MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code

[JUBAT]

Duly noted. I'll either have my address ready for you or my cemetery plot ready to go - whatever is needed first.

Remember a simulation is not representative of the real world, so if it fails despite your confidence, it's okay. You're one of thousands.

Then you can join me in being bitter and thinking Bessler was one the greatest pranksters of all time.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly be your Court Jester.

[JUBAT]

Waltcy,
What I'm saying is; the water makes the wheel turn but, it isn't the prime mover. The sun lifts the water back up, so it should be considered to be the prime mover.

Back to the gravity wheel. Since, the rollers do the lifting, they would be the prime mover, apposed to the weights that turn the wheel.
To reiterate; the toggles shift the weights, the weights turn the wheel, the wheel drives the rollers and the rollers drive the toggles. That's about all there is to it-----------------------Sam

With this talk of emulating the water cycle - we know from observing nature that water condenses and falls back down, collecting in ponds, rivers, streams, and then the ocean. All through its travels, the sun is evaporating the water molecule by molecule until it travels just as a gas in the form of clouds so that the cycle can repeat.

So what comes to mind is something akin to a fishnet where every intersection of fibers is a weight - like a marble. On the upside of the wheel, the net is fully spread out, but on the downside, the net fully collapses into a concentrated dense ball. The net could hang like drapes on the ascending side and once inverted, collapse into the very curtain rod it hung from.

This is a just a rough, mechanical allusion, but the only problem with it is that you'd be using the water to pull itself around. What is the mechanical equivalent of the sun? If the hub is the sun, it would have more of an allusion to the orbiting of planets.

All this figurative speak drives me nuts. It's literal tip-toeing around the situation instead of outright definitions. I can start talking about plant life, how tadpoles turn into frogs, or even how chickens hatch eggs which turn into even more chickens and yet not one blasted talking point can help anyone on this planet help develop a working wheel.

I think the only people that would enjoy hearing this talk tend to hang out at Starbucks strung out on weed and vague liberal talking points regarding the metaphysical and things they saw while on LSD. Makes 'em feel good talking about stuff while absolutely nothing gets done. Just like this post.

[johannesbender]

According to what i know , bessler called his wheel the "primum mobile" throughout apologia poetica, so imo the prime mover (primum mobile) is his machine and not a part , but i am not sure what mt15 german text is.

[eccentrically1]

The mechanical equivalent of the sun is exploitation of a temperature difference between a system and its surroundings.
In mt15 he said nothing of the prime mover’s source can be seen, but he shows the weights and the wheel.
I think he knew the wheel and the weights weren’t the prime mover. He’s trying to teach us that, specifically in mt15.

[Sam Peppiatt]

ecc1,You're right.
Which means, what ever does the lifting would be the prime mover, and not the weights. For once I agree with you--Sam

PS That's what I was trying to establish.

[johannesbender]

Imo , the way i read it , he was saying the prime mover's source cannot be seen , and not the prime mover cant be seen.

I took another look at MT15 in the original form , it appears to be written as "primum movers" so it cannot be "primum mobile" , it would translate Latin to English as "first mover" and not "first movable" , i don't know , but it looks like when you draw an OB design with the weights in position but did not draw the mechanisms that moved them in place ,and then mention the source cannot be seen that's what it read like to me atm.

I gave up on trying to decipher his meanings .

[JUBAT]

Back to the gravity wheel. Since, the rollers do the lifting, they would be the prime mover, apposed to the weights that turn the wheel.
To reiterate; the toggles shift the weights, the weights turn the wheel, the wheel drives the rollers and the rollers drive the toggles. That's about all there is to it-----------------------Sam

Sam this sounds all well and good but how do you propose to manage friction with all that Rube Goldberg stuff going on? Ive dremt up many a mechanism, but friction put a stop to things within about 2 mechanisms hooked together. The problem with impact forces is that you have to restore the hammer and the law of diminishing returns comes into play.

I'm hopeful and happy for you, but I'm bitter that I've wasted my life on such a fruitless pursuit and I could have been so much more and in a much better place in my life had I not allowed myself to be so gullible.

All the best mate and I do enjoy your posts.

[Sam Peppiatt]

JUBAT,
You may be right. It probably won't work-------------Sam

[ovyyus]

I'm hopeful and happy for you, but I'm bitter that I've wasted my life on such a fruitless pursuit and I could have been so much more and in a much better place in my life had I not allowed myself to be so gullible.

Perhaps you simply don't have 'the right stuff'?

