super conductors ,related question

[jim_mich]

Jim_Mich,
What you are trying ti hide is the fact that you were just discredited. Unless you can explain how inertia, what you call ersatz gravity can be super conductive, then Bessler would have needed to use gravity.
Yet you and Grimer quote Wagner who called Bessler a fraud. And I don't belong in here because I am building one of Bessler's drawings and saying I realize what his augmented problem was.
What you and grimer are doing now is talking "wheel".
After all gravity exists on Earth so artificial gravity is not needed like it is in the space station and I think they say artificial gravity instead of ersatz.

Once again we have village idiots, both Jim Lindgaard and clod camper, here on the same page, both spewing shit that they know nothing about. (Hey, if clod camper insists on truncating my name by 75%, what is a little 8% truncation?)

I don't call it ersatz gravity. That is Grimer's terminology. I've been pushing for people to use the proper scientific terminology, which is centrifugal force. Artificial gravity is an ersatz terminology. Ersatz means artificial, something that is used in place of the real thing.

And once again I must repeat myself. There is no requirement for gravity to rotate any wheel. Gravity is a symmetrical force. It can't keep a wheel rotating. All it can do is start a wheel rotating.

All that is required to keep a perpetual motion wheel rotating is an asymmetrical force, more forward force than rearward force.

And once again I must repeat myself. Bessler never claimed that gravity rotated his wheel. Wagner assumed that Bessler was claiming a gravity-rotated wheel because Bessler said his wheel used weights. Bessler wrote that Wagner was right, but that he himself was also right. Bessler then said, "Don't you see why?

Wagner was right, gravity can't keep a PM wheel rotating. Bessler was right, he had invented a perpetual motion wheel.

Bessler claimed a wheel capable of perpetually rotating, where the internal weights gained their motive force from their "Schwunges" (force the momentum/swing/impetus/sweep).

Wagner was wrong in assuming Bessler's wheel to be a gravity-rotated wheel.

The gravity-wheel crowd make the same assumption as Wagner did. They think that using weights implies the use of gravity. It does not.

So you can stick your finger in your ears and cover your eyes and exclaim, "No, no, no. Jim is wrong." Or you can go forth with a mind open to other optional possibilities.

[cloud camper]

This could only happen in a novel.

The unrepentent forum liar who built his reputation spinning tall tales about non existent runners using a bogus CF principle is calling experimenters much more educated than himself idiots.

Isn't it fantastic when an armchair theorist with a single failed wheel to his credit accuses others of not being open to his ideas?

Could it be that JM is the one who is not open to other possibilities?

We see JM's keyboard spewing irrelevant nonsense but nothing is coming out of any scientific interest.

[ovyyus]

Hey, if clod camper insists on truncating my name by 75%, what is a little 8% truncation?

Hey, the difference is that cloud camper's 75% truncation is jim_mich's forum initials - JM - and jim_mich's 8% truncation is insulting name calling. It takes a special kind of JM accounting logic to then imply that his 8% is somehow better than CC's 75% :D

[jim_mich]

OK "o" how about I lop off all but your single initial?

When clod camper stops truncating my name, and reverts back to properly addressing me as Jim_Mich, then I'll quit dropping 8% of his name. Or alternately call me Jim, which requires only one more key stroke than JM, and is a lot more respectful.

[Allen_T]

Jim_Mich,
What you are trying ti hide is the fact that you were just discredited. Unless you can explain how inertia, what you call ersatz gravity can be super conductive, then Bessler would have needed to use gravity.
Yet you and Grimer quote Wagner who called Bessler a fraud. And I don't belong in here because I am building one of Bessler's drawings and saying I realize what his augmented problem was.
What you and grimer are doing now is talking "wheel".
After all gravity exists on Earth so artificial gravity is not needed like it is in the space station and I think they say artificial gravity instead of ersatz.

Once again we have village idiots, both Jim Lindgaard and clod camper, here on the same page, both spewing shit that they know nothing about. (Hey, if clod camper insists on truncating my name by 75%, what is a little 8% truncation?)

I don't call it ersatz gravity. That is Grimer's terminology. I've been pushing for people to use the proper scientific terminology, which is centrifugal force. Artificial gravity is an ersatz terminology. Ersatz means artificial, something that is used in place of the real thing.

And once again I must repeat myself. There is no requirement for gravity to rotate any wheel. Gravity is a symmetrical force. It can't keep a wheel rotating. All it can do is start a wheel rotating.

All that is required to keep a perpetual motion wheel rotating is an asymmetrical force, more forward force than rearward force.

