Impact is the Key

[ovyyus]

Don't be shy Bill. Tell me I'm wrong.

More paper-thin reasoning and cyclic discussion is hardly what we need. Demonstration sorts the wheat from the chaff. Thus the onus is on you to demonstrate you are right, as it should be.

Your theory is not demonstration. Therefore your real challenge still lays ahead of you. My challenge is exactly the same, but I don't expect you to do my work for me ;)

[Michael]

Greendoor. I have to ask, when can we see your working wheel?

Here's the thing about words Greendoor since it's in your signature, and because you brought up the matter of delusion. They can be heavily open to interpretation. As Bill recently mentioned, paraphrased, people at times project the patterns of their minds, thoughts, into the patterns of what they see, read, etc. around them. People often project themselves into what they are trying to interpret, because to learn requires some kind of a background check ( also read deeper as subconscious ). And because what they " know" in and about themselves is real, feels real, even if that knowledge at the time is subconscious, to them their interpretation of an event ( some form of a pattern composition ) might be slightly incorrect, or it might be way off track, yet they might feel the want to defend their view to the point of death because to them it feels real. Because the energy of the " realness" of their background information is being added to the interpretation, giving the interpretation more substantiation. To them.

So, as you said you might be reading too much into ideas posted on here. It's hard to tell with a few words.

[Michael]

I believe the name was used by Hans Von Lieven for the inventor of the buzz saw wheel. Sorry no link.

Thanks justsomeone.

[Michael]

Db. P.

[Michael]

!!

[Grimer]

@ Grimer, cool picture. To be completely honest I don't think you have the secret there. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. It's not what I have in mind anyway. I do think there are others who pretty much have it, and the various pieces have been discussed by various people in this forum over the last year. I could also be delusional.

@ Ruggerodk - I guess you have drawn attention to my signature quote because I am suggesting there are some ideas that shouldn't be discussed in public. I don't see a problem with this. The quote says "great minds freely reveal all ideas" - it just says they "discuss ideas", in preference to discussing events or people.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Mathew 7:6)

Good advice, especially for public Internet forums.

It's no secret that most of the gravity wheel patents don't give away the basic secret. And yet somebody has bothered to get a patent. That's not a cheap undertaking, and you would have to question why the owner bothered.

I recently found out that that the basic model I am experimenting with actually has been patented before. Which gives me some hope that I'm on the right track - but obviously I would have legal problems trying to capitalise on a working device. This doesn't worry me, because I believe I have the mathematical principle, and there are different ways to exploit this principle.

I do suspect that many of the gravity wheel patents that we can see have been set up in order to crush any outbreak of running wheels. There is enough rope for lawyers to hang us all. Which is why we should all be very careful if we think we have the principle or a running device.

Look at all the hoopla surround Mylow (magnet motor hero of the month). Frankly, I'm wondering if that dude is a plant to make all free energy researchers look stupid. Or scare them off.

IMO - if we think we have the working principle, we should reduce this to the simplest experiment that would prove the point. This probably won't be a running wheel. Nice if it was, but really - we need to be able to replicate a simple experiment that gives undeniable results.

For example - the basic principle of an electric motor can be demonstrated with a wire taped across a dish of water. A magnet floating on a cork will spin if we energise the wire with a battery and make & break the contacts. Anyone can duplicate this, and it's easy to see how an electric motor could be developed out of such a simple beginning.

IF there is any free energy to be gained from impact (and I don't think there is) then we should be able to experiment with bouncing balls or something that would show a useful effect. This is the kind of idea that is worth talking about. The sooner we disprove all the wrong ideas, the better.

The facts governing impact are known to every competent engineer. They don't need to be demonstrated. All I have done is to point out the logical consequences of those facts.

Do you deny the facts?

Do you deny the logic?

If you don't then the conclusion must follow. That's what Q.E.D. means.

You don't demonstrate a geometrical proof with experiments. No amount of experimentation can ever prove absolutely that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. No amount of experimentation can ever prove that the number of primes is infinite. Logic is more powerful than experimentation.

If I'm wrong then either something is wrong with the calculus, the rules governing impact or the logic connecting them.

A similar situation arose when I discovered the three equations of state for water vapour. The experimental data had been around for decades. It wasn't in dispute. All I did was open people's eyes to the implications of that data.

