JB: Anyway each to their own ,I don't have a gun up to anyone's head , its just my opinion being shared too.
It is all good.
ChatGPT has an annoying habit of telling me I am in wrong think. I can tell it I know the mantra but it has to puke it out anyway every query.
I don’t need to be told repeatedly a SIM has all energy accounted for. You can do all sorts of things with numbers to replicate reality without knowing the true underlying principles.
Taking MT13 as an example
The kinetic energy of the falling weight will change the potential energy of the following weight, which in turn will transform it into kinetic energy.
Bessler found a way to play with time, leaving a little more potential than kinetic energy each time, otherwise it wouldn't work.
Not everything I present is functional, but a surprise can't be completely ruled out.Greetings.
Good point Thx4, You can do all sorts of distance and time manipulation within the confines of a circle. Just because nobody has seen PM in 5000 years of science means we shouldn’t look? If that were true we would still be throwing rocks at each other from caves. Telling each other I already have the best rock.
Last edited by daxwc on Thu Feb 01, 2024 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thank you for your illustration giving us a base line example.
I have put forward the concept of something more fundamental to the conservation of energy [CoE].
I would like you to imaging the existence of a Virtual Induced Magnetic field; Like others put forward virtual particles.
When the left mass is accelerated a v.i.m. field is created which has an orientation. Lets say anti-clockwise magnetic field.
Magnetic fields are associated with a curl while electric fields are associated with a linear vector.
This notion helps model kinetics without being dependant of post Bessler laws of physics.
P.S. Analysing Kinetic interactions i.e. Pendulums, Ramps, Object Rotations & gravity affects using this concept
simplifies and grounds physic in my opinion.
Regards
Hi Agor .. I have no problem with different names and explanations for observations of physical behaviour that Classical Newtonian Physics and the math currently uses .. you could call them little hidden fairies that do your bidding, as long as they predict behaviours of motion just as well ..
The thing is any alternative narrative has to be at least as Coherent a system as the Classical model and explain just as well the Symmetries inherent to the currently adopted model - it should even go one better before I would change-out the Classical model for a newer shinier one ;7)
Keep at it if it helps you get your mind around how B's. wheels worked and the energy conundrum of them doing continuous Work ..
Fletcher: The thing is any alternative narrative has to be at least as Coherent a system as the Classical model and explain just as well the Symmetries inherent to the currently adopted model - it should even go one better before I would change-out the Classical model for a newer shinier one ;7)
I fully agree Fletcher. Physics unfolds as a dynamic journey of discovery, evolving from classical mechanics to Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics. Classical physics, successful in everyday scenarios. Einstein's relativity reshaped our concepts of space and time but has encountered challenges. Quantum mechanics added complexity at the microscopic level. This interplay of theories highlights the evolving nature of physics; a continuous quest for understanding, prompting us to embrace curiosity and openness.
But just as the caveman doesn’t want to give up a perfectly good rock and work on a hammer our nature compels us to push forward. It's like we're hardwired to move forward, even if it means letting go of our trusty old rock.
Anyway I am suspicious of “static friction” because in the mass between the two strings demonstration to satisfy that energy loss we put it all into the string as heat and “mechanical recoil”. Rotate a mass and “moment of inertia" appear. All the same phenomenon within different formulas. But only one common denominator, that being inertia.
Let's just call it all MOI .. where inertia is MOI with no rotation ;7)
For linear/translational movement momentum ( p ) = m v .. or .. point mass inertia x straight line velocity .. or .. force x time ( the upper max attainable threshold that does not reflect any system losses as time is time ) ..
For rotational movement we use MOI and angular momentum, which is mass distribution about a center of rotation x angular velocity ..
For instances like a rolling disk we have a mixture of translational and rotational movement - it is a combination of linear inertia and angular inertia x their respective translational velocity and angular velocity vector quantities ..
In all cases it is inertia, and sometimes by another name, but still the fundamental property of mass, inertia .. or the common denominator as you said ..
JB: I don't believe in energy gains as in creation of energy , I believe if it is possible , that it could be an excess/left-over energy by accumulation/build-up of energy due to less expenditure of energy , an unmentioned trick/principle , that negates the normal energy losses of failed designs .
...that if it was possible for Bessler then it must be (imo according to my summations) because it did not violate laws to create energy out of nothingness , there is a source of energy and it is not nothingness imo.
How is it you know it an energy creation/gain just because it came outside what you thought was a closed system? Do you know where all the energy is hidden in the universe? Is dark energy always around us or is it in pockets? Nobody knows. When I say create I mean pull from somewhere obviously I don’t know where, just like I don’t understand static friction.
