Secret wheel design

[daanopperman]

Jim , from your posting

Both weights are dominant .

Only one weight can be the dominant driving force at any given time , the weight moving in , or the weight moving out ,
Yes The weights swop place less there would be no continuous driving of the wheel .

This is what I would like you to clarify , Is it the weight moving in , or the weight moving out that drive the wheel .

If you say the weight moving out drives the wheel with the aid of cf , but also slow the wheel down because of com , then one of the 2 actions must furbish the energy to do so

If you say the weight moving in is the driving force , and speed the wheel up as con.of energy. , then you have to do this against cf which will need energy to do so , energy that you don't have yet .

P have a long list of proof for this idea , but to date he has not produced a running wheel . I am sure like you he could have switched from static wheel to rotation a long time ago to produce a self running wheel and proof his theory .

If we do not discuss our understanding , and we hit a brick wall ( bless your sole preoccupied ) a small detour could shelf our wheel , for ever .

Bessler stated , we should not put the cart before the horse , to me that means , you have to have energy before you can use it .

Until your wheel is running , and a VIDEO of it is made accelerating up to wherever you govern it's speed , a motion wheel is not possible to construct .

In the meantime , whatever you place in front of me , keeps me thinking , and maybe one day , before your wheel is finished , I too will be a motion wheel fan .

Daan .

[charly2]

bessler did say he made a wheel that flew to pieces

Hi Andy, drunk or not I found interesting what you wrote, it says a lot, I do not remember have read it before.
Do you have the source by chance?

[jim_mich]

Only one weight can be the dominant driving force at any given time , the weight moving in , or the weight moving out

This is what I would like you to clarify , Is it the weight moving in , or the weight moving out that drive the wheel .

Daan, I gave you my answer, and you rejected it. My answer to your questions is: "Both weights are dominant." You keep trying to force my wheel to fit YOUR mental image. The only way that you will ever understand is for me to place a drawing or picture right in front of you. Do you remember what Bessler wrote? Bessler wrote that if he showed his wheel design, THEN people would say, "Now I understand."

[daanopperman]

Hi jim _ mich ,

That is true , for I do not have a mental image for YOUR wheel , and it is your wheel I try to understand , not anybody else's wheel . Unless you change MY image of YOUR wheel , I am stuck in this rut and in disbelieve .
But the positive thing about that is it forces me to expand my thinking about the 2 dominant weights , so that they must work in unity and not one at a time or alone to give impetus .

So for now , until next time , there will be no more questions .

Daan .

[preoccupied]

Jim Mich probably has the two weights throw themselves in a direction on one side of the wheel and on the opposite side of the wheel they might literally trade positions. So I mean if the weights moving to the right the top weight would move further out before it stops and the lower second weight stops closer into the wheel, and the weights would switch positions at the bottom when moving towards the bottom left. I just can't visualize the mechanics of it.

[jim_mich]

But the positive thing about that is it forces me to expand my thinking about the 2 dominant weights , so that they must work in unity and not one at a time or alone to give impetus .

Yes, "work in unity" would be a good way to describe them.

The two-way wheels were always mass-balanced, with four weights working in unity.

I might add that mass-balanced wheels could work with any number of weight pairs working in unity.

[Andyb]

preoccupied,stoned, Charly2,no sorry it was a long time ago but it stuck in my mind, may be some other member has some idea,i trusted the information at the time and sometimes that is enough for me .all the best Andyb

[preoccupied]

I would like to explain my new wheel design but I think that my Bessler Wheel design would throw Earth off its orbit if it's used by a lot of people. I think that Gravity is powered by the Earth's heat and that if I change the balance of heat used to produce gravity by using gravity for physical work excessively that it will change Earths rotation around the sun. This might throw us in a direction that would not be beneficial to life on Earth, or by changing our orbit enough this way we might draw the attention of space aliens and be invaded by extra terrestrial creatures. I would like to explain why I think Earth uses heat to produce its gravity but I feel like it's a sensitive idea too. Would anybody like to share their motion only wheel designs here now? Because if perpetual motion could be obtained with motion, then perhaps it wouldn't pull from gravity?

Motion only wheels should be possible because I believe that uneven oscillations pulls the levers and everything they are attached to in the opposite direction. And this might also mean that levers can be manipulated to produce infinite leverage because new perspectives like "motion" or a new lever arrangement even, could bypass limitations of a single perspectives balance. An axle is a perspective and it's by leaving my axle and doing work elsewhere that I have made any good perpetual motion designs at all. Maybe I am saying too much?

