AP Wheel Geometry

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

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
justsomeone
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2070
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:21 pm

re: AP Wheel Geometry

Post by justsomeone »

Silver, In my opinion, the Pentagon is all hogwash. Those that think Bessler is assuring us that there is something special about the number 5 because of this so called Pentagon ( and other coincidences) , and are forcing that number in their design but are not using scissor jacks, that Bessler specifically assured us that there was something special about, are on a wild goose chase.
Silvertiger, I really enjoy your posts with your no nonsense, factual approach. Much like Stewart's, where ever the facts leads.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

I agree. They're acting like I set out to do evil deeds or something. It's ludicrous. Makes me tired lol. I don't care, I'm done sharing now. Thx for the compliment. :)
ovaron
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:04 am
Location: CO

re: AP Wheel Geometry

Post by ovaron »

Thanks to Oystein and Silvertiger. I can follow both arguments and understand both sides. The question that needs to be asked now is, why did Bessler let the bright triangles not converge in the center of the circle? Did he deliberately do that to get to 7?
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: AP Wheel Geometry

Post by MrVibrating »

I'm willing to suspend doubt provided a decryption effort results in some kind of mechanical apparatus or principle i can analyse.

If some kind of mechanical linkage was presented, then i could relish getting to grips with whatever it is, what it does or doesn't do, and thus how it might fit amongst the physical principles of CoM and CoE.

I've noted previously the inherent risks of this type of code-breaking task - there may very well be a delicious cheesecake recipe encoded in the Haynes manual for my motorbike, if only one applied the 'right' cypher...



But there's another issue here, which is the comparative difficulty of decoding Bessler's clues (of which i have noted in many posts, so i do not doubt their existence), versus that of simply deducing the secrets of OU from first principles of physics.


Bessler had neither the polished and refined physics constructs we now take for granted, nor knowledge that anyone had succeeded in his task before him. That made his efforts extremely difficult, speculative, and basically meant he had to learn every lesson that we can now Google or Wiki through hard graft and personal experience. As such, his success is a towering triumph of human resolve and ingenuity that he must be credited for.

But we DO have those benefits - we have impeccable, unassailable witness testimonies that a solution IS possible. We cannot doubt the testimonies of Leibniz, Wolff and Karl et al. They definitely saw what they claimed to have seen.

And we also have complete and concise formal derivations of the physical principles governing CoM and CoE.

And so because of these above two facts, we have the option of sidestepping all of Bessler's encypted clues entirely, and jumping straight to the raw physics, certain in the knowledge that there's some missing, overlooked exploit implicit in the principles we already know of.




Gentleman, please consider that this enormous advantage we have in rediscovering his secret purely from first principles, independently and without reference to his works, is actually a far easier problem to solve!!!

It's a problem with a definite solution - there can be no doubt or speculation about mathematical proofs! No issues of subjective interpretation! We do not have to derive the principles governing CoM and CoE from painstaking personal research!


A point i have been making since beginning this search in earnest is that by definition, any OU system has input and output energies in different fields; it is implicit within the concept of OU that the input and output fields must have different scaling dimensions, specifically with regards to their spatiotemporal components. They must, quite simply, scale differently under mutually-incomaptible coordinate spaces!

This, because a closed-loop trajectory through static fields yields zero net energy or momentum. This can be easily demonstrated and understood in terms of both gravitic and inertial interactions. We can readily grasp the principles enforcing these symmetries, and thus what not to do! Since the masses in any rotating system cannot be getting progressively higher or lower in the gravity field, we know that the "d" component of the F*d integral must be constant, which only leaves us "F" as the time-variable component! Yet if "F" is a fixed function of static fields such as gravity and rest mass / inertia, then no asymmetry is possible if output and input integrals are in the same fields! So before even beginning our search, we know precisely what we're looking for and where to find it - output and input integrals have to be subject to exclusively different dimensions!


The only possible way of producing such a result from within classical mechanics is via an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law. This causes a divergent reference frame, that is both an inertial frame with respect to the internal interactions within the accelerated system, while also being a non-inertial frame with respect to our observation / measurement inertial frame.

So here i'm completely ignoring the fact that Bessler's wheels were statorless, that he explicitly explained that this was a necessary condition, along with all other Bessler clues; this derivation from first principles is really all we need. The only route to mechanical OU is an effective N3 break.


After several years of searching for such an example - admittedly, with several false positives already - i've now found one that seems rock-solid. So we can now produce this divergent inertial frame. It's now a relatively simple engineering challenge, not a theoretical physics problem, much less a code-breaking effort..

All we have to do is apply gravity to cause an asymmetric distribution of momentum from a mutual inertial interaction accelerated against it. That is the solution. Generate a momentum asymmetry, and then harvest the resulting gains. Job done. We have the solution to mechanical OU right before us.

Designing an apparatus that can accomplish this is far easier than either cracking his codes or the theoretical solution from first principles. Now that i've done the latter, the former is for the birds. Leave German historians and academia to solve Bessler's clues, once they realise they're there awaiting resolution, they'll want to get stuck in and exonerate their brother... but we don't need them anymore. We're no longer code-breakers nor theoretical physicists... we're just watchmakers, with a very specific, perfectly clear picture of the motion we need to accomplish.

Now that it is finally within sight, it behooves us to drag this cart across the finishing line! We're practically there already, it's just the final push and we're done.


