Intresting read, thoughts? copy url

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

Moderator: scott

t
Dabbler
Dabbler
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:02 am

Intresting read, thoughts? copy url

Post by t »

MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Good chance he's genuine IMHO.

The references to what i've been calling "continuous" and "pulsing" are obviously the same elements he's on about, and signified by Bessler's use of the square and circle metaphors. What he calls a "gliding" element, i call a 'flyweight' or just flywheel.

I suspect that like this guy, Bessler too stumbled across it by accident - since he says that upon realising what he'd done, he suddenly understood why it worked, and why all other attempts had been futile.

The basic mechanism looks a lot like a typical OB attempt - masses alternate inner and outer positions, synchronised with a 90° angular offset. However, rather than varying the relative weight either side of the axle (which happens anyway but is incidental), the working principle is varying the angular inertia.

Pulsing an MoI change breaks it up into a sequence of accelerations and decelerations, and thus their corresponding counter-forces and accelerations, and it is these that i believe are being offset against those corresponding to a GPE interaction. This GPE interaction itself remains symmetrical, but provides an indepent internal means of trading energy for momentum - and it is a directional asymmetry of momentum that is responsible for the energy gain.

What our mutual colleague here appears to have taken notice of is the acceleration of the 'underbalancing' mass in the 'wrong' direction. It doubtless accelerated backwards because its opposing "OB" weight was bouncing back up after keeling, however as it was drawn inwards its MoI was converted to RPM.

It is implicit that the experiments in question involved weights moving in and out on armatures with orbiting axes - ie. offering them a degree of angular freedom independently of the main wheel axis, as well as their linear radial freedom to slide in and out.

The "gliding element" must be the heavy angular inertia required for 'changing up' a given amount of energy for more momentum than it currently represents. As i was showing just yesterday, tapping off this kind of energy gain also removes copious system momentum. So some means of repleneshing that from within is implied - it's really all about momentum gain, and the energy gain is almost secondary.

If this guy really does have it, i wish him God speed. He's gonna need it though, cos i'm not hanging about here.. ;)
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

...LOL, i suspect that by "gliding" he's not simply refering to 'coasting', but rather the concept of harnessing thermals.

The thermals in question here are simply the MoI-to-RPM gradients.

Rather than gaining altitude, what's wanted is velocity. Boost the energy value of a given momentum, then re-invest it in even more momentum. The amount of momentum a given quantity of energy can buy is arbitrary.

No direct energy asymmetry is possible from MoI-induced accelerations alone, since whatever you add on the way in, you subtract again on the way back out. But even if an asymmetry was possible, tapping such an energy gain from the axle would drain its momentum too. It wouldn't 'like' loads applied to the axle. But Bessler's wheels did.

The trick has to involve adding more momentum, and this can only be done by converting the KE of a given momentum into PE, and then re-investing that PE in the acceleration of a greater mass, albeit to lower speed, but thus greater momentum.

Then you need to accelerate that raised momentum... and then you have a KE rise that can be creamed off without sacrificing all of your system momentum.

This is the key - the realisation that even if we could generate an inertial asymmetry, tapping the resultant RKE gain would also mean tapping off the system momemtum, which obviously means the putative gain's worthless.

It doesn't matter if we can convert 1 J of input work into 100 J of output RKE on the wheel, if tapping off that 99 J 'gain' also necessarily means tapping off 99% of the system momentum..! Do you follow? It'd be fools gold..

Only if we can convert that 99 J gain into manifest momentum, there within the wheel, can we tap off the gain along with the excess momentum. Without excess momentum, an RKE gain cannot be tapped off at the axle as Bessler was doing.
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

Post by ME »

Makes sense, as you can only tap momentum (without stopping the wheel) when the wheel/mechanism has the ability to accelerate.
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Intresting read, thoughts? copy url

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi all,

I am not so sure about this report. Why would you need funding for a bigger wheel when you already had a small working prototype, that to me is job done, sell the secret then you can build your bigger wheel and lots more. I personalty would not want to risk a life times work being lost.

