building a demo of known principles is NOT something worthwhile, other than helping one to understand more clearly those principles.
So what are you barking about?
Last edited by jim_mich on Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: Another idea to add to the mix
Broli quote:
I can’t speak for the others, but I graciously move aside. The ball is all yours.
tks
Either contribute or move aside.
I can’t speak for the others, but I graciously move aside. The ball is all yours.
tks
The day someone shows a working wheel, this would be the reply here:
"Yeah that's great and all but what is its point. We have known for 300 years about a running wheel so there's nothing new there. We rather like to see a non-working working wheel, if you get what we are saying. Until then we'll get back to watching paint dry."
Poor John has no clue what is waiting for him.
Ralph and jim can you guys give me your world coordinates, I need practice targets for the kinetic weaponization of this experiment.
"Yeah that's great and all but what is its point. We have known for 300 years about a running wheel so there's nothing new there. We rather like to see a non-working working wheel, if you get what we are saying. Until then we'll get back to watching paint dry."
Poor John has no clue what is waiting for him.
Ralph and jim can you guys give me your world coordinates, I need practice targets for the kinetic weaponization of this experiment.
Last edited by broli on Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.