Why should we bother trying?

[Grimer]

FTR ;7) - I'm not an engineer, in previous careers from present, a valuer & then a pilot.

Unfortunately Grimer I don't accept that the same weight/mass hung from wheels of different inertia's [but same turning moment] will experience different accelerations, experience different effective gravities, like anemometers in wind.

The acceleration from 'g' is constant & never changes, even when an object can't move or has stopped moving.

The effective gravity changes in just the same way as the effective voltage changes when you apply a EMF to a coil. The effective EMF is reduced by the back EMF. The wheel is acting like a coil. It is providing Counter-Gravito-Motive-Force, analogous to Counter-Electro-Motive-Force.

But not being an engineer you probably won't have the slightest idea what I am talking about - so I forgive you. ;-)

[Grimer]

Some nice analogies, Frank. I think Fletch has the better sense of reality in this one....

Steve

I take it that you are not a graduate engineer either. And that you do not follow the CGMF argument.

The trouble is that, with very few exceptions, people are anonymous on this forum and therefore one generally has no idea where to pitch one's argument.

For example, someone who claimed to be familiar with calculus did not know what the third derivative of position with respect to time referred to.

[Tarsier79]

But not being an engineer you probably won't have the slightest idea what I am talking about

Electrical,mechanical and biological computers requires an input to formulate a logical response/conclusion. The problem is, if it doesn't accept/absorb/receive the information given it, it produces a false or illogical answer to the questions asked of it. So who is it really that hasn't absorbed the information to produce the correct conclusion?

The word "engineer" is just a title, and any idiot so inclined is able to get this title. Who here is not a scientist, physicist, mathematician and engineer to some extent? And how many here have a title that says they are all three? It depends on how much your perception and vision overlaps fact that determines your chance of success in this kind of field.

If someone has taken the time to learn the specifics of mathematics and physics, and understand how they relate to your mechanism, perhaps it would be of benefit to you to either understand and refute or accept the conclusions presented.

Wind and gravity act on different principles, and are different mediums, and can both produce a force that can counter or hinder a weights movement, but have no direct relationship or similarities. Continuing to refer to "gravity wind" IMO is counter productive.

[jim_mich]

Well said, Tarsier79.

[bluesgtr44]

Some nice analogies, Frank. I think Fletch has the better sense of reality in this one....

Steve

I take it that you are not a graduate engineer either. And that you do not follow the CGMF argument.

The trouble is that, with very few exceptions, people are anonymous on this forum and therefore one generally has no idea where to pitch one's argument.

For example, someone who claimed to be familiar with calculus did not know what the third derivative of position with respect to time referred to.

No, Frank....not quite to that graduate level yet. Ummm, a little associates and that was in electrical/electronics. I really don't think I have much desire at this stage to go heartily after that either. ;-)

CGMF may be an interesting subject to glean over. I don't really think that it would have much to do with what Bessler had found. I didn't mean to rile your feathers any with that post...I was just pointing out what I see as the obviousness of the comparison of the two forces. We know there are more differences than comparisons between them. I would really think that magnetism has more similarities to gravity than wind....but that's just me, I guess.


Steve

[Fletcher]

FTR ;7) - I'm not an engineer, in previous careers from present, a valuer & then a pilot.

Unfortunately Grimer I don't accept that the same weight/mass hung from wheels of different inertia's [but same turning moment] will experience different accelerations, experience different effective gravities, like anemometers in wind.

The acceleration from 'g' is constant & never changes, even when an object can't move or has stopped moving.

The effective gravity changes in just the same way as the effective voltage changes when you apply a EMF to a coil. The effective EMF is reduced by the back EMF. The wheel is acting like a coil. It is providing Counter-Gravito-Motive-Force, analogous to Counter-Electro-Motive-Force.

But not being an engineer you probably won't have the slightest idea what I am talking about - so I forgive you. ;-)

;7) ...