As you know, this is a very small community of hopeful dreamers, from all corners of the world, who are collectively trying to uncover a centuries-old mystery in the face of enormous obstacles, and with a low chance of success.

Almost everyone here who is serious about their work has shouldered their own countless failures and setbacks over the years. You are not unique in this regard. Repeatedly stating your opinion that Bessler was a fraud, and that you have wasted you're life, serves no good for those who might find value in their personal quest to learn and improve their understanding of themselves and the subject.

If you don't have the right stuff then why not allow for the possibility that someone other than yourself might see what you cannot? No one faults you for giving up, but you seem smart enough to realise that there is fault in discouraging others who might have what it takes. I don't see how constantly repeating your own sense of failure does anyone any good, including yourself. Perhaps you disagree?

[eccentrically1]

Imo , the way i read it , he was saying the prime mover's source cannot be seen , and not the prime mover cant be seen.

I took another look at MT15 in the original form , it appears to be written as "primum movers" so it cannot be "primum mobile" , it would translate Latin to English as "first mover" and not "first movable" , i don't know , but it looks like when you draw an OB design with the weights in position but did not draw the mechanisms that moved them in place ,and then mention the source cannot be seen that's what it read like to me atm.

I gave up on trying to decipher his meanings

So he shows weights in mt15. Then tells you the prime mover’s source can’t be seen. And elsewhere tells you the weights are the essential constituent parts of the PM principle.
If the prime mover’s source can’t be seen then the prime mover’s source can’t be the weights.
So the weights might be essential but they can’t be the source of Perpetual motion.

[JUBAT]

Perhaps you disagree?
[/quote]

No actually I agree with you o. I just want people to give a serious think about they are embarking on. It's like people who wish to be a rock star, only to find out at some point they are never going to make it big in the music industry. They look back on years of failed attempts and even though they had the right stuff, they didn't spend enough time selling themselves on the casting couch.

I'm quite an adept mechanic and am considered bright by my peers, but I've diverted quite a bit of time and money over the years to the quest, and it's left me severely jaded because I could have funded some pretty good trips with the missus, improved the home, or became a pilot. I had hopes of what I could gain financially if I just did this or that. It would have made more sense to actually go to school and become what I had wanted to become originally instead of wasting my life on such a fruitless and pointless endeavour. Yes I made the choice, and I was totally duped.

I've watched and followed the progress of the restoration of Union Pacific's Big Boy 4014 and Ed is the lead engineer. What an amazing life. Astronauts have gone to moon, Chuck Yeager broke the speed of sound, Henry Ford developed the model T, Edison the light bulb, Tesla AC current, and the Wright Brothers the aeroplane. All the inventor greats whom I look up to and admire greatly. What they all had in common is actual manifestation of their ideas and on some level we all admire them.

In the case of the Bessler - a slice of the population wants something for nothing and indeed it could be regarded as the all time greatest invention, but we have no proof at all - just some German writings from in the 1700s - way before the industrial revolution, when sailing ships were king, when horseback and walking is how you got from point A to point B, you pooped in an outhouse, and beam engines were a toy for the rich...and we are expected to believe than an invention that would literally change the world was invented by a temperamental German simpleton?

I'd like to believe it was true, and no doubt an invention of this sort could help a lot of people in 3rd world countries put gravity to work for them, but it's quite a farfetched story when you buckle down and study the details and I get a strong feeling that it's quite a clever story that is meant to suck people in and distract them things they should really be pursuing - things with a tangible reward for the effort put forth.

I don't think Bessler was a fraud at all. He performed the perfect prank to ensure that he would never be forgotten. The pictures, and stories, and everything else just wreaks of a theatrical performance and he's the ultimate carney - still hawking and selling his promises of what-if and there is a sucker standing there in line right behind me to fall for it. I have serious doubts that any of it is true. The perpetual interest in perpetual motion is the only thing perpetual about it and Bessler is only eclipsed by Shakespeare in theatrical magnitude.

Until I'm proven wrong, I'm right but severely disappointed in being so. I just advise all of you to give a think about what you're embarking on because time is ticking by and you're missing out on life by chasing snakes in the grass.

I just don't want everyone to be yes-men and nod up and down like a bobble-head on the dash of their car. All these hopefuls running around here like chickens with their heads cut off. Can't one of us be a nay-sayer or the voice of reason? At least I'm not Da Ewe telling everyone how dumb they are and how my invention is the best. I'm actually supportive and make regular suggestions despite my heavy skepticism. I guess it's just a past-time for this senior citizen since I've got nothing else to show for my life.

A lot of people have died without ever knowing whether it was for real or not. Do you want to be next?

