Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[johannesbender]

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

With corkscrew you mean like a spiral from the front ? , you could spiral inwards from the rim during rotation ,as a result increasing the angular velocity like a ice-skater spinning , though conservation will ensure the total energy does not increase .

I agree it is known physics and it used the laws to accomplish it , Wagner was correct in surmising the inner workings could not have been possible due to breaking the law of the levers , however he was also wrong in assuming it has to .

[Roxaway59]

I am actually thinking of a number of scenarios but in each case the energy used is conserved as much as possible.

In one scenario imagine a gyroscope with the rim of the wheel as its axle. There is another one balancing it out on the other side of the wheel. The gyroscopes may have two opposing weights on them or just one. As they travel around the wheel the left side spins slower than the right.

This is just one scenario but there are a few going through my mind.
Graham

[johannesbender]

I am actually thinking of a number of scenarios but in each case the energy used is conserved as much as possible.

In one scenario imagine a gyroscope with the rim of the wheel as its axle. There is another one balancing it out on the other side of the wheel. The gyroscopes may have two opposing weights on them or just one. As they travel around the wheel the left side spins slower than the right.

This is just one scenario but there are a few going through my mind.
Graham

There was actually a project to try and harness energy from the earth's spin by using gyroscopes.
https://youtu.be/HsgG00puMWo

[Fletcher]

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.

I think we sometimes confuse and derail ourselves jb more than we should, because we add complexity above B's. era - B. was in a time before Energy was defined and coupled to Work in the Work-Energy Principle ( i.e. Energy is Work Done and Capacity To Do Work by today's standards ) ..

All he thought about imo was in force and momentum terms - he uses these 2 words in some of the MT comments notes - nothing about energy per se or its importance as we place on it ..

Today we are taught in Classical Newtonian Physics that the Work Energy Equivalence Principle ( WEEP ) is a completely Coherent System of accounting and comparison, also having complete Symmetry .. btw a Principle is something thought to be true, whereas a Law is true because no exception has ever been found .. WEEP is a Principle and not a Law like COE and Conservation Of Momentum..

We turn WEEP inside out and upside down looking for the mechanical workaround exception that disproves the accounting system inherent coherency and symmetry .. if found it would throw the Equivalence Principle out and allow Energy into the Balance Sheet to stick with accounting terms ..

My point is B. never thought like this - he says he got inspiration from God - and all he had to work with was Mechanical Law of Levers, and force and momentum .. his solution was well hidden as he says but also his mind wasn't cluttered in the ways ours probably are, fwiw ..

[Fletcher]

Just a further point on from my rant ..

B. knew then as we know now that Momentum was mv ..

IMO, B. was thinking of and looking for momentum gains that he could put to work ..

Newton had defined Force = ma in his Second Law - we know B. knew about forces ..

Both mv and ma share the same units of mass, and acceleration and velocity are related ..

Mass is inertia .. therefore => mv = inertia x velocity , and , ma = inertia x acceleration ..

Therefore momentum mv = m x v , and , KE (derived from f = ma) = m x 1/2 x v^2 => => where m and v are common to both ..

IOW's motion produces both mv and KE simultaneously as they are both sides of the same coin - you can't have one without the other ..

Therefore find the momentum gains and KE manifests along with it .. imo !

[johannesbender]

You dont really need to understand energy to understand most common things , for example a child knows if he throws a ball up in the air it comes down , he knows he has to throw it hard to go further , he knows a heavy ball hurts more when it hits you than a lighter ball , he knows a ball moving fast hurts more than a slow ball when it hits him , he knows he gets more tired if he runs and less if he walks.

But there are many mistakes to make and it certainly helps you having some form of better understanding to avoid some.

[Roxaway59]

There have been a number of attempts over the years to use gyroscopes as some kind of propulsion device. This forum has been going now for quite some time and I’m sure that a lot of these devices will have been wrote about such as the one produced by Professor Eric Laithwaite.

His story is a reminder that it isn’t only people like Johann Bessler that there is to believe in if we wish to believe. Eric was fascinated by the gyroscope and his lecture at the Royal Institution was the only one to not be published. They made it seem as though it never happened all because he was saying something they didn’t like.

This is modern day science unfortunately and it isn’t science that is the problem, it is these people with money who run science that are the problem. The sad fact is that there is probably a lot more real science taking place in peoples sheds than there is in these institutions run by people with agendas.

So what was it that kept Eric doggedly trying to unravel the mystery of the gyroscope? Well it was a very human thing that kept him going. He knew the laws well and probably better than most people on this forum but he couldn’t get one thing out of his mind. The fact that when he lifted a heavy weight that was spinning he could easily raise it above his head with one hand.

The strange thing is you would think that something like that could have been cleared up in no time. Instead it took years for Eric to finally crack it, as he put it. The mechanism was patented a long time ago for what he described as a propulsion device.

I don’t know how others feel about this I only know how I feel about it so I will just try to convey what I feel.

Something is wrong and it isn’t just a little bit wrong but very wrong indeed that something like this happens. I have personally witnessed over the years many times when people touch upon important discoveries and realizations that things get trashed and then it goes quiet and nothing about it is brought up again. Then when you try to rediscover what you saw or read about, the information is very thin on the ground and no one cares about it.

What we are suppose to do is just have faith that if the establishment doesn’t care about it then its not worth caring about. Well I’m sorry but I just don’t buy that. Something is wrong. If something walks like control, talks like control then as far as I’m concerned it is control. It wouldn’t be too bad if the people doing the controlling had our best interests at heart but I realized over 40 years ago that isn’t the case. Nothing in that 40 years since then has changed my mind.

If anyone makes any great discovery on this forum then we are on are own. All you will see from the establishment is resistance and nothing more.

