What goes up...

[nicbordeaux]

What goes up must come down, irrespective of the speed at which it has been shot up. The speed o' the rise don't affect the speed of fall in any manner in a dead vertical scenario, everybody ok with that ? In a wheel with a single weight released from 12 we have a difference of some small import : the faster it descends (within reason the more load it has on it), the further it's going to rise. Or the faster to the same point, depends on the wheel and the weight.

So already that's a big points score in favour of a wheel, meaning that the gravity wheel must be possible.

Also means that a wheel exhibits the same behavior as a ball being thrown up (into the air), and bouncing. The upstroke of a wheel is a rebound. It's all happening at 6.

Anybody disagrees there is another mystery video with a hat hiding a dirty trick.

[Richard]

What goes down must also come up...continnum mechanics..rigid body transference or displacement.. so then you must negate Newtons third Law..absolutetly not..you must.............................

richard

[ruggerodk]

Or as Bessler said:
When something got a downward impetus another got an equal upward impetus.

regards
ruggero ;-)

[Ralph_Lortie]

Or maybe what Lortie would and does say:
When something gets a downward impetus another gets an equal upward impress.

I have brought this up before, the words 'impetus' and 'impress' are all to often considered one and the same. Unfortunately my authored thread on the subject which I can no longer access does not have my side of the debate. Between the two words can be found a gradient of Pe as well as Cf verses Cp.

Before adding any more discussion, I will wait to see if Scott can reload my 'rlortie' profile.

Ralph

[bluesgtr44]

Or as Bessler said:
When something got a downward impetus another got an equal upward impetus.

regards
ruggero ;-)

I believe this is a comment that Bessler was responding to Wagner....and Wagner's wheel, not his own. With this he was pointing out how it wouldn't work because of this....


Steve

[Richard]

Ralph..as a dabbler with only 10 post it is incumbant on you to show more respect...I don't know how to qoute...? I'll tpye it "When something gets a downward impetus another gets an equal upward impress" I think Bessler stated the same...I think this is wrong as to the design of the wheel for the following reason ( If I am going down the wrong road "Arrache" shut me up quick). Under Archimedes principle and bessler wheel design) isn't the upward impress magnified. this is after all not an un-balanced wheel it is actually an Intergrated system with two sets of underlying principle of operation and requires physics equation(s) on multiple levels.....Ralph forgive me the humor but you have to admitt...you look funny as a dabbler

[jim_mich]

Richard, just for you, a quick lesson on quoting...

Code: Select all

[quote] Quoted Text [/quote]

- or -

[quote="Name"] Quoted Text [/quote]

Richard, have you been hanging around here before signing up? You seem much more intelligent than the average newbie.

[Richard]

Jim I am a newbie; I have just enough vanity to both blush and appreciate your statement

No. I have not been around and am a newbie...I have 21st. century designs on gravity motors that are not remotely like Bessler wheel..in fact there is nothing about wheel with them..

I stumbled on to Bessler and have in short order deffered to "Arrache" on questions and wanderings and most importantly not to make an A-hole of myself

I am average with an above average apetite to know the answer to something...I am often oblivious to things around me when I am searching for answers

I test every statement mostly those wrong applications of physics laws which are often neat little packages assigned to closed systems which claim empirical cosequence (rightly so) but ignore all to often what I term " Intergated systems" which are not subject to false claims of Consevation of enregy or of Newtons 3rd. law why...? they are intergrated

and then there is the little irksome things...a body in motion yada yada yada couldn't that amount to perpetual motion?

Jim I don't sneak I like to be polite and knock to be invited in...so thanks much for having me...and forgive me if my continued deffering to "Arrache" is bothersome.

richard

[Ralph_Lortie]

Richard wrote"

Ralph..as a dabbler with only 10 post it is incumbant on you to show more respect..

Yes! I agree, as a newbie on this forum I must be careful of who's whiskers I blow smoke at.

.I don't know how to qoute...?

Highlight and copy that which you wish to quote, open reply and paste it in message body, highlight it again and click on the quote box at the top of message body.

"When something gets a downward impetus another gets an equal upward impress"

I think Bessler stated the same...I think this is wrong as to the design of the wheel for the following reason

I too believe Bessler stated the same, only it was in regard to his own design and not Wagner's. As to whether it is wrong or right you must be more explicit on the design you are referring to.

Under Archimedes principle and Bessler wheel design) isn't the upward impress magnified. this is after all not an un-balanced wheel it is actually an integrated system with two sets of underlying principle of operation and requires physics equation(s) on multiple levels

I do not believe that Archimedes principle need be of concern. IMO it is an integrated system with two sets of underlying principles or 'Pairs of pairs'. forget physics and equations, all you need to know is the gravitational Pe always points down!

