Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics
Moderator: scott
re: Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics
I calculated once that it could be done using steel bows, but it wouldn't be able to move a load continuously and the build would be complicated.
re: Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics
Fletcher said:
Bessler:
Think everyone been down that path. But you have to remember Bessler might not have known why it ran. Also he had no conception of engines at the time, so he was not impressioned by inventions before him.continued to look for Bessler's secret - isn't that ironic.
Bessler:
I wonder what he is talking about here?? It is almost like he needs to feed it energy...or air...or heat? Or he thinks that a unseen force operates it? There was not a lot choices to him at the time as far as known forces. Maybe he just didn't know why it ran?The thing also (from what man feed itself)
Go through Bowel and ?body and soul? ;
A crayfish forward and backwards creeps
And is healthy for you (properly prepared).
The Poltergeists freely walk
From time to time through closed doors.
re: Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics
Oh .. he knew what made it run alright - otherwise how would he improve its power over the years let alone make it bi-directional [which he said took some working out] - then he wrote his books, ensuring all the while that he never uttered 'the word' that would give it all away - & the unpublished MT where he was to show the final solution to the prime mover - inconceivable really that he didn't know how it worked.
As to the above quotes - Bessler did something extraordinary & something he was immensely proud of - he breathed life into an inanimate object so that once it had some starting momentum it would continue to spontaneously revolve until its parts wore out - so in a sense he was 'frankensteinian' following in his own creators footsteps & also using the same natural laws already laid down for him.
As to the above quotes - Bessler did something extraordinary & something he was immensely proud of - he breathed life into an inanimate object so that once it had some starting momentum it would continue to spontaneously revolve until its parts wore out - so in a sense he was 'frankensteinian' following in his own creators footsteps & also using the same natural laws already laid down for him.
re: Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics
Fletcher said:
I know nobody wants me to kill the free energy dream... and just shut up and get back to wheel building 8))))
True, but it could have just been improving the secondary system.Oh .. he knew what made it run alright - otherwise how would he improve its power over the years
I agree, but just seems he is hiding something. Wonder if it was static electricity? He did have brass spheres in his inventory at death and felt on the boards in the wheel. The static electricity looks like crab legs maybe when jumping?ensuring all the while that he never uttered 'the word' that would give it all away
I know nobody wants me to kill the free energy dream... and just shut up and get back to wheel building 8))))
re: Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics
Quite the opposite - free energy is free energy - that doesn't mean it must be pure science fiction [my favourite genre btw] - I want to know the physics, whatever it might be - we have 'dreamed' for too long - time to get an injection of reality imo.dax wrote:I know nobody wants me to kill the free energy dream... and just shut up and get back to wheel building 8))))
re: Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics
I still do not totally discount gravity. As said the primary movement and a secondary movement seems to me he used. A secondary device also using gravity as the drive of its sytem to cause the shift in balance. It them become a game of imparting a part of the force of unbalance to keep the secondary system going.
To keep the movement disconnected from each other the wheel and the shift mechanism must be separate but stay in time. this leads to a third to limit off timing
Bessler and all hear can see were the ideas have allways come close to the shift of balance, but its enclosed in its own system will balance out and stop.
What he and anyone else will have to come up with is a secondary system that uses only a part of the over balance with out interfering with the moment of the primary to drive the secondary.
A secondary must be used.
To keep the movement disconnected from each other the wheel and the shift mechanism must be separate but stay in time. this leads to a third to limit off timing
Bessler and all hear can see were the ideas have allways come close to the shift of balance, but its enclosed in its own system will balance out and stop.
What he and anyone else will have to come up with is a secondary system that uses only a part of the over balance with out interfering with the moment of the primary to drive the secondary.
A secondary must be used.
re: Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics
A lot can be said for momentum... just try driving your car through the nearest mud hole.
re: Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics
LOLA lot can be said for momentum... just try driving your car through the nearest mud hole
Inertia is usfull only if you can get the car going. Try pushing it yourself to get that momentum on level ground.
re: Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics
Thats very true 10x... lol
That brings us to static friction and kinetic friction...ever notice when you are manually pushing the car, that to keep it rolling is way easier then getting the motion started. It is also even easier after a few beer. 8))
That brings us to static friction and kinetic friction...ever notice when you are manually pushing the car, that to keep it rolling is way easier then getting the motion started. It is also even easier after a few beer. 8))