2 rlortie

[James.Lindgaard]

Steve,
Quick question, is water a fluid ?
One design I posted, was considered a hoax because it relied on fluid and not the weights on the wheel.
Just call me stupid.
>>"....But the force which drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid,<<
Just sayin', like cott ban me please :-)

[ovyyus]

...I considered this in line with what Jim has been working on for some time. It would have needed a jump start to get that first weight to swing into motion.

Yes, I guessed that was what you were referring to. Of course the problem with the energy-from-inertia theory is that no experiment yet demonstrates it is viable. On the contrary, every experiment to date demonstrates that inertia, like gravity, is a conservative force. A conservative force can not power Bessler's wheel.

[bluesgtr44]

Steve,
Quick question, is water a fluid ?
One design I posted, was considered a hoax because it relied on fluid and not the weights on the wheel.
Just call me stupid.
>>"....But the force which drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid,<<
Just sayin', like cott ban me please :-)

I've always taken the use of the word "fluid" in that part to be an adjective....

a : having particles that easily move and change their relative position without a separation of the mass and that easily yield to pressure : capable of flowing

...not a noun...

: a substance (as a liquid or gas) tending to flow or conform to the outline of its container

When you ask "is water a fluid?"...you are putting this in the noun perspective by using "a". So, yes....water is "a" fluid.

"...But the force which drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid, invisible matter by whcih the moverment of the falling weights becomes faster and faster."

When the rest of the sentence is provided, I think it's pretty clear that he is using this in the adjective sense. And James...that is an opinion.

[Reticon]

@Steve, I have no problem believing that Karl would not have wanted to part with his money for something like that at a time like that. I said before that I'd love to see this made into a high quality movie and one scene I picture is Bessler watching them fire up a steam engine next to a pile of logs and making an off-the-cuff statement like: "What will they do after they cut down all of the trees?" They could not have understood then how valuable even a little bit of free energy would be and even their comments bear that out. That's no problem for me at all. It's that Karl said it was simple and he was surprised that no one had figured it out. That is odd. It makes me think he was just looking at an MT design with a hidden boost.

Some of the other posts here have me thinking about chain reactions. This group seems to have mostly ruled out chemical reactions. So far the interaction between mechanics and gravity is purely action, reaction, the only chains consisting of decreasing intensity. Gravity acts as a constant but velocity increases and more velocity = more momentum so that could be thought of as an increasing chain reaction, but it requires distance from the core of the earth be maintained to perpetuate this way and again velocity (or mass, unlikely) has to increase for this to increase. How can the wheel spin at a constant speed if velocity is increasing? How can it do work? The wheel movement suggests that he found something that would chain react at increasing intensity to a certain point and then find equilibrium. That is quite odd, and only makes sense with gravity and a bunch of weights in light of terminal velocities or perhaps some governing device. If he found a reaction that perpetuates at increasing intensities then it should require effort to control that reaction at a certain point. In other words, the first version should have spun itself into bits. That's where that starter spring idea is interesting, but if he found a reaction that perpetuated itself at some equivalent intensity it still couldn't survive loads. Whatever reaction this is it simply must perpetuate increasingly until it reaches a certain point and no further, and not a high point like I'd expected from terminal velocity in the rotating closed system either. Shux, on the big wheels they go much too slow to represent a terminal velocity state for free fall. Especially if the weights are sheltered from wind resistance since they fall through air within the rotating body itself. It just doesn't add up.

geesh, see, I'm as vulnerable as the rest of you cranks.

[bluesgtr44]

...I considered this in line with what Jim has been working on for some time. It would have needed a jump start to get that first weight to swing into motion.

Yes, I guessed that was what you were referring to. Of course the problem with the energy-from-inertia theory is that no experiment yet demonstrates it is viable. On the contrary, every experiment to date demonstrates that inertia, like gravity, is a conservative force. A conservative force can not power Bessler's wheel.

LMAO...it is intriguing to contemplate. I think mainly because of the tremendous increase (I think that is a bit misleading in reality land) in velocity. I know you probably get tired of this, but....just because I can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. The Karl aspect is something that just seems to stick in my craw. I mean, if this was such a damned spectacular, tremendous, greatest show on earth spectacle......Karl sure didn't act like it was that big of a deal. Well, at least in my opinion he didn't. He paid a pretty penny to see what made the little wheel go round and I just can't see any real enthusiasm on his part to really embrace the prosperity and value of the device.

And I do anxiously await anything from Jim in conjunction with this......


