Things of Intrigue

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

Moderator: scott

User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7460
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by agor95 »

I have sent you a private message.
Gill Simo
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:26 pm
Location: Glastonbury UK

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by Gill Simo »

Hopefully the following link will lead you's to a simple animation

http://gifmaker.cc/PlayGIFAnimation.php ... BnxfXN.gif

Now....as my simple, somewhat uneducated & most certainly not brilliant, mind views this.....

Fig A below shows a simple arrangement...two discs, of weight, running against two straight parallel sides.
Gravity, in falling the arrangement will cause the two discs to turn against the sides...the left disc c/wise, right anti-c/wise.

The animation shows the same two discs, of weight.
But here, because of the x-bars connecting the two discs...those discs still forced to turn under gravity...said discs turn two hex rims in opposite directions....the red disc turning the red rim anti-c/wise, the green disc turning the green rim c/wise.

The x-bar arrangement dictates that the two rims are driven around as the discs, turning as they fall under gravity, move apart...& the rims continue around, under there own inertia, as the discs, still turning as they fall under gravity, move closer.

It should be clear to see that two further arrangements can be added...creating three, each 120 degree's around....each collapsing/expanding in unison.

Alternatively, one could add another single arrangement at right angles...in this instance, one arrangement collapses as the other expands & visa versa.

As previously stated....if the red disc/red rim is closest as you view then you see a rim turning anti-c/wise, viewed from front or back.

If you flip the arrangement, now with the green disc/green rim closest as you view, then you see a rim turning c/wise, viewed from either side.

By careful design it becomes possible to arrange things so that this `uni-directional` feature can become `truly` bi-directional.
Attachments
Fig 5.jpg
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by ME »

I don't understand...
Gravity, in falling the arrangement will cause the two discs to turn against the sides...the left disc c/wise, right anti-c/wise.
Your animation only works when those hexagons drive the mechanism, not the other way around. (add: this might not be true either)

Earlier:
Gill Simo wrote:Gravity has no business with a balanced wheel. It is, I suggest, somehow driving the arrangement/motion within, around its two points.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 669#151669
Gravity does not spontaneously twist around an offset point (or two points).
I can only repeat the reason why it shall not work. I'll not bore you with the need for a vertical motion.

I just don't understand how you think it could work.
Nice animation though !
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7460
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by agor95 »

Hi ME

I understand and recommend you ignore the explanation :-)

That is a 'Thing of Intrigue' because that is how this thread started.

Joking aside.

A mobile constructed using this concepts, with as little friction as possible, would fit my Classification 2.

That does not violate any Laws.

However the dynamic movement is complex and it would be interesting to simulate the activity.

For this concept to reach Classification 1 it would have to gain energy from outside the device. That would mean it needs to embody properties as shown in the examples.

I also am recommending we refer to our devices as BPM - Bessler Perpetual Motion devices.

That should help some members as that means they are not Perpetual Motion objects :-)
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by ME »

Well you know there might be this intriguing kaleidoscopic construct... where everyone lives in their own apparent reality...
I've shown my version, I just like to know more about the other version. Perhaps I missed something.

I figured from Gill's opening post that he pointed towards a situation where he felt his idea wasn't taken seriously enough, while yet asking for his design to get debunked.

I just tried my best here. And to summarize:
The basic movement was already simulated as referenced in my post on page 1.
There's no dynamic motion because the force of gravity doesn't get applied (post on pg 2)
There's no need for frictionless designs because it doesn't impact the inclined plane of the hexagons (post of page 3)

Agor, sure your idea doesn't violate your own laws of classification :-)
But according to thermodynamics law № 3 there will always be friction (second post on page 3).
Perhaps we could simply classify concepts of perpetual motion as just a "concept", and decide in hindsight if some working principle fits the description of Bessler's design?
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7460
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by agor95 »

Hi ME

Yes I can live with that rule.

