Posted by Georg Kuenstler (217.2.164.84) on January 21, 2003 at 13:21:23:
In Reply to: and more questions for Georg Kunstler posted by John Collins on January 21, 2003 at 11:36:16:
: I am interested in your wheel, Mr Kunstler, but have several reservations about it. I'm not trying to dismiss your motor, just trying to understand it so far. Please don't take offence if my questions seem blunt; I just don't understand it given the little I know so far. Perhaps these questions can be answered without giving too much away.
: Why was it necessary to have the difference between output and input measured? If gravity supplied the energy then there is no need to measure input, because you have, as you say, a gravity converter. But from the diagram there appears to be a motor/generator present which is perhaps used to start up the device in order to produce centrifugal force because you say it uses centrifugal forces. If this is so, how can the machine be self-starting as was stated in an earlier post? But if the device is indeed self-starting then input must come from gravity since no other source is available, therefore why measure the input/output gap? If the device is not self-starting after all then perhaps it is, as claimed, using centrifugal energy. But centrifugal energy is a by-product of spin. The spin must come from the small motor/generator attached. But if centrifugal forces are generated by spin and the spin is generated by the motor/generator - there is no additional energy available to drive the motor onwards from the point when you remove the energy source from the motor, unless it acts like a flywheel and that is not sustainable. To me the words motor/generator on the drawing give the game away. You use the motor to start the wheel spinning and then centrifugal forces are supposed to drive the wheel around for ever but that won't work. You must have an energy source. You call it a gravity converter so that is your energy source, so why do you need the motor?
: I am fascinated by the apparent design (or is it not yet up on your web site and I have been considering the wrong one? In which case please accept my humble apologies,) but clearly your device has no similarity to Bessler's wheel although some of the ideas incorporated in yours may have been also present in his although achieved by different methods. As I see it and for the encouragement of the rest of us, the secret of Bessler's wheel still remains to be solved.
: One more thing. You have applied for a patent and I understand your reasons but do you not know that if you just posted the information publicly no one else can patent it because then it is in the public domain. Then not even the big cartels can patent. And once it is out in the open no one can unlearn how to make it and everyone could make their own. In any case even if you succeed in patenting it in Germany you will need an international patent and that costs a lot of money. But even then it still won't protect unscrupulous manufacturers from copying it in some country that is not covered by your extensive patent. Post the details Georg then we can all benefit in the way you want us to.
: John Collins
Hello John,
as others in the group you mix two different designs. I have a solution
using centrifugal force, driven by a drilling machine to get the centrifugal force,
and a generator to get the Overunity. Therefore i must meassure and compare input and output.
The design is a extension of the patent I got for 'Drehmomentspeicber'.
This design hasn't been published, and therefore I can get a patent.
The second solution 'Gravityconverter' should be a self-starting
and always running device. This solution don't need a motor to
produce centrifugal force, but therfore is limited in Overunity.
This could be a Bessler-solution. I passed this information to
the patent-office first, and then opened it for reading for all.
So I think it is public to all and blocked for companys,
thats my aim.
Regards Georg