Or take the case of the handle Bill uses, viz. ovyyus. Once one points out that he has coded the name Bill in the same way that Bessler coded his name then it's obvious that it isn't just a coincidence. (incidentally Bill, I think it's rather neat. )

[Grimer]

Don't be shy Bill. Tell me I'm wrong.

...
Your theory is not demonstration.
...

With respect, Bill, I disagree. A demonstration is precisely what it is. I demonstrated the logical connection between accepted facts.

Euclid's Proof of the Infinitude of Primes is not a theory. It's a demonstration. Surely you are not trying to suggest that experiments could disprove his demonstration are you?

[daxwc]

Who would want an experiment or a demonstration, when we have a perfectly good picture of a bus. Just hand it straight over to the patent lawyers.

[Jim Williams]

The US Patent Office requires a working model, i.e., a demonstration, of any invention claiming to be PM.

[daxwc]

Oh,... so I guess Grimer will have to steal the bus and drive it to the patent office. If he steals one with a full tank of gas he will not even be lying about the free energy claims ;)

[rlortie]

Yes, but I am told that there is no steering wheel or driver on the upper level.

[Grimer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yHrpPRYgYM

[ruggerodk]

@ Ruggerodk - I guess you have drawn attention to my signature quote because I am suggesting there are some ideas that shouldn't be discussed in public.

No – it was because you talked about people's mindset and behavior. ;-)

IF there is any free energy to be gained from impact (and I don't think there is) then we should be able to experiment with bouncing balls or something that would show a useful effect. This is the kind of idea that is worth talking about. The sooner we disprove all the wrong ideas, the better.

Well – I disagree: Impact could very well be a part of the solution...but not in an obvious way.

And I agree: There IS an allmost infantile answer that solves this quest..IF we dare to talk about it.

ruggero ;-)

[greendoor]

I've said here many times recently that I believe impact can be considered a key. I don't see it as being the source of energy gain however. But to liberate the source of energy, I don't see any other way (currently) of NOT using impact.

Is there any way of looking at impact as being anything other than an elastic or inelastic collision, or combination of both? AFAIK, the possible outcomes of impact are all known and accounted for.

I'm surprised we can't get a general consensus that impact alone is a transfer of momentum with some losses due to sound, heat, deformation etc.

I'm afraid I don't follow Grimer's logic - i've already explained i'm not well trained in modern physics. And frankly, if the basic axioms of physics are still being debated, I can't really trust any house-of-cards that might be built on those foundations ...

Basic Newtonian physics seemed good enough for Bessler.

[greendoor]

The facts governing impact are known to every competent engineer. They don't need to be demonstrated. All I have done is to point out the logical consequences of those facts.

Do you deny the facts?

Do you deny the logic?

If you don't then the conclusion must follow. That's what Q.E.D. means.

You don't demonstrate a geometrical proof with experiments. No amount of experimentation can ever prove absolutely that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. No amount of experimentation can ever prove that the number of primes is infinite. Logic is more powerful than experimentation.

If I'm wrong then either something is wrong with the calculus, the rules governing impact or the logic connecting them.

Grimer - the scientific method is observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing and hypothesis evaluation. You can't just stop with a mathematical model - you have to test that model with a real world experiment before you can accept the validity of that model. Numbers lie all the time, and the subject matter we are testing has fooled the best minds for centuries.

Are you stating that Impacts can provide more energy output than the energy input? That flys in the face of known physics.

Nobody is doubting that impacts cause more damage than slowly applied loads. I would give the analogy of 1 litre of petrol/gasoline. You could use that 1 litre of petrol to make a petrol bomb that could do extensive damage to a wide area. Or, you could allow that petrol to burn in a shallow tray, and it would be very safe & uneventfull.

The total amount of energy available from that 1 litre of petrol is exactly the same in both cases. Damage done is not a measure of energy. Neither is impact. Regardless of what shape the impulse has.

IF impact is a source of excess energy, then there must be dozens of everyday situations where impacts demonstrate this. Do kids bouncing rubber balls ever find that the balls spontaneously bounce higher and higher? Have Newton's cradles ever self sustained? Or is it some other kind of impact that you have in mind? Faster? Slower? Stronger? Slower? Different angles?

There must be an experiment that could prove or disprove your theory. Cavitation effects might be an example of excess energy perhaps? Do you think that could be related?