Speculations on the witness's evidence

[ovyyus]

...Do not understand how you could get an accurate reading unless the screw was true vertical...

Work done lifting a weight against gravity is determined by weight, vertical distance lifted and time. The path the weight takes (eg; angle of the pump) does not matter (we should know this well by now). Therefore work done by the water screw pump is determined by the quantity of water lifted a vertical distance (head) in a given time, plus friction & losses.

[john]

If the kassel was supposed to turn slower because it was designed for the duration test, then comparing the two wheels' speeds may not reveal anything but that.

We have only the witness testimony to rely on; speculation has to begin and end there.

If the mechanical advantage the wheels had is irrelevant to output power, then the size and number of the weights is irrelevant to output power anyway, isn't it?

Your words which ring true! not mine. :-)

Ralph

>>If the mechanical advantage the wheels had is irrelevant to output power, then the size and number of the weights is irrelevant to output power anyway, isn't it<<

John C.,
It is relevent. If engineering is consider, building a larger and wider sense makes little sense for an endurance test.
But if 2 different things are considered, then together they might make sense. A larger wheel that rotates slower can achieve 2 objectives.
The first is it might make people believe the wheel is doing more work than it actually is doing. An optical illusion if you will. After all, as is known, he did make wheels that rotated faster.
The second is the engineering itself. A wider wheel would allow for lubrication fittings which would aid the wheel in running for longer periods of time without requiring maintenance. And as you mentioned, if the weights and inner construction had a more economical motion while weighing less, it would allow for the mechanical commponents to suffer less wear.

John

[john]

...Do not understand how you could get an accurate reading unless the screw was true vertical...

Work done lifting a weight against gravity is determined by weight, vertical distance lifted and time. The path the weight takes (eg; angle of the pump) does not matter (we should know this well by now). Therefore work done by the water screw pump is determined by the quantity of water lifted a vertical distance (head) in a given time, plus friction & losses.

ovyyus,
This is something I find most amusing. What you mentioned about lifting water is a part of what my work on Bessler is based on.
Specifically, how can this be accomplished using less energy (or so it would seem) than is required to lift it. This is something everyone has missed. And I think it very important. CAn a weight weighing less than the mass of the water lift it ? It can !
Water responds to pressure. As such, if water is in a tube and the tube is flattened, the water will be pumped. This CAN NOT be accoplished with a solid weight.
SO how much force does it take to lift 2.2 lbs. (1 kg) of water ? The math is pretty simple. Using inch pounds, if the water is 2 inches from the pivot of the pump, it would require 4.4 inch pounds of force. Actually, that is the force it has.
If a weight on a lever weighs 1.1 lbs. (500 g's), then if the lever is 4 inches long, it would have the same force. With a 6 inch lever, it would have 50% more force than that required to pump the water.
I think this is what everybody has trouble understanding. It would require considering math applied to a specific scenario. Something people seem to avoid. Could be why no one has made any progress in understand Bessler's work.
After all, the height the water is lifted does not follow the same ratio/leverage guidelines as a solid weight. This could be what confuses everyone. After all, in the instance I describe, a fluid is pumped and not lifted. This means if a fluid is pumped upwards by commpression a CoG of 12 inches, how much force does it take ? This where there's a difference between lifting and pumping something.
Going by water doubling it's density every 33 feet, it might require 1/33 the mass of the fluid plus the fluid. This mass could give the force required to pump it. If so, then that would be the trick everyone has missed. Working with water is different. And in economy of motion, all the water would be on the outside of the wheel where it has the greatest potential to perform work. And as for the levers, they would need to move less than in any other design. Such a design might be the simplest possible for it's potential to perform work.

John

edited to add; while water can not be compressed, in saying it's density doubles every 33 feet might be something everyone can understand better than it's pressure doubles. An example of this is if at sea level, water has a pressure of 14.2 psia, then at 33 feet of depth (about 8.7meters), it's pressure doubles to 28.4 psia.
The reason water would have a pressure of 14.2 psia at sea level is because that is what atmospheric pressure is consider to be.

[rlortie]

Post struck for Brevity; john, JimL, P-motion, BAhammer. etc. is once again no longer present. But rest assured he will be back!

[john]

Ralph,
I will need to disagree with you. John Collins asked specific questions about how the witnesses accounts and his concerns could be accounted for. I have posed an answer that allows for that.
If you do not understand engineering, I can understand your frustration. As you said, you've tried for 300 years. Myself, I haven't.

John

[rlortie]

john,

Apparently there are some here who disagree with your response. I just noted that you have lost your one and only Reputation green dot.

And no! I personally have not been chasing Bessler's secret for 300 years.

Ralph

[john]

john,

Once again you have corrupted a thread by taking it off topic. What is being discussed here is; 'Speculations on the witness's evidence' There is no evidence that any witness's claimed Bessler used water as a prime mover.

Please edit your above post while time still allows and move it to your own thread where it will be read by those of interest.

As I have previously stated; we have spent almost 300 years chasing our tails. Posting unrelated material to thread subject does not help.

Ralph

Ralph,
I am curious, did you post this statement ?
>> As I have previously stated; we have spent almost 300 years chasing our tails. <<

What does that mean if you havem't been pursuing it for 300 years ?
I am confused. You post something then say you posted falsely ?
I can only consider your reputation is more important than understanding Bessler's work.

