Impact is the Key

[Tim Cochran]

Hello all,

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents. I don't think impact is the key nor could be a useful key because an impact is is just a "TRANSFER" of momentum at it's core. Yes, it has time sensitive qualities but all of which are negative, as far as I can tell. Furthermore, impacts change drastically with scale and material, which I assume would not have been the case with the principle of Bessler's wheel design. (It was more torque from geometry than kinetics, IMO). Secondly, Impacts are more of an action/reaction kind of event rather than a continuous event (perpetual).
I intuit there must be some sort of directional overlaps taking place resulting in a force imbalance regarding the directional components of those forces because I think all other components of the forces must cancel out. This, if true, would be why Bessler manifested his engine in a wheel rather than something more linear in nature.

On the first page of this thread, greendoor said,
"Textbook would say that if you exploded a mass, and that mass broke into two pieces, each traveling at the same, fast velocity - but 180 degrees apart ... the textbook would say that the combined momentum of that system is ZERO. Because velocity is a vector, and because the directions are negative & positive, the academic is forced to sum these to zero.

But you and I know that there is a lot of real momentum in that system - even if we are not allowed to say so. This is a partial (crock) reason why the E=1/2MV^2 thing is favoured - because when you square a number it loses it's negative value. The academics are happy to say that this system contains a lot of Energy - but they are not happy to say it has any Momentum.

But all you have to do is choose a different Frame of Reference, and if one of those moving pieces of mass hits you in the head, there is no question that it has a lot of momentum (from your Frame of Reference). "


I have always strongly agreed with this sentiment since freshman physics, however, using the transfer of momentum to your forehead to repeat the explosion forever is a fools errand. Gravity adds momentum to the system but consumes distance. The "only" way to regain distance is to reverse direction. The design challenge, and I think what Bessler did, is to make infinite distance occur within his wheel instead of reversing direction. Doing so would allow gravity to add momentum to the system forever.

This should be possible because a wheel is moving in every direction in its plane simultaneously and circles are essentially endless when rolling against each other.
I'm new to posting comments; I suppose I should start a new thread to post any concept drawings?

P.S. My sincere hope is that someone will prove the Bessler mechanism and it will be improved upon to become something useable to the average man.
I also hope nobody said all this before because I didn't read every the posts in this thread. In which case, I agree with you.

[Georg Künstler]

IamAllergicToEntropy wrote:

Jerk/Jounces + heat is never good :(

that is not my opinion. It is always a question what you like to achieve.

Heat is good to warm my home.
Jerk is good to compress the ground.
bounce is good to drill a hole etc.

Again, it is the view of a thing, if it is useful or not.

So an Impact is bad that is the opinion of the most People.
I agree with an direct Impact.

But Bessler used an indirect impact, this is a Little bit different but for the Wheel where 8 noises where heard on the down going side it is absolutely necessary.

The indirect Impact is used to arrange the weights on their Position.
And not only one weights is arranged, no, all weights are arranged in one go with the indirect impact

You look to a pendulum as a pendulum,
but I look to the rolling cylinders in a hole,
they are also pendulums, it is a different Kind of pendulum, but still a pendulum.

There is a big advantage to use the rolling cylinders.
They can be stopped in the hole in a specific angle in the hole.
In this case the Rolling cylinders(weights) can be lifted and shifted in one go.

The indirect Impact is the key to get more momentum(torque) to the Wheel.

If you need more Information feel free to ask.

[IamAllergicToEntropy]

...and I think what Bessler did, is to make infinite distance occur within his wheel instead of reversing direction. Doing so would allow gravity to add momentum to the system forever.

Welcome to the forum Tim, I am new here myself. Except for infinities, I agree. ;)

...But you and I know that there is a lot of real momentum in that system - even if we are not allowed to say so. This is a partial (crock) reason why the E=1/2MV^2 thing is favoured - because when you square a number it loses it's negative value. The academics are happy to say that this system contains a lot of Energy - but they are not happy to say it has any Momentum.

I must say the kinetic energy formula is tested and proven beyond any reasonable doubt. So that is not why it is favored (even partially). Greendoor does realize how kinetic energy comes from an average that includes zero velocity on p3, (but has more disagreements later). I have found other threads where individuals were attempting to find error in well established laws of physics. "Thinking Bessler found and somehow exploited a flaw."
I say excellent. Best way to learn is by doing. Is it possible that the kinetic energy formula is incomplete at some level? Is some indescribable property there that eludes mankind? Extremely unlikely, but the odds I have to admit are non zero.

Heat is good to warm my home.
Jerk is good to compress the ground.
bounce is good to drill a hole etc.

Again, it is the view of a thing, if it is useful or not.

So an Impact is bad that is the opinion of the most People.
I agree with an direct Impact.

But Bessler used an indirect impact, this is a Little bit different but for the Wheel where 8 noises where heard on the down going side it is absolutely necessary.