Concepts are that and hindsight is good to have.
Gill Simo
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:26 pm
Location: Glastonbury UK

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by Gill Simo »

ME....
Whilst I fully understand your observation re no fall/no force I feel that I must continue to argue that the arrangement, discs as such, are falling, under gravity....that "There's no dynamic motion because the force of gravity doesn't get applied" is entirely wrong in this instance.
In fact the more you point out things so the more I'm forced to think about it, so the more my natural doubts about this as a possible solution dissolve away.
However, explaining why is so very difficult.
Maybe I'll rest my brain for a while and then feel re-invigorated enough to set it out at some later date.
Maybe it'd just be easier to continue to strive towards getting the thing built.
Either way...in the meantime I must suggest, with respect, that you, and others, think on this a good deal more, with what you don't know in mind, rather than jumping for what you think you do...in light of the fact that, after all, the only thing you do know for certain is that PM is impossible. That really isn't the best place to start attempting to unravel this riddle.
No offence intended, your input is always much appreciated but as things stand....I'm probably wrong but I think you are...and there I must leave it, for now.
That said...if you do think on it further &, as I'm sure you will, start to see holes in your own arguments, then do please feel free to fire this thread up again with your findings.
Regards/Gill
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Things of Intrigue

Post by ME »

In fact the more you point out things so the more I'm forced to think about it
That's my only goal.

Mind your assumption: If I was so absolutely certain about the impossibility of PM then I would just let you be and not waste my time.
All we think we know is...always...purely the result of our ignorance
Good skepsis works both ways, even against itself.
Some things are just verifiable true in our shared realm, so knowledge could just be knowledge even though it used to be ignorance in other times and situations.

I think to pinpoint the distinctions between knowledge, ignorance and belief we still need to check what we think is generally known by logic, reason and observation (the science Eccentrically1 actually wanted to highlight).
The obvious benefit is finding out where and how things might fail and hopefully learn something, or maybe even find where general knowledge was assumed, believed and failed: so you can clearly explain to the outside world how and why PM might be possible.
Unless you like your fantasy, then I will stay in mine. Even though we all want the same.

In short: Proof me wrong, I'm not infallible. I just try to pinpoint the issue.
Attachments
Consider a ball on an inclined-plane on rollers. 
<br />When that ball keeps its height, then only ball-momentum could move that triangle by collision.
Consider a ball on an inclined-plane on rollers.
When that ball keeps its height, then only ball-momentum could move that triangle by collision.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7460
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by agor95 »

Hi ME

I agree with your post.

The place I am with this concept is around two other concepts.

One is a gyro drive for a boat. The other is a electric charge drive.

The gyro drive was inventoried by Eric Laithwaite
http://rense.com/general42/genius.htm

The concept embodied in these devices might help here.

I am still thinking how to move this concept forward.
Illustrate and explain in words.

There is no falling or PM involved :-)
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

Post by ME »

I am still thinking how to move this concept forward.

Illustrate and explain in words.

Agor, not cool to do your homework.
But as this should have been taught at any Perpetual Motion Introductory Course I could make an exception..
(You may consider giving the site-owner a PM)
  • answer:
    The parts in sequence: Drop it. Move on. Return later. Pick up. Repeat.
    It doesn't seem to be much or even seems counter-intuitive, but doing this many times will actually evolve a concept otherwise stuck.
Good luck ;-)
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
Gill Simo
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:26 pm
Location: Glastonbury UK

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by Gill Simo »

ME...and others.
Armed with two book ends from the local charity shop, a bit more Meccano & a set of jewelers scales I've been doing some tests....
First off I weighed the arrangement shown in the Youtube video = 238gms.
I then, setting the arrangement at a fraction past the centrally crossed position, placed this between the two book ends, fixed to a worktop & set at a distance apart so's to accommodate the arrangement as set plus the scales to one side, between a disc & a book end.
The scales read 119gms...placing them on the other side, 119gms.
Safe to say then that the force of gravity acting straight down on the arrangement is 100% split, acting horizontally left/right, I think?
I repeated this, book ends slightly further apart, such that the arrangement was half way towards total collapse....same result.
I then repeated with the arrangement on the verge of total collapse....same result.
As the discs reach their max distance apart at total collapse & from then on start to move back in, so I placed the bookends/scales internally...again, same result from a tad past fully collapsed back to virtually, centrally crossed.
A bit of harmless fun that shows, please correct me if I'm mistaken, that the gravity acting straight down on this mass is transferred/split to left/right horizontally....out then in, throughout the cycle of the arrangement?
It goes without saying I hope, that as the arrangement was held/trapped between the bookends throughout then scales placed beneath would have recorded nothing.
I moved on to another experiment but best one thing at a time I'm thinking.
The above results were entirely expected...hardly rocket science.
For now,...do you agree?

