Gravity, CF, or both?

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

What does the wheel do?

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results

Timothy
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:13 pm
Location: Texas

Gravity, CF, or both?

Post by Timothy »

You are watching Bessler's Gera wheel revolve @ 50+ rpm. There is no covering on the frame so the inner workings are exposed. A switch is thrown turning off gravity to the machine only (can't have you, the observer, floating off). What does the wheel do?
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

Bessler explained that he used felt in an attempt to quiet the Gera wheel. I assume that most of the "excess force" developed by the motions of the weight was normally used to lift the weights OOB. Absent gravity there would be no "lifting" of the weights. Thus the weights would be accelerated much faster and impact much harder.

The wheel would loose its OOB driving force but gain impact pushing force. The total driving force would remain unchanged and thus the wheel speed would remain unchanged. Initially the felt might prevent the wheel from maintaining full speed, but I feel the felt would eventually wear away allowing full speed and the wheel would become much noisier.


Image
Ealadha
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:45 pm

re: Gravity, CF, or both?

Post by Ealadha »

I think the wheel would take off and fly up into the air if you turned gravity off .
Ben
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:33 am

Post by Ben »

Jim,
If there's no lifting, there's also no falling. If the machine is powered by gravity, or "preponderonce" as Bessler said it was, it couldn't run without gravity. Were you pulling our leg?
Ben
User avatar
DrWhat
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:41 pm

Post by DrWhat »

If I am right (which I am of course lol), gravity is needed to raise the subsequent weight via unique leverage (and eventually the third, fourth etc).

The leverage principle is the key to the wheel, but gravity achieves the reset.

Without gravity the wheel slows and stops. Simple as that.
ruggerodk
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:02 am
Location: Scandinavia

re: Gravity, CF, or both?

Post by ruggerodk »

In AP chapter IX (b) - page 324 - the Wagner dispute:
Just because my wheel has weights, I'm not to be
trusted? Get the cataract aired that is blinding all your senses and
learn to draw a distinction between various kinds of weights! Any
conceivable Mobile on this earth has to be constructed from
something - I can't make something out of nothing,
and neither can
you, or even the Devil himself. Listen - my weights are not like
those in turnspits and clocks. They don't need to be raised up - it's a
different arrangement altogether from what you see in mill-wheels,
turnspits and clocks.
Gravity!
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

re: Gravity, CF, or both?

Post by jim_mich »

Bessler lays the facts between his words. He says things that at first look seem to mean one thing, but when looked at from a slightly different view can mean something else. Bessler was trying to keep a secret while speaking only truth. His words have more than one meaning. Always look for the secondary meaning because the primary meaning is often used to hide the secondary meaning.

Bessler talks about preponderance, which basically means more force or strength on one side than on the other side. Preponderance can include forces other than gravity. Out of balance due to gravity is the primary meaning of preponderance. But there is also preponderance of evidence and preponderance of force. Preponderance is not limited to just gravity.

Before one can construct a gravity powered wheel one should study gravity and fully understand it. This seems to be lacking here on the forum. Gravity is a conservative force. It is impossible for gravity to power a perpetual motion wheel. That is a scientific fact. It is why academicians think we are ignorant and delusional. Some source of energy other than gravity must provide the prime moving force. Gravity can be involved, but it is not the source of energy to power Bessler's wheel. You can believe in fairy tails, but it will not make them come true.

---------------------------------

Bessler says his wheel used weights. He says that it had to be constructed from something. You can't make it from nothing. But then he goes on to say they don't need to be lifted up because it is a difference arrangement. Read between the lines. Bessler is saying that gravity is not what powers the wheel. Wagner was talking about lifting and falling weights. Bessler says its different. He says the weights don't need to be raised up. In another writing he tells us the the weights gain their excess force from their motion. In order to rotate a wheel one need a greater force in one direction than in the other direction. One needs a preponderance of force in the forward direction. Preponderance does not always mean gravity.


I'm seldom wrong, but just in case, I reserve the right to be.


Image
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6696
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Gravity, CF, or both?

Post by daxwc »

Listen - my weights are not like
those in turnspits and clocks. They don't need to be raised up - it's a
different arrangement altogether from what you see in mill-wheels,
turnspits and clocks.
We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if the word raised was changed to wound and in this case that was the intent, . Might even be a problem with the translation.
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

it's a different arrangement altogether from what you see in mill-wheels, turnspits and clocks.
Note that he includes mill-wheels, which were turned by falling water and thus were turned by gravity.

Bessler used weights for their inertial-momentum property and not for their gravity-weight property. Clearly Wagner did not understand this aspect. Wagner goes on and on about weights being lifted up and weights falling. Bessler is pulling his hair out in frustration because Wagner does not understand that it is not the rise and fall of weights that powers Bessler's wheel, like with mill-wheels, turnspits and clocks. but rather the in and out motions of the weights, powered by their inertial momentum.


Image
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6696
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Gravity, CF, or both?

Post by daxwc »

I thought there were mill-wheels of that era that used animals to crank up large weights that ran the grinding process on small mills. I will see what information I can find.
What goes around, comes around.
ruggerodk
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:02 am
Location: Scandinavia

Re: re: Gravity, CF, or both?