Nobody understand inertia or gravity. It seems to be left over side effect.
There are people that think extra energy will manifest in to existence for no explainable reason , this is what I don't believe in ,its coming from somewhere we can explain once known like GPE .
Also to reiterate i don't believe average energy losses like heat sound friction air drag are going to go away , i just accept it is always going to be there given how difficult if not impossible it would be to not have them disappear or recovered , imo those losses are a problem but not the problem i think i need to be focused on (pick your poison i guess).
Hello from viewer to this string 346973 that's a lot of people talking and looking for something that already exist.
for about 20 years now, but in December of 2022 a prototype motor was tested that runs on an input watts of 70
and the output watts are about 230 for them that can not count that is a 3 to 1 ratio output to input.
This is not perpetual motion or Overunity is a class of it's own
because this is a perpetual motion forum I can only say ( what people have been looking for and talking about that does not exist )
because I don't know what they are looking for really - I thought it was something that ran on it's own power source - is it?
Well: It does - and debating the question why something of this type of technology can not work because of friction, heat, and the rest
Has no real value: because the proof is sitting on my self.
But for me alone this is true:
For all the rest of the many, now counting 346974 + on this string on
I have no answer why you just don't ask to see the proof it exist? rather than say why it can not. makes not sense at all. to me.
magnagravity wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 9:22 am
I have no answer why you just don't ask to see the proof it exist? rather than say why it can not. makes not sense at all. to me.
Several members believe proof exists. The hurdle is getting the message out to the general population and it becoming main stream knowledge.
There are developments in magnetic resonance motors etc. And you may have a device on your self that shows some good results.
However it is in the same old hurdle block that many have hit in the past.
There is more work in 'can not be' than 'can do'. That is true for it is easier to list the know negatives than the unknown positives.
Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
daxwc wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:41 pm
But only one common denominator, that being inertia.
I agree with the posts related to my V.I.M. field conjecture. My opinion is aligned to Fletcher's response.
Like yourself in looking for a common denominator I ended with one close to inertia; That being an electric field.
From my conjecture inertia is variable and temporary and is induced by the electric field which is more permanent.
Regards
Last edited by agor95 on Fri Feb 02, 2024 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
JB: Anyway each to their own ,I don't have a gun up to anyone's head , its just my opinion being shared too.
It is all good.
ChatGPT has an annoying habit of telling me I am in wrong think. I can tell it I know the mantra but it has to puke it out anyway every query.
I don’t need to be told repeatedly a SIM has all energy accounted for. You can do all sorts of things with numbers to replicate reality without knowing the true underlying principles.
If everyone did the same thing , thinking the same way , believing the same things , going down the same line of investigation , having the same theories and opinions , discovery would be highly limited and quite boring , best to be different and unique.
jb wrote:I think if Bessler was not a lying fraud then it must be because the principle did not violate laws , it must be one of those two things .
On the topic of clues , I think the only real clues for me is that (according to my interpretations) , he acknowledged the law of the levers to be steadfast (don't waste your time here) , and that weights had to be lifted again if they fall (learn to accept the facts) , and he acknowledged frictional losses (be aware of energy losses) , and he left the TP as a wonder clue (if you can discover it and apply it).
Yup jb .. he said it was in Nature's Laws IIRC .. but obviously well buried or camouflaged .. or we do not think outside the box you described above enough, if at all ..
Its a bitter pill to swallow , to think the man says its simple and yet we carry on like wandering lost souls , the comfort being its well hidden and at least that means we can blame it on the difficulty finding it , how angry one could feel for not thinking of it sooner , but then again it has gone unnoticed for so long.
thx4 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 6:33 pm
Taking MT13 as an example
The kinetic energy of the falling weight will change the potential energy of the following weight, which in turn will transform it into kinetic energy.
Bessler found a way to play with time, leaving a little more potential than kinetic energy each time, otherwise it wouldn't work.
I don't know who would agree ,imo MT13 is a perfect example of what not to do , as is the rest of MT , but MT13 is so much simpler to the point.
JB do you think its possible that the weights on Besslers machine took a corkscrew path around the wheel? Its easy enough to do but I will need to adapt my wheel a fair bit to do it.
Its obvious by now that the weights couldn't have taken an obvious path. I think its time to stop fighting the known laws and to start using them instead.
The path the weights took was unusual and they used the known laws of physics.
With that in mind its time to start experimenting with paths that are difficult for us to imagine in terms of the forces on the weights at any given moment in time.
Graham
