Where are we all at?

[Animal]

As a newbie, firstly I'd like to say that this is a very interesting collection of viewpoints and thoughts, and there appear to be some very deep thinking, and not so deep thinking ppl contributing here.

I've become interested in the idea of "free energy" and in particular a "gravity motor" for want of a better description, while continuing to pay ever increasing electricity and fuel bills. Over the past few months I have been gathering information from various sites, considering various ideas, and even gone as far as building a "learning experience".

IMO, I'm not convinced that a "permanently over centre device" is achievable, considering that the force reactions attributable to the off centre weights need to be restrained by a position on the "wheel" that is unable to be fixed or restrained by the rotating component (which it must be) However, in saying that, I also convinced that a gravity motor is achievable using some principle that once "discovered" for want of a better word, will make it obvious. I for one am definitely hamstrung by 30 years of applying currently "accepted" principles.

And now to the crux, how many "learning experiences" do we have to go through to get "close" to getting one running? Anyone got one running? and whats the concensus on the goal here, unidirectional or birectional?

[greendoor]

I'm a relative newbie here too, but i've learned so much in the 12+ months or so that i've been here. There is a wealth of knowledge in some of the older threads, and in some of the ornery cusses that haunt this place. Unfortunately the signal to noise is fairly high (although pretty good by most internet forum standards).

You will definately find several camps of thinkers, and many people with pet theories. Frankly - you could grow old and die here and never find the secret.

I've applied a lot of thought, and discarded many ideas in the process. I'm currently following up a very basic principle which has been freely discussed here, but for whatever reason hasn't been popular. I've applied my own spin on it, and i'm at the stage of developing crude model/experiment that hopefully will demonstrate overunity PE. It's not a wheel - but if it works, the next step would be to apply it to a wheel. I take courage from Bessler's Apologia where he states "a wheel appears" well after he has explained the operating principles.

My advice - concentrate on ways of being able to lift a mass with a falling mass, but gaining more height. Bessler practically said this is the key, and that you should look for a gain of approx 4:1. Bessler's wheel was obviously very lossy (lots of noise) and friction would have been considerable - but it performed work. So 4:1 sounds about right, to return the falling mass, overcome friction, and have surplus energy.

This sounds impossible - but it will lead you towards finding a force input to drive this thing. IMO - simply hoping we can cheat nature with a clever design won't bring about the energy input needed. Without a clear energy input, the most intricate design will simply lock up, or at best be nearly as efficient as a simple flywheel.

What that energy input was is up for debate. I've come full circle to believing it is definately Gravity - but others here will not accept that. IMO - Force causes Acceleration which give a Mass Velocity, hence Kinetic Energy, hence Power to do Work. That is undisputed, e.g. overhsot waterwheel.

For me - a bit of a revelation was to think about sailboats sailing into the wind. It's a relatively recent invention - aeons ago, sailers with square sails simply had to wait for the wind to blow their way. But modern sailboats with triangular sails can tack into the wind. It's not very efficient, but it's doable.

Just for inspiration - think about comparing the unidirection force of gravity with a strong wind that only blows one way. Imagine we throw a ball into the wind, and it comes right back at us. Be could come to the conclusion that the only energy we could ever get from that wind is the same energy that we use in throwing the ball into the wind. That seems a bit dumb, but it's pretty much the way we treat gravity - like a big spring.

Could we put wind energy capturing device on, lets say, a go-kart and drive directly into the wind? This might seem impossible - but there are ways if you think hard enough. A sail and tacking technique might work - it wouldn't be easy, but you could probably build up speed sailing close to the wind, and then use that speed to gain headway. Here is another method:

EDIT

deleted material as I think i'm giving away too much at this stage.

[Animal]

Greendoor

Interesting analogy with regards to the wind, sounds like a land yacht?, definitely able to travel into the wind, although not directly. I've been working through and gathering all the clues that appear in various places on the web and this site, its difficult weeding out the facts from the suppositions. I'm kind of fixated on the "children, clubs and broken columns" story at the moment, maybe we should get a bunch of kids together and see what they make of it?

" the more I learn, the less I realise I know"

[Stewart]

Hi Animal

Welcome to the forum and good luck with your research. A unidirectional wheel is all that's necessary - the only reason Bessler made the internal mechanism bi-directional was to prove to people that his wheel was not powered by an unwinding spring. Ultimately if you wanted bi-directional capability from your unidirectional wheel you could just add reverse gearing and not worry about figuring out a clever internal mechanism. I would think most people would want to use a Bessler wheel to generate electricity anyway, and therefore reversing the direction of rotation is pointless. The unidirectional wheels are the true invention - the bidirectional ones, as clever as they are, are just bastardised versions to please the naysayers.

I'm kind of fixated on the "children, clubs and broken columns" story at the moment, maybe we should get a bunch of kids together and see what they make of it?

I've recently discovered that the children are playing with marbles and not clubs. The word used by Bessler is 'Schniebe-Käulgen' which means marbles (the children's toy/game).

I work with large numbers of children on a regular basis and have over the years talked to some of them about Bessler's wheel. I'm constantly surprised by how genuinely interested they are by the story and the machine, and how good their ideas and insights are! It's also interesting to see that even at a young age the boys are more interested than the girls.