There are plenty of engineers on this discussion board Grimer - they've made reference to it at some time or another & I mostly remember who they are - they choose not to promote that for whatever reason - it should mean however that they are better prepared than most when starting this quest which could save time & effort for them - so far, AFAIK, none of them have managed to find a solution to Bessler's or Keenie's wheel - so I can only conclude that being an 'engineer' isn't the prerequisite to being able to solve these mystery's !

You can persist with the concept of CGMF & the metaphor of the gravity wind, if that makes sense to you - and perhaps you are right & another engineer will follow what you are saying & see the insight within it ? - but so far, the aforementioned engineers are still assessing, before wading in in support I guess ?

I guess I'm going to need after all to see experimental evidence of a useful force or condition that allows for the restoring of Pe [after small losses] for the penny to drop.

Math & physics are a way to view the world & make sense of it - they, in the main for the mechanical realm, should come after experimentation to explain the results IMO [but often some sort of fleshed out theory is required first in this field].

Case in point, the air resistance we spoke of before.

The math & physics is woefully inadequate & a coefficient has to be introduced to align the math equations to the physical observations - this is because of the dichotomy between the Newtonian view [transferring momentum & inelastic collisions] & the Bernoulli view [fluid dynamics, non viscosity of fluids], neither adequately nor accurately explaining what Resistance is, for all shapes & fluid velocities - the different coefficients for each shape in a fluid flow are convenient wash-ups introduced to get the line of best fit for the plotted observations.

But perhaps, only an aeronautical engineer would fully appreciate that ?

[path_finder]

Dear Grimer,
Thereafter is a suggestion of constitution for a keenie wheel, based on the famous concept discussed here earlier: the 'escamotage'.
The main idea is to exchange some balls between a couple of unbalanced wheels and two feeding collateral disks.
There are two counter-rotating permanently unbalanced wheels:
- A in red (counterclockwise)
- B in green (clockwise)
respecting the famous 'vesica pisces' geometry, and therefore expulsing/capturing the balls at 30 grades of the vertical diameter (black arrows).
Note the pins without weight (indicated by the small red and green arrows) assuming the permanent unbalance.
These two wheels are connected together by an internal gear masked by the yellow area (with a diameter equal to the radius of each of the wheel).
The two feeding disks are the C area in the drawing. They are always full and therefore balanced, rotating in the same direction than the respecting wheel they are feeding/collecting.
This is just a thoretical drawing. The question now is how to implement the mechanism in charge of the exchange between each wheel and its companion.
I'm thinking about.

[path_finder]

Dear Fletcher,

so I can only conclude that being an 'engineer' isn't the prerequisite to being able to solve these mystery's !

You are right at 99%!..sometimes it may be preferable do not be 'engineer'.

The number of inventions coming from a previous calculation is not common, the discovery of the 'neptune' planet being a rare exception.
Even Leonardo has been limited to some conceptual drawings, no one of his inventions has been transposed into any useful device for the human practical life.
On the other hand who knows today 'Pic de la Mirandole' (sciens omni re), a performance today impossible...
The most important discoveries have been made by accident, then the mathematicians and the physicists tried to justify the observed facts by some rules wich have been improved along the time and against the variety of exceptions.
The most important skill is therefore not a big amount of knowledge, but the curiosity and the ability for observation.
Then there will be in any case many theoricians for enough explanations later.

[Grimer]

Dear Grimer,
Thereafter is a suggestion of constitution for a keenie wheel, based on the famous concept discussed here earlier: the 'escamotage'.
The main idea is to exchange some balls between a couple of unbalanced wheels and two feeding collateral disks.
There are two counter-rotating permanently unbalanced wheels:
- A in red (counterclockwise)
- B in green (clockwise)
respecting the famous 'vesica pisces' geometry, and therefore expulsing/capturing the balls at 30 grades of the vertical diameter (black arrows).
Note the pins without weight (indicated by the small red and green arrows) assuming the permanent unbalance.
These two wheels are connected together by an internal gear masked by the yellow area (with a diameter equal to the radius of each of the wheel).
The two feeding disks are the C area in the drawing. They are always full and therefore balanced, rotating in the same direction than the respecting wheel they are feeding/collecting.
This is just a thoretical drawing. The question now is how to implement the mechanism in charge of the exchange between each wheel and its companion.
I'm thinking about.

