Why should we bother trying?

[aStillMoreGloriousDawn]

Hello All! I have been lurking around this forum for about a month now and greatly appreciate the input from all the dedicated members of present and years past. I have had a lot of fun and inspiration so far, and it's quite amazing how hearing one simple, small idea from another member can trigger a flood of alternating designs in my head. I'm sure others here experience the same thing? :)

My question is posed to you, not for my own personal closure, but to provide a rhetorical argument to those on the outside looking in. Let's face it: the majority of people would not agree with us that a machine powered by gravity is possible. As a believer, what are your arguments that such a thing is possible. Is there really any evidence, solid or circumstancial? What first sparked your interest, and what first made you believe? What keeps you believing? Was there ever a time that you stopped believing? Are there any non-believers here willing to stand up? Is there any reason to have hope a better future awaits us?

Hmm.. These questions are starting to sound quite religious in nature. The majority of members here don't seem to be very religious. So.. can they show any difference between this set of beliefs compared to the belief there is a happy friend in the sky?

Again.. this discussion is meant to be purely rhetorical. I feel there are no right or wrong answers, and by no means am I insulting anyone's intelligence. I would appreciate if one, some, or all of the questions were answered. Are there any other questions along these lines? "Science is not just a body of information, but a way of thinking."

Thanks in advance for your input. I plan to add to the discussion as well, but at a later time. I also plan to add to the more technical portion of this forum in the future.

Dawn :)

[getterdone]

What are our arguments that a gravity wheel is possible? Is there any evidence that such a thing is possible?

Answer; Bessler

[Andyb]

hi i personally consider my self mentally ill ,i believe in my self with out question , i do not however enter in to things with out taking a good look at the evidence ,and there's plenty of that ,then i get my teeth stuck in keep a strong sense of faith, hold the vision and build the next prototype ,280 at present .Do i ever doubt my self or the evidence,my self sometimes never the evidence and why do i do it because it must be done our poor planet needs it and so does our poor people ,may be this simple solution will go some way to making sure there's a future for my children ,may be not ,at least i did my very best Andy

[rickydog]

When I was much younger, I thought it must be possible.
Then, my engineering profs in college scoffed at the idea and dismissed it. And so did I for about the next 25 years.

I stumbled on the Bessler story a year or so ago and the more I read about him and his machine, the more in awe I am. The eyewitness accounts are impossible to dismiss. The guy either actually did it, or conceived one amazing hoax. Either way, he was brilliant.

I'm a Christian and I see parallels in the Bessler story and Christianity. To believe either, you must have faith in the testimony of eyewitnesses.
Both 'faiths' are sometimes subject to doubts. I don't understand certain things about each.

Please understand, I'm not in any way comparing JB to the deity of JC!
JB obviously had quite a strong Christian faith himself (read Apologia Poetica), fully admitted his flaws and gave full credit to God for the invention.


I, for one believe JB really did it!

[rasselas]

1) Orffyreus, and the witnesses
2) I believe that God has provided enough for us
3) I believe the testimony of various competent psychics
4) I have believed in the principle since I was a child, and as it was then, I stay so now
5) I ENJOY working on mechanics and growing in my understanding and ability, and also the challenge
6) IF there is a possibility that we overlook, then I find the potential gains worth the potential cost (like an investment)
7) I like supporting those who believe in the glorious, whether a belief in providence, or a belief in charity, or a belief in God or of Self, and also those who seek to apply themselves to bettering the world.

Yes there is to be caution, not always wise is it to apply yourself in ways best left to others, when you could best apply yourself to more productive tasks... and so the world deems that all are unwise to pursue the creation of energy. But what are we to say to the world who burns the trees and strips the coal from the ground and pollutes the streams with oil...

Each must decide what is best for themself, and it is only mine to judge the life that I lead.

PS - nice amount of builds there AndyB, inspiring.

[path_finder]

Dear aStillMoreGloriousDawn,

it's quite amazing how hearing one simple, small idea from another member can trigger a flood of alternating designs in my head.

What kind of pertinent though apparently not shared by some members of this forum!...

