What MT 138 Really IS!

[daanopperman]

Oops ,

Daan .

[silent]

.

[FunWithGravity2]

Hi Denver .. IINM = If I'm Not Mistaken, IIRC = If I Remember Correctly.

Here are some Bessler quotes from JC's books (from the wiki clues page) that I think everybody should take the time to contemplate carefully. I've highlighted certain parts to draw your attention to them. Reading them a couple of times could save you a life-time of effort.

Bessler suggests that there is a real mechanical paradox to be solved to find true PM (which he eventually managed after much trial and error). In an ideal and linear world the mechanical paradox conditions should first be theorized and identified, before being mechanically solved, much like a career theoretical physicist would do before proving by experimentation. But Bessler was just like us, he put the cart before the horse, repeatably, until he had a dream. Then for the first time he saw the paradoxical conditions of the mechanics of true PM and the actual mechanical principle to solve that paradox. And the solution was incredibly simple. So embarrassingly simple that he had to say it was 'deeply hidden', tho I doubt that very much. And those two little words "deeply hidden" have kept generations wonderfully deflected and occupied trying to overturn solid Newtonian Physics and mechanics with a special mechanism that doesn't obey those Laws.

For Bessler's wheels to 'work' they had to obey the Laws of Nature. I have been saying for quite some time that they must also obey Newtonian Laws of Motion and Classical Physics and Mechanics. And those same man made Laws tell us a mechanical paradox allowing for a true gravity powered PM wheel can not exist.

But it does likely exist IMO - and when found will be entirely self evident and discernible, and the paradox will not be in the mechanics of some special uniquely behaving mechanism but will be that an engine machine of ordinary mechanics and principles can extract usable energy from a gravity field without losing or being given potential.

"for I put together the very first device which could spontaneously revolve a little. I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile" – AP pg 271

"Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the task. He’s right ! So am I, and does anyone see why ? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: “Now I understand !� – AP pg 342

“Listen – my weights are not like those in turnspits and clocks. They don’t need to be raised up – it’s a different arrangement altogether from what you see in mill-wheels, turnspits and clocks� - AP pg 334

"many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience" – AP pg 295-296

"he can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result would be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty!" – AP pg 295

Best of luck on your journey !

Spot ON

I always have wondered how people cannot erase CLUES from memory. I've seen so many lists of "important clues" over the years that it makes my head spin. All the garbage needs to be cleared out and people must focus on things that are far more telling than vague clues that can be interpreted 100 different ways. Those last three excerpts would save so many years of trouble for people. I started my search years ago throwing away 99% of presented material as misleading and focused on the telling pieces that narrow the search.

Crazy Dave

[silent]

.

[silent]

.

[silent]

.

[Fletcher]

.. snip ..

For Bessler's wheels to 'work' they had to obey the Laws of Nature. I have been saying for quite some time that they must also obey Newtonian Laws of Motion and Classical Physics and Mechanics. And those same man made Laws tell us a mechanical paradox allowing for a true gravity powered PM wheel can not exist.

But it does likely exist IMO - and when found will be entirely self evident and discernible, and the paradox will not be in the mechanics of some special uniquely (OU) behaving mechanism but will be that an engine machine (combination) of ordinary mechanics and principles can extract usable energy from a gravity field without losing or being given potential.

"for I put together the very first device which could spontaneously revolve a little. I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile" – AP pg 271

"Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the task. He’s right ! So am I, and does anyone see why ? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: “Now I understand !� – AP pg 342

“Listen – my weights are not like those in turnspits and clocks. They don’t need to be raised up – it’s a different arrangement altogether from what you see in mill-wheels, turnspits and clocks� - AP pg 334

"many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience" – AP pg 295-296

"he can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result would be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty!" – AP pg 295

Spot ON

I always have wondered how people cannot erase CLUES from memory. I've seen so many lists of "important clues" over the years that it makes my head spin. All the garbage needs to be cleared out and people must focus on things that are far more telling than vague clues that can be interpreted 100 different ways.

Those last three excerpts would save so many years of trouble for people. I started my search years ago throwing away 99% of presented material as misleading and focused on the telling pieces that narrow the search.

Crazy Dave

Hi Dave .. thanks for the reply. The following are my opinions in reply to you.

