If a water wheel could return to its original height the same amount of water that gravity pulled thru it and at the same rate it would be perpetual motion. The Bessler wheel managed to take the same mass that fell from zero to 180 degrees and restore it to its original height yet not only that, the Bessler wheel managed to do work. That would be over unity.
A. Gene Young
ps edit: gravity is that invisible force that appears to have no power source to cause it. The elliptical orbits of the planets have at one of their centers the sun and at the other center of the ellipse God knows what. We have never seen gravity much less the force at the other center of the ellipse that causes the elliptical orbits of the planets. There's quite a bit man doesn't know.
It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than trying to solely profit
Moderator: scott
-
AgingYoung
- Aficionado
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:44 am
- Location: Houston, TX
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Working Model 2D
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
Re: re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, t
But it is proven that it is possible to reach the starting point earlier then expected ... see the ball-ramp experiment as just one example. Maybe all Bessler figured out is how to convert a time gain back into energy ...AgingYoung wrote:
No one as far as we know (except Bessler) has managed to do that. It's considered impossible. The forces on a mass as it swings around an axis are conserved. It's impossible (so they say) to arrive back at zero degrees with more velocity than you left there with.
Cheers,
Rainer
- Attachments
-
- ball ramp experiment
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
So Tinhead
the ball ramp experiment shows
1.Ball in lower ramp travels farther
2. It also drops below the center line into a dip or trench
3. It gains speed
This may be the simplest way to view that gravity is a fuel.
What do the boys who doubt gravity as a fuel say about the ball ramp?
the ball ramp experiment shows
1.Ball in lower ramp travels farther
2. It also drops below the center line into a dip or trench
3. It gains speed
This may be the simplest way to view that gravity is a fuel.
What do the boys who doubt gravity as a fuel say about the ball ramp?
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
You get to the far side of the city quicker by taking the long expressway route around the city rather than the short congested route through the city.
It seems to take the same gas either way.
It seems to take the same gas either way.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Sounds like you are suggesting the congestion is the friction on the horizonal surface.
When the ball falls, into the valley, it has less resistance, and more speed.
The ball that stays on the horizonal surface, is slowing down due to friction.
When the ball falls, into the valley, it has less resistance, and more speed.
The ball that stays on the horizonal surface, is slowing down due to friction.
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
Re: re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, t
Nearly, not that clear in the picture the ball in the lower ramp reaches the finish first. The 2nd one will arrive a little bit later.Wheeler wrote:So Tinhead
the ball ramp experiment shows
1.Ball in lower ramp travels farther
2. It also drops below the center line into a dip or trench
3. It gains speed
This may be the simplest way to view that gravity is a fuel.
What do the boys who doubt gravity as a fuel say about the ball ramp?
At the finish both will have the same speed.
Ball 1 gains speed when it drops into the trench .. here it gains the time advantage.
It looses speed when it comes up out of the trench, but it does NOT loose all of the time-advantage it gained, so it still arrives first at the finish.
Hope this clears it up,
Cheers,
Rainer
P.S. here a video link http://www.hcrs.at/VIDEOS/KUGELA.MPG
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Time is not 'a fuel' either.Wheeler wrote:What do the boys who doubt gravity as a fuel say about the ball ramp?
Why can't you (or anyone else) demonstrate a comparative energy gain in the lower ball ramp experiment? IMO, if you can understand that, then you will understand why gravity is not, in this instance at least, a 'fuel'.
Last edited by ovyyus on Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Tinhead,
Your above explanation and the video lead me to wonder the following.
As the ball dips it accelerates as per gravity dictates or 32 feet per second per second, in free fall. Yet the ball does not de-accelerate at the same ratio on the climb. for if it did it would be back to equal with the other ball.
If both balls are are on long enough tracks to roll until they run out of inertia, which one would roll the farthest. And would the one in the dip maintain its lead to the finish line, that being where the first of both balls cease to roll.
Now one could read this as though to say a falling object gains speed faster than a raising object loses speed? Maintaining of course that the fall and rise are both of equal distance and incline.
Now I may be all wet, and it would not the first time. But showing that the dipping ball ends up ahead, to me is showing gradient between up and down between two reference points.
Ralph
Your above explanation and the video lead me to wonder the following.
As the ball dips it accelerates as per gravity dictates or 32 feet per second per second, in free fall. Yet the ball does not de-accelerate at the same ratio on the climb. for if it did it would be back to equal with the other ball.
If both balls are are on long enough tracks to roll until they run out of inertia, which one would roll the farthest. And would the one in the dip maintain its lead to the finish line, that being where the first of both balls cease to roll.
Now one could read this as though to say a falling object gains speed faster than a raising object loses speed? Maintaining of course that the fall and rise are both of equal distance and incline.
