My Original Idea

[Fletcher]

About the speed of the fall....I tried to simulate that with the Draschwitz wheel. It had a diameter of just over 9 ft. Now, at 56 rpm's, the falling weight will not keep up. This is with the understanding that the weight will have to reset itself at the higher position and basically start all over again...no launching, no throwing, no CF swinging...just to reset itself at the higher level to fall all over again. Steve

From Steve's earlier post

I believe my first ever thread on this sight was "wheel acceleration"....this was the aspect of Besslers wheels that blew me away. Not only could it just perpetually spin....it hauled ass! His first two wheels were over 50 rpm's. I can't help but think there is something obvious in a weird sort of way here, and we just don't see it.

If weights won't keep up at that rpm, then the conclusion would be that the weights were not located at or near the rim [where the velocity was greatest] but at a closer radius where they did have time to fall & keep up yet still maintain a high overall wheel rpm.

[rlortie]

Well there goes the neighborhood again. First its P-motion, and then Jim_L and now its Jim_Lindgaard. How many time is this guy going to re-register simply to harass us through me.

In response to your Sevich comment:

Like Sevich told me, you rely on your reputation, not on anythng that can be quantified.

I am surprised that Sevich would say such a thing (if he did) one does not build a reputation by relying on what has to be earned first.

As for the three P's, I have referred to it many times for a number of years, I did not hear it from you! Give me a break my ignore list is getting longer.

Ralph

[Bessler007]

Hello Fletcher,

Dr. Lasker once said he only visualized one move ahead, but it was always the best one. He was a terror at endgame and every move he made in the opening and middle of the game was designed to get to endgame.

I liked the chess analogy. It showed that a lot of people could recognize winning positions and see those positions moves ahead. The same could be said of mechanics. With a reasonable amount of study a lot of people could understand how to cause this or that motion and design a contraption. Several have mentioned having this ability.

As I mentioned the problem is only one single person of all of humanity managed to find a design of perpetual motion. The odds are well beyond my ability to calculate also.

I also liked the hide and seek, needle in the hay stack analogy. It's a personal favorite. I did warm up to the mountain climbing analogy but I see it a little differently. :O

Bessler attempts climb after climb and brags that one day he eventually will make it to the top. All the climbers at the base camp laugh at him because he's a rolly-polly sort lacking the physical stamina for this endeavor (not a mathematician).

On what he thought was his final attempt he again failed. He decided not to return by way of the base camp. He was tired of being laughed at. On his way back down he noticed a small cave opening. He decided to crawl in that hole and die.

As he was crawling the opening grew larger. Soon he was walking upright. Going a little further he noticed what seemed like a light at the end of the tunnel. Breaking into a run he arrived at a large lobby underneath the mountain with a glass room in the middle. He thought, 'vos es dos?' and went to it. He noticed a button beside the door of the room and pushed it.

The doors opened and he stepped in. Inside the glass room were two more buttons with the words summit and basement beside them. He pressed the summit button and the room started to ascend!

When the room stopped the doors opened to a medium sized meadow with fruit trees and vegetables all over. There were rabbits basking in the sun. It seemed that although it was a harsh winter at the base camp it was summer at the summit.

He gathered some apples and oranges and went to the edge of the meadow where the base camp was and began pelting them with the fruit. They yelled up to Bessler and asked him, 'how did you manage to get to the top?' He replied, 'if you give me money, I will be your best friend.' :) After that the climbers at the base camp didn't like him one bit. They called him a liar and a fraud. But the fact is he was at the summit and they weren't.

Another fact is he claims to have been given a vision of the solution. The answer was basically handed to him. We consider what he's said about swinging weights or empty on one side and full on the other but we skim over the part where he claims to have been handed the answer.

That may be laughable but to the educated in mechanics the whole idea of perpetual motion is.

One man's joke is another's dream.

[Jim_Lindgaard]

Well there goes the neighborhood again. First its P-motion, and then Jim_L and now its Jim_Lindgaard. How many time is this guy going to re-register simply to harass us through me.

In response to your Sevich comment:

Like Sevich told me, you rely on your reputation, not on anythng that can be quantified.

I am surprised that Sevich would say such a thing (if he did) one does not build a reputation by relying on what has to be earned first.

As for the three P's, I have referred to it many times for a number of years, I did not hear it from you! Give me a break my ignore list is getting longer.

Ralph

Ralph,
show your source then for your post. I have given you my address. Pay me a visit and be a man.
If not, I guess you are all mouth.
If oyur reputation is based on what needs to be learned, then why is math left out ?
Even Bessler was a student of math. That is why he had pencil and paper. The basic requirememnts.
And for what I posted ?
I used a compass, a protractor, a ruler and a pencil. All keeping within your guidelines.
I think what you dislike about me is that I would like to see something that can be tested. yet you can show nothing.
I have posted math and you say that is a bad idea. Would you care to elaborate ?
But ya know what, your 3 P's post is what I e-mailed you and you complained about.
If it is something you ahve previously psoted, please show the links. I am sure that Scott maintains a history on this forum.
But then, I do know what I said to you and that was a part of it.
Funny how you try to rip someone off and say it is somehting you've always said.

