PM has no Equal in Nature!

[winkle]

some may be confusing free energy with excess energy

in nature gravity is a power source in many systems i am not sure how you could clam any of them produce excess enegry

gravity may one day be used by man as a power source for free energy

but it is not likely to produce an excess of power greater than the fuel (gravity) that went into it

as far as i am aware nothing produces excess enegry that excess being more than it is capable of producing

..."Not one example of excess energy creation from GRAVITY is observed in Nature. Why?"

looks like a loaded question to me

or mabe i just don't understand the question

if global worming is in progress we may just get to see that excess energy

[ken_behrendt]

Bill wrote:

How can we observe a levitating St. Francis of Copertino? How can we observe the workings of Bessler's wheel? Do we know how either were accomplished? Both are obviously not examples of anything we can observe. Next we'll be discussing how many angels might fit on the end of a pin and how much work it took to get them there.

You're right, of course. We mobilists are forced to work with a variety of intangible concepts. We seek a device that orthodox science declares is physically impossible and in the same category as a four sided triangle or a material object moving in excess of the velocity of light. Ultimately, we share much in common with the devoutly religious who must proceed by pure faith alone. Thus, we must have faith that Bessler produced a genuine device that was able to continuously output energy at a certain rate. We therefore have faith that such a device is physically possible, despite the dire predictions of the scientific orthodoxy. We further extend our faith to ourselves and assume that we can find the solution to the mystery of Bessler's wheels despite the failed efforts of tens of thousands of just dedicated mobilists before us.

A lot of the orthodox scientists forget that much of the "established" principles of science that they now espouse were once in the same catagory as perpetual motion machines! When these principles were first announced, they were, almost to the one, denounced as heresy and the product of error or fraud. For example, when the discovery of x-rays was announced, the then leading physicist of the 19th century (Lord Kelvin) immediately denounced it as the greatest hoax he had ever heard of! Galileo's first telescope was declared the produce of socery and almost got him burned at the stake! The list goes on and on.


I have an unshakeable faith that the solution to Bessler's wheels will be discovered before the end of this year...



ken

[graham]

Ultimately, we share much in common with the devoutly religious who must proceed by pure faith alone.

Yes Ken I think you summed up the mobilists driving force quite nicely here.

However could this be just wishful thinking ?

I have an unshakeable faith that the solution to Bessler's wheels will be discovered before the end of this year...

May I ask , what do you base this belief upon ?

Graham

[ken_behrendt]

Graham asked, in response to my "unshakeable faith" that Bessler's secret mechanism would be discovered this year:

May I ask , what do you base this belief upon ?

Well, there seem to be an unusually high number of people who think they've finally got "it". That's a good sign...kind of indicates to me that the research is reaching a point of critical mass at which the solution will suddenly emerge. Actually, I'm to the point now where I would be surprised if the mystery was not solved before the end of this year!
With CAD modeling the number of different designs being tried currently is probably higher than at any other time in history. In fact, the number of designs tried in the last few years is probably close to all of the ones tried in the prior three centuries put together. That kind of effort tends to build a momentum that eventually pays off.


ken

[graham]

Well I hope you're right and you might be , who knows ?
Those who embrace the Besslerian religion are patient bunch , and they need to be don't they ?

Determination and patience are the two most important commandments of those who choose to follow the Besslerian way of life. Not for the faint of heart I fear, or those looking for instant gratification.

I'm waiting for Aug 3rd before I get back to my Besslerian duties, I'm on a sabbatical right now

Graham

[ovyyus]

Thus, we must have faith that Bessler produced a genuine device that was able to continuously output energy at a certain rate.

Bessler's device was almost certainly genuine, in that it worked and that it produced continuous usable energy output. However, until my current research has been exhausted I'll have to opt out of Graham's "Besslerian Religion" in favour of a more scientific approach ;)

[Michael]

Well, there seem to be an unusually high number of people who think they've finally got "it". ...kind of indicates to me that the research is reaching a point of critical mass at which the solution will suddenly emerge.

Na, Ken. look back, not only at this board but throughout history, people are always thinking that they "have it". That's what keeps them going, it's like a junkies obession, I thought I was so close just one more time and I'll have it.
S.F.E., not as a junkie, L.O.L.!

[ken_behrendt]

Bill wrote:

Bessler's device was almost certainly genuine...