I would say the last two Bessler quotes are the most revealing of what not to experiment with to emulate Bessler. But read in isolation, tho we intellectually understand their meaning, they don't get any permanent traction in most of our psychs, except for a few of us. We quickly forget or plain don't believe it. They need context and reinforcement for most of us to finally wake up to what he is saying.

In MT (unpublished) Bessler suggests that many of the MT's would work, with the addition of the Prime Mover structure/apparatus. He even goes way out on a limb IMO by identifying MT's 44 and 48 as candidates, tho these are by themselves some of the most unlikely of machines to work harking back to the very simple ball moving wheels at the beginning of the book. It is also hard to fathom what energy they could impart to a Prime Mover cobbled to it which it might then use in some way. That is deliberate to deflect us somewhat, and to showcase his skill if he could indeed make those two difficult examples work. There are more obvious candidates of OOB wheels that a Prime Mover could be hitched to. So we are left wondering what the real purpose of the OOB system(s) is in the duet of a working wheel ? It isn't that the standalone OOB system that we all know so well as UU suddenly becomes OU. No, it remains firmly UU just as Nature intended. It has another purpose and that is to Prime the Prime Mover IMO. And that is why almost any OOB system can be substituted or swapped in for the Primer mech i.e. the many 'different principles' he refers to.

Yet the Prime Mover structure/apparatus is not itself OU either. Only when the two come together and the classic OOB system Primes the so called Prime Mover do we have a combination that is OU i.e. uses no perceivable energy supply or energy restoration but can extract work from a gravity field (that is the mechanical paradox and not some individual mech or combination of mechs). Although the classic and well known OOB system Primes the Prime Mover it is not itself the Prime Mover. The other partner deserves this name because it is what can be married to almost all other standalone sub-OU OOB wheels and its form does not change i.e. ONE final 'mechanical principle/construct' unlike the former(s).

..........

I just want to explain a little about my sometimes perceived forum behaviour to the members of this forum.

If you think some of the old timers like me for example are being (take your pick of criticisms sometimes leveled or insert your own) aloof, superior, snide, sulking, overly negative, reticent, not engaging with a latest design to be posted, it is because I wholeheartedly believe what I have written above. I didn't get there from day one but over time.

I do believe Bessler used quite a bit of psychology and manipulation e.g. he leads us by the nose with word pictures of OOB designs knowingly sending the majority down the rabbit hole. IMO he never revealed their much less exotic and mundane purpose, tho they were absolutely necessary, just not in the way you'd think. It is up to us to put the puzzle together. And putting that puzzle together my way often finds myself on a different page from many others. So I have two choices, become silent in the background and work on alone (the lurker), or enter into discussions and keep the forum churning and alive, even at the risk of copping the odd criticism or the misunderstanding of my base line position about classic OOB wheels. By engaging I hope to aid education for all of us in some way.

[FunWithGravity2]

Fletcher

Yes Agreed on the wheel. IMHO the wheel is not a balanced wheel but it is not the imbalance that powers the wheel(mass). IMHO the statements tell us to STOP trying to create an offset. Certainly not a telling revelation on my part but where many of us have probably landed over the years. I like yourself am and will be looked upon as brash and unhelpful at many times. But those new and sensitive have not been around for the war of ideas and mutual respect gained from the years of hashing out ideas on the forum. They have not been around long enough many times to realize they are digging in old dirt. Off course they will say and I doo agree that every idea can always use a fresh look. BUT and here is the big BUT. People need to EXHAUST the ideas to learn anything, and far to many don't do that. ANY idea taken to exhaustion will yield more data than slipshod construction, defeat and disposal with a new found all knowing reverence towards any one else trying to walk the same path.

I do ramble but we are heading somewhere.....
Anyone of those "experienced" builders as it were can run off a multitude of pros and cons about a specific wheel being presented by someone, new or old. And we assume that the knowledge is somehow absorbed, but I think what Bessler knew and some of us have learned your have to hold it in your hands to learn it on your own. I personally don't think that enough people use the wheels they have built to their full abilities. I believe that people need to continue to refine their wheels that don't work to make them work better or worse, but in so doing gain the valuable knowledge needed for the next iteration. Many builds seem to suffer from poor proportions and its very easy for the builder to relegate the design to the unworkable pile based upon its mechanical configuration but not learning anything about its basic force manipulation and how changing size/mass of wheel, size/weight of mechanics inside, length and positions of movements changes EVERYTHING.