A Bessler wheel would have no effect to the earth. To look at it that way? You would be siding with those who want to get rid of all cars and all moving devices of any type for they all would have negative effect to the earth under that misleading logic.

I think that both lifting and dropping weights might effect the Earth's rotation. I think that Earth's gravitational behavior is caused by the Earth's heat. So there might be a range in which the gravity is able to use its current gravity behavior based on the mass of Earth, and if there is extra heat on Earth it might effect this range very little because it will let off radiation that in turn causes the Earth to cool later on during winter. So extra Earth heat means that later there will be more resistance to absorbing heat from the sun because the extra radiation produced will block sunlight energy from reaching Earth during winter. I think that maybe if gravity driven wheels were used it would become possibly warm or cold all year round and the Earth's rotation would change.

[Andyb]

Preoccupied,you make good points,it was said by James lovelock that the only way to combat global warming would be to place screening technology between the earth and the sun to control our weather systems, and give us some time to create better ways of developing energy ,and ways of not needing so much as people, this is a way off it is said ,but it will be the only way in the end i believe,it is a shame our news programs and governments do not engage in finding solutions to all these things there would be less conflict less of a difference from each other and much greater harmony, oh there goes the hippy again

Just as a note here all our technologies create heat our bombs are massive and they have all been tested on a massive scale and we are still here dying from the fall out but still here ,lets get on with it ,all the best Andyb

[daanopperman]

Hi preoccupied ,

Yes , lifting weights using gravity in a gravity driven wheel will use rotational energy from the earth , as when the weights fall , this energy would not go back into the earth but be used up by a machine to do work .
This would be the same as a ice skater uses her arms to increase or decrease her rotational velocity , but never let her arms out .

That is what I think will happen .

Maybe some more dots could clarify this .

Daan .

[preoccupied]

I think all weight on a gravitational field eats heat from the planet. A stationary weight sitting doing nothing, and a weight falling or a weight lifting all increase the spending of heat I think. I think gravity is buoyancy and that the sun and Earth and all of the orbiting bodies in the Universe have heat to contribute to buoyancy that gives them their gravity. I do not think gravity is just motion and inertia. So I disagree that it would be like an ice skater spinning when a weight lifts or falls.

[charly2]

Gravity is the force induced by vacuum or low pressure at the center of the atom, that low ether pressure is created by the high speed electrons spinning around the vacuum created by the same electrons.
That circular motion stretches out the space of the atom at the spinning electrons plane, and by difference of pressure the poles suck out ether like tornado, they feed the system in a closed loop. The bigger the atom (more electrons) the bigger the emptyness thus the element is more heavy (from our point of view), the bigger the mass the bigger the total vacuum too.
The heat is related electron/s speed, ambient ether density and pressures, also the atom size or its "boundary", but looking from outside from our perspective, gravity or weight does not change in a perceptible way.
Two masses are two open "containers" of vacuum, tryin to eat each other. Thats why is not possible to cheat gravity by any conventional mean or a special magical path.
Atoms, solar systems, galaxies and bigger unknown universal structures are perpetual machines regardless the temperature. All of them have something in common.

[preoccupied]

charly2, I think you might be wrong. I believe gravity is spent heat and that heat from the sun or star replenishes heat for a planet or any orbiting body in the Universe. You are looking for a nuclear solution as an explanation. But you can't necessarily prove it, can you? I don't even think that the sun is a nuclear reaction, because scientists make it seem like the sun is an atomic bomb and I disagree. I think that's just a clever assumption.

[charly2]

Well, I agree with you about the sun, definitely is not what official science says it is.
My prototype not finished yet is a mechanical replication of one of the most simple closed loop universal system, if it works I will confirm my theory, if not, I don't know what follows, maybe I will have to go for a big tequila bottle.

From my personal understanding of nature:
WARM, means higher inter-atomic volume or higher space which is higher "weight" this is directly related to gravity on macro and in magnetism too.
COLD, means lower inter-atomic volume so less weight.

How much or less weight? Probably undetectable in our body size scale, but that does not mean that it does not happens.
But a change in temperature in the sun and planets will definitely change the orbits size. Exactly like the "cold" galaxies tend to colapse.
But of course I could be wrong.

[preoccupied]

I didn't want to share this here because I think the idea belongs to me, but I believe that the sun is being fed fuel and that is why Mercury orbit is slightly off. I think that the sun will cool later and release the same fuel that it used during its lifespan and another star uses it later due to gravity, so because gravity is buoyant a hot body would orbit around a star and cooler material will run right into it.