Again, I think there could be some dispute as to the meaning of the word "genuine" in the case of Bessler's wheels.

If by "genuine", one means that he was able to present wheels that passed a limited number of tests, then even a fradulent wheel would, loosely, qualify as having been genuine. At least, it would have been genuine in terms of physically existing and able to perform external work.

If, however, by "genuine" one means a wheel that creates energy out of nothing, then a orthodox physicist would protest that it most certainly could not be genuine if that was how it was supposed to work.

By my definition, if Bessler's wheels were nothing more than fancy heat engines, then they would not be genuine! This is because my concept of a "genuine" wheel is one whose chronic state of imbalance allows gravity to slowly extract the mass-energy of its weights and convert it into the kinetic energy that the wheel outputs.

Someone else might then protest, because my concept of a working gravity wheel is one that only has a finite amount of energy available in its weights to power it and can, therefore, not run forever, that what I consider "genuine" is, in fact, not genuine at all!



ken

[primemignonite]

Ken,

According to your 4th Law of Mechanical Motion, are we then to take it that there would be NO detectable heat exchange coming from the works of a realized, operating Bessler Wheel?

If it truly is a very slow, controlled atomic breakdown that accounts for the source of energy, then I would think that it would be there, but not at all measurable because so very minute?

Perhaps my grasp of your new Law is not yet sufficient.

James

[ovyyus]

By my definition, if Bessler's wheels were nothing more than fancy heat engines, then they would not be genuine!

Ken, I think your definition has everything to do with supporting your own personal belief's and little to do with discovering Bessler's secret. I don't think you and I are working on the same problem here because I'm only interested in finding Bessler's solution, not yours.

We already know that Bessler's definition of "True Perpetual Motion" was, obviously, a product of his time. Perhaps similarly, James Cox claimed his clock was PM well after Bessler's time, yet we know it was driven by atmospheric pressure changes. Definitions change with an expanding knowledge base. Bessler's wheel was almost certainly genuine as defined in 1712 - it would continuously turn and perform useful work with no definable input of energy. Good enough for me.

[Fletcher]

I'd like to add that just about everyone here imo accepts that the literal dictionary definition of Perpetual Motion is a nonsense.

We know all engines require a gradient to exploit or a differential to be created to be expoited. So far this has happened in mechanical examples by the introduction of fuel or naturally exploiting gradients found in nature.

No perpetual motion, in the sense of running a machine capable of doing work, is possible without the introduction or manipulation of some form of energy, so the definition of perpetual motion is out dated & an oxymoron.

The Penguin English Dictionary definition :

Perpetual Motion n the hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated machine without the introduction of energy from an external source.

It could just as easily be rewritten as ..

Perpetual Motion n the hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated machine by the creation & harnessing of asymmetrical elementary forces; forces found in the natural environment.

This removes the necessity to rely on the introduction of mysterious energy into the system & is a far more logical approach imo.

At least half the members here are searching for a way to make gravity appear to be the fuel, although it is a conservative force & therefore it cannot be the fuel without manipulation of the wheel environmental forces always present, or introduced.

You seem to have a bob each way Ken. The invoking of a mysterious 4th law of motion seems to support the asymmetrical forces approach, while the diminishing rest mass theory of energy conversion seems to support the introduction of external energy as the fuel. I'm sure you have reconciled these apparent diverging philosophies in your own mind but for me it has to be one or the other & not both, least of all both at the same time.

[ken_behrendt]

James asked:

According to your 4th Law of Mechanical Motion, are we then to take it that there would be NO detectable heat exchange coming from the works of a realized, operating Bessler Wheel?

Basically, that is correct. As a rotating overbalanced gravity wheel slowly converts the rest mass energy of its driving weights into the kinetic energy that accelerates it and performs external work, there will be no change in temperature of the wheel...aside from some very slight increase in its surface temperature due to air resistance heating and an increase in bearing temperature.

This is an important point to consider. If Bessler's 4th Law of Motion is valid (and I am most certainly convinced that it is), then one of his wheels could, in theory, actually continue to run even if its temperature could be lowered to Absolute Zero! This is a theoretical temperature of about -459.67 °F at which all molecular motion ceases and an object then has no thermal energy whatsoever. Of course, to actually have a gravity wheel running at this temperature would require it to be operated inside of an evacuated chamber and to use special lubricant free bearings. Running the wheel in a vacuum would prevent atmospheric gases from condensing on the wheel's parts and either disabling their motions or throwing the wheel seriously out of balance. For the wheel's bearings, perhaps Teflon or magnetic bearings would have to be used at this lowest limit of attainable temperature.


