Bessler's Clues- Just an FYI

[agor95]

All the stuff he types here, put it all in a video, and the same amount of times he talks about here...also put that in a video on youtube and see how well that channel does.

It would be a very interesting thing to watch.

How about it James? Would you like to do a video montage of all your posts so you could tell us all how you really feel?

How long would that obscene channel stay up for before the moderators close it down and lock out the owner?

[UbWe]

Since I am allowed to control the content and discussions on my YouTube channel. I have added basically nothing in the last few months because I've been busy working. And with Bessler's Wheel, I am now able to do the math to quantify the amount of energy in the form of
1/2mv^2 = mv = ma (a = d/t) = f
This is important because it would be a mathematical proof of the specific amount of momentum that is generated from gravity. This will allow
f(x) = Δy/Δx to show the energy in linear momentum that is being conserved as angular momentum. This is because it will show that the Rise over Run (trigonometry) decreases the work while having force over time convert momentum from one form to another. This will also agree with the 1st law of thermodynamics which states;

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ch ... modynamics

I would be proving that the acceleration due to gravity is linear momentum and that when a weight is shifted towards the axle that linear momentum is conserved as angular momentum.
To further prove that gravity has energy, a mathematical equation that I factored showing that Venus, Earth and Mars all have atmospheric pressures relative to the Sun's gravity. And if successful then I'll be the first person in science to prove that gravity has energy. My work on that subject;

The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars. x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the times further from the Sun as a percentage than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun’s gravitational field. The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403. This allows for Earth to be 93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars. And for Mars to be 93/(1+.02395)^449 = 0.0022 bars while it is .00658 bars.

Would any of my critics care to discuss math or science? No? I think that is all I need to know. And yet such a mathematical model might help people
who have their own work to show one way they might try when evaluating their work at their discretion. They could consider how what work's for
Bessler's Wheel might work for their design/concept.

And the 2 attached images shows who shall receive credit for my work while I will receive none. Alan Bauldree has been grooming me and I have to
work as he teaches me. His being hateful and abusive is his using "tough love" to teach me that I have to prove that I am good enough for him if I will
be allowed to have a life in his Kingdom of Amerika. Notice I spelled Amerika as a German would? This is what Alan Bauldree promotes the way the
U.S. and Americans like him should be viewed. And Bessler was 1/2 German.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM

p.s., It's actually f(y) = y/(1+.02395)^n where n cannot = 0. This is because y/0 is the point of origin. In mathematics the denominator can never be 0.
To graph an (x, y) coordinate system, x can be 0. And this is one of the changes they might make because of the work that I've been pursuing. If 93/0 = x
is allowed, 93/0 has no value while 93/0 = (0, 93) which are coordinates that can be graphed. Math is based on function and when graphing, the
"denominator" can be 0. An example is (93/0 + 47/2)/2 = (140/2)/2 = (70/1)/2 = -35/2. That shows that the rise over run has a specific relationship and
that it is a downward slope, why it is negative.

[UbWe]

Interestingly enough, for find the slope of an angle using 2 points, I actually factored it wrong.
How I do it is (what I was thinking) (93 - 47)/( 0 - 2)/(2) = (46/-2)/(2/2) = -23/1. That shows for every movement in the positive x direction
results in a drop of 23.
How they do it, (47 - 93)/(2 - 0) = -46/2 = -23/1, as you can see, the same answer. I really don't see a need to factor the 2nd value first when
it changes nothing. I think it makes it a little bit more difficult to learn math when you're basically working a problem backwards. Don't you agree?

Why they probably complicated this is because if you have a Rise over Run or a slope going uphill then you are moving in a positive direction.
When you subtract the 2nd larger numbers from the first smaller numbers then your answers will be negative. What they failed to consider is
that -y/-x = +n. +n represents a positive slope. Myself, I think it's simpler to determine the slope of an angle moving in the direction of the slope.

[JUBAT]

Just so you know James, if you reinvent Bessler's wheel, then you would deserve all the credit. Since I'm not AB Hammer, I would expect you to lay claim to it and leave me completely out of it as that would be highly unfair for me to claim anything that had to do with your invention. Take note of what I say because I mean it.

[UbWe]

With math, f(x) = Δy/Δx can be used as f(x) = ∫ Δy/Δx. The ∫ allows for upper and lower limits.
Using what I'm building as an example is that the Rise over Run is 20/87.18. or 0.23/1. This way for every increase in
1x will have a corresponding rise in y.
When you look at the peacock's tail and the slope, they are mathematically the same. The line pulling the end of the
lever, where it is attached will rotate about 132º while the end of the lever rotates 90º around the wheel. This gets into
f = ma (a = d/t) because the distance where the line is connected to the wheel will reduce the work to 68% or a 32%
reduction in the work required. This is where the t (time) it takes allows for force over time (f = md/t).
This means the 0.23/1 is multiplied by .68/1 = 0.157/1. That means for every 7 inches the wheel rotates at about 28 inches
from the axle a weighted will be lifted 1 inch. The actual ratio is for every 6.39 inches the anchored position of the line rotates
a weight will be lifted 1 inch. The last image shows 132º start at 270º and rotating to 42º ATDC (9 o'clock to 1:30).
If a 1kg weight s lift 1m, then to lift it 1m takes 9.8 n-m of force. If a 1kg weight moves up a 30º slope then it is 1 sin30º = 0.5.
It would take 0.5kg or 4.9n-m of force over time to lift the weight. With lifting it straight up, they usually say
Work = Mass x Distance. With a slope, time becomes a factor because that is associated with velocity. And by showing math
like this then scientists will be forced to accept that gravity is powering the wheel.
That'd be like asking Alan to leave me alone. He wants the attention but isn't willing to do the work. At overunity.com when
he'd say he's watching me and I continued to discuss things with people, he and 2 or 3 other anonymous accounts would start
attacking me for no reason. Regardless of anything, as he said, I should be afraid. An example, when I said nothing about him,
he posted threatening me. I had said nothing about him yet here he is making my work about him.

[JUBAT]

Ummm no that's the opposite of what I said. I'm not AB Hammer and so I want nothing to do with you or your wheel.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There it is for the record and it can be quoted as often as need be. I don't want any credit for any of your projects and you're welcome to do whatever you want whenever with your projects without consulting me. AB Hammer might see it differently, but since I'm not him - your ideas don't apply to me. I wish I could see your face when you discover I'm truly not AB Hammer and I have been right all along, but once you see me and know me, then you'll turn and focus all that rotten energy on me and I don't want that. Just remember - you think you know who I am, but you don't because I'm not him.

[UbWe]

With Bessler's work, when he said the weight "shot outwards", it'd be more along this line of thinking.
https://youtu.be/s26HbfwDFz8

The same math in my previous post can be used on this design as well. Although with that design/concept, the
disc occupies space between the fulcrum and the weight. The only actual work is f = mv or f = ma (a = d/t).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpR2v98qZGE

And for those who are feeling Blue;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ugkg9RePc