But, there's more...


Just as JC and I, doubtless others too, have speculated, since it was obvious that only an effective N3 break could explain his wheels performance, the possibility remained that the solution could also have implications with regards to inertial propulsion. It all comes down to the context of the "effective" qualifier - effective to what end, or result? Would it only apply in a rotating system fixed statically to earth? Would it be drawing momentum from earth, or creating it ex nihilo?

Now that it is achieved, i can tell you that it is firmly and incontrovertibly the latter case; hence, inertial propulsion is definitely on the cards here.

The excess momentum is created from nothing, or else, drawn from the Higgs field, depending on whether we take the classical or quantum-classical perspective.

It is thus "effective" as much with regards to propulsion as to energy production. It is unbalanced, unreciprocated unilateral momentum, which can thus be accumulated and vectored in a straight line.

Gentleman, we have bigger fish to fry than Bessler's codes! The stove is hot, the kitchen is ready, we have all our ingredients, the recipe, and the tools to get cooking..
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

This thread isn't about codes Mr. V. It's about a doodle. :)
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

..i'm inclined to agree, that whatever its meaning, it's likely more symbolic or metaphorical than the key to a cypher..

But my point is simply "to hell with esoterics!" when we have objective physical principles to contend with. I have demonstrated robust violation of N3. All input KE, and thus momentum, applied between two inertias can be manifested on one of them only, as one sign only. No other symmetry break is required to complete either an OU wheel, or equally, an inertial thruster replacing gravity with passive magnetic force.

Deciphering Bessler's codes is no longer a priority, and largely redundant with regards to actually replicating his success.
User avatar
John Collins
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
Location: Warwickshire. England
Contact:

re: AP Wheel Geometry

Post by John Collins »

Same here St! I used to post a lot more but I was criticised for what was called ‘speculation’ and not ‘fact’. But without speculative argument there is no progress. I respect your opinion and am content to accept the septagram but I don’t buy the spiritual stuff. It is my belief that despite all the coded material unearthed by myself and Øystein and others none of it get’s us any closer to the solution.

It is my opinion that Johann Bessler left significant information sufficient for a discerning mind to replicate his machine and so far we have got nothing but a few scraps.

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
John Collins
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
Location: Warwickshire. England
Contact:

re: AP Wheel Geometry

Post by John Collins »

I never suggested that the pentagon was all that lay inside the wheel, I merely tried to show that there were five mechanisms inside the wheel (or seven or nine).

The design of each mechanism doesn’t preclude the use of the scissor mechanism. In fact I believe it to be an essential part and in a day or so I will give you a huge clue which may start people onto a new track, hopefully.

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

Post by MrVibrating »

..looking forwards to that then.

However, as i have demonstrated, a vertical scissorjack with a weight on each end is all we need to break momentum symmetry. Thus it literally represents the key principle to OU.. no further meaning or interpretation is required..
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Except I did not speculate, I measured and tested the closest fit polygon. I did simple math. That's it. The septagram fit is not a guess. The spiritual conjecture is to merely get those who are closed minded open to possibilities other than the the ones that fit their own imaginings of secret codes and little fives everywhere. I can derive numbers and meanings from shapes and create a cult and faith around them too...except that this is about geometry, not conjecture.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

re: AP Wheel Geometry

Post by MrVibrating »

...notwithstanding my arguments above for eschewing the code-breaking effort in lieu of the inherently much more tractable physics solution, i noted years ago that the AP wheel motiff appears to be repeated within the lines of MT 137:

Image


..ie. four 90° rotations of the AP wheel, overlayed upon one another, reproduces the same basic geometry as MT 137.

Which is to suggest nothing at all as to potential meanings, only that this correlation appears to be valid, whether coincidental or not..
Attachments
137_cracked!_2.jpg
User avatar
John Collins
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
Location: Warwickshire. England
Contact:

re: AP Wheel Geometry

Post by John Collins »

What else can I say st? I referred to my own speculative posts and I accepted the septagram in the Apologia wheel and of course I had already written of the septagram elsewhere back 2009.

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
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Just say what you think and claim what you know. That's all anyone can do. :)
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

re: AP Wheel Geometry

Post by Silvertiger »

I finally figured out what was missing as to why the Euclid geometry didn't seem to fit, even though it is right there on the AP Wheel page, but the septagram did...? Here's what I found:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCL_n2s ... tu.be&hd=1

Finally, the septagram, the pentagon, and the triangle all fit perfectly, and there seems to be a "secret" circle with a radius of approximately 55 inches that the geometry seems to draw out as well! So check out the video. :)



Image
Attachments
AP Fit.jpg
AP Fit 1.jpg
Philosophy is the beginning of science; not the conclusion.
User avatar
raj
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:53 am
Location: Mauritius

re: AP Wheel Geometry

Post by raj »

Going back to school days elementary maths:

LCM of 3 and 5 is 15.

Therefore a 3-sided equilateral triangle and a 5-sided equilateral polygon(pentagon) will fit neatly in a 15-sided equilateral polygon, inscribed in a circle of any size.

LCM of 3, 5 and 6 is 30.

Therefore an equilateral triangle, a pentagon and a 6-sided polygon will fit neatly in a 30-sided equilateral polygon, inscribed in a circle of any size.

Raj
Keep learning till the end.
Post Reply