Bill wrote:

Ken, I think your definition has everything to do with supporting your own personal belief's and little to do with discovering Bessler's secret. I don't think you and I are working on the same problem here because I'm only interested in finding Bessler's solution, not yours.

You are quite right, my definition is based on my "personal" beliefs. But, I am firmly convinced that it does, indeed, actually represent what Bessler's wheels were doing. Thus, I am not convinced that Bessler's wheels were merely heat engines that were ahead of their time.

I think I remember Bessler saying that his wheels could be used out of doors in the winter and would be unaffected by the frigid ambient temperatures. That statement would seem to be more in agreement with my conceptualization of his wheels than with them being heat engines of any sort. The ambient temperature differentials outside in winter would be far less than might exist inside a room heated by a fireplace or sunny window. There does not seem to be any evidence that the wheels contained some sort of heat source such as glowing coals or burning oil.


Fletcher wrote:

We know all engines require a gradient to exploit or a differential to be created to be expoited. So far this has happened in mechanical examples by the introduction of fuel or naturally exploiting gradients found in nature.

Quite true and my concept of a Bessler wheel extracting the mass energy of its weights also fits this definition.

In the case of an overbalanced gravity wheel, the "gradient" can be considered to be the difference between two states of one of its drive weights after it has been forced to give up a bit of its rest mass during one wheel rotation. Each weight initially contains an enormous amount of energy that is "locked" up in it. The offset center of rotation of the wheel's drive weights in a planet's gravity field relative to the wheel's axle then serves to unlock this energy and allow it to be changed into the kinetic energy that accelerates the wheel and then performs external work.

In a strange sense, we can think of the this supply of mass energy in each drive weights as analogous to a large charge of electricity stored within a capacitor. When the appropriate circuitry is provided, the electrical energy of the capacitor can be used to perform work until it is all used up. In a similar fashion, the supply of mass energy in the wheel's weights can, when the appropiate mechanics are provided, also perfrom work until it is all used up.


ken

[ovyyus]

I think I remember Bessler saying that his wheels could be used out of doors in the winter and would be unaffected by the frigid ambient temperatures. That statement would seem to be more in agreement with my conceptualization of his wheels than with them being heat engines of any sort...

Ken, aside from the fact that Bessler never demonstrated an outside working wheel it should be obvious that average ambient temperature has little to do with energy extraction from a thermal gradient.

It would seem that while you remain "firmly convinced" about your own hypothetical (I might suggest fictitious) mass conversion phenomenon then discussing other ideas with you seems fairly pointless.

[primemignonite]

Some time back, I wrote somewhere on the forum, that I thought it advisable to ask one's self, when conceptualizing or designing wheels, from WERE is the desired energy supposed to come?

Also, I stated at the same place that I believed the analogy sometimes made between gravity and the flow of water, or air, to be a "bogus" one. [All due respect and apologies offered, now as then.]

Why? Because unlike air and water in motion, GRAVITY has no mass component, therefor it cannot possibly be energy nor a conduit for it. They, the big scientific powers, now tell us that it is believed that the rate of propagation for gravity is essentially INFINITE! To truly be so, it could not possibly have any mass component to it whatever, could it?

Action-at-a-distance now becomes more understandable for us, as it was NOT for Newton?

Did not Newton refer to gravity as "rays"? Not waves, but "rays"?

What if gravity is neither mass nor energy, but is a ray of force only?

The PURE FORCE? Possibly the only one in all of known nature?

Did not Bessler regard it as something almost sacred, if not actually?

To the end of answering my question above from before, Ken's "4th Law of Motion", at least, makes a more than good faith attempt at doing it. I'm not aware that any others have yet done so, or attempted likewise, themselves.

If I am in error about that, I honestly seek correction.

Yes, from WHERE is the energy expected to come?

James

[jim_mich]

Yes, from WHERE is the energy expected to come?

It comes from gravity, which is an unequal flow of Ether Energy. The Earth casts an Ether Energy shadow and we perceive it as gravity. This same Ether Energy is perceived as inertia and momentum. It flows is all direction like light. It is the pure force or energy from which everthing in created from.