Steve

[James.Lindgaard]

Steve,
Quick question, is water a fluid ?
One design I posted, was considered a hoax because it relied on fluid and not the weights on the wheel.
Just call me stupid.
>>"....But the force which drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid,<<
Just sayin', like cott ban me please :-)

I've always taken the use of the word "fluid" in that part to be an adjective....

a : having particles that easily move and change their relative position without a separation of the mass and that easily yield to pressure : capable of flowing

...not a noun...

: a substance (as a liquid or gas) tending to flow or conform to the outline of its container

When you ask "is water a fluid?"...you are putting this in the noun perspective by using "a". So, yes....water is "a" fluid.

"...But the force which drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid, invisible matter by whcih the moverment of the falling weights becomes faster and faster."

When the rest of the sentence is provided, I think it's pretty clear that he is using this in the adjective sense. And James...that is an opinion.

Hi Steve,
Not trying to drag you into a dispute but into an understanding of Bessler's clue's.
I saw where someone posted wheel's working on different principles ( I believe they referenced page 354) and have long held the idea that his clues could be describing two dofferent wheels.
I guess one day I will have a place to build and can test both ideas.

Good Luck

[ovyyus]

......Karl sure didn't act like it was that big of a deal.

True. But Karl also didn't demand his money back after seeing inside Bessler's wheel. That mean's that it at least lived up to the agreed definition of a self-turning wheel.

....just because I can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Steve, what if you really can see it, and it really isn't there? :D

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Bill...

True. But Karl also didn't demand his money back after seeing inside Bessler's wheel. That mean's that it at least lived up to the agreed definition of a self-turning wheel.

That wasn't my point. No doubt that Karl honored the agreement. My point was that even that being said, he wasn't overly impressed enough to "sell" the idea with a whole lot of vim and vigor. There had to be some reasoning for that. I personally seem to think that his reputation wasn't allowing him to make it any bigger than it really was. Think on this with the understanding of the knowledge they had then....not the knowledge we have now.

Steve, what if you really can see it, and it really isn't there? :D

Then I would have to be brazen enough to try and convince people that I have already seen.......everything, wouldn't I?


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

@Steve, I have no problem believing that Karl would not have wanted to part with his money for something like that at a time like that. I said before that I'd love to see this made into a high quality movie and one scene I picture is Bessler watching them fire up a steam engine next to a pile of logs and making an off-the-cuff statement like: "What will they do after they cut down all of the trees?" They could not have understood then how valuable even a little bit of free energy would be and even their comments bear that out. That's no problem for me at all. It's that Karl said it was simple and he was surprised that no one had figured it out. That is odd. It makes me think he was just looking at an MT design with a hidden boost.

Some of the other posts here have me thinking about chain reactions. This group seems to have mostly ruled out chemical reactions. So far the interaction between mechanics and gravity is purely action, reaction, the only chains consisting of decreasing intensity. Gravity acts as a constant but velocity increases and more velocity = more momentum so that could be thought of as an increasing chain reaction, but it requires distance from the core of the earth be maintained to perpetuate this way and again velocity (or mass, unlikely) has to increase for this to increase. How can the wheel spin at a constant speed if velocity is increasing? How can it do work? The wheel movement suggests that he found something that would chain react at increasing intensity to a certain point and then find equilibrium. That is quite odd, and only makes sense with gravity and a bunch of weights in light of terminal velocities or perhaps some governing device. If he found a reaction that perpetuates at increasing intensities then it should require effort to control that reaction at a certain point. In other words, the first version should have spun itself into bits. That's where that starter spring idea is interesting, but if he found a reaction that perpetuated itself at some equivalent intensity it still couldn't survive loads. Whatever reaction this is it simply must perpetuate increasingly until it reaches a certain point and no further, and not a high point like I'd expected from terminal velocity in the rotating closed system either. Shux, on the big wheels they go much too slow to represent a terminal velocity state for free fall. Especially if the weights are sheltered from wind resistance since they fall through air within the rotating body itself. It just doesn't add up.

geesh, see, I'm as vulnerable as the rest of you cranks.

I pretty much thought that with the chemical aspect there would be an odor to give it away. I work with some pretty caustic stuff and they do have an odor that would be hard to conceal. If one were to think about a thermal reaction, sulfuric acid reacts pretty violently with just water.....but that takes a good bit to maintain for and period of time and there will be an odor.

I have also wondered if he may have stumbled across the commutator while messing around with metals and alloys. This may have been a find that even Karl didn't know what to think of or say anything about.....hard to promote something you can't explain. I have serious doubts about this one.....really.

I bring these things up because a couple of months ago, I started reading AP again, but I went straight to the "letters" of the witnesses who were describing what they saw. I went back over the chapter of Karl and then searched for all of his input on this....and there isn't very much! He stands by the machine as being what Bessler says it is. I just can't seem to find anything from him that shows any real excitement.