Of course i'm an old hare that just wants to sound like the wise old tortoise so if you've made it this far disregard all that i've said.

IMHO
I think Bessler was being coy with " if they knew the proper application" in regards to the prime movers relationship to his non working examples. I don't think the prime mover makes any of the wheels work, I believe the wheels could all make the prime mover work.

Crazy Dave

Edited to add: Fletcher neither of us have been here long enough yet to be the "grumpy old bastards" yet, at least i hope not. I wonder if we'll know. Or will we go through some type of progression where we are blinded by the metamorphosis and just sit in the corner yelling at the kids to get off the lawn ?

[Art]

Hey , Fletcher and FWG ,

Two brilliant posts , - One after the other .

Pretty well sums things up ! : )

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

that is the mechanical paradox and not some individual mech or combination of mechs

In fact that is the Point.
I had a look to silents mechanism. Here I see, that the own weight is used to lift two arms, like a bird with two wings.

In my opinion is this a collapsing mechanism.
The collapsing is causing a high density of material on one side of the Wheel and can repeated. A permanent collapsing.

The collapsing will result in a positive Feedback Loop,
a permanent fail over.

Should be made possible with 2 quadratic Frames.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

No gravity wheel ever did, ever could, or ever will create asymmetric torque by the nature of its requirement for full GPE restitution. This is a fact.

Ever will? Bold statement and probably true, but if Bessler did find a way obvious he would have harnessed gravity energy. Again, move any weight horizontal to create torque and it has to be picked up at some point.

The problem of limited human imagination is the discrepant event of results of objects of different mass and moment of inertial moving at different speeds. Maybe, look to what I was trying to achieve, leveraging off the MOI of one large mass to increase the speed of both. In the process leverage momentum so there is no distance loss.

[TheVisitorV]

Hey Fletcher:

“Listen – my weights are not like those in turnspits and clocks. They don’t need to be raised up – it’s a different arrangement altogether from what you see in mill-wheels, turnspits and clocks� - AP pg 334

This is from a longer context, and the context is that he is literary shitting on Wagner. I've read the letter and don't know what to make out of it, he told the truth on other occasions and lied on this one or the opposite.

Hard to tell, especially when he openly admits he's been lying a lot to all sorts of people in order to hide how this thing works.

Here he also says that he have built the wheel from common materials while in other parts says there is a need for a special material. I do not know what work was presented first.

Anyway.....


MERRY CHRISTMAS ALL!

[Fletcher]

Fletcher:

No gravity wheel ever did, ever could, or ever will create asymmetric torque by the nature of its requirement for full GPE restitution. This is a fact.

Ever will? Bold statement and probably true, but if Bessler did find a way obviously he would have harnessed gravity energy.

Again, move any weight horizontal to create torque and it has to be picked up at some point.

Mornin dax .. it's a bit of a trick statement, it's important to recognise from the context that I am talking there about just half of a 'working gravity wheel' i.e. the UU half that is the Primer of the second Prime Mover structure half.

Hey Fletcher:

“Listen – my weights are not like those in turnspits and clocks. They don’t need to be raised up – it’s a different arrangement altogether from what you see in mill-wheels, turnspits and clocks� - AP pg 334

This is from a longer context, and the context is that he is literary shitting on Wagner. I've read the letter and don't know what to make out of it, he told the truth on other occasions and lied on this one or the opposite.

Hard to tell, especially when he openly admits he's been lying a lot to all sorts of people in order to hide how this thing works.

Here he also says that he have built the wheel from common materials while in other parts says there is a need for a special material. I do not know what work was presented first.

Mornin Denver .. Not a need for a special material alto he says that. He means a special structure, or apparatus, or principle, made from ordinary materials. This is the Prime Mover. This is a separate structure and a singular principle quite different from the various structures and various first order principles (e.g. the MT examples) that can variously Prime it (allegedly by me) into position !

IMO !

Compliments of the season to all !

[John Collins]

When Bessler says his weights don’t need to be lifted up he means, not in the way a weight driven clock has to have its weights lifted every time they reach the bottom of their travel.

Just stating the obvious!

JC

[TheVisitorV]

Merry Christmas ALL!!!!!

this is something i'm working on now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCebQc8GYvg