Post by ruggerodk »

jim_mich wrote:Before one can construct a gravity powered wheel one should study gravity and fully understand it. This seems to be lacking here on the forum. Gravity is a conservative force. It is impossible for gravity to power a perpetual motion wheel. That is a scientific fact. It is why academicians think we are ignorant and delusional. Some source of energy other than gravity must provide the prime moving force. Gravity can be involved, but it is not the source of energy to power Bessler's wheel.
NOT!
Noone has ever proved this as a scientific fact - please direct us all to this documentation, please.
Besides: I don't really understand your argument of 'before'. If it's impossible (IYO as a fact) no matter what, it wouldn't help much to study and fully understand gravity anyhow.
Bessler says his wheel used weights. He says that it had to be constructed from something. You can't make it from nothing. But then he goes on to say they don't need to be lifted up because it is a difference arrangement. Read between the lines. Bessler is saying that gravity is not what powers the wheel.
That's what he is saying according to your opinion. So, lets agree to disagree. You don't have to lift anything up to make gravity work - if you don't believe that, you ought to read more of what is written on the lines.
Remember what Bessler said to Wagner on this matter:
Wagner describes how he thinks my machine is constructed; he
babbles about "excess weights" being snatched along, by means of
"internal motive power", in a frequently-repeated cycle of up and
down movements. According to him, Nature dictates that things
gravitate downwards. But the weights which rest below must, in a
flash, be raised upwards,
and it is this that Wagner cannot force
himself to accept. But, crazy Wagner, just note that that is indeed
the case with my device.
Note that Bessler does not say how far these resting weights are raised.
Wagner was talking about lifting and falling weights. Bessler says its different. He says the weights don't need to be raised up. In another writing he tells us the the weights gain their excess force from their motion. In order to rotate a wheel one need a greater force in one direction than in the other direction. One needs a preponderance of force in the forward direction. Preponderance does not always mean gravity.
What makes you think that gravity can't be a preponderance of force in the forward direction?
Bessler is making a direct reference to the difference between (the use of or principle of) his weights and the ones used in turnspits, clocks and mill-wheels.

ruggero ;-)[/quote]
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
ruggerodk
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:02 am
Location: Scandinavia

Re: re: Gravity, CF, or both?

Post by ruggerodk »

It was a double post, but I just as well fill in something usefull.

In the original quote from Bessler, the german text DOES NOT say anything about raising weight:
Listen - my weights are not like
those in turnspits and clocks. They don't need to be raised up - it's a
different arrangement altogether from what you see in mill-wheels,
turnspits and clocks.
Horch’, mein Gewicht hat andre Spuhren
Als die an Bratenwendern, Uhren. x. NB.
Man darf es nimmer ziehen auf,
Drum ist auch hier ein andr’er Lauf,
Als wie man sieht an den Mühl-Räder,
Und Bratenwendern und Uhr-Feder; x.
Wie du findest im ersten Teil,
Lis’ es, und nimm dir doch die Weil’.
In the first line he says that his weights has different TRACKS/path (they go another way) than the spit, clocks.
Next sentence (bold), means something like "One can go on to say...." "The Drum/Cylinder operates/run in a different way..." "Than one see on mill-wheels..."

I wonder where the 'raising of weights' comes from?
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
justsomeone
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2070
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:21 pm

re: Gravity, CF, or both?

Post by justsomeone »

Quote from Ruggerodk:

jim_mich wrote:
Before one can construct a gravity powered wheel one should study gravity and fully understand it. This seems to be lacking here on the forum. Gravity is a conservative force. It is impossible for gravity to power a perpetual motion wheel. That is a scientific fact. It is why academicians think we are ignorant and delusional. Some source of energy other than gravity must provide the prime moving force. Gravity can be involved, but it is not the source of energy to power Bessler's wheel.

NOT!
Noone has ever proved this as a scientific fact - please direct us all to this documentation, please.
Besides: I don't really understand your argument of 'before'. If it's impossible (IYO as a fact) no matter what, it wouldn't help much to study and fully understand gravity anyhow.
I also await Jim's response. All you need to know about gravity is it pulls down and it takes the same amount of energy to lift the weight back up. This still doesn't rule out a gravity powered device!
. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills.
justsomeone
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2070
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:21 pm

re: Gravity, CF, or both?

Post by justsomeone »

Gravity, CF, or both?


Both are part of the system but I believe a load could have been put on Bessler's wheel to slow rotation to a slow crawl. GRAVITY POWER baby!
. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

justsomeone wrote:All you need to know about gravity is it pulls down and it takes the same amount of energy to lift the weight back up. This still doesn't rule out a gravity powered device!
A weight falling and then rising back up does not gain any energy. A PM wheel needs extra energy from somewhere. That extra energy cannot come from gravity because a weight falling and then rising back up does not gain any energy. This is a scientific fact. It is very well known. It is taught in every physics classroom. Because of this well known fact a PM wheel cannot use gravity as an energy source. I don't know how to put it more clearly.

In my opinion there is an alternate method whereby a PM wheel can gain excess energy by using CF to manipulate inertial momentum.


Image
Post Reply