And once again I must repeat myself. Bessler never claimed that gravity rotated his wheel. Wagner assumed that Bessler was claiming a gravity-rotated wheel because Bessler said his wheel used weights. Bessler wrote that Wagner was right, but that he himself was also right. Bessler then said, "Don't you see why?

Wagner was right, gravity can't keep a PM wheel rotating. Bessler was right, he had invented a perpetual motion wheel.

Bessler claimed a wheel capable of perpetually rotating, where the internal weights gained their motive force from their "Schwunges" (force the momentum/swing/impetus/sweep).

Wagner was wrong in assuming Bessler's wheel to be a gravity-rotated wheel.

The gravity-wheel crowd make the same assumption as Wagner did. They think that using weights implies the use of gravity. It does not.

So you can stick your finger in your ears and cover your eyes and exclaim, "No, no, no. Jim is wrong." Or you can go forth with a mind open to other optional possibilities.

Umm, Jim_Mich,

johannesbender was discussing super conductivity. This is his thread.
You say Bessler did not use gravity but inertia or centrifugal force. At no time have you offered how either force can amplify itself with no external input.
In order for such a system as you propose, it would require frictionless surfaces with gravity having no effect on the mass. In effect, it would need to be super conductive in function.
You have never suggested how something mechanical could have such properties. My Mt 26 build is very much perpetual motion and is very much Bessler. I do not say Wagner because Wagner repeatedly called someone a fraud.
And my build is a quite serious build. If you wanted to keep your mind sharp as you purport, math is an excellent way to do so. I think even AB Hammer could benefit from learning how to convert over balance into newton meters of force and thusly a given velocity of motion relative to the acceleration of gravity.
But I notice that you respond with childish statements that someone would expect from a child in grade school.

Jim

[jim_mich]

Every time I start posting anything, you all guys gang up on me, and the thread devolves into three or four conversations at the same time. Why don't you each start a new thread where you each spit out questions to me? At least then we can all keep things straight. It is not me that trashes threads. It is you guys that split off in all directions.

At no time have you offered how either force can amplify itself with no external input.

And once again you post a lie about me. That is rude. I've posted about a Mechanical Maxwell's Demon as being the mechanism whereby a wheel can gain motive force without the use of gravity.

I'm sorry that because of patent laws, I can't divulge any more details than I do. Clod camper keeps harassing me in an attempt to get me to post more. I'm truly sorry that I can't at this current time show everything. I have an immense amount of information available. The mechanical aspect of the wheel is very simple. The principle behind why it works is rather simple, but it takes a little explaining to understand it fully.

PS. I've posted about Maxwell's Demon more than 60 times. So don't give me crap about never offering about how a force can amplify itself.

[Allen_T]

@Jim_Mich,
>> And once again you post a lie about me. That is rude. I've posted about a Mechanical Maxwell's Demon as being the mechanism whereby a wheel can gain motive force without the use of gravity. <<

You're joking, right ? Maxwell's Demon is based on convection where charged particles flow in one direction and lose their charge.
When this happens, they regain their charge and repeat. I highly doubt anything mechanical can do that.
With Maxwell, when something becomes positively charged, it has to be ejected from the source which charges it. And yet you claim such to support Wagner.
I always thought that if someone were to be credible in this forum is because they support Bessler's work.
By the way Jim_Mich, the only way mechanics can gain an advantage is if gravity is considered. Such as if a weight could move from 20 inches away from center to 18.5 inches while falling. That is the design I am building.
Kind of why I like Bessler's work. He does ask for things to be considered from 2 different perspectives. And with someone like AB Hammer, he can only consider 1 perspective. I am not sure why he is limited to such minimal understanding. Who knows, maybe he only speaks one language as well.

Jim

p.s., is sad if he never took the time to learn another language.
of course, I speak English as a 2nd language, I think that is
why he doesn't like me. Of course, Bessler was probably the same way.
You know, knew more than one language, culture, etc.

[MrVibrating]

So lift something when it's heavy, drop it when it's light, type stuff..

Make a weight weigh one pound as it rises and weigh four pounds as it falls. Exactly according to Bessler's taunt toward Wagner. Unfortunately gravity is constant. A weight weighs the same when it falls as when it is raised back upward. It is impossible for any object to weigh more as it falls and less as it rises. Bessler knew this. Wagner knew this. Science knows this. Most people today know this. This is the reason WHY perpetual motion by means of gravity is impossible.

Paraphrasing Sherlock Holmes: Eliminated the impossible, what remains, must be truth.

Bessler said his wheel was rotated by weights, but he NEVER said it was rotated by gravity acting upon the weights. Bessler's said his wheel was rotated by forces caused by the motions of its weights.

