The application of Bessler’s Physics to Bessler’s problem!

[rlortie]

Dax,

I never stipulated that energy was created, only work was done. You may not realize it but if rotational energy is used and this can be seen by the movement of mass in the tides then this IMO confirms that work was accomplished.

Mass was moved and energy exploited, all the ingredients described as doing work.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

In order for work to be done, the force mustn't be perpendicular to the direction. In orbits, gravitational force is perpendicular to the orbit (for the hundredth time, lol).
Same for any circular motion;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(phys ... int_forces

[oldNick]

[quote="Trevor Lyn Whatford"]Hi All,

This Forum should be a place to be thinking outside of know physics, because Bessler’s wheel would have changed physics, we should be applying Bessler’s physics to Bessler’s problem, not Newton’s Physics!

Too many threads are being derailed using known Physics. If Bessler’s wheel was a Gravity wheel then Gravity would not be known as a conservative force! If Bessler wheel was a Perpetual Motion Machine then a larger section of known physics would have been change.

This forum should be a place for open friendly discussion, people are frightened to throw their ideas in, as they fear ridicule. We all should try harder to make this forum a more warm and friendly place to bring Ideas!

We are all in the same boat so lets not throw the paddle out, you know what that will lead to!

Sorry for this rant but I feel better now!

With much respect to all here, Trevor

Well said Trevor,

Has anyone given any more thought to the what I call the Bessler principle? because I believe I have discovered it or rediscovered it because I fobbed it off as something I did wrong years ago.

I would like to bet most people have encountered the Bessler principle and never thought to ask why.

Give me 3-4 weeks to deconstruct the wheel I was building and construct a new one.

If it works we could be in for a wind fall.

If it fails then I will show you the principle, and see how you fair.

[rlortie]

Normally I shy away from these space time orbiting threads. I am now kicking myself for getting involved here.

If perpendicular to the direction means no work is done, then what force is used to create tides and a Berry center? Mass is moved and energy consumed, can we have it both ways?

I agree that a physical centripetal constraint does no work, but the gravitational centripetal force or strength between earth and moon is weakening as it is utilized. Thus allowing the moon to increase in orbit. Once this force weakens far enough the moon will take of in a tangent with Trevor's trajectory "A"

My last post on this thread!

Ralph

[daxwc]

Trevor:

Too many threads are being derailed using known Physics.

I don’t think too many threads are being derailed by known physics. What needs to be done is find an anomaly of normal physics through the physics themselves. Show me some kind of unanswered energy gain with only gravity as an input and related to physics. What do you wish the members to lie to other members seeking help with physics or builds just to pump up their ego? There is no use building the same wheel over and over again unless the builder needs to build it to come to terms with the physics. Threads get derailed because the physics and builds are false.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Absurdity is what I like most in life, and there's humor in struggling in ignorance. If you saw a man repeatedly running into a wall until he was a bloody pulp, after a while it would make you laugh because it becomes absurd.
David Lynch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation ... sLoRxVfT4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59qniggFpFQ


PS. As to your title, I have never seen anywhere any physics that was Besslers. What exactly do you mean?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi oldNick,

Firstly, good luck with your device!

You should get your self some protection and apply for a patent, even if you intend to share if at leased you have proof it is yours, phone up the patent office and they will send you a kit, I am not sure but I think it is free until your 12 month are up, and then you have to go to the next stage. As soon as they receive your application they send you a priority date, this give you 12 month to prove the design, its all in the kit anyway! Do not tell any one until you have your date, and not even then, as you may need to make changes.
Its funny though, most of my failures have led to my best designs, that’s why I like building, as it shows you things you would not of known about!

Anyway, good luck and best wishes.

With respect Trevor

[cloud camper]

Wow - I agree with Dax for the first time ever I think.

I believe we can leave the rules rather loose for presenting/discussing oddball theories but we need to have some standard to judge them by and unfortunately that means physics.

This field of study has been painfully developed at enormous cost and effort but shows that the universe is understandable to a degree.

It's a difficult subject which is why most people don't study it but I believe we must correct individuals when they display a divergent concept to known and understood principles.

But when someone then claims or implies to have a running machine we must then spend the effort to see what their understanding really is of the principles on which their claimed device is based.

If their understanding is obviously flawed, then computer programs based on flawed theory are immediately suspect.

At this point of claiming a running system, the focus must be shifted from a personality based credibility system to a strictly physics based evaluation.

This is how the peer review system operates in science. If one has a new theory, one then presents it to his peers to see if they have any issues based on known and agreed upon previously existing principles in their field.

The further the new theory diverges from known good data, the more scrutiny will be applied. If obvious mistakes are being made based on faulty understanding of principles, these must be corrected before the theory moves on.

If these individuals are incapable of being corrected on the basic principles on which their theory is based, we must then suspect these individuals are blinded by their belief system and are incapable of seeing things any differently.

We see this behavior all the time on the forum so it shouldn't be shocking to find out that even popular personalities on the forum have similar issues.

