energy producing experiments

[AB Hammer]

You can see what comments I get; nothing but insults.

If you have a scientifically based comment or question go ahead.

pequaide

I think this may be the first post from myself on your string. Also I agree with your statement of

But it is best to not limit your arrangements to Bessler's perimeters. There is far more energy here than just enough to gently turn a wheel.

There seem to be a positive device inside or the actions tend to no work.

[Wubbly]

5 1/2 years, 100 pages, 152,892 views, and not a single microjoule of energy created, and this thread still has not been moved into the fraud section.

Still boggles the mind.

[pequaide]

I remember once that someone had made a vertical wheel that had a mass attached on the end of a string. The mass would accelerate the wheel clockwise on the right side and then it would fall off and flip up on the left side. It would flip up on the left side on the end of the string to a point just under energy production.

I told the gentleman that letting it just fall allowed a gravity free fall which caused the wheel to lose the ability to throw.

I suggested to the gentleman that he should do the experiment just a little faster. Or that he could do the experiment in a horizontal plane and then there would be no free fall from the mass dropping off of the wheel.

Apparently both of those two suggestions were harder than grumbling, complaining and prevaricating for the last 5 years.

I believe I started with Laithwaite and pucks on a frictionless plane and I stated that the data shows an increase in energy of over 200%. No one has repeated that experiment and shown that the data was incorrect.

Then I went to cylinder and spheres experiments and I stated that the data collected show increases of 300% and 400%. No one has repeated these simple experiments and shown that the data was incorrect.

I built very big machines that show the same effect; and I stand by all my data that was collected with photo gates; strobe light photographs, and video tapes. I have made energy in the lab. Disregarding what prevaricators may say; I have made energy in the lab.

I also made energy with double and triple pulleys and even with levers.

I even found for you some energy producing experiments on the internet; tables and videos.

Look if you don't believe me; go away. Occupy your time in some more useful way; please. I am not asking you W to be here.

[Dunesbury]

All you ever produce is force! Have you ever experiment shown energy without manual reset? Excuse my insult if my english is that way.
Do you think bessler wheel transfer motion to inner mechanism?

[pequaide]

Yes: Bessler used a motion transfer to an inner mechanism. If it was not fraud; there is always an outside chance it was fraud; so don't spend all your time thinking about Bessler. You can do it yourself.

No I don't really produce force. And I accept scientific criticism it is pigeons I don't like.

I use the force of gravity to produce motion. Motion in and of itself is one form of energy. I used a balancing beam once where I could have 10 units of mass moving at one unit of velocity or I could have one unit of mass moving at 10 units of velocity. Both motions were produced by the same amount of force given by gravity. The force came from a small mass dropped a short distance; which is an input energy of force time distance dropped, or a N*m. The input energy was the same: but for example the output energy for both ½ * 10 kg *1m/sec *1m/sec ; or ½ *1 kg * 10 m/sec * 10 m/sec was different. This was a real experiment and the energy difference for the smaller mass was 10 times greater than that of the larger mass.

Gravity produced the force and the lever produced the energy.

Change kinetic energy into potential energy and you can cycle. But: no I do not have a cycling unit; I really find producing energy interesting enough; and important enough.

I had the remainder of the post already prepared when I found your question.

I go on the internet and try to find real experiments; because I know that any real experiment will prove that I am correct. I type in all kinds of different word arrangements (torque; double pulley; force ; acceleration ; rotational; etc) to find actual data or videos from real experiments, and so far I have only found three. Almost all of the time you will find experimental setups and blank tables of unfilled data; a lot of theory and formulas but no actual data collection. No data collection that I have found supports mrr; none.

Tarsier 79 said he had one where the time doubled; he did not even know what false data he wanted to present.

So lets do a little challenge here. Find experiments with real data collection and bring them to the attention of the group. And I don't mean ice skaters and people in chairs holding barbells, no real scientist would acknowledge in any way skaters and spinning chairs. I mean experiments like the spinning aluminum tube, or filled in tables of data.

So lets keep score; in the aluminum tube experiment the full radius moves 45° when the half radius cover 90°. So that is one for mr

And I posted a table of data not to far back that also showed mr, so that is two.