A Constant or pulsing one sided out of balance wheels will accelerate very quickly, the wheel would have a constant or pulsing falling of the out of balance weight on the descending side, which makes the wheel a rotating lever always falling due to the inferior under balance on the ascending side of the wheel. Why pulsing? I would think that would be down to the number of components and the degrees of positive work, they would move toward the optimum position and away from the optimum position, followed by the next one in the cycle.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
WaltzCee
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3361
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Huntsville, TX
Contact:

Re: Intresting read, thoughts? copy url

Post by WaltzCee »

http://originalbesslerwheel.my-free.website/
Why would you need funding for a bigger wheel when you already had a small working prototype
?

That's a very good question.

CONTACT
Tel: +64 210643871

Any one in that neck of the woods?
Last edited by WaltzCee on Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
........................¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

In retrospect Trev i think you may be right - IIRC, last we heard from this guy, he was on about the importance of circumventing N3. Same blather i always bang on about. Next he's on about pulsing vs constant motions - same thing i've been on about the last few weeks. Any confirmation bias i have here could simply be yanking my own chain.. ie. agreeing with someone rephrasing my own recent thoughts.. LOL i'm prolly being paranoid..

Still, from his description, it's decidedly lacking in anything indicating technical comprehension skills. No mention of the form of energy asymmetry, no mention of energy or momentum or inertia or anything substantive or objective or empirical, aside from the stated dimensions and speed. Does he still maintain that this 'pulsing vs constant' principle as part of his previously-reported N3 exception? Why not even a mention of the variability of MoI?

As much as i want to believe someone has it already, anyone, whomever... wherever... i'm so weary of folks claiming to have-it-but-it's-super-secret-but-you'll-all-see-i'm-right-SOON (tm), i'm running out of benefit of doubt..

FWIW, pulsing is interesting because it's one of the means of varying effective angular inertia - ie. the amount of mass being accelerated through the amount of space per given angle of rotation. This means there's corresponding counterforces, which are half the currency we're supposed to be playing with.

Basically there's two types of statorless acceleration we might apply within a rotating system in order to apply inertial torques; linear, and angular actions.

Bessler seems to have been using both, and offsetting forces from one interaction, against counter-forces from another.. or something along these lines.

All such torques are transient - nothing on-board is spinning up like a turbine, there's relative actions and reactions and thus accelerations and decelerations, so it is already implicit and trivial that the system will depend upon 'pulsing' or simply varying force / time conditions (a pre-requisite per Noether's theorem).

In terms of simple thermodynamics, the corollary to the point that a closed loop through a static field yields zero energy, is that a non-zero sum requires a time-variant field rendering the forces in question.

So any 'pulsing' action opens the door to these time-dependent force / distance integrals, and the possibility of mis-matched input vs output conditions. A rate of change differential, perhaps, between angular vs linear inertially-induced torques, or soomething..

Another example might involve setting positive torque against negative counter-torque, or something, to try cause additive vs subtractive interference between a sequence that would otherwise cancel.

So each individual pulse, or pair of pulses, could represent a discrete gain interaction, constantly gaining some uncancelled momentum each pulse, or something..

Another point i highlighted yesterday is that we may be inevitably facing a system comprised of two main masses, each the other's inertial frame, each with a variable MoI, and a cyclical trade of momentum and energy between them. As explained already, simply raising the energy value of a conserved momentum is fools gold. No matter how categorically free and real the gain, even if calorimetry and everything proves it, when we come to actually harness it, in it's current form of RKE... tapping off that RKE also taps off the system momentum! After scooping off the gain, the system would have as much energy as it began with... but only a fraction of its original momentum!

So in reductio ad absurdum, the form of gain must principally involve the internal generation of new momentum.

And this can only occur within a closed system by re-investing energy in fresh momentum - which necessarily means converting the KE of a relative motion into PE (such as by raising a weight or loading a spring), and then outputting that PE into a heavier mass, and so investing it in greater momentum for a given velocity.

"Heavier mass" in a rotating system is synonymous and interchangable with "greater radius" - ie. we'd need to have two masses of variable MoI, and they'd need to be stationary relative to one another when exchanging energies for momentums.