Yes gravity's constant and invariant. But effective weight is a function of counterbalancing, among other things. Granted, if the counterbalance is just another gravitating weight then this would only seem to multiply the problem, but evidently Bessler found a way around this.

This is one reason i'm itching for Silvertiger to draw back the curtains on his 'placebo weight' exploit.. an effective gravitating mass that can be turned on and off at will would be just the ticket..

But the asymmetry could just as likely be between input & output forces in alternate fields, such as gravitation vs inertia (possibly Fletcher's current line of enquiry)..

Regardless, the wheel turns in circles, hence the equal input and output displacements are implicit. Work = F x D hence if D is invariant, F must be variable for the input vs output work integrals to be non-equitable. But F in this case is the force applied to the masses, not the gravitational constant per se.

[jim_mich]

Jim Lindgaard, what a bunch of crap you write. You have no idea what Maxell's Demon was all about...

You're joking, right ? Maxwell's Demon is based on convection where charged particles flow in one direction and lose their charge.
When this happens, they regain their charge and repeat. I highly doubt anything mechanical can do that.
With Maxwell, when something becomes positively charged, it has to be ejected from the source which charges it.

Now for the truth... In 1867 James Clerk Maxwell wrote:

But if we conceive of a being whose faculties are so sharpened that he can follow every molecule in its course, such a being, whose attributes are as essentially finite as our own, would be able to do what is impossible to us. For we have seen that molecules in a vessel full of air at uniform temperature are moving with velocities by no means uniform, though the mean velocity of any great number of them, arbitrarily selected, is almost exactly uniform. Now let us suppose that such a vessel is divided into two portions, A and B, by a division in which there is a small hole, and that a being, who can see the individual molecules, opens and closes this hole, so as to allow only the swifter molecules to pass from A to B, and only the slower molecules to pass from B to A. He will thus, without expenditure of work, raise the temperature of B and lower that of A, in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.

And it was Lord Kelvin that labeled this as Maxwell's Demon. And such a setup could soon be harnessed by most any simple heat engine so as to produce perpetual motion.

In simpler words:

An imaginary demon is placed in a doorway in a partition in the middle of a box where he allows warmer gas molecules to pass in one direction and cooler molecules to pass in the other direction. Soon one side is hot and the other side cold violating the second law of thermodynamics.

So you see, Maxell's Demon has nothing to do with charged particles.

If the motion of two whole weights could be changed spontaneously whereby one weight gives up some of its motion to the other weight, then the ectropy (harnessable energy) of the system would be spontaneously increased. You would have a mechanical Maxwell's Demon capable of perpetual motion.

On to your next piece of crap...

And yet you claim such to support Wagner.
I always thought that if someone were to be credible in this forum is because they support Bessler's work.

Why do you keep saying that I DON'T support Bessler's work? Wagner was correct. He claimed that a gravity wheel was impossible. Bessler was also correct. He claimed to have a perpetual motion wheel. Can't you get it? The two are different. Both were right about a gravity wheel being impossible. But Wagner was wrong about Bessler wheel not being perpetual motion.

On to your next piece of crap...

By the way Jim_Mich, the only way mechanics can gain an advantage is if gravity is considered. Such as if a weight could move from 20 inches away from center to 18.5 inches while falling.

I'm sorry to inform you that the only thing required to rotate a wheel is more forward force than reverse force. Gravity is conservative and as such can't push with a greater forward force and a weaker rearward force. That is the point that Wagner made. You would need for a weight to weigh more as it falls and less as it rises. In Bessler’s words, one lifting four. And gravity just plain does not work that way. And Bessler never claimed his wheel used one pound lifting four.

So let me write this very clear, again. I've written it before.
Wagner was right. A gravity wheel is impossible.
Bessler was right. He built a working PM wheel.
Both are right. Bessler even asked, “Do you see why?�
This is because Bessler's PM wheel was not a gravity wheel.
I pull my hair out trying to make you understand what I write.
Whether or not you agree is not relevant.
You may choose to agree or not.
But good grief, at least understand what it is that I write.
Stop being so ignorant, Jim Lindgaard.
Stop twisting my words into what you think I’m saying.
And start reading what I actually write.
I try to choose my words carefully.
I try to use simple words, but you claim that I, “respond with childish statements that someone would expect from a child in grade school.�
If I write at any higher lever, my words go whoosh, right over your head.

Gravity is NOT a requirement for rotating a wheel.
Why is it that everyone can’t understand such a concept?
The only requirement is that the wheel have more forward force than reverse force.
You could spin the wheel with a sky-rocket, as is commonly done, with no gravity involved.
Gravity need NOT be the source of the unbalanced force.