[Fletcher]

Bessler looked where others had looked, but he looked so intensely that he blindly stumbled over that which he was looking for. Assuming, that it was not there as others had already looked! Ralph

I view that a completely different way Ralph - "he found it where others had looked" - I don't think he looked so intensely that he blindly stumbled onto what he was looking for, & that which no one else had previously found - quite the opposite in fact - he implies it is a well known concept by deliberately pointing out that many have looked there, so it is likely he meant OOB wheels.

Imo, he is telling a half truth - he was quite familiar with OOB wheels & he new their strengths & that they had one major weakness, they could not be reset without 'help'.

Imo, I think those words written by Bessler [can't remember the exact quote] " I found it where others had looked" were deliberately dipped in treacle [molasses] to stick your feet to the ground & make it hard to move forward by creating doubt about what you know - if those reading it were well versed in gravity wheels then they would see the trap in the words laid out by Bessler & not get caught, if not, or if unsure, they would not see the trap & be stuck on OOB wheels, always looking for a new variation "that just might do it this time", without ever taking the next & vital step.

[Jim_Lindgaard]

Hey Bozo,
Let's get something straight.
You don't like me because you said you would like to prove Bessler actually did it on a comment attached to the pic on your home.
Yep, attached toa pic of that nice home you have. But you didn't get that home by being a generous peson, did you ?
Sounds great. And I told you how to prove it. And yous aid, sorry, I won't prove what I think Bessler did.
Notice how you supported Bessler up and until it required you to do something specific ?
Talk about 2 faced.
And that is why you do not like me. Math can be tested, BS can not.

[AB Hammer]

Jim

Please give it a rest!! you are not achieving anything.

[Fletcher]

007 .. now that's just silly - everybody knows there aren't rabbits on top of summits, they're snow hare's lol

[Jim_Lindgaard]

Jim

Please give it a rest!! you are not achieving anything.

Alan,
Who is attacking who Alan ? Guess I miss your point.
You are right, he wins because he is good at bull shitting people.
I am glad you and him see eye to eye.

[scott]

P-Motion/Jim_L/Jim_Lindgaard, you are in direct violation of the Terms of Use.

You explicitly agree, in using this web site or any service provided, that you shall not: ... Impersonate or misrepresent your association with any person or entity, or forge or otherwise seek to conceal or misrepresent the origin of any Content provided by you. E.g. sock puppet accounts;

Stop creating new accounts or you will be banned.

Your Jim_L and Jim_Lindgaard accounts has been banned. If you want to continue to post you can use your original P-Motion account.

We'll see how that goes.

-Scott

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

I will rejoin the conversation about finding what, and where after the smoke clears once again. Scott can and has banned him under one name and those who wish to do so can vote him out on the other.

I have had to block his IP service to get him off my back in my private mail box.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Picking up yet again on Steve's earlier post about Bessler hinting that the math was already out there, or at least partially known ?

I bet you, like me, have wondered just what 'math' this might have been - I throw this thought out there.

N.B. Daniel Bernoulli formalized his hydodynamic equation [Bernoulli's Equation] in 1738 [during Bessler's era].

Don't worry, you don't have to know how to calculate Reynolds numbers or crunch the proof of Bernoulli's Equation to show how venturi's work ;)

It is a statement about the conservation of energy in a form that is useful for problems involving fluids - working from the position of conservation of energy, it tells us that a change in the kinetic energy of a system must equal the net work done on the system [energy is conserved, in a nut shell].

It is conceivable that Bessler was aware of the Bernoulli brothers & the work they were doing - although Bessler was reportedly an average mathematician [by 'sGravesandes estimation], it is possible that he could have founded the basic principles of fluid dynamics before Bernoulli, & applied them to his wheels, without actually being able to resolve the full math as perhaps a professional mathematician might have [perhaps I sell his abilities short ?].

If Bessler had known the basics & used some part of the later Bernoulli Equation as I propose, then it would make Bessler the forefather of a lot of later major scientific advances, attributed to others.

[winkle]

or it could be math that applied to just about anything you cared to make list of

[Fletcher]

yep - but, imo there's just the odd fly or two in that particular ointment winkle - like said earlier & not so quietly thought by many of us here - why hasn't it been crunched into existence since then ?

And why did he risk giving away more than he could afford by hinting at a math proof, unless it was an advanced or obscure application of theory, not widely known or understood, then or possibly now ? - but that certainly doesn't rule out other possibilities, these are just my thoughts !

[winkle]

i don't disagree with the possibilities you spoke off

on the other hand it could be the method may not be obscure at all but quite common and used in everyday life but for other purposes that do not readily lend it's self visually or mentally to PPM usage and that could be the reason he was so careful to give so little useable information

after all the principal is shown in MT he said it was and i believe him

it seems to me that MT shows principles that might be classified as common knowledge

just a question for my own curiosity

are there any drawings in MT that you do not understand

if the answer to the question is no i'm thinking the answer to the riddle is a common every day principal

on the other hand if the answer is yes i'm thinking the answer to the riddle is a common every day principal

oh and as to the hint of a math proof

another question

until the principle is known does that hint have any real value

it is my understanding that once understood everything has a math proof

a wheel is used to lower an elevator would the same math be used for a wheel to move a car or drive a PPM wheel

i am just asking

of what use is it to hint at a math proof if there is no clue as to how or what to apply math to