George I am sorry, it must be the language translation.
"Jerk" is the "change of acceleration".
"Jounce" is the "change of" jerk. (Not bounce.)
Either way impacts are losses. No matter how slight or fancy, impacts generate heat.

[raj]

Let's say, for arguments sake, that I am a 'Wheel' rolling slowly on a flat path.

Another wheel comes crushing on me at high speed directly on from the FRONT.

This is, for me, is a NEGATIVE impact, causing us to stop. Momentum is LOST.

In another scenario, I am again rolling slowly on a flat path.

Another wheel comes crushing on me at high speed directly from BEHIND.

This is, for me, a POSITIVE impact, hurling me forward to roll forward at a greater speed. Momentum is transferred.

This form of positive impact that I am trying to use in my Self-rotating wheel concept.

Raj

[Georg Künstler]

Hi IamAllergicToEntropy
we have different opinions and also a language Problem, maybe.

I have a different views on things as you have. I know your view as well, this is school knowledge, and with this you cannot solve the riddle.

We repeat only things that the teacher has told us. An view of the teacher, not from nature. We repeat and repeat without seeing it different. Saying we have learned.

The teacher has told you only a part of his knowledge, maybe you are familiar with alpha and Omega, but use it, is a different part.

I tell you here from an indirect impact, and you say impact, yes this is a language problem, maybe.

But for me it is not a language problem, a indirect Impact allows an additional move. This move will go ahead and up.

Your jerk is used different.
a example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram

A stop is causing a lift !! A stop is causing a go ahead !! It allows a Spill !!

A rolling cylinder in a hole(carrier) make exactly the same move. So the hard stop of the carrier is your gain.

The function does not hurt any of your learned physic laws, only the move is different !!

The cylinders which Bessler used are also pendulums, if they are moved in a round recess.

As i said before, if you dont't understand what i am writing here feel free to ask, I will prepare then some examples.


Have a look to post of path_finder
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 2674#82674

It is very closed to that what I am doing. Wheel in Wheel with a blocking mechanism. But I am using a tilt swing to start.

[Fcdriver]

Impacts cause problems, rpm changes change location of impact, too big of a impact causes bounce,,bounce changes timing,,wrong timing causes collision instead of impact, collisions breaks wheel!

Been there done that!
7’ diameter 450 lb wheel spinning at 72 rpm stopping abruptly ,,,breaks wheel,,impacts scary! Not advised

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fcdriver,
of Course a Impact cause a problem if wrongly used, damaging your Wheel structure.
But again, I use an indirect Impact.

To all,

My Wheel, 2 Meters in Diameter, is running with 1 turn every 2 seconds.
The biggest Impact is at the start, when you turn the wheel out of position.

The construction is dimensioned in that way that it can handle
the indirect Impact
easily.

Each of the 80 dowels on the hamster cage have a diameter of 2 cm, Beech Wood.
Have a look to the drawings of Bessler and count the dowels, they are 80.

You can also see the hamster cage as a big gear with internal perforation.

The carrier wheel is therefore not rolling, it is swinging from dowel to dowel.

[Tim Cochran]

Thanks for the welcome, IamAllergicToIntropy.

I've been checking this forum every now and then for years just to see what's new. I like seeing all the effort going into figuring out Bessler's wheel.
What I meant by "infinite distance" is not yet perfectly defined in my mind either but I think it must be calculated as infinite in a perpetual system over infinite time. Over a finite time it would be measured as a finite distance but a positive amount of work.
Traditionally, an object that moves equal distance in opposite directions simultaneously or at different times would be calculated as zero work because of the sign of the distance rather than the absolute value. If we could for some reason take the absolute value of an oscillation (or other repeating event) then net work would be positive.

I have a concept of how to make a weight on a string ALWAYS lower from a pulley adding constant torque to a turning wheel but I haven't figured out all the counter torque values yet.

If anyone is interested, I'll sketch a quick drawing and post it.

[sleepy]

I'm certainly interested in seeing your design. But take your time with the sketch so we can all clearly understand what you're getting at.Looking forward to your post!

[IamAllergicToEntropy]

...This form of positive impact that I am trying to use in my Self-rotating wheel concept.

raj I must ask, where does the EXTRA energy come from? Even though we are talking about impacts, where does it all end? I am assuming the impacts are going to cause a "reset" eventually in the system, and then fall all over again. Even a super elastic impact (amorphous metals) will have a loss. There are suppliers of those materials called bulk metallic glasses (BMGs). There used to be U-tube videos comparing how much better their bounce is. Perhaps you can experiment with that? Exotic things tend to be expensive though.

I have a different views on things as you have. I know your view as well, this is school knowledge, and with this you cannot solve the riddle.

We repeat only things that the teacher has told us. An view of the teacher, not from nature. We repeat and repeat without seeing it different. Saying we have learned.