As a believer, what are your arguments that such a thing is possible

1. The first reason is the lesson of the past, mainly
- the Bessler's wheels
- the buzzsaw
- Asa Jackson
- the uncle ramp toy
- Villard de Honnecourt
- the 'flowerbowl'
and some related events (not a probe, only suspicion) like:
- the Gurbakhsh Singh Mann wheel
- the Tesla patent replications
- the Grebennikov platform
- the 'Virl' experiments in Praha
- The Jack Abelin wheel
- the Bob Kostoff hydraulic wheel
- the Gaspare Malinverno wheel
- the Harry W.Bull spring device
- the Gelsenkirchen experiment replication
etc.

These questions are starting to sound quite religious in nature

I disagree with this assumption. This question has nothing to do with God, but only with physics, where the time and the level of technology are the major parameters for the new discoveries.
This has been true for the waterwheel, the steam engine and then the electrical power.
The old gallic people belove the lightning was the furor of God. We know now it is a static electricity discharge between the clouds and the earth.
The only relation I can accept between the religion and the gravity is the strange power of levitation from Holly Theresa of Avila, or from Joseph of Cupertino
At the same level I don't believe in the 'contacted inventors' theory.
In addition many inventions are in the air of the time: some simultaneous patents are a good evidence.

Regarding the simulation softwares:
IMHO one of the major reason why no solution has been (officially) discovered yet, is coming from the use of some simulation programs, pe WM2 (WorkingModel2).
These programs usually are limited within the 2D space (two dimensions) and
1. do NOT allow the designs in the third dimension, restricting the area of the ideas (variable, wobbling, or 'V' shaped planes, gyroscopic effect, orthogonal motions and/or rotations, Coriolis effect, etc)
2. unable to detect the building limits for the designs using multiplied 2D simulations in parallel planes.
Another reason is coming from the human behavior: if the strategy consisting to build only the designs previously validated by the simulation software, is a basically good strategy, in fact in most of the cases the use of these software is only a justification for doing nothing, for do not waste some time in the building, or sometime for declaring an external suggestion such as 'not working'.

Regarding the animations:
Don't forget the real role of the animations: they are NOT the representation of the reality.
They are just describing the goal we must reach.
By viewing the hoped results they allow us to discover and specify the required mechanisms, needed for gaining the shown effect.

Regarding my experiments:
When a built wheel rotates several turns (four or even five) as planned but then stops for a mechanical reason (because a collision, a break of a particular part, or any exogen event), what can you conclude?
1. This principle seems good
2. The building is deficient, I must correct the faults and improve the quality
3. By reducing the friction it should be more efficient
4. If it rotates for four turns, it should be possible to rotate for eight
And you build another much more efficient, reaching another step of difficulty you have to solve. At a certain level you need more professional tools for overcome the difficulty.
But remember the tools available at the time of Bessler (and more in the ancient era in the case of the flowerbowl), and rethink your building with the use of a more simpler method. And finally another method is found.

My personal conviction:
Today I'm sure at the minimum four different concepts can be used for a working wheel (there are may be some other, pe based on the parametric pendulum):
- the leaning five rods inside a dodecagon
- the two oscillating drums ('hamster design')
- the horizontal wheel ('gurbakshs' like)
- the reciprocator design
Each of these concepts need an excellent building and each one needs a specific part.

[MrTim]

It's an act of rebellion. We try because we've been told we shouldn't try.... ;)

[pequaide]

For me it is F = ma. If you apply a certain force for a certain time to a certain mass you get a certain change in momentum. Once that mass has that certain momentum it can not be abated, it can only be transferred to another object or lost as friction.

The second reason that comes to mind is Isaac Newton. Newton argued that momentum (mv) was the unabated quantity of motion, while Leibniz argued that it was energy mv². They both knew that one or the other was wrong, they both could not be right.

Third: there is no Law of Conservation of Kinetic Energy (1/2mv²), but there is a Law of Conservation of Momentum. Conservation of Energy always needs mystical unmeasured additional forms of energy. Momentum can stand alone.

Misuse of Kepler’s angular momentum conservation formula is a glaring intellectual error, done by all those professors. The formula can be used in space not the Lab, you must have gravitational acceleration or the formula will not work.

Fifth: I am amazed at the growing number of very simple experiments that prove Newton is correct.

[greendoor]

AStillMore GloriusDawn - I think you are correct when you compare this kind of thinking with religion, or what I would call 'faith'.

People have been brainwashed to assume that science is opposed to religion, and vice versa. That's because mostly what we see is 'bad science' in combat with 'bad religion', and vice versa. This is not really anything new. Galileo vs the Pope, for instance.

