Another claim to a working device...

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

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Another claim to a working device...

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Art,

I think it is just a rich mans build that's all.

It is more likely that we spend a bigger percent of our money on builds than he has.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

Art wrote:Hi Grimer ,

My use of the word 'straight' leverage is probably a bit inapropriate there.
What I meant was 'simple' leverage in the sense of a system of rigidly connected levers -[not that the levers are straight and also not that its all that simple :) ]

Sorry one word can make a big difference in meaning sometimes !.

I believe a system of rigidly connected levers on their own cannot output more energy than the input ,whether that input is mechanical effort or gravitational force . If there are additional features in the system such as pendulum , spring or magnetic buffering devices etc included then I'm not so sure . Buffering devices can change the time factor in the momentum equations , - and that's a different ball game !

On re-looking at that link to David Haack's article I notice that Dan Chapman points out in a post made on 18Dec that the telescopic arm appears to have what looks like a solenoid built into it .He posts three images of it which show IMO that the arm has the ability to change its lenghth presumably during a cycle .

I would have to say that it doesn't now look to me like a simple [or 'straight' :)] leverage system . Makes it a good deal more complicated trying to figure out whats going on (or not as the case may be )

What we are missing is a little bit of hard data from RAR . The constant addition of these images without discussion of them by RAR appears to me to be a justification for keeping the website and project open for whatever reason .Maybe we are just looking at a billionaire's project lab. workbook without the notes ! : )
Just think of the fun they could have though if they commented on each image in the same manner that Bessler comments on his M.T.s' !
From what I remember of the original iteration it had a spring in it so maybe that solenoid is a kind of spring.

What they should do is give us a video of the models working.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

But Grimmer, this is a gravity-driven device, and gravity PM never works. So you will never see the model working. This is simple a rich-kids toy.

Image
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Another claim to a working device...

Post by ME »

But Jim, such comment is as offensive as the attacks on your motionwheel.

At least you could show Grimer where things might fail so he either can try to circumvent the issue or see the futility.

-just my opinion-
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

Marchello,
Jim_Mich wrote:this is a gravity-driven device,
This is simply a truthful statement. Nothing attacking Grimmer.
Jim_Mich wrote:and gravity PM never works.
This is simply a truthful statement. Nothing attacking Grimmer.
Jim_Mich wrote:So you will never see the model working.
This is simply a logically truthful statement, based upon the first two truths.
Jim_Mich wrote:This is simple a rich-kids toy.
The machine in question is being built and rebuilt by the sons of a very rich man.

So you see, Marchello, I posted nothing derogatory toward Grimmer. I did not personally attack Grimmer. I did not attack any idea posted by Grimmer. I simply posted that this machine, built by the rich kids, will never work.

I could waste time and effort analyzing the motions of this machine, but in the end it would be wasted time, because it is expected to harness gravity, and gravity is conservative, and thus can't re-supply motion.

Image
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Another claim to a working device...

Post by ME »

hmm ok, perhaps not personal to Grimer (one 'm').

According to physics PM's should never work by existing physics-definitions; therefore all PM-research effort is futile by definition.
Yet we are here. So we have to loosen up some of the definitions, we don't know which one(s).
Until everyone on earth is able to confirm Perpetual Principles by having an actual running model, the physics defs. still stand.
When stating something doesn't work by mere principles of physics (which is correct by definition) is the same as collapsing the loosened principles; which is incorrect by PM-research principles (as far as they exist anyway).
It's a matter of eeehm... principle. :-)

By the way 'rich-kids' also need a hobby, they could have done much worse.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Another claim to a working device...

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Jim-Mich,

At least gravity is a real force, what you intend to use in your device is fictitious forces they are not there until they are created, In nature these fictitious forces normal come into being because of the work done by Gravity acting on mass in motion, and gravity even accelerating mass in motion. A slight push of the hand will not be enough to bring your fictitious forces to life with any real strength. So one could say your device is a Fictitious Device, and not a Gravity Device.

I am not trolling in anyway, just pointing it out.

The world already taps gravity to make energy and that is the truth. but can you show me one device that now makes energy using the fictitious forces you intend to use.

In short you are suggesting most hear should stop there search for devices using Gravity, a known Universal prime move which shapes our Universe and drives it, and powers tidal energy, and hydro energy, and instead follow your advice and start looking at driving their devices with a force that is not even there.

Sorry Jim, I am not going to abandon the usable force of Gravity for a Fictitious force.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

re: Another claim to a working device...

Post by jim_mich »

This pisses me off. Making claims that CF is not a real force, simply because academicians classify it as being "fictitious". CF is just as real is any other force. A FORCE is a FORCE is a FORCE.

CF is a manifestation of momentum. Momentum is in the form of circular motion. The CF caused by the momentum of the weights can be manipulated. It is standard known physics that if you have a mechanical device that allows spontaneous change of momentum between two equal weights then the total kinetic energy of the two weights will not be conserved. But the total momentum of the two weights will follow Newton's laws of motion and will be conserved.

You say that "a slight push of the hand will not be enough to bring your fictitious [CF's] forces to life with any real strength. But I say you don't know what you are talking about. You are like the blind leading the blind.
TLW wrote: but can you show me one device that now makes energy using the fictitious forces you intend to use.
Yes, in just a few days. Except I'll need to keep the secret covered. Which won't help you one bit, will it? Will it?
TLW wrote:In short you are suggesting most hear should stop there search for devices using Gravity, a known Universal prime move which shapes our Universe and drives it, and powers tidal energy, and hydro energy, and instead follow your advice and start looking at driving their devices with a force that is not even there.
You need not stop on my account. But I do suggest you open you eyes to other possibilities.

