P.S. Now, here's the ego part...I think if he did it....so can I. LMAO
I do not consider your beliefs "ego part".. It is the basics of a positive attitude based on your own research, perception and faith in the eye witnesses descriptions. Do these witness reports validate or were they all in collective plot with Bessler to debunk the fops of higher recognition or standing than their own. I do not think so!
If one person can or did do it then there is always some one who can repeat it, and improve upon it.
Any man that will get up from his computer chair and play with a 55 gallon drum and a four-way lug wrench, hold promise in my books.
BESSLER said that one side was heavey and there was nothing on the other side. That it did not have to be a wheel. that weights worked in pairs at right angles to the axel. in his case the larger the diameter the more power it developed. He was obviously speaking of using the same weight. his weights were small and of very little weight, unless he used very large handkerchiefs to cover them. HIS LARGE machines could not have been too heavy, because they were described as a light frame work covered with sail cloth. So discussion of his machines are open for comments. now you can clear the air and decide if you need to buy the books from Bill or John. jim kelly
HIS LARGE machines could not have been too heavy, because they were described as a light frame work covered with sail cloth.
In order to move or "translocate" the larger wheels, Bessler had to first remove their cylindrical lead weights. I'm of the belief that a large two-directional wheel would have contained about 32 weights, each of which weighed about 5 lbs. That works out to the Kassel wheel containing about 160 lbs of lead.
The wooden frame, waxed or oiled cloth covering, and axle may actually have weighed less than the wheel's weights!
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
james kelly wrote:BESSLER said that one side was heavey and there was nothing on the other side.
James .. I don't believe that JB said nor implied that one side was full while the other was empty in a literal sense.
He said his principle was based on excess weight or excess impetus which imo means that although the weights acted at right angles to the axle there was a torque differential in favour of one side of the wheel i.e. it wasn't completely empty on one side.
IF Bessler said that one side was heavy and the other side was empty, then, perhaps he was referring to the CG of the wheel's weights.
When all of a wheel's weights were resting up against their stops or in what I call their "neutral" positions, then the CG of the weights would be located exactly as the center of the wheel's axle.
However, once the weights began to shift into their various positions, the CG would swing over to one side of the wheel's axle and stay there (at least until increasing wheel rotational velocity and its resulting CF forced the CG almost down to the location below the axle known as the punctum quietus.
So, in a sense, one side of the wheel was "empty" while the other was full or heavy IF we consider that the ascending side of a rotating one-directional wheel would not contain the CG while its descending side would contain the CG of all of the moving weights.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
In my younger years I lived in a town where every one spoke nothing but old working class german ever. There are still towns that speak only german, some here in Indiana. jim kelly
For some reson or another, the only thing that seems to happen here is attack.....attack. No one seems able to have a real discussion. here after the only thing that I will do is to attact your untrue statements and pick apart you claims. All of you are as fallable as I am..
Fletcher, Ken; How are you at personly translating 300 year old GERMAN? Das ist ein hunt!
Actually, I did not translate any of it and, like most others here, must rely upon the translations that exist. I was merely pointing out that I thought it impossible for the ascending side of one of Bessler's one-directional wheels to contain no weights while they were all on the descending side. There must be some path they follow to travel from the bottom of the rotating wheel back to its top and I do not think it was through the axle.
My interpretation of the empty / full statement he is supposed to have made only makes sense if he was referring to the position of the CG of the rotating weights...that, indeed, must remain on the descending side of a gravity wheel at all times or it simply will not be able to turn continuously.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
KEN; I really do appreciate your type of answer. Please consider my statement, that there is NO assending weights. Just imagine it, if you will. Would that not be great . Don't even consider that it might be wishful thinking. jim
james kelly wrote:....Please consider my statement, that there is NO assending weights. Just imagine it, if you will. Would that not be great . Don't even consider that it might be wishful thinking. jim
James, it works fine in my imagination, it's the real world where I keep running into trouble, lol. You keep stating there are "no ascending weights", but I can't see how that is possible.
If a weight falls it must be lifted back up (a.k.a. repositioned) in order to perform subsequent work. If the wheel isn't lifting the weights, something else must be. Is this what you're suggesting?
NO that is not what is happening. There are no weights being lifted on the assending side. They only descend. jlk
Hmmmmm ... I think we have at least one documented case of a weight beeing lifted on the ascending side ... when it pulled you over the top as you mentioned ? ;)
Or did that happen on the descending side, then you really got me puzzled.
Naaa, seriously, so what you say is that everything in your wheel happens/acts on the descending side?