There was one from Alaska about hollow cylinders and disks, it had a small amount of data and that was mr. So that is three.

So lets see the piles of data collected over the last 300 years that support mrr. No skaters no chairs.

[Dunesbury]

Ah, you think producing motion is producing energy. That would be fraud! Energyonly converted, not produced. You convert your energy into other form. This not perpetual! Bessler wheel claim to be self motion forever. Temporary motion observable every day! Here all to know :

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/h ... al-fo.html

[pequaide]

Really? 50 is equal to 5, really?

That is a Cf site not 1/2mv²

[Tarsier79]

Tarsier 79 said he had one where the time doubled; he did not even know what false data he wanted to present.

What are you talking about?

You can't tell me to leave your thread, expect me to do so while you accuse me of lying. You admit your experiments were done with stiff bearings. You also admit your experiments won't work correctly with heavy weights, what, do they exhibit mrr when the weights are heavier and you don't want to admit it? Wow, you use photo gates to get super accurate measurements of poorly assembled setups. Excellent work!

You have not shown a single video showing a gain in energy! You use horizontal planes because you fool yourself into believing your own delusions, and in a gravitational field, you can never get a gain. Gravity doesn't lie, Height is energy. Your methods of testing are stupid. Spinning devices up by hand, not having any idea of the energy input. You can't even seem to grasp the difference between inertia and torque. How can anyone trust any of your data?

[pequaide]

T you are a liar and stay off the thread.

[pequaide]

One thing about science is that you have to be eminently honest. Most people won't bother to do experiments; therefore when a individual presents false data it does great damage. It is especially damaging when the falsified data is that which is commonly accepted. I am sure that a lot of people felt comfortable with Tarsiers false data and dropped the idea.

Those same people dismiss the aluminum tube experiment. I mean it is as obvious as you can get 45° and 90°.

I do not read Tarsiers posts and I do not care what he said. I do dozens of the very same experiments that he falsified I know you can not get those results.

[ovyyus]

5 1/2 years, 100 pages, 152,892 views, and not a single microjoule of energy created, and this thread still has not been moved into the fraud section.

Still boggles the mind.

Fraud or stupid? Probably doesn't change the result.

[justsomeone]

Pequade, I think you and Murilo should work together.

[Tarsier79]

Pequaide. I will not stay off your thread while you make accusations.

From http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 183#122183

Peq. Build yourself a low mass, low friction setup, where the masses form a significant part of the inertia, then perform your tests and post them with video. Video can be taken on all smart phones these days, and nearly everyone has one, so that shouldn't be too much to ask.

Repeating the same theory over and over for 100 pages does nothing without proof. There is a mountain and over 300 years of proof against you. I think it is time for you to step up, or step off. Prove your theory and you will get all the help you want. Otherwise you are just another crackpot with an inability to perform proper scientific tests.

I think it is reasonable to ask for some proper tests to be done. It is obviouse you prefer to run away from reason rather to prove anything with fact.

Those same people dismiss the aluminum tube experiment. I mean it is as obvious as you can get 45° and 90°.

Ok, I guess this is what you were talking about in reference to me? For a start, I have not had much time recently to read all or respond, as my Grandmother was dying, and I was spending some time with her, and family in the time around her passing.


http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu. ... tation.htm
Secondly, I looked at that video again, and it appears I may be mistaken in this case, it does appear to be mr. In this video the 1/2 r masses take 33 frames to move as far as the 1r mass takes 59 frames to move. Although interesting, this is not absolute proof of principle.
1. We do not know masses and inertias of each component.
2. We do not know bearing frictions etc.
What is causing these figures? I doubt it is a creation of energy, rather than a ratio of frictions. Wubbly, what do you think?


http://orion.neiu.edu/~pjdolan/rotational.html
The inertias are calculated here using mr^2, and the experimental data follows the calculated data with a reasonable margin of error. Why do you say they are mr figures?

[pequaide]

I don't know why you guys are so dedicated to destroying this approach to energy production. What is it to you? Why don't you and W go away? I only repeated what I have said about you because you posted on the treads that have my name on them. If you don't like being mentioned then go away.

[AB Hammer]

pequaide

Just because people don't believe in your approach. It is your approach and if you can make it work? It's your baby, and wish you the very best.

Alan