A blueprint of Bessler's wheel question

[justsomeone]

I firmly believe anyone with experience studying gravity wheels or with a mechanical or engineering background would be able to view a blueprint of Bessler's wheel and KNOW without a doubt it would be a runner!
Even if it wasn't titled " Besslers wheel "
They ( you ) would not need to build to know it would work.
Am I wrong?

[Michael]

Your right justsomeone. If there was a full set of blueprints anyone with adequate engineering experience would be able to tell if it would work or not.

[AB Hammer]

Michael

That one I would have to disagree with, and here is why. No confirmed runner so far. So saying 100% would be going out on a limb. But They would be able to give a good idea and also spot flaws that from there own experience. I have always said, if math and engineers could have solved it , it would have been solved long ago. So none of us will be able to give absolutes of a runner from blueprints, but our experience tell us what has has a better chance and what has not worked so far.

[erick]

You may not be able to see whether or not a design is a "runner" based on a drawing/blueprint since that phenomena has never been seen (by anyone who's still living at least) but it is very likely that you would be able to see whether or not it is a "non-runner" based on all of our collective experiences (a situation we all find ourselves in too often).

[BAR]

Heh, I am very good with physics and I believe I know how Bessler did it, but I can not say with absolute 100% certainty I can reproduce what he did. Many others said it too and failed, most were morons but maybe I am just a more educated one. :) Sure you can estimate and analyze, but depending upon the complexity, ones experience or intuition may still be lacking when it comes to reality. The only real way to know is to build a device and see what happens.

[Michael]

Michael

That one I would have to disagree with, and here is why. No confirmed runner so far. So saying 100% would be going out on a limb. But They would be able to give a good idea and also spot flaws that from there own experience. I have always said, if math and engineers could have solved it , it would have been solved long ago. So none of us will be able to give absolutes of a runner from blueprints, but our experience tell us what has has a better chance and what has not worked so far.

AB that's not what the question was. It was asked if a blueprint for Besslers wheel/or the like was found, could someone with engineering skills be able to tell if it would work. Just because others have failed to create such a machine does not mean they wouldn't be able to understand it if they had the plans in front of them. Can you honestly tell me that someone with an electrical engineering background, given the time, won't be able to see if a schematic for an electrical device is good or not? That skill doesn't mean that they would instantly have the foresight to be able to develop such a device.

[AB Hammer]

Michael, Michael, Michael

The engineers of the time of the write brother said mechanical flight could not be done. engineers can only work form known values. Each time we have breakthroughs new values are known which improve our knowledge, understanding, and capabilities. In blunt terms, we still don't have all the values in our equations. At least not what we have in our existing equations.

Now for a Bessler written blueprint. You are talking about 300 year old tech. Those who specialize in ancient tech would have a better understanding of what was written.

[justsomeone]

Abhammer, If you were given a blueprint that detailed exactly how to build a Bessler wheel, you would know ( without a doubt ) it would work.
I'm not talking strange science or unknown phenonimum, just a clever arrangement of weights, pulleys, springs, ropes etc. So I respectfully disagree with you this time. Especially a wheel that had to be tied off when not in operation. It would be clearly seen why it had to be tied off.

[ovyyus]

The engineers of the time of the write [Wright] brother [s] said mechanical flight could not be done...

That is a myth and incorrect.

Engineers of that time had varied opinions about flight. Some scientists today still adhere to the notion that a god entity created the Earth 6000 years ago, yet we don't accept that all scientists believe such nonsense.

BTW, Karl said that anyone could understand Bessler's wheel after glimpsing inside the wheel. That might suggest a blueprint would also result in understanding.

[AB Hammer]

Abhammer, If you were given a blueprint that detailed exactly how to build a Bessler wheel, you would know ( without a doubt ) it would work.
I'm not talking strange science or unknown phenonimum, just a clever arrangement of weights, pulleys, springs, ropes etc. So I respectfully disagree with you this time. Especially a wheel that had to be tied off when not in operation. It would be clearly seen why it had to be tied off.

Up to date I have seen and have done several wheels that would have to be tied off, but this is where the problem comes in. To show an overbalance is one thing but to show it resetting to keep it from keeling, finding its equilibrium only the build tells. Back in Bessler's time. Those who saw the wheel and then if they saw the blueprints would say yes, but we don't have that. So all I can say is an experienced guess, and it would be worth a build or not to prove what I feel may happen. And over the history of the search I can't see how anybody can say for sure either. Only the build can prove one way or the other. I myself have several designs that I have strong beliefs in but until I build them I can't say 100% or I won't have any doubt percentages to fall back on. You have seen a design that I am building. I will send you the plausible reaction test that makes me believe in the possibilities in that design. But all and all, I can say is, if this and that happens it would work but to show/prove this and that happening is the real trick.

Bill

No difference from today. We have a few Engineers that say perpetual motion is possible but most of the say no. I guess I would have been more proper to say that, most engineers of the time.

PS My apologies to the Wright Brother's for the miss spelling.

[ovyyus]

I guess I would have been more proper to say that, most engineers of the time.

'Most' is also incorrect. 'A few' might be more accurate.

[AB Hammer]

Bill

Hmmm I guess I can blame my school history books then. LOL

[Jim Williams]

While the US Patent Office will issue a PMM patent based on a working model, it will under no circumstance accept anything else but that working model. No matter how perfectly clear they are, blueprints alone will be rejected even if they contain indisputable proof a model would work.

[rlortie]

Engineers think in straight lines.

A quote received by private mail from an eminent member of this forum.

Ralph

[scott]

Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines.