The application of Bessler’s Physics to Bessler’s problem!

[Grimer]

...
I believe the method is simple and Newtonian. There is no non linearity in position so the answer is not there. What does fit his clue is the balls working in pairs. A large ball dropped a short ways has sufficient momentum to drive a smaller ball to near the top of the wheel. Momentum is highly non-linear A 1 foot drop will give you a quarter of the momentum of a 16 foot drop. The inference is obvious.

There is a connection here between your observation about momentum and the Keenie. Also with the Milkovic proposal I made in my recent post.

In all three cases we are dealing with interactions between large and small masses, large and small inertias.

In the case of the Keenie it is the interaction between a single weight and the remaining weights acting as a whole.

In the case of the Milkovic proposal the differential inertia is more subtle. Superficially it appears that we merely have two masses of identical inertia. However account has to be taken of the one-way clutch. This governs the interaction between the inertia of the active freely rotating mass (the red pendulum bob in my diagram) and the passive mass (the "earthed" green and yellow bob).

The earthed bob has the inertia of the earth when subjected to a counter-clockwise force and its own inertia (equal to that of the active red bob) when subjected to a clockwise force. In effect it acts like a valve which only transmits the clockwise couple part of the active red pendulum's rotation.

I agree that the interaction is highly suggestive though I doubt many members would find it "obvious".

[Kirk]

Bessler, I believe. used balls in pairs. The wooden lever has spring making the transfer fairly efficient.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Kirk,

here is how to use it, 15 balls combined weight fire up 1 ball 16 foot re cocking the spring with less than 1 foot drop! Edit, one side empty on side full!

Bessler’s Wheel may have been a Pinball Device.

Take a look at this video, it could be that Besslers wheel was a pinball device,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5pthgEp ... ature=fvwp

The device shown on you tube would be mounted to the bottom of a hanging pendulum as seen on MT 13. The wheel would drive the device via a ring gear. There would be two of these devices with opposite ratchet slips, this is so the wheel can work in both directions.

By keeping most of the balls weight on the descending side should allow a stronger spring shot as there is more rotary torque, what we need now is a good ball run that stops the balls from rolling back, this is done by using gravity operated doors being made as light as possible to allow the balls to flip them open and a small weight to close them trapping the balls, once past three or nine o’clock the door weight opens the door at the bottom of the wheel, the runs are all staggered equally going across from side to side, the runs would be open where they all meet at the centre, so the wheel would not have a straight through axle, more like a hub on each side of the wheel, there would be four to eight runs, flywheel weights are added to the wheel to keep up momentum, with 7 weights on the descending side and one being fired there should be good torque to reset the trigger spring. I will post some drawings if and when I get some time.

With respect Trevor

[Kirk]

15 balls? where is the gain?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Kirk,

one side empty, no weights, one side full 16 weights with 16 gun barrels that span the wheel, total one sided torque to reset the spring mechanism, the ball are fired up when reach the bottom of the wheel and a trap door falls behind them, they are locked in until they reach the bottom section of the wheel then they are fired back up, and so on!

with respect Trevor

[Dwylbtzle]

I foot of drop v =8
16 feet of drop v = 32

i'm confused
(and this only applies to gravity,--so jimmich's theory would be outside that, right?)
anyway
no matter what the weight
one SECOND of falling takes you 32 feet
two seconds: 64
three: 96
you add 32 feet per second PER SECOND
that's the acceleration
why exactly THAT?...escapes me
momentum and velocity and inertia?... escape me
not youse guys' fault
i shoulda paid more attention in math & physics class

all i know is fulcrums seem to be magic multipliers
and i can't explain it--just observe and measure it

i like the idea of the barrels and trap doors
that kinda tickles

and the one way clutch?
if there's the one way clutch in there--oh my god
and is anyone taking into account the coreolis effect?
widdershins and deasil, (ancient terms for countrclockwise and clockwise, respectively)
have NEVER been equal on the surface of the earth--because it rotates, itself
depending on if yer north or south of the equator the water spirals down the drain in a different direction
(another external possible factor in attempting to seemingly "cheat" the Newt penal code)

[Kirk]

g = 32.2 fps. That much force is due to the size of our mass and density. Mars would be less, for example.

You have seen ke = 1/2 mv2?
m is rather special, it is a slug. Newton defined a slug as that mass which when acted upon by a force of 1 pound will accelerate at 1 foot per second per second. Obviously a slug is g/1.

[Dwylbtzle]

sluggish but cumulative

[The Turninator]

Great post Tarsier79; everybody has a pet theory with no proof.

Fortunately I have the only one with no proof that is going to work. 8P

Sorry, you are mistaken. You are not the only one with a pet theory and no proof.

In fact, I have you beat all to hell. I have a LOT of pet theories with no proof.

[The Turninator]

"This Forum should be a place to be thinking outside of know physics, because Bessler’s wheel would have changed physics, we should be applying Bessler’s physics to Bessler’s problem, not Newton’s Physics!

Too many threads are being derailed using known Physics. If Bessler’s wheel was a Gravity wheel then Gravity would not be known as a conservative force! If Bessler wheel was a Perpetual Motion Machine then a larger section of known physics would have been change.

This forum should be a place for open friendly discussion, people are frightened to throw their ideas in, as they fear ridicule. We all should try harder to make this forum a more warm and friendly place to bring Ideas!"

God bless you!

I would like to say that much of what is now commonly attributed to Newton is not what he really said. After publication of Principia latter day scientists added on a lot of extra theories and principles. The "conservations" built up over time and do not necessarily relate well to what Newton seemingly had in mind. He did a marvelous work with the data he had in hand and cannot be faulted for not being clairvoyant to figure out future experimental discoveries.

I have extensively explored exotic propulsion and exotic energy generation through a number of decades and it is my conclusion that Newton Physics is basically correct BUT incomplete in certain circumstances.

In that respect, it may be that Bessler discovered some of the "fill ins" which needed to be added to Principia.

[Dwylbtzle]

yeah--by the time 'NEWTON the movie' comes out...they'll have
something with sexy teenaged vampires in there

you know it's true

and of course--the younger Newt will be played by jude law
(hollywood released 435 movies, last year, and jude law was in 500 of them)

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi All,

OK guys let me put it another way! "Mass in Motion" in my opinion, planetary movements requires the perpetual input force from Gravity’s! The Earth will take a straight line path (path A ) unless another force is acting upon the Earth, path A is its true trajectory, so its forced orbital trajectory ( path B ) will require a energy input, as work has to be done to sustain a forced orbital trajectory, whereas no work is needed to sustain a straight line trajectory (path A)!

If I am a Idiot for believing this, so be it!!!

With respect Trevor

I would like some absolute proof that Gravity is doing “no work� sustaining a forced Orbit, to me the application of force on a moving mass to divert its path is to do work, and to do work is to change forces into energy, if wrong please correct me thanks.

I keep searching the web, and all I find is more contradictions, I am desperate for some tangible proof, could any members Help me by giving me a link to some good fact based proof?

With thanks Trevor

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Daxwc,

Orbits trajectory’s are varied by the forces acting on them ( Mass ratios and other factor ) , thus Orbits are a forced Trajectory’s they are maintained by the input of forces, to force a mass in motion to do something other than to travel in a straight line requires work, to do work requires energy! The interaction of gravity’s doing work create lots of different energies, exiting gases, moving magna, moving fluids, to name just a few. Planets and stars own mass can also producing heat and fusion reactions due to there own gravity forces, Gravity does not seem like it is conserving energy in my book!

Thank you for the links although interesting, it is not the tangible proof I would have liked.

I read the links and they raised more questions than answers! given the amount of time we have had precise measuring equipment and looking at the very small measurement of moving planets, the room for error is far to great to worry to much about it, 13 billion years divided by 16 year = not enough time to make a judgement unless you need more funding, I am amazed at the how small the measurement were though! And like is the earths waste line getting slimmer or is the waste line not expanding as much as the rest of the earth.

Thanks for your input!

With respect, Trevor

Edit, to add Daxwc links,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... e-sun.html
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/a ... t99657.htm
http://novan.com/earth.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story ... ation.html

[rlortie]

Trevor wrote:

"A is it true trajectory, so its forced orbital trajectory ( path B ) will require a energy input, as work has to be done to sustain a forced orbital trajectory, whereas no work is needed to sustain a straight line trajectory (path A)!

Force and "work" as defined requires mass in motion. The moon orbits earth, the gravitational mass of both bodies keep the moon from following "A" trajectory. This is a Centripetal force, no different that Cf pulling your weights out to a confined rim. The rim is physical and does no work, yet it is a force keeping your weights in an orbital path, not unlike gravity between two orbiting bodies.

You can push on a wall until your blue in the face, if the wall does not move, then you have done no work.

Does the earth and moon's gravity actually do work? IMO it does, it creates movement in tides and effects what is called the "Berry Center". this I see as work, movement of mass in time has been accomplished.

Physics: "Work":The transfer of energy from one physical system to another. If the centripetal confinement moves inward then it is doing work, if it is only confining such as a helicopter hovering, burning up fuel without moving then no work is accomplished, other than the fuel mass being consumed and spent as heat.

Ralph

[daxwc]

Ralph

Does the earth and moon's gravity actually do work? IMO it does, it creates movement in tides and effects what is called the "Berry Center".

But tides cause both the earth and moon to lose rotational energy, there is no extra energy created.

Just as a pendulum will wind down to a stop so will the planets' rotations and orbits.