Yes, gravity causes motions of planets and moves tides, which can be harnessed, but in doing so you are not harnessing gravity. You are harnessing the motions of the Earth and Moon, which cause undulating gravity forces.
TLW wrote:Sorry Jim, I am not going to abandon the usable force of Gravity for a Fictitious force.
But gravity is not a usable force, except with tidal forces.

Image
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
sleepy
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:53 pm
Location: earth

re: Another claim to a working device...

Post by sleepy »

Jim
Are you saying you are on to something that might work? Can't wait to hear about your progress.Please keep us posted,even if nothing comes of it.I have always been intrigued by your ideas.
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

To be fair to Jim I think he is doing the forum a service by drawing attention to the overriding importance of Ersatz Gravity (EG).

If you unwind a rotating ring like Laithwaite did with his linear motor and lay it out flat then one can appreciate that the EG has a gradient from floor to ceiling, the floor being the inside of the ring and the ceiling being the centre. Moving "up" and "down" in the EG field gives us a oscillating wave which suggests the possibility of rectification by introducing a valve(s) such as a one way clutch.

It's a bit like the Mercator map projection where the north pole runs along the top of the map.

Now we don't have any such gradient for Newtonian Gravity (NG), at least, not with the range that we can use with earth bound machinery.

I believe that Jim has instinctively recognised the importance of this gradient but that he has carried the idea too far by excluding the influence of NG - which I believe is necessary as a kind of catalyst for EG.

Which is a big pity since it was he who drew attention to the connection between 360° rotation of a weight in the vertical plane and Bessler's statement about one pound being able to lift four pounds.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

And I've since disavowed that the one to four has any significance. If the weight is already moving as it passes over the top, the force at the bottom will be greater than one to four. And if the falling weight gives up energy to the wheel as it falls then the force at the bottom will be less than one to four. Thus the one to four ratio matching Bessler one to four ratio was simply a random situation.

But CF does change according to change of velocity, whereas gravity is a fixed force. Thus you can manipulate CF but you can't manipulate gravity.

Image
Fcdriver
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:07 am
Location: gloucester, va
Contact:

Post by Fcdriver »

You do understand that the Bessler wheel was hollow, this means the weights did not rotate around with the wheel. The wheel is just a leverage point. The rim for a power stroke, the axle for a lifting stroke.
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

jim_mich wrote:...
But CF does change according to change of velocity, whereas gravity is a fixed force. Thus you can manipulate CF but you can't manipulate gravity.
Just so. You can also manipulate the distance of the weights from the centre of rotation as well.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Another claim to a working device...

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Jim_mich,

Your quotes,
This pisses me off. Making claims that CF is not a real force, simply because academicians classify it as being "fictitious". CF is just as real is any other force. A FORCE is a FORCE is a FORCE.
Sorry Jim, CF has to be created and is not a real force until a certain set of circumstances are put in place, until then CF is fictitious, If CF is Mechanically produced, it first requires a force or energy input to bring it into existence (Edit, by rotating the device), there after CF requires energy or force inputs to sustain it existence (Edit, to sustain rotation). To move mass (Weights) against any force requires a input of energy or force. CF will only pull the mass outward, then you will need to input energy or force if you want to move the mass in any other direction than outward.
Yes, in just a few days. Except I'll need to keep the secret covered. Which won't help you one bit, will it? Will it?
No it will not help me one bit or anybody comes to that, "A working wheel is only days away" that may even be true, but it will not come from a fictitious force driven wheel.
You need not stop on my account. But I do suggest you open you eyes to other possibilities.
I am always looking at other possibilities as well as Gravity. I looked at using CF years ago and my conclusion was, CF is not practical for weight shift design because of the force needed to move the weights against CF. CF could be used in externally driven devices to operate levers, to keep a steady constant torque force on them. I do use CF to govern the speed of my gravity designs, just by letting CF do its thing.

Jim, do not try and bluff me, it may work on most people here, but I have done way too many builds and experiments to be hoodwinked into believing in your device. I have seen your parts list and that is all I needed to known it will not work.

Edit, Jim, I do know what I am talking about, it is just that it is not what you want to hear!
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

It's really simple: Centrifugal force is considered "fictitious" in regards to the notion that it is misleading. "Centrifugal" describes the gravitational anti-equivalent of the "Normal" force, always denoted by the letter "N" at the top of the Y-axis on every standard force-vector diagram. It is defined as moving directly away from the center of rotation: outward from it. And thus, it has been justly termed "fictitious" as it has been known for many hundreds of years that this is simply not the case. It is the Newtonian tendency of objects to move in a straight line unless a NET FORCE ACTS (if this sounds familiar it's because it's the first law of motion). Therefore and hence and whatnot... the net force required to act to KEEP a body rotating about a center is Centripetal Force (this would be the one that is NOT misleading.) Why is centripetal NOT misleading? Have you ever seen a projectile leave a slingshot BEFORE the sling itself was released? And there you have it. And if that never convinced you then here's the kicker: if centrifugal force were a real force, then that means you would never be able to aim with a slingshot or any other type of rotating projectile launching device, as once it was released, would keep ON rotating around the center while moving further and further away. Does that make any sense? Of course not. So....there IS no force that exists that seeks to move an object radially outward from a center of rotation.
Post Reply