[cloud camper]

I'm sorry that because of patent laws, I can't divulge any more details than I do. Clod camper keeps harassing me in an attempt to get me to post more. I'm truly sorry that I can't at this current time show everything.

You're joking right?

You've had 10 years to develop your concept into something that might be
workable but you've come up snake eyes.

But you've had plenty of time to spin yarns about working devices and tell others what morons they are for not falling into line.

Personally, I don't give a rip about your crap principle. I've already demo'd your stated principle in WM2D and posted it to the forum. You are not breaking symmetry. Weights retreating and going backwards do not create a symmetry break. If you knew any advanced math you would know this. Your spreadsheets are simply a case of garbage in garbage out as you do not understand the ramifications of fictitious forces.

Your arrogance and misunderstanding of physics do not allow you to see the flaw in your concept.

Certified non runner from a compulsive liar and fraud.

[ovyyus]

OK "o" how about I lop off all but your single initial?

Why would I find that an issue? Unless of course you put a 'cl' in front of it and a 'd' at the end, then you might have a problem.

When clod camper stops truncating my name, and reverts back to properly addressing me as Jim_Mich, then I'll quit dropping 8% of his name. Or alternately call me Jim, which requires only one more key stroke than JM, and is a lot more respectful.

You don't see John Collins insulting people when someone refers to him as JC. Why is that?

JM complains that people aren't using his 'proper' terminology, he complains that people aren't using his 'proper' name, he complains that people aren't adopting his 'proper' Bessler research. Endless complaining.

So, JM can stick his idiot fingers in his idiot ears and cry, "no, no, no, everyone is wrong." Or JM can go forth with a mind open to other optional possibilities.

[jim_mich]

complains that people aren't using his 'proper' terminology

You are damn right I complain. The correct name is centrifugal force. It is NOT EG, or ersatz gravity, or artificial gravity. The correct name is centrifugal force.

he complains that people aren't using his 'proper' name

Again, you are damn right. I'm sick and tired of being disrespected. Show some class. Show some respect. If you respect me, then I'll reciprocate.

he complains that people aren't adopting his 'proper' Bessler research.

I don't give a crap if you 'adopt' or not. If you don't like what I post, then simply ignore me. But don't whine that I'm wrong simply because my views are different than yours. If you think I'm wrong, then present a logical argument with provable facts. Else shut your traps.

Endless complaining.

No. The complaining will stop when you start treating me with proper respect.

And yes, my opinion is that most everyone seeking PM is wrong. And my reason is because most everyone seeks a gravity wheel, which I know is impossible.

Or JM can go forth with a mind open to other optional possibilities.

But I began with an open mind. And I researched. And I learned. And I discovered. And I know much more now than when I started. And now you want me to seek other optional possibilities? Why in the world would I back-track? I've been there. I'm well past such.

If you don't like my point of view, and don't agree with me, then that's your problem, not mine.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm right and anyone seeking a gravity wheel is wrong.
Why hasn't Bessler's wheel been re-discovered by now?
Because most everyone seeks a gravity wheel, while Bessler's wheel was a motion wheel.

---------------

As a side note, I was translating Bessler's AP part two, Chapter 29, where Bessler discusses the difference between his two wheels, he writes:

Denn jenes hatte um und um Ganz ein ander’s Principium;

Translated by JC: "The two machines can easily be contrasted, as they worked on quite different principles."

Translated word by word, by Jim_Mich: "Because that had around and around, completely a different principle"

I question if the word "principle" is the correct meaning here.

Principium is a Latin word with a number of possible meanings. Some of which are principle/initiator/starting and a few others

As originally translated, this phrase seemed to indicate two different principles of operation between the one-way wheels and the two-way wheels.
But if you look at the other meanings, it can just as easily mean the two wheels were initiated or started differently.
Which indeed was the case. The one-way wheels were started by OOB gravity. The two-way wheels were started or initiated by a hand-push.
If that be the case then Bessler is not saying that the wheel used different principles.

I've known for quite a while now that both wheels operated because of a same principle, though slightly modified so as to be balanced in the later wheels. Thus this phrase did not make sense when translated as operating by "different principles".

But having a different initiator or a different starter method makes perfect sense.

OK, so now claim that I'm wrong in this respect. Go ahead and blindly bash me. Call me a liar. Some of you are just a bunch of swine.
Matthew 7:6

[ovyyus]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm right and anyone seeking a gravity wheel is wrong.

Only an idiot would constantly promote such nonsense without proof of principle. Same old JM.