So that to me seems a rather compelling reason for pulsing torques. You need relative motion, but alternating phases of relative stasis, in order to trade energy for momentum, and you have to keep generating more momentum if your primary form of energy output is RKE directly from the axle.

It only seems all hand-wavy because i don't know what the flip i'm on about, exactly.. we're in that vague zone where pure theory meets circumstantial conjecture.. but in terms of the raw elements, a genuine contender will be a system in which the forces and thus energies are time and thus speed-dependent.

Anything consistent with these facts is warmer than anything that isn't, but at the same time, you'd think someone really intimately familiar with such subtleties would be using slightly more discerning terms than "gliding" and "pulsing" - superficial descriptions of the actual engineering parameters.. granted this didn't stop Bessler, but with modern resources you'd think he'd be able to talk about classical force and energy terms..

Whatever - even if someone has it, and is sitting on it (!), it'll not stop me independently duplicating. You can't let people like this put you off..
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Intresting read, thoughts? copy url

Post by ME »

MrV, when you doubt the impression there're no benefits to be lost; so you can just keep thinking what you thought, and keep doing what you would do otherwise.
Best case scenario: there will be two principles, or at least (as you wrote) one known duplicate; - but how would you know it's a duplicate...
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
John Collins
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
Location: Warwickshire. England
Contact:

re: Intresting read, thoughts? copy url

Post by John Collins »

I think there may only be one principle, but more than one way of using it.

JC
Read my blog at http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/

This is the link to Amy’s TikTok page - over 20 million views for one video! Look up amyepohl on google

See my blog at http://www.gravitywheel.com
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Intresting read, thoughts? copy url

Post by Tarsier79 »

And I think any claim like this should be approached with healthy skepticism. You can be nice, and open minded, just don't be blindly fooled.
User avatar
AB Hammer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3728
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:46 am
Location: La.
Contact:

re: Intresting read, thoughts? copy url

Post by AB Hammer »

I agree. Healthy skepticism is always the approach in this search. But we must be careful of becoming a naysayer.
"Our education can be the limitation to our imagination, and our dreams"

So With out a dream, there is no vision.

Old and future wheel videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/ABthehammer/videos

Alan
t
Dabbler
Dabbler
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:02 am

re: Intresting read, thoughts? copy url

Post by t »

Thank you all for your replies,

I shared this url and made the very quick website as requested by K.Waenga, as his health is deteriorating.

He is a very simple man with no degrees nor does he understand fancy scientific lingo. He has no idea how to use technology (not even a cell phone) Bessler's Wheel to him at first was a fascination that has turned into his life over the past 10 years.

He has made prototypes under the poorest of conditions,but unfortunately due to his extreme paranoia he has destroyed all working wheels as he truly believes he has found the secret by pure accident.

If you would like to know more or have any questions.... please feel free to contact him on the number provided,I have been teaching him how to use a cell phone.

Regards,

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

Post by ME »

Sorry to hear about his health, wish him all the best from me.

hmm, a working prototype was probably the best leverage he had for selling his idea.
But combined with extreme paranoia, I see a couple of remaining solutions:
- trust no-one, dump the phone ASAP and forget that wheel ever happened;
- trust only you (T), and transfer the IP so you'll be able to recreate that idea and think things through at a slower pace;
- trust all, and leave as little room as possible for oppression:-- recreate all drawings and tuning-tips then dump it all over the internet for all to see (probably only in that case it will be called the "Waenga-drive");
User avatar
preoccupied
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1893
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:28 am
Location: Michigan

re: Intresting read, thoughts? copy url

Post by preoccupied »

come on guys. Nothing bad is going to happen if someone shows people how to use gravity force continuous work. i have a design right now that works. it's irrelevant. Nobody can use these things even if it's found because it will not be allowed to hurt the planet for free energy. Stealing energy from gravity is very dangerous. Don't people say that we are orbiting in the life zone? So if our gravitation changes we will literally kill all life on Earth.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
Art
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Australia

re: Intresting read, thoughts? copy url

Post by Art »

Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
Post Reply