Hi All,
Gill Simo sent some new ideas yesterday which are most interesting indeed. Thanks a lot Gill for your many ingenious contributions to the website over the years. In my opinion, they just keep getting better!
Here is a link to the page I put together for Gill's latest:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/gill/11.9.03/index.html
Please post your questions and comments here!
Thanks,
Scott
Gill Simo's Ideas
Moderator: scott
re: Gill Simo's Ideas
I think it is a great idea, though I wasn't able to follow it well.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
Georg Künstler
- Devotee
- Posts: 1718
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: Gill Simo's Ideas
Hi Gill,
it is a real good idea. But what I am missing in that design is the interaction between two systems. Only up and down of masses can not be able to gain energy. We need at any point a trouble force. This trouble force must act periodically. Like a modern ABS(Antiblockiersystem).
That is my opinion.
Best regards
Georg
it is a real good idea. But what I am missing in that design is the interaction between two systems. Only up and down of masses can not be able to gain energy. We need at any point a trouble force. This trouble force must act periodically. Like a modern ABS(Antiblockiersystem).
That is my opinion.
Best regards
Georg
-
gill simo
re: Gill Simo's Ideas
This recent figment of the imagination is not something that i wish to force upon you all. As stated i have very little knowledge of physics and as such this is more a plea to anyone out there with such knowledge to help me out here.
hopefully someone will be kind enough to construct as requested. it only takes an hour of your time and its quite simple, the hardest part being to cut out circles from cardboard or the like. Of course you can simply cut out 6 times 60/60/60 triangles, in other words cut out the curved side.
it would seem that the instant doubt as always is one of "where is the gain, energy wise". JC in his book struggles somewhat to explain that Besslers device employed gravity, that it sucked energy from gravity and i have always assumed that this MUST be so as you cant surely create energy from nowhere. Thus i imagine that Besslers wheel employed some hitherto unthought of `trick` whereby gravity saw a mass that it wanted to force down in a straight line and the device somehow converted this constant desire by gravity to drop this mass into onstant turn about some axle. There is no gain/loss of energy as such in such a device other than the taking of some gravity which appears to be an infinite and constant force that we on planet Earth are unable to quantify. IE when does any mass stop accelerating, at what terminal speed?
In this latest offering we definately have some mass = 7 units as far as gravity is concerned but rather than cause all 7 to fall it appears perhaps to swing 6 around an axle leaving 1 unit spare. this 1 unit gravity again must try to cause to fall but again perhaps it is forced into merely causing it to oscilate as per a pendulum. The view that here is a device in which masses are falling and rising is i think an error. It works by gravity and despite what your eyes and old habits suggest all is in fact falling under gravity, constantly falling. There is no need to ask the usual ? of "what energy rises the mass back to its original position" so that it can again fall. I repeat there is no rising, only falling under gravity.
I must therfore ask again for you to build the 7 seg floppy thing, make a coffee, build a spliff, drop a tab or do whatever is your thing when it comes to deep thinking and study this silly little toy at great length cos we arent going to get anywhere with traditional thoughts are we now ?
hopefully someone will be kind enough to construct as requested. it only takes an hour of your time and its quite simple, the hardest part being to cut out circles from cardboard or the like. Of course you can simply cut out 6 times 60/60/60 triangles, in other words cut out the curved side.
it would seem that the instant doubt as always is one of "where is the gain, energy wise". JC in his book struggles somewhat to explain that Besslers device employed gravity, that it sucked energy from gravity and i have always assumed that this MUST be so as you cant surely create energy from nowhere. Thus i imagine that Besslers wheel employed some hitherto unthought of `trick` whereby gravity saw a mass that it wanted to force down in a straight line and the device somehow converted this constant desire by gravity to drop this mass into onstant turn about some axle. There is no gain/loss of energy as such in such a device other than the taking of some gravity which appears to be an infinite and constant force that we on planet Earth are unable to quantify. IE when does any mass stop accelerating, at what terminal speed?