I suppose I should add, for accuracy, that at first all attempts to hold the arrangement & scales in place failed....but I pilfered some of that rubbery anti-slip gauze stuff from my car's dash & slipped bits in between disc/bookend & disc/bookend/scales to solve the problem of the whole assembly sliding down/dropping out....nothing that would have affected the results however.
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
Gill Simo
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:26 pm
Location: Glastonbury UK

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by Gill Simo »

While awaiting a response, hopefully, then I might add....

There has been endless dispute over many a year as to whether or not Bessler stated that weight must be applied at right angles to the axle.

Most cling to this as fodder for their insistence of an overbalanced solution...but it makes little sense to me. If weight was being used to overbalance an axle then surely best by far to apply it one degree short of top dead centre?

Although he couldn't dare say it, might he not have, in saying weight, meant gravity, weight being its product?

If you do see fit to agree with the above then you'll hopefully agree also that all that applies to gravity/weight acting straight down must also now apply to gravity/weight acting in the horizontal.

Thus, your ball acting upon a slope on wheels can be turned through 90 degree & the need for the ball to move down to move the slope across becomes a ball moving (falling as such) across to move your slope on rollers up.
Ok...the slope on rollers has weight itself, so pushing it up against gravity isn't the same as pushing it horizontally....but the slope on rollers in this instance is a balanced hexagon on a central axle of course...there's no pushing against gravity involved.
Attachments
Capture.JPG
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7460
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by agor95 »

ME
Agor, not cool to do your homework
Agreed; However to do my homework would take a life time :-)

You know what Visual Python is like to construct and test.

The general overview is this :-

1. Two outer hoops.
2. The Viscera Pisces cradled within the hoops.
3. The table stand to hold the hoops.

This is a class 2 complex mobile in my opinion; as least.

With dynamic modeling we would be able to explore
the unknown stress interactions.
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

re: Things of Intrigue

Post by ME »

Gill Simo wrote:There has been endless dispute over many a year as to whether or not Bessler stated that weight must be applied at right angles to the axle.
...
Although he couldn't dare say it, might he not have, in saying weight, meant gravity, weight being its product?
Weight is nowadays defined as a force: a product of mass and gravitational acceleration. Maybe it was just "heavy" in Bessler's mind and/or time: but that shouldn't change the way it worked.

Right-angled-force at some radius implies torque, and any deviation from such angle probably causes axle-stress.
The general idea behind that right-angle statement is the introduction of a torque imbalance when the opposite side things work at a different radius and/or a force.
Most cling to this as fodder for their insistence of an overbalanced solution...but it makes little sense to me.
As basic premise for a source of acceleration it makes perfect sense, despite the situation that most overbalance-solutions do not. (your "one degree" already implies good bearings for a hopeless situation).
But mind that "overbalance" follows the same premise of redirecting gravitational force as your explained tries to do...

Your mechanism splits its weight 50/50.
Its force vectors remind me of this post:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 580#142580
or use a direct link to halfway that video: https://youtu.be/CdNYTjXJPKE?t=249

Force-vectors also show the main idea why you book-ends wanted to flee the scene, why anti-slip helped, and why gravitational force may be redirected on a slope.
But a force is a force of course (of course). When a force is not opposed by another force to cause stress then it results in a net-force where some mass gets accelerated, gains momentum and changes position...

For the exact same reason, and a pinch of creativity, it can be deduced that it's useless to continue this debate. It probably results in more stress. Hence I think it's best to redirect your force of creativity to a practical trial (perhaps trying that 90 degree thing). I guess it will not lessen the stress, but at least it wouldn't be my fault.
Agor95 wrote:With dynamic modeling we would be able to explore
the unknown stress interactions.
Good luck with your simulation.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
Post Reply