Impact is the Key

[Grimer]

... I will take that as a challenge and try to show that it is.

The real challenge is to demonstrate.

Jim is correct, impact is not the key. It is not a source of energy. Grimer, can you currently demonstrate that impact is a source of energy?

No. Not currently. If I could it wouldn't be a challenge.....

[Grimer]

@ "FunWithGravity"]

> snip
I'm an idiot.
> snip

You don't say.

[erick]

I should say that I do not think that "impact is the key" however I do think that somehow utilizing momentum AKA "g-force" to create imbalance is an interesting idea. FWIW: I think that this thread would be better titled "Momentum is the Key"...

[Grimer]

I still have many more questions than answers and even though I am a bit skeptical, I appreciate Grimer's input and direction. Not that I see impact as the source....I do think Bessler may have employed impact later (bidirectional wheels) to increase the power output of the wheel. When he explains that this is not needed, he means it is not what makes the wheel spin.

Talk away, Grimer.....I'm listening and learning! I'm not exactly wanting you to find the solution, I want to do that myself. But, I will take just about any kind of information that may reveal that little something to me. I think we call this desperation....would we not?

Steve

Nice to see someone with an open mind, Steve. I'll do my best not to disappoint you.

[Grimer]

I should say that I do not think that "impact is the key" however I do think that somehow utilizing momentum AKA "g-force" to create imbalance is an interesting idea. FWIW: I think that this thread would be better titled "Momentum is the Key"...

I wouldn't argue with that. Energy is only momentum once removed after all. Momentum's bastard child.

However, Quod scripsi, scripsi.

[erick]

To bastardize a common saying: "It's not the fall of the weight that causes the wheel to turn, it's the sudden impact".

[ovyyus]

No. Not currently. If I could it wouldn't be a challenge.....

So, impact is not the key afterall. Is the purpose of stating this false fact an attempt to maximize interest and participation in your opinions?

[greendoor]

Iv'e been reading but refused to get involved in what appears to be ONE more blow hard with misguided ideas and no real world experimentation.
But the gaus gun repeater picture shows how pretty pictures OR pretty words can confuse and mislead.
Anyone who has experimented with Gaussian type apparatus will tell you the picture is useless. The Gaussian reaction is the ball being superaccelerated in the last instant. It causes great impact and shoves the balls off the other side. But on return it cannot act the same way because accelleration cannot be accomplished with a ball already attached to the magnet. The further from the magnet the greater the reduction in magnetic field and a greatly reduced impact. USELESS concept. AND misdrawn.
I'm an idiot. but have read along for 8 pages. and just like everyother genius that has come along every other month, the focus is only one aspect of this problem. Impact yada yada, micro imbalance yada yada. How about the realisation that in order for it to fall it has to be lifted. I see very fancy words for what most Experimenters here have learned. We can absorb, transfer move lever, increase decrease a ton of variables within our wheels. I have read looking for new info but have seen nothing more than unproven conjecture for what most have experienced in real world experimentation.

I only stop by occasionally to watch the foolishness, but wanted to jump in for my worthless 2cents. After 8 pages your running on thinner and thinner hot air grimer. make a point that is new or you will find that this thread will soon turn destructive like all the rest. Conjecture and lecturing may be your self indulgent mental mastubation but it only lasts so long before the wolves begin to turn and demand some meat. I believe it is going to be page 10.

Tough day at the office huh? So you saw what you percieved to be an effluent sewer, and felt compelled to contribute to it ... nice!

I wouldn't rule out the Gaussian oscillator concept so soon or so angrily (you aren't one of the MIB by any chance?) The thing is symmetrical, so if it works one way, it has to repeat. I'm of the opinion that magnetic motors are possible, and runners have been achieved. So this might be the simplest, easily replicable proof. It's the concept of combining magnets with Newtons Cradle that impresses me ... maybe the magnets won't last long with repeated impacts, but this demands open and honest experimentation so the (true) outcome can be made common knowledge. Hysterical rants from unbelievers with a possible hidden agenda don't count for anything.