In this latest offering we definately have some mass = 7 units as far as gravity is concerned but rather than cause all 7 to fall it appears perhaps to swing 6 around an axle leaving 1 unit spare. this 1 unit gravity again must try to cause to fall but again perhaps it is forced into merely causing it to oscilate as per a pendulum. The view that here is a device in which masses are falling and rising is i think an error. It works by gravity and despite what your eyes and old habits suggest all is in fact falling under gravity, constantly falling. There is no need to ask the usual ? of "what energy rises the mass back to its original position" so that it can again fall. I repeat there is no rising, only falling under gravity.
I must therfore ask again for you to build the 7 seg floppy thing, make a coffee, build a spliff, drop a tab or do whatever is your thing when it comes to deep thinking and study this silly little toy at great length cos we arent going to get anywhere with traditional thoughts are we now ?
-
Georg Künstler
- Devotee
- Posts: 1718
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: Gill Simo's Ideas
Hi Gill,
got your thoughts, I think we can use the rocket formulars to explain how
the device is getting it's energy. The device is also working with a trouble force, I had not seen that some hours ago. It is a real great Leistung of your mind.
Best regards, hope we survive
Georg
got your thoughts, I think we can use the rocket formulars to explain how
the device is getting it's energy. The device is also working with a trouble force, I had not seen that some hours ago. It is a real great Leistung of your mind.
Best regards, hope we survive
Georg
re: Gill Simo's Ideas
Georg, I have yet to understand what you mean by 'trouble force' or why you think it is so necessary given that you havn't made a working wheel. It's like those New agers who speak of 'etherial energies', I can tell what they're talking about, I don't think they even know.
So please: What is the trouble force and why is it necessary and why can't you get it to work?
So please: What is the trouble force and why is it necessary and why can't you get it to work?
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
Georg Künstler
- Devotee
- Posts: 1718
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: Gill Simo's Ideas
Hi Jonathan,
the explanation of trouble force and how to calculate it still published. It is
on my resonance page and here under Georg's ideas. I have buildt a model who takes care of all what I have claimed. If the princible is clearly understood, more than one solutions can be buildt. I went two steps backward in my developement to show the selfrunning wheel, a toy.
To capture mathematics and physic took me nearly two years. You get
the solution on the resonance page on a golden table. I will expain the
claims step by step under Georg's ideas.
Best regards
Georg
the explanation of trouble force and how to calculate it still published. It is
on my resonance page and here under Georg's ideas. I have buildt a model who takes care of all what I have claimed. If the princible is clearly understood, more than one solutions can be buildt. I went two steps backward in my developement to show the selfrunning wheel, a toy.
To capture mathematics and physic took me nearly two years. You get
the solution on the resonance page on a golden table. I will expain the
claims step by step under Georg's ideas.
Best regards
Georg
-
guest
re: Gill Simo's Ideas
This is a fine and beautiful example of 3D view and thinking.
I'm not sure if I could understand to all, but I see to the possibility of to take profit for that instant proximation set of 3 bodies together. If you ''force'' by an external mean to the ''shrinking'' at a position of 90º of vertical, you'll have an evident umbalanced condition in that location.
I think, if also I may sugest, that the bodies could be better at the vertices formed by each two segments. At few months I told here something about the draw of a wheel with 3D weight variations. This can be one of them. Congratulations, Gill. Murilo SP nov/11
I'm not sure if I could understand to all, but I see to the possibility of to take profit for that instant proximation set of 3 bodies together. If you ''force'' by an external mean to the ''shrinking'' at a position of 90º of vertical, you'll have an evident umbalanced condition in that location.
I think, if also I may sugest, that the bodies could be better at the vertices formed by each two segments. At few months I told here something about the draw of a wheel with 3D weight variations. This can be one of them. Congratulations, Gill. Murilo SP nov/11