Question for John C.

[Tarsier79]

Apply what?

To be more precise: If Besslers principle had a gravity component.....

WtZ, you are correct, and that is my point. A Seesaw requires weight movement the same as a wheel does to perpetuate, even though it cycles back and forth. Any weight with more leverage falls to drive the wheel, so must be lifted for reset in both cases.

I have also said many times that any gravity principle can be applied to any other conservative field: magnetism, CF/inertia, (pressure?)

I do wonder what configuration or setup Jeff had in mind, because he obviously thought he had an answer, but that it required a specific configuration that wasn't a wheel.

[John Collins]

WtZ? Not sure if that’s an abbreviation for weights? No I’ve just realised it WaltC…

According to my personal belief a seesaw would not accommodate Bessler’s connectedness principle. That’s just my opinion and I may be wrong.

JC

[johannesbender]

WtZ? Not sure if that’s an abbreviation for weights? No I’ve just realised it WaltC…

According to my personal belief a seesaw would not accommodate Bessler’s connectedness principle. That’s just my opinion and I may be wrong.

JC

Not to be annoying , but what is Bessler's connectedness principle though.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Might the "principle" be; using the force of gravity to turn the wheel, rather than falling weights------------Sam

[agor95]

Not to be annoying , but what is Bessler's connectedness principle though.

I also will look forward to John Collins responding to your question.

However logically we may never know what Bessler means by the phrase.
Only that he has written the phrase several times and in the context of the text on the page.

Other than trying too talk to the dead. Then that is were we are and we should find meaning ourselves.

This is a little part of my current study; see images below.

The first image is an inverted pendulum. This shows where the pendulum's mass
wants to be if free too fall in 1/4 of a second.

Then the mass would be at the centre of the green circle.
However the pendulum is connected to the mass. So it can only move along the red circle.

Bessler's clues for me indicates the pendulum, in principle, can move only when it reduces the connection distance from its starting position to the desired mass positions.

You see it can not achieve this as any pendulum movement will increase the distance.

The second image the pendulum was on the horizontal right, but now has moved.
The mass wants to be where it is after 1/4 second.

So the connection principle here means the shortest distance that can be achieved is short by the amount displayed.

Note. This is a simple pendulum so the pendulums mass and air resistance in the system is zero.

Regards

[WaltzCee]

.
.

I’m sure you’re both correct. I just can’t think of a way to apply it to a see-saw configuration.

JC

A straight-line mechanism could take a spike of translation energy and convert it into a rotating wheel-like configuration as you suggested, John.

Some time ago there was discussion about
.

Peaucellier's mechanism might be looked at as a transmission converting translational to rotational energy.

I have no idea how it should be connected.

[johannesbender]

Not to be annoying , but what is Bessler's connectedness principle though.

I also will look forward to John Collins responding to your question.

However logically we may never know what Bessler means by the phrase.
Only that he has written the phrase several times and in the context of the text on the page.

Other than trying too talk to the dead. Then that is were we are and we should find meaning ourselves.

This is a little part of my current study; see images below.

The first image is an inverted pendulum. This shows where the pendulum's mass
wants to be if free too fall in 1/4 of a second.

Then the mass would be at the centre of the green circle.
However the pendulum is connected to the mass. So it can only move along the red circle.

Bessler's clues for me indicates the pendulum, in principle, can move only when it reduces the connection distance from its starting position to the desired mass positions.

You see it can not achieve this as any pendulum movement will increase the distance.

The second image the pendulum was on the horizontal right, but now has moved.
The mass wants to be where it is after 1/4 second.

So the connection principle here means the shortest distance that can be achieved is short by the amount displayed.

Regards

Do you mean the pendulum can only move if it loses PE (height) , because gravity does not act sidewards?

[johannesbender]

.
.

I’m sure you’re both correct. I just can’t think of a way to apply it to a see-saw configuration.

JC

A straight-line mechanism could take a spike of translation energy and convert it into a rotating wheel-like configuration as you suggested, John.

Some time ago there was discussion about
.

Peaucellier's mechanism might be looked at as a transmission converting translational to rotational energy.

I have no idea how it should be connected.

True , it works both ways , translation -> rotation & rotation -> translation.

[johannesbender]

Might the "principle" be; using the force of gravity to turn the wheel, rather than falling weights------------Sam

But what force will drive if the weights don't lose height(fall) though , are you implying perhaps a special use case for the normal force or something else , for example the mould effect ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dQJBBklpQQ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTLR7FwXUU4 .

Or more directly , how or by what means do you suppose could the force of gravity possibly be used other than losing height(falling) ?

[agor95]

Do you mean the pendulum can only move if it loses PE (height) , because gravity does not act sidewards?

You are correct a mass will move in a straight line and we see masses fall vertically down.
Well except when they are in ballistic flight.

Think of it as an inverted pendulum; when it falls it pushes the mass to the side.

From the mass's perspective it does not know what PE is only accelerations.

P.S. I want to keep away from human constructs, not present in reality, which prevent insight.
For example 'Potential Energy' is a future reality now on the other hand acceleration is current
and Kinetic Energy is relative. A mass has no Kinetic Energy when it is the only thing that exists.

Regards

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi jb,
Thanks for your response. I must sound like a broken record, but the Ring & rollers, that's what they do. The roller never falls, therefor it is never lifted. They, the rollers, have the unusual ability to turn the wheel with out ever falling.

OOB, is achieved by shifting / rolling the weight around / along the rim of the drum------------------Sam

ETA
I submit, this is what Bessler stumbled onto, probably about the same way I did.

[WaltzCee]

.
.

ETA
I submit, this is what Bessler stumbled onto, probably about the same way I did.

This discussion is causing me to have ideas about your binary star wheel, Sam.

I'm telling you, 2023 is the year. I just don't want to be the only one at the finish line!

:~]

[WaltzCee]

.
.
John,

Do you think Bessler encoded more in his MT/writings than ideas of PM?

[John Collins]

WaltzCee wrote:-

‘John,

Do you think Bessler encoded more in his MT/writings than ideas of PM?’

There are a couple of things in MT that are hints apart from the pentagram in MT55, but I interpreted them earlier this year, and that was after I had my own afflatus. Before that I wouldn’t have paid much attention to them. The ‘Toys’ page has some good information but it needs a lot of devious thinking to get to what it actually means.

I hesitate to write this but I’m going to any way. I believe I know exactly how Bessler’s wheel worked but I don’t want to show anybody anything about it yet, because I’m building it according to what I think I know.

Notice how carefully I write this! I’m very much aware of my history of thinking I’ve got the answer and then finding I was wrong. I’ve never been as sure as I am now, but man proposes, God disposes.

In answer to a previous question, for me the connectedness principle involved string, rope or chains, pulleys and weights. That’s all I want to say at this point.

JC

[WaltzCee]

.
.
Thank you John.

I think Bessler squared the circle.

I hesitate to write this but I’m going to any way. I believe I know exactly how Bessler’s wheel worked

Well, join the club! In my case, not so much what Bessler did yet what is & isn't impossible. I trace my understanding on what the Egyptians knew.

I see 3 different ways to the same result, PM.

Again, thanks for your answer.