TV Show

[Sam Peppiatt]

ME, Just to reiterate: The theoretical speed /rpm (no load) of a gravity wheel minus a small amount for friction in depended on the acceleration do to gravity. And you are right there is little or no math involved. Like so:
rpm=16ft / C x 60. 16 feet is a constant. This is how far a weight will move in one sec. given an acceleration of 32ft/ sec. starting from zero. It is derived by the following formula: d = 1/2 x a x t sq. So: .5 x 32 x 1sq = 16ft, C is the circumference of the wheel, 60 is the number of sec. in one minuet.

The reason for using one sec. is the acceleration isn't constant as it would be for a free falling body. Where the velocity does accumulate. On a gravity wheel the acceleration, the downward force do to gravity, is interrupted every revolution. Each revolution it has to start over, therefore it has to start from zero each time. Hence one sec or 16 ft. S. Peppiatt, LYDIA

[John doe]

I see I am missing something and or you are testing me, either way I'm missing your point or jest. Currently my plate (mentally,physically,temporally) is rather full and I don't have the extra resources especially of the mental and trmporal type to spend figuring out your question/jest/test? But I will gladly take a rain check for a rainy day.

[Sam Peppiatt]

ME, Follow up. No; you can never explain "that math-stuff" to me. NO one can type that slow! But thanks! Sam Peppiatt

LYDIA

[ME]

I'm not testing you; It's just nonsense.

I'm not saying G's are the only measurement but since we are looking at if it was gravity powered it seems that there would be a relationship to 1g or possibly there was an acceleration of 1g which is 32.2 fps. Unless it's just a coincidence...

1. How did you determine that wheel (not some falling weight) accelerated with 32.2 ft/s^2? - that thought must come from somewhere.
2. What is the "coincidence"? - does it relate to the given RPM's - it actually does but 1 G is acceleration [ft/s^2] and RPM's is velocity [ft/s], so we could apply the formula I tried to explain to Sam;

it only needs a little more math than that:

And you are right there is little or no math involved

The math I showed was "little", but it's actually more complex.
I somewhat showed what happens when acceleration is not constant
If you can't follow such math, the rest is just arbitrary

The reason for using one sec. is the acceleration isn't constant as it would be for a free falling body.

The 1 second is an example of being just arbitrary, and I showed -by using your own formula correctly- your resulting RPM's are way off.

No; you can never explain "that math-stuff" to me.

I'm puzzled; if you don't understand the math, why use it in the first place as it doesn't proof a thing.

We could assume a constant acceleration, for the sake of simplicity;
Velocity would constantly increase over time, as that's what acceleration is;
This means: as long as there is an acceleration the velocity can not be constant;

And why would the acceleration be less than 1 G: because of inertia.
A pendulum situated horizontally connected to some pivot with some mass-less rod or string would accelerate with 1 G. But because such connection has mass and friction or is actually some mechanism or wheel, it will be less than 1 G. And because we actually want it to drive the wheel (which also has mass), the acceleration will be less than that. And because there are obviously some other weights to be moved around (in some yet unknown way), they will add to the total inertia, so that acceleration will once again be less.

Ah well I tried. Signing off now....
Perhaps some TV-show is able to do a better job.

[Sam Peppiatt]

ME, I stand corrected. Sam Peppiatt

Live Your Days Inspired Anew, LYDIA

[ME]

"Corrected" is a bit strong I guess, I just tried to show the implication of your usage of math with unfounded conclusions.
But it very well might be your line of thinking could result in something that works while I keep tripping over all that math, who knows.

Marchello E.

[John doe]

I'm not arguing with you. Ok one time can be a coincidence. 2 times is shows correlation ? Then the smaller wheels would work out the same?

[ME]

As you make such statement, I just ask how that came to be.
I see zero correlation, perhaps you can shine some light on it.

[John doe]

https://www.polyplastics.com/en/pavilio ... umn01.html

I realize this is for pendulums but since PMM wheels do not exist they cannot be applied but if they did exist then I believe the same formulas would apply.

[WaltzCee]

PS, sense your are an ME, with your math skills, there must be a relationship between the acceleration do to gravity and the no load speed of Bessler's wheels. It could prove they did run on gravity. I've tried but can't quite put it together.

phee phi phoe phum, I smell sock puppets.

Having said that, has anyone tried using wm2d to resolve this question?

[John doe]

I'm not testing you; It's just nonsense.

I'm not saying G's are the only measurement but since we are looking at if it was gravity powered it seems that there would be a relationship to 1g or possibly there was an acceleration of 1g which is 32.2 fps. Unless it's just a coincidence...

1. How did you determine that wheel (not some falling weight) accelerated with 32.2 ft/s^2? - that thought must come from somewhere.
2. What is the "coincidence"? - does it relate to the given RPM's - it actually does but 1 G is acceleration [ft/s^2] and RPM's is velocity [ft/s], so we could apply the formula I tried to explain to Sam;

it only needs a little more math than that:

And you are right there is little or no math involved

The math I showed was "little", but it's actually more complex.

The reason for using one sec. is the acceleration isn't constant as it would be for a free falling body.

We could assume a constant acceleration, for the sake of simplicity;
Velocity would constantly increase over time, as that's what acceleration is;
This means: as long as there is an acceleration the velocity can not be constant;

And why would the acceleration be less than 1 G: because of inertia.
A pendulum situated horizontally connected to some pivot with some mass-less rod or string would accelerate with 1 G. But because such connection has mass and friction or is actually some mechanism or wheel, it will be less than 1 G. And because we actually want it to drive the wheel (which also has mass), the acceleration will be less than that.

I don't believe this is a true statement. But I believe it is the crux of the problem if that helps. 😂
Math is good for explaining known variables but if you change the variables you change the equation. According to math physics and science it's not possible and they are right . The math they use supports it.
How did they determine these formulas? Observation and experiments. Once pmm is explained to them then they will watch it and sit down and rewrite the formulas or create new ones to explain it.
The formulas only work for known variables,change the variables ever so slightly and you change the end result.

[John doe]

Reverse engineer it.
If you assume besslers wheel was true and there "appears" to be a correlation between the size of the wheel and the rotation rate of the wheel and gravity what would this formula look like. Once you answer that you move on to the next variable and so on..., pretty soon you have your pmm wheel!

Your welcome.

[John doe]

No argument no discussion not even a thank you? I feal so cheap and used!😢😢😢

[ME]

Oh sorry, busy with other things.
But I don't known what you are trying to say.

Math is good for explaining known variables but if you change the variables you change the equation.

In that case you create a formula with changing variables....
Math is flexible and versatile enough, basic physics formulas only show the standard situations which should still be applicable even after PMM is reinvented; they are as flexible as math, and perhaps not all combinations are tried yet.
I think (and calculated) that wheel (actually all of them) accelerated a fraction of 1 G, you think otherwise. We can start a Yes/No-discussion or wait until it's reverse engineered.

[John doe]

May I ask what the fraction was?