I've been stuck on the viability of an arrangement that can make it through the acceleration period. I have drawn sims of the MT's and put a motor on them and had them just slowly accelerate so as to watch what was happening. Boy, that was a lesson!


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

Steve,
Quick question, is water a fluid ?
One design I posted, was considered a hoax because it relied on fluid and not the weights on the wheel.
Just call me stupid.
>>"....But the force which drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid,<<
Just sayin', like cott ban me please :-)

I've always taken the use of the word "fluid" in that part to be an adjective....

a : having particles that easily move and change their relative position without a separation of the mass and that easily yield to pressure : capable of flowing

...not a noun...

: a substance (as a liquid or gas) tending to flow or conform to the outline of its container

When you ask "is water a fluid?"...you are putting this in the noun perspective by using "a". So, yes....water is "a" fluid.

"...But the force which drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid, invisible matter by whcih the moverment of the falling weights becomes faster and faster."

When the rest of the sentence is provided, I think it's pretty clear that he is using this in the adjective sense. And James...that is an opinion.

Hi Steve,
Not trying to drag you into a dispute but into an understanding of Bessler's clue's.
I saw where someone posted wheel's working on different principles ( I believe they referenced page 354) and have long held the idea that his clues could be describing two dofferent wheels.
I guess one day I will have a place to build and can test both ideas.

Good Luck

If I'm remembering correctly, I think that was mentioned by Bessler when it was questioned about the tapping sounds that were first reported with the Merseburg wheel....the first bi-directional wheel. I think the questioning of this was from Wagner in his report/retort to Besslers publishing of GB which described the testing of the Merseburg wheel. Wagner had seen the Draschwitz wheel which was unidirectional.

It seems that the differing "principles" that Bessler was referring to was the one way to the bi-directional set ups. I may be corrected on this or there may be others who differ on this aspect. I remember this coming to me while reading and assessing the back and forth between Bessler and Wagner from GB to Wagners report to that and then back to AP where Bessler responds to Wagners report.....a hard line of attacks to muddle through. But, from this it seemed to me that the differing "principle" being alluded to was the additional improvement of the bi-directional capability.


Steve

[ovyyus]

My point was that even that being said, he wasn't overly impressed enough to "sell" the idea with a whole lot of vim and vigor.

Karl opened his castle to accommodate and host the marketing of Bessler's wheel. That seems like a fair amount of vim & vigor. But I agree, Karl was obviously happy to let it stay under wraps indefinitely.

[James.Lindgaard]

Steve,
Am wondering, I remember the discussion about him watching iron and lead I think it was when melted.
Do you think this could have got him to think f using something like mercury or other dense liquid metal ?

[DrWhat]

I wonder if Stewart can refresh our memories of the translation of "different principles"

The root of a word such as "principio" can mean 'the beginning' or 'at first'.

Perhaps Bessler was saying that they "started" differently, rather than working on different principles. He was clever with his words so that would not surprise me!

[bluesgtr44]

Steve,
Am wondering, I remember the discussion about him watching iron and lead I think it was when melted.
Do you think this could have got him to think f using something like mercury or other dense liquid metal ?

I don't remember anything like that, but there is a passage in DT where he discusses FORM. From pg. 219 of DT...J. Collins....

"In a machine such as mine, on the other hand, the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device, iwthout which its framework is just any old heap of material, which has completely lost its essence. To cause the machine to stop requires the application of a greater external force, and can be accomplished without difficulty whenver one requesres it, e.g. for the machine's longer conservation. Such a cessation can also occur through the wearing out or breaking of the machine's part. The first is a "moral accident", the second a "material accident." As an example of the ideas I am discussin, consider the case of two samall metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, thier FORM consists in thier regulare sphericity. But we find, placed in a furnace, on loses its shape quicker than the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to bothe - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference."

I put this paragraph in it's entirety because it just doesn't make sense unless you understand what he's talking about when he gets to that "meltability" part....well, I thought so anyway. This is the only thing I can recall that has any reference to melting and it was only to explain the reasoning or cause of why any device here on earth cannot be "perpetual" in the perfect sense...i.e., run forever and ever. Hope this helps....


Steve

ETA: He mentions that his wheels did use "many separate peices of lead" in his description in AP......

[bluesgtr44]

I wonder if Stewart can refresh our memories of the translation of "different principles"

The root of a word such as "principio" can mean 'the beginning' or 'at first'.

Perhaps Bessler was saying that they "started" differently, rather than working on different principles. He was clever with his words so that would not surprise me!

Very good point, Doc! One thing we do know...he sure wasn't a stickler for details in his descriptions of how it worked.