Well, the design concept that I came up with is listed in the old archives. It is not one hundred percent accurate(but close)as to how I would put it together but the idea is understandable. Let's look at it this way. On a seesaw, the person that weighs more that the other one-no matter how much-"wins" or is the person sitting on the ground. There also seems to be interesting anomalities with vortex phenomena-In other words the Universe has given us a couple of "hints" to work with. It is up to us to figure out what to do with them. Now the ability to have a rotational object that continuously has a "winner" and a loser would seem unlikely yet still a _Possibility_. As far as gravitational devices-using multiple weights acting in unison in a limited escape, specific geometrical, highly insistent leverage, cleverly conceived arrangement, there is the Potential to assert lateral pressure in the form of altering the flightpath of a weighted object, while this mass maintains it's gravitationally "assigned" position. From a mainstream science perspective their reverse psychology rationalle would go like this-"Since you cannot create something out of nothing, there can Be no circulatory system where two pressures at odds with and a function of each other has one that remains in a "resolved" state while the other one fluctuates in and out of ''resolve."(Even if there is!) So they have ignored the hints of the Universe and have an absolutist position without having explored all the possibilities! I would imagine Bessler saying- "Hey, I came up with what I was looking for. I did Not create something out of nothing-I just used an unrecognized principle that initiates self-rotational with what is already there. Perhaps you need to expand your concept of what "force" is."Jonathan wrote:John Lindsay: How else do you do it then? Are you holding out on us with a new form of motion?
John