I first became interested in over balanced wheels when I did a radio and TV course at college it was a City and Guilds 224 course. Learning about electrons and atomic structure to a certain degree really fired my imagination and I couldn’t stop thinking about energy and if there was an easier way to access it.

I was taught of course that it wasn’t possible to make an over balanced wheel but that didn’t stop me. Mainly because I couldn’t see clearly why it had to be so. Nor was I comfortable around people who just blindly excepted it like drones never having the faintest clue as to why they themselves excepted it. You can go anywhere and ask anyone about it and they will tell you with absolute certainty that it cant be done but if you then ask them why you will invariably see a blank look on their face because they haven’t got the faintest clue. That just doesn’t sit right with me.

What the establishment has done is turned our schools, colleges and universities into indoctrination centres. They are like factories where people go in one end and come out the other programmed with garbage. I don’t want to be abusive on this forum but go forth and multiply that. To me that is one step away from becoming an android with robot thinking. I would rather be wrong and human than right and think like that.

I’m sure though that many of you have noticed a paradox here. When we engage in logical thinking and using maths that is precise we are thinking more robotically. This is unavoidable but we don’t have to lose our humanity and nor should we. We can switch off the logic when we choose to. If we lose our humanity then we lose something very precious.

Back then I began churning out drawing after drawing on bits of paper and I ended up with bags of them all of which got lost as I moved from place to place. I didn’t have any simulators and I invariably used my imagination to decide if they would work or not. Most of the time I could see that the pluses and minuses where cancelling themselves out and I didn’t feel compelled to build anything.

Some of them were based on gyroscopes but the nature of gyroscopes made it pretty much impossible for me to be certain of anything but to build something based on those would have been a big thing for me to do at the time. Some of them were based on gyroscopic action with weights turning around but you wouldn’t of described them as a gyroscope but the problem remained and I never built anything like that. I have a tendency to stick with things that I can work out but what happens when you have something that cant be worked out in that way? The only thing you can do is experiment and see what happens.

From now on I see this as the best way forward unless I find a way forward with my current wheel design. I am going to start experimenting with this idea of weights being corkscrewed around a wheel in a controlled way.

The rotating of the weights will not be random as it is with a typical gyroscope or anything like the speed of a gyroscope. I believe that if Bessler took this approach that he was able to actually see the weights as they moved. I cant imagine him building a machine with weights turning at high velocity. I have visions of one of the weights coming off, tearing through the canvas like a bullet and taking some ones ear off. The best way to describe what I see is a coordinated low speed gyroscopic action. Is that sensible? I had no idea all those years ago and I have no idea now.
Graham

[Sam Peppiatt]

Gyroscopes, forget it.
I worked with them quite a bit,( about 5 years), They tend to be very heavy and have to be some what 'freely' mounted to get the gyro effect. I know some will say I'm wrong but, what I found out is, they hold or resist motion very well but, are incapable of generation any motion, continuously in a straight line. Also they have to spin very fast.

However, I'm sure I will regret saying so-----------------Sam

[Roxaway59]

Hi Sam, basically what I will be doing will be almost pure experimentation and just observing what happens but they wont be gyroscopes in the traditional sense.
Graham

[Fletcher]

Thanks for your real-world practical experience and feedback Sam .. one mans 5 years is worth way more than 5 mens 1 year .. they say it takes about 10,000 hours to become proficient at anything worth doing ..

fwiw I think many of us empathize with Graham's views - but we have learned to communicate in the precise language of Classical Physics to get our points across in a meaningful way - until a workaround to the known Laws is found that gives true everlasting motion then possibly some new jargon will be needed ..

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher it is good that you understand the language so well. Can you explain this patent in more laymen way? Is this able to give thrust on a wheel perhaps rather than in space?
http://rexresearch.com/laithwat/laithw1.htm

Graham

[Sam Peppiatt]

Graham / Fletcher,
A guy told me a story about a gyro in a suit case.
He was walking along carrying it by the handle, with the thing spinning inside. He made a sharp left turn and the suit case flipped up horizontally and, scared the hell out of him! But that's it, then they don't do any thing.

Have a go at it; but trust me they are a night mare-----------------Sam

ETA In layman's terms it's Bull Sh*t!

[Roxaway59]

I know that Professor Laithwaite experimented for a long time with spinning tops. That's at least one item on the toy page. The governor for the steam engine which usually had 2 weights on it and a storks bill could easily make the kind of gyroscopic action I'm thinking of.
Graham

[Fletcher]

Fletcher it is good that you understand the language so well. Can you explain this patent in more laymen way? Is this able to give thrust on a wheel perhaps rather than in space?
http://rexresearch.com/laithwat/laithw1.htm

Graham

Graham .. I looked into Gyro's decades ago, precession etc, and Laithwaite in particular, around that time .. and of course had made the connection to the similarity of the Toy's Page spinning top (if it meant it for that) ..

It took months to get to grips with his stuff (he's a PhD so second guessing him is not easy) and years to forget it .. I couldn't then and can't now think of a way to use its merits to keep a wheel turning indefinitely .. Foucault's pendulums are similar in that inertia has its part to play as it does with everything physical in nature .. for me it's a rabbit hole I don't want to go down again (I think dax did a big study on them IIRC), mainly because to show any real effects the gyro needs to be spinning very fast - this takes energy to get up to rpm and then maintain it - I couldn't see B. messing around with them in a wheel, especially when he and Karl said his mechanical solution was easy to understand and simple to build - gyro's and precession don't fit the bill for me I'm afraid .. I'll watch from the sidelines lol ..

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher I didn't like them either and that's why I left them alone. What I am proposing might not work much like a gyroscope and in some ways I'm glad about that. I will give what I have in mind a go and see if anything interesting happens. We certainly need to try something different.
Graham