Now I may be all wet, and it would not the first time. But showing that the dipping ball ends up ahead, to me is showing gradient between up and down between two reference points.
Ralph
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Nice site Rainer! Pity it's in German though.. There seems to be a whole heap of very interesting bits & pieces in there!
The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Why are you dicussing this lates topic about reaching point B first etc..
If you use common logic, (Wich in experimental math, for example is used to check the possible correctness of a formula ) wich is to check the "extreems", you will see what the point is, and this has "nothing" to do with special properties of gravity..
Scenario 1 (Extreem low)
The ball have to move itself almost to B before it rolls downhill to B
This will take infinity.
Scenario 2 (Extreeme high)
The ball start by falling and then meets a proper curve, and rolls flat to B.
This will reach B in the shortest time.
Nothing special going on !
Average speed per horisontal distance travelled tells when you reach B !!
Happy Holidays
Oystein
If you use common logic, (Wich in experimental math, for example is used to check the possible correctness of a formula ) wich is to check the "extreems", you will see what the point is, and this has "nothing" to do with special properties of gravity..
Scenario 1 (Extreem low)
The ball have to move itself almost to B before it rolls downhill to B
This will take infinity.
Scenario 2 (Extreeme high)
The ball start by falling and then meets a proper curve, and rolls flat to B.
This will reach B in the shortest time.
Nothing special going on !
Average speed per horisontal distance travelled tells when you reach B !!
Happy Holidays
Oystein
Re: re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, t
It does, the picture I attached now might show why. The 'time gain' is related to the length of the trench. The ball drops down, it's Velocity increases from V to V+. The longer the trench the more it will be ahead of the other ball. Climbing back up the velocity will decrease back to V, the same speed as ball number 1.rlortie wrote:Tinhead,
Your above explanation and the video lead me to wonder the following.
As the ball dips it accelerates as per gravity dictates or 32 feet per second per second, in free fall. Yet the ball does not de-accelerate at the same ratio on the climb. for if it did it would be back to equal with the other ball.
There is no physical law violated, also not the laws of energy conservation.
I'm not saying THIS is a solution, I just wanted to show that he might have used something that is within 'the laws' but somehow he got an advantage out of it. As the time advantage the 2nd ball gets in this EXAMPLE.
Still ... ignoring the trench for a second ... put a black box around it ...
Imagine the assembly with this black box, not knowing what is going on within. Both balls enter it on the left hand side and on the other side ball number 2 shows up 1st ... how did that happen.
You could measure the speeds, you notice that ball 1 did not slow down.
So .. the big question.. how could ball 2 be there faster WITHOUT putting extra energy into it .... get the idea of what I'm trying to say here?
Cheers,
Rainer
- Attachments
-
- long trench
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
If you were to measure the impact force on the stops at end of ramp ,would not the impact at B be greater than at A?
It seems like an energy gain to me. Very interesting !!
Graham
It seems like an energy gain to me. Very interesting !!
Graham
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
An interesting experiment would be to have further steps added and then try to see if the ball will continue up a much bigger ramp to the height at which it was first dropped! Now that would indicate if there was any overall energy gained!... Somehow, I don't think that would be the case!
The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible.
-
AgingYoung
- Aficionado
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:44 am
- Location: Houston, TX
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
A pendulum? I've referenced the ball on the track idea and also Young's First Principle of Antigravity states that acceleration is necessary.
Gene
Gene
- Attachments
-
- pendulum
Last edited by AgingYoung on Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Working Model 2D
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Tinhead,
Now, is this not the same as saying an equal mass has been moved farther and or quicker than its mate. To do that, would require more energy or less friction loss. Either way it spells more net work, requiring a gain from somewhere.
One must also consider that the dipping ramp is longer than the straight one, so not only has the ball reached a given point quicker, it had to travel farther to get there. Just I as jim_mich said about taking the express way. Problem here is, there are no stop signs or traffic in either route.
Ralph
Yes, I think I do, if it gets there faster then it has done work in a shorter length of time. Time is relevant to calculate work as is distance. So the ball has traveled farther than the other in the same length of time.So .. the big question.. how could ball 2 be there faster WITHOUT putting extra energy into it .... get the idea of what I'm trying to say here?
Now, is this not the same as saying an equal mass has been moved farther and or quicker than its mate. To do that, would require more energy or less friction loss. Either way it spells more net work, requiring a gain from somewhere.
One must also consider that the dipping ramp is longer than the straight one, so not only has the ball reached a given point quicker, it had to travel farther to get there. Just I as jim_mich said about taking the express way. Problem here is, there are no stop signs or traffic in either route.
Ralph