John

edited to add; Ralph, I'm not looking for a personal confrontation. I hope I don't disappoint you this way.
Myself, I happen to find Bessler's work very interesting and do believe he is for real. As such, I am disappointed when people ignore the engineering. In this< Bessler is not like Jesus. Engineering can be tested and proven. With Jesus, it is something people can only take on faith.
As such, the statements I made concerning John Collins questions are valid and can be tested.
As for the 300 years of people trying, I think this is a misleading figure as Bessler's work was little known until the internet came along. Even still, most have not heard of him. What can be said is since his work, no one has demonstrated an understanding of this behavior.
On the flip side, if I am correct, then I will be the first person since Bessler to understand what he knew. How would I bring respectably to his legacy if I involved mmyself in petty quarrels ? I wouldn't.

John

[AB Hammer]

John or should I say Jim

Leave the word twisting out of it, and just stick with the program.

This looks very familiar to your other string design and this video is from a person know as Jim L.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjKFlhIuxXA

[ovyyus]

You might be right about another sock, Ralph. Either way this place is a loon magnet :D

[LustInBlack]

John or should I say Jim

Leave the word twisting out of it, and just stick with the program.

This looks very familiar to your other string design and this video is from a person know as Jim L.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjKFlhIuxXA

Haha what a useless video..

This place don't change much :)

[john]

John or should I say Jim

Leave the word twisting out of it, and just stick with the program.

This looks very familiar to your other string design and this video is from a person know as Jim L.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjKFlhIuxXA

Alan,
I had my account at overunity.com dfeleted because of your posting.
What was it you told me ? Cancer is no reason to leave someone alone when they ask you to ?
\ And yet when I was discussing Mt 24, all you could post was that I had to have the last word and that nothing came of it. This did.
If you didn't notice which none of you have, Mt 24 like Mt 60 is using bellows. How did you guys miss that with your understanding of engineering ? Anyone who works in blacksmything knows that bellows were used. How did you of all people miss this Alan ?
All you guys have are personal attacks and nothing more.
The fact that I've worked at it and have realized Bessler's basic premise would be all the reason you guys need to discredit me. One thing though, it still won't make you right.
Just as Ralph won't discuss math. Why ? because that is what engineering is based on and how you can tell if someone knows what they are talking about.
For what I have postulated that would answer John Collins questions, none of you have cast any doubt on what I've said. No doubt at all. Only personal attacks because that is all you guys have.
The reaality is, most likely I am right which makes you guys wrong. Reason number one why you would not want to see the basic premise demonstrated. It would prove Ralph and his supporters wrong. It's really that simple.
So Alan, say what you will, you are nothing to me. I survived cancer and commplications from surgery. In comparison, you're ass irritating as a mosquito.

Jim

p.s. John Collins has known who I am and that I plan on demonstrating what I say. I guess like him, I would like to see Bessler's wheel working.
You see, Bessler called his wheel Orffyreus. As I told John, it is because he is comparing it to The Lyre of Orpheus. J.C. told me that bessler was asked about comparing himself to Orpheus which he denied. I told J.C. that Bessler would be like Hermes who invented the lyre. And those who realize his work would be like Orpheus. They would make it sing for him.
When Orpheus made the lyre sing, he did it for a woman, not for amman let alone other men.
Could be one reason why I've taken the time to understand his work. A good woman would be worth the effort with this to have a good relationship with her.

edited to correct spelling

[ovyyus]

This moron needs to go... again. Let's make it quick and painless this time.

[AB Hammer]

Bill

It is funny just pointing him out gets me attacked with all this garbage again. He is a waste of time IMHO. I didn't like his word to Ralph under the name of John. It sounded very familiar so I looked at Jim's youtube site, and there was the final connection in his short videos. Don't worry about me talking to him for I am now long past that.

Alan

[john]

Alan,
You are the only one I know who will post that because someone was ran over by a van and then had cancer should be considered a fraud. Your post is probably still there.
I think the grimm reality is that you guys are not up to the engineering. And yet if others in here would be interested in it, you guys would say no because you have nothing else to do.
Why don't you ask John Collins if he would like to see the principle demonstrated ? Probably to scared to. It would only prove all the attacks on me have been baseless and personal.
Even still, I have friends at work that want to see it. Best of all, they don't consider me a crank.
I guess that's what youtube is for, right ? Yep :-)

edited to add; in the fraud section is where Alan posted such events as making me a fraud. Not sure how surviving potentially life threatening events would cause Alan to attack me because of them.

[rlortie]

I for one wish to keep this and other topic threads on subject matter. To keep this forum on course and get back to some collaborated research, a little house cleaning may be in order.

After stating that I would send pictures via private mail, I have been receiving posts from people who have not or never been active or have never offered any constructive input. Others are devoted and will receive a response, but they need to be patient.

In the meantime would anyone like to make an offer for a valid list of e-mail addresses for there spam collection? :-)

NOW! lets go back to page one and pickup on this subject from there. It is rather obvious that some are not assimilating what is transpiring. If they were, I would not be getting the questions by private mail that I am receiving.

Ralph