Endless repeated rants and tirades about a singular issue should be a red flag for all of us. Unwillingness to consider any viewpoints but their own is another.

The point is that as claimants get more and more insistent about their theories, we must abandon personality based evaluations and exponentially raise the physics based arguments as this is the ultimate language of all physical processes.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Daxwc,

You will not find anomaly’s that contravenes Known physics, working in the confines of Known physics, if you are only looking inside the box, how will you know what’s outside the box! I would not have built one single wheel.

Bessler's physics is the physics that would have been if he showed his wheel in seventeen hundreds, if it was a out of balance wheel for example, that would have derailed a large section of Newton’s work, and gravity could not of been made a conservative force, also the energy laws would have been different, in fact they may have not even bothered with the energy law!

Hi Ec1, thanks for your input! I will reply tomorrow!

Regard Trevor

[rlortie]

The Euler equations first appeared in published form in Euler's article “Principes généraux du mouvement des fluides,� published in Mémoires de l'Academie des Sciences de Berlin in 1757. They were among the first partial differential equations to be written down. At the time Euler published his work, the system of equations consisted of the momentum and continuity equations, thus it was underdetermined except in the case of an incompressible fluid. An additional equation, which was later to be called the adiabatic condition, was supplied by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1816.

During the second half of the 19th century, it was found that the equation related to the conservation of energy must at all times be kept, while the adiabatic condition is a consequence of the fundamental laws in the case of smooth solutions. With the discovery of the special theory of relativity, the concepts of energy density, momentum density, and stress were unified into the concept of the stress-energy tensor, and energy and momentum were likewise unified into a single concept, the energy-momentum vector.

Why must the laws of energy be kept when Euler and Danial Bernoulli both leave with an assumption?

There's a crack in the door and someone is going to find it.

Ralph

[Grimer]

...
Does the earth and moon's gravity actually do work? IMO it does, it creates movement in tides and effects what is called the "Berry Center". this I see as work, movement of mass in time has been accomplished.
...

Strawberry and raspberry? ;-)

Baricentre (or barycenter for our US cousins).

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

Hi Daxwc,

"Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must first be overcome."
- Samuel Johnson

Hi Ec1,
I cut the string and everything is working fine now lol!

Hi Ralph, not so much as a crack, the door is wide open, its Just that most are scared of what they will find on the other side!

with respect, Trevor

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

There will always be changes in Orbits but this is just natural adjustments, there would be a winding down as some of the systems mass is used as fuel for fusion energy (simplified ).

The force of gravity is related to the size of the Mass so this dictates the position of the Planets Orbits, small losses in mass means the Orbits will be adjusted, if there was no input energy from Gravity the winding down of Orbits to a stop would have happened long ago, in my opinion gravity does do work on the planets to “sustain� motion and Orbits and work is a energy input!

Tides are a very good guide to the energy inputs from gravity’s. Putting things in prospective, I would guess the collective raise in height of the fluid mass each day would be larger than the total Mass of the moon, and this has happened nearly twice a day for billions of years! In my opinion this can only be accounted for by a energy inputs, as it is clear work has been done! Moving that sort of volume of fluid that the moon does in one day, would probably take more than all of the man made energy for the last hundred years!

Regards Trevor
Edit, in one day.

[daxwc]

Trevor Quotes:

Putting thing in prospective, I would guess the collective raise in height of the fluid mass each day would be larger than the total Mass of the moon, and this has happened nearly twice a day for billions of years!

Just when I thought I heard everything; this is the same as saying as pendulum winds down it is making energy, because the total times it went up with the mass is larger than the pendulum mass. Forget looking at planet orbits for free energy.

You will not find anomaly’s that contravenes Known physics, working in the confines of Known physics, if you are only looking inside the box, how will you know what’s outside the box! I would not have built one single wheel.

You have not built a single wheel that works either. Wheels need to be built then understood why they don’t work. Then take the basic problem and attack it as it relates to physics. For example using any mechanical advantage in a wheel causes force for distance trade off; so you should be able to explain or calculate why you are beating it this time. To go on building wheels with the same fatal flaw is like Albert Einstein’s insanity related to running into a brick wall. The chances of finding perpetual motion using this method is the same as winning the Power Ball Lottery with one big disadvantage; you didn’t buy a ticket.

You will not find anomaly’s that contravenes Known physics, working in the confines of Known physics.

Bessler doesn’t even agree with you.

"this principle, in itself so simple, and yet at the same time so deeply hidden, of everlasting motion, described in total detail and in mathematical simplicity DT pg 210"




Come on Trevor, I am not sure you realise physics has moved along since Newton.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Dawwc,

Tidal energy!

And for the record, I believe very strongly you cannot create energy, only transfer it!

The rest is not worth a response!

[daxwc]

Tidal energy!

Tidal energy! Is not free energy or perpetual motion!

And for the record, I believe very strongly you cannot create energy, only transfer it!

Why are you always contradicting yourself !!! Also, yelling something doesn’t make it more true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!