CF and Gravity

[flydr2]

After reading lots on the debates in regards to a CF vs Gravity driven wheel... I decided to give a opinion.

I believe that both are used by bessler's design. I think that CF is the way to get the energy required to lift the driving weights.

I think he somehow figured out a way to use CF without loosing momentum.

I think if you can get motion without creating an imbalance within the wheel you'd be on the right track.

If this is the case, then the "CF energy" has to come from somewhere.

My theory is that the energy came not from gravity but from the Planet's momentum. The wheel being anchored to the ground would be robing some of the planets momentum. A bit the same way a space ship slingshots by close orbit.



The problem still remains... how could we steal momentum from the planet.

[Unbalanced]

@ flydr2

It has been tried but I don't know that anyone was successful.

From: http://mb-soft.com/public2/earthrot.html

There are actually two very different approaches which might be used in pursuing trying to capture this energy, and the Soviets and I used the opposite approaches. The Soviets used the fact that a Gyroscope axle tries to maintain a constant orientation in space, and they try to use that as a fixed object to use the Earth's rotation to lever against, which requires an unavoidable gear-train speed increase of around a million times faster.

[flydr2]

Thanks... I guess i was not the only one thinking this way.

[jim_mich]

I believe that both are used by bessler's design. I think that CF is the way to get the energy required to lift the driving weights.

If you can get continuing energy from CF to lift weights OOB then you can you can also use the same energy to continually fling weights against the wheel driving it forward.

In my opinion:
Initially Bessler found a method where he used CF to lift the weights OOB. Then he soon figured out that he could use the same method to drive the weights against the wheel pushing it forward. This is why his first wheel was self-starting due to OOB and only made scratching noises. And this is why his later wheels produced banging noises, and were balanced when stationary. They were also balanced when rotating. If they were not balanced while running then the forward mechanism would have continually fought the reverse mechanism. When rotated in reverse the weights lost energy while oscillating, and thus they soon stopped oscillating and simply rode the wheel. This left the forward mechanism to do all the work.

[Bill_Mothershead]

We have a fundamental problem here.

The average person on this forum understands how
to use gravity to change a weights position and
thus make the wheel (seem) unbalanced.
Sometimes it seems like about one "new" idea or drawing
is posted each day that shows how this might be done.

None of them have worked so far.

And over the years some enlightened thinkers
have tried their best to explain to everyone that
you have to use CF instead of gravity to shift the weights.
Bessler is often quoted as saying this is so.

The forum members read the wise words being given to
them, but they apparently do not understand.
So they go back to doing what they have always done
and post more gravity weight shifter designs.
Which will never work...waste everyone's time...
and wont ever help anyone make a working wheel.

So....OK, enlightened ones...words alone aren't effective.
Would you please share with the forum some links
of example designs that actually demonstrate
how to use CF to shift the weights. (Any in MT?)
Anything useful would help...like links to previous
forum topics where this is explained in a practical way.

This could be interesting.

[jim_mich]

There is a very long thread titled "energy producing experiments" where Pequaide tries to explain how energy can be gained by using CF. Unfortunately for Pequaide and forum members, these examples and experiments keep getting twisted back around to trying to use gravity. And the reset mechanism is never explored. Pequaide doesn't understand (or doesn't present) how radius of gyration (or moment of inertia) effects the overall energies involved. By not taking into account the radius of gyration (or moment of inertia) Pequaide's calculations get all screwed up, and he looses credibility.

Also, Pequaide never provides a reset mechanism. Or maybe I missed it?

These are just my opinions. I attempted a couple times to engage Pequaide concerning this, but it was evident that he did not understand what I was trying to say. So I dropped it.

But that does not change the facts that energy can be produced by using CF to accelerate a weight. And of course the problem is to then to reset the weight so that it can repeat perpetually. The solution is very simple.

Because of IP patent laws, I will stick to my plan, which is progressing slowly forward. I'll not discuss how the plan is progressing, because that is part of the plan. I prefer shock and awe at the proper time, hopefully by the 300 year Bessler wheel anniversary (about 3 months from now), though it may be later because there is still much to be accomplished between now and then, and I'm just one old man working alone.

That all I'll say. I'll say no more. So don't ask.

[path_finder]

Would you please share with the forum some links
of example designs that actually demonstrate
how to use CF to shift the weights.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 3510#93510
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files ... ripod6.jpg
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files ... d_fast.gif

[Mark]

-snip- I will stick to my plan, which is progressing slowly forward. -snip- I prefer shock and awe at the proper time, hopefully by the 300 year Bessler wheel anniversary (about 3 months from now), though it may be later because there is still much to be accomplished between now and then, and I'm just one old man working alone.

That all I'll say. I'll say no more. So don't ask.

Hear, hear!
My sentiments exactly, Jim.

Even though our machines are designed to use different principles (yours, utilizing primarily centrifugal force; mine, gravity) it may be possible that our machines may both function as we intend.

[rlortie]

Please excuse for one post interrupting ' CF and Gravity'

Jim wrote;

I'm just one old man working alone.

Today I turned 72, I have been asked by two separate parties if I am the oldest active member of this forum? Am I ?

Ralph

[daxwc]

Happy birthday Ralph 8P

Ok, I give up are you the oldest?

[jim_mich]

Happy B'day, Ralph. You're about 7 years older than me.

[justsomeone]

Happy bday Ralph!

[Bill_Mothershead]

Happy cake day, Ralph.

I have at last reached the age (62)
where I no longer have any fear of
having others thinking I am acting foolish.
Everyone expects it of me, so I oblige.

Thanks for the links, Path...

Jim, try and not repeat JC's embarrassment
of last year when he built up a lot of drama
by announcing his clue inspired breakthrough
but never did get it to work or even share
useful details of what it was. Good luck.

[JuBragg]

Hi riortie,
Not quite the oldest, my next birthday is 80.

I have given up on direct gravity machines, although there have been one or two that seem to work, there does not seem to be any hope of really useful energy surplus.

I've recently made a few posts on the Spiteri thread, this concept seems to have more possibilities as the differential pressures are considerable over a few feet of water depth.

I have hope that I have solved the problem of resetting by reducing the amount of air displacement for each stroke to about a quarter of the simple 'air bellows released, , water pressure delivers power stroke ,air now in top bellows, needs to be overbalanced to reset" type of machine.

If I am correct, there should be about 3/4 of that power stroke available for work.

If that happens, as I am too old and too poor to persue any patent, and it may inadvertently contravene Spiteri's patent anyway, I will publish the results here. A working model is still a few weeks away, but the individual components have been tested and work ok.

I have workshop full of old gravity wheel experiments that seemed good until finished so don't hold your breath !

[AB Hammer]

Happy Birthday Ralph! 8)

May you have many more.