[eccentrically1]

If you think I'm wrong, then present a logical argument with provable facts. Else shut your traps.

Ok, again I have to repeat myself.

It's a fact that inertia is a description of a body's resistance to change in its velocity. It's not even a force!

I can't even.

CF is the opposing force (not a fundamental force) seen when a body follows a curved path. It doesn't have to be circular. It varies along a steepening curve until it maxes out when the body is following a circular path, as the force causing the body to follow that circular path maxes out. CF varies as a response to Centripetal force which is the force that is causing the curved path. CF is just the the response, the effect of the body's inertia that resists its change in direction.
All of science knows this. Everyone knows this. Even Maxwell knew it.

A mechanical maxwell's demon is as impossible as the thermodynamic demon. The demon consumes energy sorting the moving molecules. He would consume more than he could convert.

No one has ever built a maxwell's demon device. No one has even pretended they built one.

[jim_mich]

It's a fact that inertia is a description of a body's resistance to change in its velocity. It's not even a force!

See: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22iner ... gle+Search
Over eight MILLION hits concerning the phrase "Inertial Force"
Inertia most definitely produces a force. So don't give me any crap that it’s not a force. It is the negative force which must be acted against for a body to accelerate. And depending upon your frame of reference is can also be a positive force.

CF is the opposing force (not a fundamental force) seen when a body follows a curved path. It doesn't have to be circular. It varies along a steepening curve until it maxes out when the body is following a circular path, as the force causing the body to follow that circular path maxes out. CF varies as a response to Centripetal force which is the force that is causing the curved path. CF is just the the response, the effect of the body's inertia that resists its change in direction.
All of science knows this. Everyone knows this. Even Maxwell knew it.

And I fully know all this. So what is your point?????

Inertial resistance to acceleration and momentum resistance to deceleration are simply the opposite ends of the same force provided by nature whenever objects change velocity, speed, or direction.

A mechanical maxwell's demon is as impossible as the thermodynamic demon. The demon consumes energy sorting the moving molecules. He would consume more than he could convert.

Yes, a thermodynamic Maxwell's Demon is theoretically possible if/when the Demon consumes less energy sorting than is produced by the results.

My mechanical Maxwell's Demon "name" is simply the closest analogical words that I can find to describe process whereby the weights of a PM wheel gain energy from their motions.

With James Clerk Maxwell's Demon, thermal energy is transferred from colder air to warmer air. Now this is thought to be impossible. Except that Maxwell envisioned it as possible IF and WHEN individual air molecules were sorted according to their velocity, which is the kinetic energy content of the individual air molecules. Such sorting requires energy. Maxwell's Demon is overunity only if it can sort using little or no energy.

My PM wheel does something similar, but not the same... At this point, while writing this, I attempted to describe my Maxwell's Demon process without giving away enough of the details, which would cost me my patent rights. I had most of the description typed up. But as I read it over, the same thing happened as always happens. No matter how hard I attempt to convey the Mechanical Maxwell's Demon without disclosing TOO MUCH so as to loose patent rights, it just can't be done. Describing the process in any more detail than simply calling it a mechanical Maxwell's Demon gives the method away.

Cloud camper modeled what he THOUGHT was my mechanisms, based upon the words that I had used to describe it, but in which word I had left out the same one or two words that Bessler said might give the secret away.

And thus I must be vague. But once the principle is known, then Bessler's words all fall into place. And his descriptions are dead on. Bessler figured out exactly how far he could go with describing his wheel mechanism. He omitted only one or two words from his description. So if you want a description of my wheel, go read Bessler's description. But read the actual original words, because some of his words have not been translated exactly correct. Some of Bessler's words have be misconstrued. People have put meaning to Bessler's words that are not in the original context.

So, eccentrically1, trying to claim that inertia is not even a force falls far short of any argument. Inertia and momentum are simply different word for the same effect, but it is looking at the effect from different planes of reference. Both involve acceleration of an object. One is positive acceleration. One is negative acceleration, which it is the custom to call deceleration. Both involve the changing of the velocity, speed, or direction of a weight mass.

Bessler describes his weights as moving, one in and one out, and then they swap. This is the perfect description of weights manipulating inertial resistance to acceleration and momentum resistance to deceleration, which involves transferring of motional KE from weight to weight, so as to increase the ectropy of the whole unit, not unlike Maxwell's idea of transferring heat KE from on side of a vessel to the other side. In both cases, the result in an increase of ectropy. It is the increase of usable harnessable kinetic energy. And though Maxwell's Demon required energy input, my mechanism requires only the initial rotational startup input, without adding continual additional KE like as is required by normal thermodynamic heat engines.