Speaking, as one idiot to another, in regards to your question: "How about the realisation that in order for it to fall it has to be lifted. "

Maybe we don't want to constantly state the obvious each & every time we post. But if that was remotely a serious question, I will pose another for your consideration:

Is there any way we can extract more energy from a mass falling X height than we require to expend in returning that same mass up X height?

You are assuming, like most, that the answer is no. Because you have been blinded and brainwashed like everyone else, due to some simple equations, devised by peers of Bessler who were not honest enough to factor in the intelligent OBSERVATION that Besslers Wheels worked.

As you can see - there is still plenty of room for speculatation about some of these assumption. Modern Physics is not water-tight, and there are plenty of cracks in the foundations where the seeds of doubt have ample room to grow. Nourished by bull$#!+ if necessary.

[greendoor]

In defence of Grimers Title - Grimer's title does not say "Impact is the source of energy". It says "Impact is the key". Big difference. Impact may not be the lion in the cage, but I think it may well be the key that lets the lion out of the cage ...

Impact seems to be a notable aspect of the Bessler Wheel, and the Buzz Saw Wheel - which AFAIK are about the only gravity wheels that seem to have actually worked, according to reasonable witnesses. We can rule out all OOB wheels - but we can't seem to rule out these wheels that used impacts.

WHY?

My personal theory that i'm currently experimenting on (slowly) clearly depends on Gravity as the input force that accelerates mass. Obviously, I feel that I have a mechanism that can extract more energy from mass falling X height than I require to return that mass. If I didn't have maths to support this belief, I wouldn't be experimenting. But since I do, i'm compelled to investigate - and if I fail I will reveal the idea in case better equipment experimenters can do better.

My point is that I require some form of impact or collision for this model to work - Impact is the key, but it is not the source of the energy. In fact, it's quite a lossy transformation, hence my current problems. Bessler hinted that it required some craftsmanship to get this thing to work. Fortunately, I can buy good bearings off the shelf and have access to stuff that Bessler couldn't have dreamed of.

[ovyyus]

Impact seems to be a noteable aspect of the Bessler Wheel...

Is it? Bessler's first two wheels made no impact noise and his later bi-direction Merseburg wheel noise was described as weights "landing gently" on one side.

Greendoor, I think you might be seeing images in clouds that aren't actually there. Or perhaps you've been sent here to distract and mislead with these already well trodden dead ends. Gotta love a conspiracy theory :D

[greendoor]

"Landing gently" is still an impact and still notable.

You might recall I am not a fan of E=1/2MV^2, so I don't see a need for high speed impacts as such.

I will gladly change my tune when I see impactless wheels running.

I'm not strong on historical details - more interested in the operating principle. So I will have a re-read of the history surrounding the first wheel (which is arguably the most interesting one). I have a recollection that it was still a noisy wheel - and noise is waste energy. I'm sure Bessler could have made a very quiet bearing if necessary. So any 'scraping' noises (multiple little impacts) or whatever were probably part of the principle. OR - a distraction to cover up the real principle - which I suspect required impact/collision.

EDIT Yep - in the letter from Teuber to Leibniz, 19th January, 1714.

'... It has three teeth which are for moving three wooden stamps similar to those used in pounding mills. The stamps are quite heavy and are lifted and dropped continuously. .... Upon the cord being released, the machine began to rotate with great force and noise ..."

Apologia Poetica is full of references to anvil blows, shadow boxers, etc

[ovyyus]

Greendoor, why would you intentionally try to confuse the difference between the noise made by an optionally applied load and the noise made by the wheel itself?

This clearly proves you were sent here to distract and mislead.

[Grimer]

@ ovyyus

I'm puzzled. I've just been to the website mentioned in your profile and under the speculation section there is an animation which strongly suggests impact.

http://www.orffyre.com/speculation.html

[Grimer]

Greendoor, why would you intentionally try to confuse the difference between the noise made by an optionally applied load and the noise made by the wheel itself?

This clearly proves you were sent here to distract and mislead.

We've been rumbled, Greendoor.

[AB Hammer]

LOL

Just remember that Bessler said that there are several way for a running wheel (not an exact quote). From what I understand his first wheels made no noted noise at all.