'Science' simply means 'knowledge' or 'knowing'. God is said to be omni-scient - or "all knowing". Human beings are finite, but with the capacity to ponder the infinite. But a truely great thinker knows that he is incapable of knowling all, and therefore he can only see a very small part of the much greater picture. ANY knowledge system (whether it be called science or religion) is fundamentally flawed if it leads it's adherents to believe that they can somehow "know all".

Which leads me to question EVERYTHING. The "facts" of science (and religion for that matter) should be scrutinized before a person puts their "faith" in them for their own personal use. There are so many conflicting opinions and voices in this world - who do we trust??

Faith, for me, is not a case of blindly accepting something that somebody else tells me. Faith, for me, is carefully considering the options and the evidence avaialable on a subject, and making an informed choice. For example: if you were stranded on one side of a canyon, with a raging bush fire at your back, and you needed to get across to the other side to save your life. You have a choice of a few natural materials with which to build a bridge or a swing or something - what to choose? You don't have many options, or much time, but you have to do something or face the consequences ... what do you put your faith in?

For a lot of choices in life, "science" offers some fairly good options. For many other life changing decisions, religion can offer alternative choices. They don't have to be mutually exclusive: the truth is out there.

Rant over.

I've seen enough evidence to question the fundamentals of "energy" - and I believe that history shows Bessler (and hundreds of other suppressed free energy inventors) have made working devices that violate the accepted view of energy.

[rasselas]

I just wanted to post some "counter-balance" to the ideas here posted...

"The pursuit of creating Perpetual Motion is not like the naive believers think. It is hard work, theorizing, design, testing... and more." ~paraphrase from the forum

It's also at times: expensive, garnering of criticism & ridicule, (free-) time consuming, potentially unsafe, a cause of marital stress, etc...

That being said, it's a job I actually enjoy.

[Grimer]

Good answers all round. Path_finder sums up the situation particularly well.

I became a strong believer in the possibility of obtaining energy from the gravitational field on the basis of John Collins' book. However, I felt that Keenie's buzz-saw was a more tractable problem with a reasonably adequate provenance so I concentrated my effort there.

I'm confident I've now found the answer to why and how Keenie's wheel worked and have posted that solution on the Community Buzz Forum. When qualified members have had sufficient time to comment I will re-post here for the benefit of junior members and lurkers.

If my confidence proves to be well founded by someone replicating a working Keenie wheel then it will obviously strengthen belief that Bessler's wheel and many other devices in Path_finders list also worked.

[rlortie]

If my confidence proves to be well founded by someone replicating a working Keenie wheel then it will obviously strengthen belief that Bessler's wheel and many other devices in Path_finders list also worked.

To my knowledge three people have built replications of the 'Keenie wheel, do not forget the original is also available.

The original and the replications have never in our lifetime proven to be a working wheel. The chances of someone building a working model is very unlikely.

The original is now 102 years old and the inventor was still attempting to build a working design until the day he died in IIRC the late 1950's.

Ralph

[Grimer]

I suppose having attempted to build a Keenie and failed you will inevitably take this jaundiced view of things. It would be more constructive if you addressed the arguments in my Community Buzz posts, Ralph.

We don't know that the original never worked. Docfeelsgood who brought information on the wheel to the forum believes it did.

Hans von Lieven, a very competent engineer also believed it worked as you can see from reading his paper on the subject.

http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/perpetual.html

[rlortie]

Grimer,

I am more than happy to collaborate with you either here or community Buzz. Where ever the conversation carries us I will follow. I will post this follow-up in both threads.

I spent the better part of a year researching the inventor, his family and background including multiple heritage searches in and attempt to follow the migratory path of all involved ancestors. This material was passed on to Doc who in turn posted edited parts here. later with permission it was passed on to Preston Stroud, who also made contact with living family members.

The above mentioned year does not include the four years I spent working on my proto-type that was built to within the closest tolerances of what Doc supplied me with.

As For Hans Von Lieven please be advised that he and I were in collaboration long before he ever joined this forum. He was recommended to me by John Collins. It was I who prompted him to join us on this forum.

As for his version and explanation of how he believes the machine to function, to my thinking does not hold water. I see it as an impressive presentation of something he came up with in an attempt to steal a little limelight.