All the best
Stewart

[coylo]

I work with large numbers of children on a regular basis and have over the years talked to some of them about Bessler's wheel. I'm constantly surprised by how genuinely interested they are by the story and the machine, and how good their ideas and insights are! It's also interesting to see that even at a young age the boys are more interested than the girls.

While reading what Stewart wrote, I thought of an old quote I once seen on Scott's random quote window.....

"There are children playing in the streets who could solve some of my top problems in physics, because they have modes of sensory perception that I lost long ago."
J. Robert Oppenheimer

I can just see you now, Stewart.... tapping those eager young minds, like some sort of focus group you see in the Apprentice! hehee.

[John Collins]

Hi animal and welcome.

I think you'd know if anyone had a running wheel; it would hit the headlines like a pandemic of swine fever!

As Stewart says, you only need a one-way wheel and it was the more powerful version anyway. You can only do what you can do, read everything and form your own opinion, no one has succeeded to date, so it will take a fresh view to achieve what we all seek.

Your title reads where are we all at? I'm in favour of gravity-only wheels but I know many feel that there is another factor which needs to be taken into consideration. I think I know what it is and I am testing it over the next few days. If it works I'll tell you (all) and if it doesn't I'll still tell you all.

Confidence is high (it always is!).

JC

[AB Hammer]

Welcome Animal
To the most optimistic group of people you will probably ever meet. It is almost like name that tune from time to time. Like I can build that wheel with 3 weights, well I can build it with 1. So! Build that wheel. LOL

[Fletcher]

Your title reads where are we all at?

I'm in favour of gravity-only wheels but I know many feel that there is another factor which needs to be taken into consideration. I think I know what it is and I am testing it over the next few days. If it works I'll tell you (all) and if it doesn't I'll still tell you all.

Confidence is high (it always is!).

JC

Hi animal & welcome also.

John .. sounds like you now also think there is another "factor" additional to gravity ? *grin* - does factor translate to an innate force derivative of mass, gravity & motion, or added fuel ?

[Animal]

Thanks all for the welcome.

Stewart

I'm interested in your comment about the "clubs" being marbles, far be it for me to question anyone trying to translate the german, however, how would marbles become "double-ended" as in the reference in "dialogues at the castle of weissenstein"? Or is this dialogue another invention of someone with a fertile imagination?

To all

Just one other point, is there on consensus that a 2 weight wheel will work all be it slower and with less power, I'm getting tired of solid modelling wheels with 4 pairs of "apparatus", if I only need to model 1 pair.

[Stewart]

I'm interested in your comment about the "clubs" being marbles, far be it for me to question anyone trying to translate the german, however, how would marbles become "double-ended" as in the reference in "dialogues at the castle of weissenstein"? Or is this dialogue another invention of someone with a fertile imagination?

A total work of fiction I'm afraid.

Stewart

[pequaide]

The key is what NASA did with their rockets over 45 years ago. They placed all the spinning motion of the 1400 kg rocket or satellite into only 3 kg (yo-yo de-spin device). Did they conserve Newtonian momentum or energy? You can’t conserve both; it is mathematically and physically impossible. Take the motion of slow moving massive objects and transfer all the motion to a small portion of that mass, and separate that small mass allowing it to fly upwards. Momentum (linear Newtonian) will be conserved and the energy will increase dramatically.

Greendoor, the picture is on the ‘energy producing machines’ thread.

[ovyyus]

Welcome Animal, I see you're from my old stomping ground. What part of Brisbane are you from?

Lots to read here, lot's of opinions, lot's of data, lot's of theories, lot's of failed attempts to replicate Bessler's impressive demonstrations. It seems inevitable that someone will eventually succeed, and you can probably bet that the answer will include something that we least expect. Good luck with your research.

[Animal]

ovyyus

I'm actually a kiwi, but I've been living in Brisbane for more than 20 years, currently in Cleveland, but hopefully soon to relocate up the Sunshine Coast.

[jim_mich]

And now to the crux, how many "learning experiences" do we have to go through to get "close" to getting one running? Anyone got one running? and whats the concensus on the goal here, unidirectional or birectional?

The hardest thing to learn is that gravity alone can not cause a wheel to perpetually turn. Bessler tells us that the weights within the wheel must gain force by simple moving. This hints at inertial momentum as bing the source of the wheel's energy. But it is well known that momentum is conservative. We are also taught that energy is conservative. but if you look at kinetic energy it soon is very apparent that kinetic energy is NOT ALWAYS conservative. If all the momentum of one moving weight is transferred to a second moving weight causing the first to cease moving and the second to double its speed then when the speed doubles the KE increases by 4 times. Thus the KE of the two moving weights doubles when one weight transfers it KE to the other weight. If the force of this increased KE is used to rotate the wheel in such a way that the two weights resume their original speeds then the cycle can be repeated perpetually. None of this violates any laws of physics, though some might say that it violates conservation of energy.

[Grimer]

Greendoor

Interesting analogy with regards to the wind, sounds like a land yacht?, definitely able to travel into the wind, although not directly.

Ventomobils can travel directly into the wind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxfSZmBde7A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnf83dHSIn8