Ralph

[scott]

Ralph, I fixed the database and your old account should work fine now. Please use it from now on.
Best,
Scott

[nicbordeaux]

That's all very interesting, but might be mising a point somewhere ? If anything giving a downward push (call it what you will) get's an equal upward push, and moment of inertia at non-moving 12 start position is greater than one supposes (verified), the only reason a wheel won't do a full turn on it's own is that either the energy robbed at 12 is too great, or, my guess, that the jolt at 6 is bigger and more energy costly than imagined. Wherefrom it ensues that 12 and 6 ar the critters. Except if the wheel is moving, in which case the 12 moment of inertia disapears and any losses there can only equate to the loss at 6. As the 6 loss increases with load and speed, and the wheel will travel slower at 12 at the end of the up stroke , the culprit is 6. So this is where any available energy should be applied. To take that further, as the energy gain is only happening naturally from 12 to 6, a removal of some amount of F before 6 which is restored after 6 will see the wheel through. Sounds like a load of balloney ? Could be, but the 5 to 7 area is where I'm putting my money. And my hopes on an imact device of two balls on a centrally pivotted rotating arm which spank the wheel, get spanked, and turn to spank the wheel again. If the transfer of F is effective, the only lossses are in the friction/air drag/hysterisis of the driver/driven rotary mech. Or one could seek to ease the transition (different path) at 6.

[Richard]

I do not believe that Archimedes principle need be of concern. IMO it is an integrated system with two sets of underlying principles or 'Pairs of pairs'. forget physics and equations, all you need to know is the gravitational Pe always points down!

Ralph Ok fine then; Can we at least refer to the gravitational Pe as GPF ( Gravitational Potential Force....certainly " relativistic Physics" has to evaluate curvature of space/time.. also Force pairs goes directly to Newtons 3rd. law. ( we have touched on this as you recall)

The gravitational attraction of earth mass and wheel mass simply states that gravity is the "Force" (sorry relativity)

I'll speak no more of the physics unless qued otherwise from you or "Arrache"

One more thing...I guess I'm the little dabbler now..oops!

richard

[rlortie]

Richard,

This forum is full of physic's both here on earth and in space. To be veracious, I say you will never find the answer to Bessler's wheel by applying or implying known physics.

If you adhere to present day teachings and discuss them here trying to find the answer it will never happen. I do not take heed to Newtons Laws, I do not wish to be impeded by them during hands-on research. I build and see for myself.

There is however one learned person that I do feel plays a major roll. Leonard Euler and his math regarding Angular Velocity and momentum. I do not deluge myself in the mathematical equations, I simply see the end product in my research builds.

A swinging pendulum or Newtons cradle will get you nowhere. You are looking at the wrong end of the stick.

Ralph Ok fine then; Can we at least refer to the gravitational Pe as GPF ( Gravitational Potential Force....certainly " relativistic Physics" has to evaluate curvature of space/time.. also Force pairs goes directly to Newtons 3rd. law. ( we have touched on this as you recall)

I have no problem describing a book about to fall from my desk as 'GPF', we usually refer to it simply as PE. Relativistic Physics and evaluation of curvature of space and time are out of my realm and I see no need to involve myself in it. such indulgence is an impediment to that which we seek. Bessler said that the answer is where everyone has looked, we are still looking and not seeing because we have been taught not to look at it in any other form.

We all will learn more by heading to the shop with hammer and saw and making sawdust. The rest I leave to the 'Armchair philosophers'

More is to be discovered by physical research and accidents than will ever be brought to light discussing excepted laws of physics here.

Whether it be GPF, Pe, Cf, Cp, inertia, kinetic Am or Av there is gradient between them. Gradient not unlike the negative and positive posts on a battery has potential between them.

Your introduction to GPF is fitting as I can see gradient between it and Pe brought about by Cp.

Ralph

[Richard]

The desire to understand the physics of the Bessler wheel is an "equal and opposite" argument to scientific dogma that has been our nemesis for 300 years..It goes beyond shallow crackpot, loony and misguided representations of those involved in this research...

To reveal this technology and then to ask science to explain how it is possible...is to me unacceptable. The wheel is not possible according to the " Application" of conservation of energy and laws of motion..it is human nature to resist turning the other cheek.

If this forum has the ability to serve as a litmus test and to collectively and accurately reveal the underlying systems of physics...I would be willing to share and work towards this...Perhaps better served in its own Post..?

I propose the following..if such members wish to pursue this avenue then I will wait untill a Post or invitation exist to join into such disscussion.

Richard

[Michael]

Ralph you seem to have negative ideas about people who conceptualize, calling them 'armchair philosophers' but if you can't graduate to having an intellectual understanding of how things operate then you'll forever be making sawdust.