December 5, 2005 was when I first got involved with Doc and what we referred to as the 'Heathen' due to its finger pinching mass and unyielding weight. I compiled but never correlated all communication between Doc and I plus others of interest. I still have this material which one could write a book with once edited for brevity including pictures.

I would love to pass this material on, but unfortunately my oath of confidentiality prohibits such action without permission. Not only from Doc and involved family members but other involved who prefer to stay incognito.

There are portions of my material I would be willing to pass on, but by private mail only!

Ralph

[Grimer]

Since there has now been adequate time for comments on the Buzz forum
I am reposting here as promised.


*********************************************************
I have discovered that differential wheel inertia of the inner and outer Keenie wheels leads to an asymmetry in the effective action of the gravitational wind.



In this first picture you see the inner low inertia wheel in red and the outer high inertial wheel in blue. The weights are attached to the inside edge of the outer wheel. A gap is shown between the two wheels for the sake of diagrammatic clarity. In fact the wheels can overlap in practice since they exist in three dimension not two. The two faces of the inner wheel can be between the two faces of the outer wheel. This means that with a suitable transfer mechanism the distance of the weights from the mutual centre could be arranged to remain constant.


Photos of the Keenie wheels show that the slots are only just deep enough to hold the weights. This, combined with the fact that the weights of the Keenie wheel are supported by relatively thin axles suggests that Keenie wasn't concerned with moving weights radially towards and away from the centre of the wheels but exploiting some other principle entirely.



Consider next moving one of the weights from the blue outside wheel to the red inside wheel. I have coloured the weight red to symbolize this move.

The rest of the red wheel is perfectly balanced and has no tendency to rotate in one direction or the other. The local gravitational wind on the left half of the red wheel which is trying to turn the wheel counter-clockwise is exactly balanced by the local gravitational wind on the right hand side of the red wheel (minus the weight, of course) which is trying to turn the wheel clockwise.

Neither does the red wheel have any tendency to fall because the global force of the gravitational wind acting downwards on the red wheel as a whole is balanced by the global force of the inertial wind acting upwards on the axle.

So the only moment tending to turn the red wheel is the clockwise moment of the transferred red weight.

If the weight were to be detached from the wheel it would fall vertically down at the acceleration due to gravity of 32 feet per second squared.

However, because it is attached to the wheel its fall is resisted by the inertial wind of wheel and the weight falls as some lesser acceleration.

Inertia therefore acts as a back or counter-gravitomotive force (CGMF) pushing against the gravitational wind current which induces it.

The CGMF is analogous to the counter-electromotive force (CEMF) that pushes against the electric current which induces it.

It can be seen therefore that the inertia of the red wheel reduces the effective force of gravity on the transferred weight. As far as the weight is concerned it is falling in a weaker gravitational field as it would in free fall on the moon for example. The weight is experiencing a smaller acceleration.

If the CGMF due to red disk inertia is a specific force (force/unit mass) of -10 ft/s², say, then the effective gravitational specific force on the weight is 32 ft/s² -10 ft/s² = 22 ft/s²

The forces acting on this unbalanced blue weight are represented diagrammatically on the right of the wheel in the figure above. The green vector is the gravitomotive specific force (GMF), the light blue vector is the counter gravitomotive specific force (CGMF) and the dark blue vector is the net specific force acting on the blue weight.

Consider now the effect that removing the weight from the blue wheel has on the blue wheel. All the weights on the blue wheel balance each other apart from the weight diametrically opposite the weight that was transferred to the red wheel. We can therefore forget about those weights as treat them as part of a balanced blue wheel.

The forces acting on this unbalanced blue weight are shown in the previous figure. The green vector is the gravitomotive specific force (GMF), the light blue vector is the counter gravitomotive specific force (CGMF) and the dark blue vector is the net specific force acting on the blue weight.

The CGMF due to the inertia of the blue disk is greater that that due to the red disk. Let's say the specific force is -20 ft/s² so the effective gravitational acceleration is 32 ft/s² -20 ft/s² = 12 ft/s²

It can be seen therefore that the wheels are fighting against each other, the red wheel is trying to accelerate fast in a clockwise direction and the blue wheel is trying to accelerate more slowly in an anticlockwise direction as summed up in the following diagram.



How does one exploit this asymmetric action of the gravitational wind on the pair of wheels to give a resulting rotation the the wheels as a whole?

How does one connect the two wheels. The action reminds me of a pair of car back wheels connected by a differential. Is that the solution or is it something else?