Very interesting. It incorporates the idea of wheels having different inertias.

Go for it - and good luck.

[path_finder]

For our english speaking friends: 'dodjing', the translation of 'escamotage' given by the automatic traductor, not far from 'subterfuge', does not indicate the removing of an object like a magician.
This concept has been discussed already in this forum. See here:http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 7383#67383
Another link in relation:http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 7927#67927 and the next post.

And for the fun (again), the 'bonneteau', an excellent example of escamotage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV1OWpibWns
If by chance one day you see this In Paris on the 'Grand Boulevards', don't stop: during your stay for looking, you will be a new victim of the pick-pockets...

[murilo]

Fletcher says:

FTR ;7) - I'm not an engineer, in previous careers from present, a valuer & then a pilot.


Generally, engineers are those who KNOW deeply about a branch of stuffs and they are the proud kings of left hemisphere of their brains.

They are formed as Cartesians and they know that all answers for their questions are somewhere in some book, already solved by someone! They just have to be able to find, to understand and in some cases, ask somebody. And they are very clever on all this!

Or, as many know, if you try, 'accidents' and discoveries can happen!

Non engineers will have a bigger chance to 'travel' to the right hemisphere of the brain. They will be able to sink and dare in mistake knowledge and - as we call down here - they be able to 'surf in the mayonnaise'... the mind adventure in search by the unknown.

I love and need this!

Congratulations, Fletcher!

Best!
Mul!ro

[path_finder]

Hereafter another theoretical way to build a gravity wheel based on the 'escamotage' concept.

This time there is only one wheel, the main wheel A in red, rotating on the violet axis.
This wheel has 10 weights, because on the 12 positions, two are always empty (at 2:00 and 3:00).
Because the permanent absence of these two weights the wheel rotates counterclockwise on this drawing.

An external smaller wheel B in yellow, is located in a plane parallel with the violet axis, and therefore rotates around a diameter of the A main wheel.
This small wheel is grounded, with no other link with the A wheel axle than a mechanical 'conical gears + shafts assembly'(for the rotation synchronization),
and is in charge to catch the weights at 4:00 and to restore them inside the wheel at 2:00.
Obviously the rotation speed of the yellow B wheel must three times quicker than the main wheel, because it must rotate an half turn when the main wheel rotates of 60 grades, like shown on the drawing by the green triangle.

For sure the question you will ask is: how the small wheel can lift up the weight for an half turn?
Just by transforming a part of the Kinetic energy into Potential energy thanks of the one third speed ratio.
There is another clever way to solve this problem: load the opposite part of the yellow wheel with an equal weight...extracted from a second wheel...

This concept is typically a version of the 'Maxwell devil' method.
The practical building of such as assembly seems to be not too much difficult.

[Michael]

What's next Frank a Newtonian gravity shield? Frank I'm someone who just doesn't give a shit about politically correct role playing, so I'm not going to beat about any bush. Fletcher is being humble when he says he's not an engineer. He might not be getting paid for it but he's quite adept at understanding reality and physics. So speaking of reality just what the heck do your theoretical physics ideas have to do with understanding engineering and your comment to Fletcher other than trying to clear yourself a safe path?

By the way you don't have to worry about who to pitch your argument to as long as it is sound. Obviously changing inertial qualities of masses would work miracles. Do you have an actual means for doing this?

[Grimer]

... what the heck do your theoretical physics ideas have to do with understanding engineering ...

Everything.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files/ihm.pdf

[Michael]

You didn't answer the question Frank.