The riddle, for myself I believe I have solved the riddle. Could I be wrong? Possible, but doubtful. That is why in my first post a few weeks ago, I asked if anyone uses a CNC machine. I am not fortunate to have the physical skills necessary to easily build a Bessler wheel. At the rate I am going, I will be lucky to have even a part of something by the new year. There is no way for me to estimate. Some days are so bad, I can not bother with it. :( At this point I will not freely give away what I do know. I guess it is like the arms race in the cold war of the 1960's. :)

George as for academia, it is not as simple as believing what I am told or read. It is also proof by experience of participating. Witnessing the results of the experiment. From there drawing upon possible conclusions. In those conclusions what is the best theory that makes sense. Learning/forming a mathematical model to predict further outcomes in behavior. Learn by doing.
What helped science (in addition to curiosity) take off, was why we can not have perpetual motion. What is that mysterious caloric that appears in cannon barrels being slowly drilled from ingots; while watching water begin to boil 2 and 1 half hours later that they are immersed in (Rumford). The finality eventually was what we now know as Thermodynamics. This was no easy task. Thousands of individuals, millions of man-hours to achieve this.

Your jerk is used different.
a example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram

All I can say is... what? (my eyes are bulging). ;) George please explain how my description of what jerk is different? A jerk is what it is.

7’ diameter 450 lb wheel spinning at 72 rpm stopping abruptly ,,,breaks wheel,,impacts scary! Not advised

Wow. Any videos?

[spinner361]

Impacts are not necessary as the cause for acceleration and continuous momentum. Impacts may be present, but for other reasons. Try again. This is not what you're looking for. If you really have something, what else is going on?

[ME]

Just for the fun of it...

...it is not as simple as believing what I am told or read. It is also proof by experience of participating. Witnessing the results of the experiment. From there drawing upon possible conclusions. In those conclusions what is the best theory that makes sense.
...
This was no easy task. Thousands of individuals, millions of man-hours to achieve this.

As you now know for a fact, this forum is held together by an unbelievable perpetual stream of assumptions...
Some may have only hoped to repeat what some teacher chalked on that board...if only for the possible grade and praise as return. Yet them teachers didn't not even made-up those theories themselves nor participated in inventing it either: there's simply no creativity whatsoever!? So there goes that excuse! Still it is suspiciously weird that what they taught was taught almost the same all over the world. Totally suspect of like some kind of global conspiracy against young students. On top of that, and besides the variable levels of teacher's enthusiasm, what we were taught was neither complete nor entirely memorable anyway.... so what did we actually learn?
As individual students, we all tried our best to participate and believe...that was not an easy task. The only conclusion to draw from that experiment is that the only out-of-the-box mind-thingy we ended up with is the sheer amount of overflowing frustration!! So that's probably why we are all here.

Lucky that we are now older, wiser, and completely free of all that nonsense and yet, as a flock of grumpy enthusiasts, perfectly capable of verifying what that teacher attempted to convey.
Heck, we should now even be able to acknowledge and understand that (at least) good teachers would be so proud at us for not believing their teachings on merely their innocent blue eyes so long as we also tried a verification attempt or two on our own: should have build some early insight somehow. In hindsight, we know. And with new inspiration and Perpetual Purposes we have now reiterated, checked, tested and reinvented many of that otherwise useless physics and math stuff. We may only now come to realize that simply not believing that teacher (just for the sake of it) was just plain stupid, only to be surpassed by accusation of their misdirection or even outrun when replaced by unverified random assumptions. We so lucky we do not do such thing.

So here are my random unverified assumptions:
- Kinetic energy is defined by mere acceleration;
- Bouncing balls can better explain the operation of an hydraulic ram than rolling cylinders;
- That a jerk is faster than a quickening is not nearly shocking.

The riddle, for myself I believe I have solved the riddle. Could I be wrong? Possible, but doubtful. That is why in my first post a few weeks ago, I asked if anyone uses a CNC machine. I am not fortunate to have the physical skills necessary to easily build a Bessler wheel. At the rate I am going, I will be lucky to have even a part of something by the new year. There is no way for me to estimate. Some days are so bad, I can not bother with it. :( At this point I will not freely give away what I do know

Perhaps not freely, but maybe we could try to change your momentum for a while? :-)

<Silliness OFF>
How can we help to help you to convince yourself?
I guess if you can't CNC the solution then the next best way is to try to proof you current solution wrong.... and hopefully fail at it.
Don't worry, we're all good at failing!

The ever existing dilemma (or riddle): how much are we allowed to know for getting convinced of your solution, but just shy of knowing it.
<Silliness ON>

:-)

[raj]

They all keep repeating that SELF powered motion machine is impossible.

But NO one has said what SHOULD be the minimum physics requirement,hypothetically, to make it possible, in a wildest dream.

Raj

[Tim Cochran]

Hello sleepy,
I posted my concept drawing in a new post called "Creating Infinite Distance inside a wheel."
I'd love to get everyone's take on it. Could the concept be used to unify some of those opposite forces?

[justsomeone]

Raj,

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7832