[JUBAT]

JUBAT,
You may be right. It probably won't work-------------Sam

Still with all that being said, I'm wondering if you might be on to something since there is something to be said about complex cyclical loops.

Some of my fruitless ideas in the past have involved interactions in the 720 degree realm where weights go from balanced to imbalanced and back again. Some of the impacts could be putting weights back into balance and some impacts could be putting them into imbalance. Also, some of the weights could be dual purposed in that weights that take the wheel out of balance could also be the weights responsible for putting another set into balance.

It's using gravity to trick itself into rotation and no doubt not everything that moves has to create imbalance. We just have to remember that it's been estimated to take a 12 foot diameter wheel (imagine a drum as big as a cattle watering tank) just to create 25 watts.

Being totally honest here but strangely still supportive of those who choose this mission: I'm not going to build a 12 foot wheel nor anything just for that scant amount of power. It might rock someone's boat, but it won't be mine. I'll invest in solar panels when it comes right down to it.

[Sam Peppiatt]

JUBAT & @,
Where to start? A successful wheel requires both. One set of weights to drive, or turn the wheel and, an additional set of weights to lift the driving weights back up,( somehow), for the cycle to repeat. I was just trying to get straight in my own mined which is which. I see the rollers as the primary or master weights and, the driving weights as secondary or slave weights.

All I can say is; the rollers do lift the weights up, the toggle linkage shifts them in on the up side and, out on the down side. Then, of coarse, the driving weights have to turn the wheel. A one way bearing is needed to prevent the rollers from rolling backwards at the 6 & 12 positions, which can cause back torque.

That's where I'm at now. Installing the clutch. It also has to slide back and forth------------------Sam

[JUBAT]

If you scroll back Sam, you'll see WC posted a reply to a question I asked. I asked him if the star was the track of the weight or if he was rotating the star itself. His reply was more or less a link to pathfinder's animated gif. Have you ever seen it?

https://besslerwheel.com/forum/download ... r=1323.gif

WC never did answer me.

So evidently he is off working on either his book or his build and if he says anything between now and then he owes me 1200 bucks by his own words.

I think it's worth investigating this animated GIF or perhaps variations thereof. I've thought for years that the weights have to keep moving. As soon as they stop, gravity ensures they park. Further if you watch pathfinder's gif, you can see it is rather impervious to cf because as the weight wheels rotate, the weight contained within kind of stops which allows it to slide to change position. It's a constant change of movement within rotation.

Could the answer have been in his GIF all along and we didn't know it? Can't help but notice WCs swift departure to tackle his build after I mentioned pathfinder's gif. Has anyone ever run pathfinder's gif in wm2d? A planetary gear arrangement seems feasible because for one thing, not many people are going to waste the time to build such a contraption only to not have it work. If we want to focus on one aspect of this gif - the sliding weights are sliding to the ends of the rod which could represent those column ends we see on the toys page which are commonly referred to as drums...which they aren't.

Can't help but notice his sig as well as his final post about the south-pointing chariot. Perhaps he found enlightenment after that.

Anyway, I'll stop there before I launch into another skeptical diatribe.

[preoccupied]

I like Pathfinders gif but the reason it doesn't work is because it's applying force to a rim of a gear and the new axle is the gear and not the position away from the central axle. By gear I mean the most leverage would be the furthest distance from the rim so closer to the actual wheel's axle the better. Understand what I'm saying about gears here?

JUBAT I want to share about my ideas to help you know a working solution because of your intense interest and I am lonely but my solutions are weapons of mass destruction with military applications and I possibly destroyed a planet in outer space when I was time traveling or at least a giant space alien the size of a planet that tried to destroy Earth with asteroids and killed the dinosaurs. What I have right now is a structural arrangement that can produce leverage where in one design a series of gears can produce greater leverage the more gears that you have like it, and another design that can easily be used perhaps to make you run very fast. These both have been used by me in the past, it's the regular gravity wheel that I haven't found and am openly sharing about to look for the solution, although I would be more impressive without the brain damage. IF YOU WANT, take a gander at what I posted today, it's the closest I think that I've gotten to my original claim of inventing this overbalanced wheel when I was a kid, but I think that I was false to think that I invented an overbalanced wheel when I was a kid; I think instead I invented an infinite leverage gear train which is probably NOT what Bessler has designed. I know that you criticized that I say I have the solution but won't share it but my specific solution that makes gears stronger the more gears you have, is like the work of a mad scientist not an old German making a gravity wheel and my specific solution could be very dangerous.