Here in SF we have a talk show host who is also a scientist and he answers science questions on the air. He worked formerly at the Lawrence Livermore Lab in nuclear bomb design and was a professor at UC Berkeley. I called in up about gravity motors, he asked me what they were and I said a motor powered by a fuel from the acceleration from gravity. Then he had this to say. Sure it's possible to have a motor powered by gravity. You attach a motor to a falling weight and it will run the motor. But then you have to lift the weight up again. I mentioned there were a number of utility patents on gravity motors and he said, (having a number of patents himself), just because it has a patent doesn't mean it will work. Then he went into a bit of a tirade about frauds bilking money from gravity motors and perpetual motion machines. I squeaked in I had a patent and he said I should know better and hung up. I think he was hinting they don't work.
It's curious to me because it was almost exactly what jim_mich of this board has been telling me all along about patents. Although I'm not close to being as educated as some of the members of this discussion group, I note with a lot of interest the integrity by which this board operates and I'm very glad of that, regardless of the frauds and bilkers that are out there.
Just to finish with a reference I found from the 1600's, (to paraphrase), "Woe be to those who waste their lives and family fortunes on perpetual motion machines and motors powered by gravity." For reasons beyond me, it doesn't stop my interest.
Dr. Bill Wattenburg
Moderator: scott
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
It's exciting to contemplate doing something that others think cannot be done. During Bessler's time most 'learned' men of math and science were of the opinion that perpetual motion gravity wheels were not possible. Bessler was not in that elite group. Instead he just kept plodding along learning everything he could about how weights react on rotating wheels. After many years of plodding along and testing many wheels something clicked and Bessler's mind dreamed up the solution. Many people spend their whole lives and fortunes trying to make an idea work. It becomes an obsession with them. If we choose to search for perpetual motion we should not make it our primary goal in life. Friends, family and a normal life should come first. Treat PM as a hobby since the probability of finding a solution is very small. Of course if you happen to be fortunate enough to rediscover Bessler's secret then you will change the world as we know it!
Bessler did not marry until after he discovered how to make his PM wheels.
Bessler did not marry until after he discovered how to make his PM wheels.
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
jim_mich
I tend to think Wattenburg is right. I've one other library reference, which was in an alternative energy book. It said power from gravity was impossible because gravity, "only goes in one direction." I thought about buoyancy devices being the best possibility, but when I reverse my viewpoint 180 degrees looking down instead of up and submit buoyancy devices to the same Wattenburg test upside down, the results are the same as looking at all above ground devices right side up.
Although the pursuit of a PMM I've found is a good mental exercise, not unlike how one tunes a guitar looking for that perfect tuning which is not achievable, I doubt there will be anymore posts from me directly about either PMMs or gravity motors. That doesn't mean I won't be reading or making any more posts. I'm, to be kind, stuck on myself that way. There's something not unappealing about finding 2500 years years of scientists and engineers completely wrong.
Jim W.
I tend to think Wattenburg is right. I've one other library reference, which was in an alternative energy book. It said power from gravity was impossible because gravity, "only goes in one direction." I thought about buoyancy devices being the best possibility, but when I reverse my viewpoint 180 degrees looking down instead of up and submit buoyancy devices to the same Wattenburg test upside down, the results are the same as looking at all above ground devices right side up.
Although the pursuit of a PMM I've found is a good mental exercise, not unlike how one tunes a guitar looking for that perfect tuning which is not achievable, I doubt there will be anymore posts from me directly about either PMMs or gravity motors. That doesn't mean I won't be reading or making any more posts. I'm, to be kind, stuck on myself that way. There's something not unappealing about finding 2500 years years of scientists and engineers completely wrong.
Jim W.
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
Jim Williams,
You wrote:
Ralph
You wrote:
I am rolling on the floor over this one! There are millions of auto's in the world with combustion engines. Pray tell what direction is the power stroke good for besides going in one direction?It said power from gravity was impossible because gravity, "only goes in one direction."
Ralph
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
Jim W .. that's sort of what I found about buoyancy also. I tried to refine it a bit further & say that if the other force is also conservative [like gravity & buoyancy are] then there will be no advantage to be had.
That lead me to the conclusion that the other force must therefore be non conservative. But that sort of logic may be completely errant in the final analysis.
N.B. Bill's hypothesis about using thermal gradients would fit that scenario & also allow for constant unbalance, but there may be others.
Personally I'm trying hard to 'obsess' a little less about finding the solution to Besslers wheel at the moment. That's because jim_mich is working on a concept & John Collins is about to make his research available thru his book. It feels like I can take the foot off the throttle a little ;)
That lead me to the conclusion that the other force must therefore be non conservative. But that sort of logic may be completely errant in the final analysis.
N.B. Bill's hypothesis about using thermal gradients would fit that scenario & also allow for constant unbalance, but there may be others.
Personally I'm trying hard to 'obsess' a little less about finding the solution to Besslers wheel at the moment. That's because jim_mich is working on a concept & John Collins is about to make his research available thru his book. It feels like I can take the foot off the throttle a little ;)
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
Fletch,
Don't take your foot off the peddle!!!!! jim_mich has had many concepts. JC has released several books. Many of us thought we had the solution at one point or another. We still do not have the answer.
DON'T GIVE UP. The answer is never as close as it seems. Keep your foot on the peddle or you are giving up!!
p
Don't take your foot off the peddle!!!!! jim_mich has had many concepts. JC has released several books. Many of us thought we had the solution at one point or another. We still do not have the answer.
DON'T GIVE UP. The answer is never as close as it seems. Keep your foot on the peddle or you are giving up!!
p
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
Oh no - I'm not giving up, far from it. Just getting ready for a new phase & mentally clearing the decks to take on new information.
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
Ralph
That's an actual quote, verbatim. I think it means gravity can't reciprocate. It just goes one way, whatever that means.
That's an actual quote, verbatim. I think it means gravity can't reciprocate. It just goes one way, whatever that means.
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
J W,
Gravity cannot reciprocate!
Man learned and invented the steam engine and then the combustion engine followed by the turbine engine. None of these reciprocated until they were discovered so to speak. a Ram Jet does not reciprocate yet it is more powerful than the average Jet engine.
The bottom line is: we simply have not learned how to utilize gravity with or without reciprocation.
That my friend is what this forum is all about, seeking an engine that runs on gravity. Remember the learned man who claims gravity cannot reciprocate, came from the same schooling that once stated man will never fly.
We have passed the horse and buggy era and we are soon closing the combustion engine era, it is time to move on to that which is believed impossible as the airplane and its engine that propels once was.
Ralph
Gravity cannot reciprocate!
Man learned and invented the steam engine and then the combustion engine followed by the turbine engine. None of these reciprocated until they were discovered so to speak. a Ram Jet does not reciprocate yet it is more powerful than the average Jet engine.
The bottom line is: we simply have not learned how to utilize gravity with or without reciprocation.
That my friend is what this forum is all about, seeking an engine that runs on gravity. Remember the learned man who claims gravity cannot reciprocate, came from the same schooling that once stated man will never fly.
We have passed the horse and buggy era and we are soon closing the combustion engine era, it is time to move on to that which is believed impossible as the airplane and its engine that propels once was.
Ralph
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
Jim Williams,
Your quote is correct, gravity cannot reciprocate. It only pushes down. It cannot push up. We don't know any way to turn gravity off so that a weight can rise back up after it has been pushed down. With other engines the pushing force is turned on and off as the engine reciprocates. It seems that this cannot be done with gravity. So we need some other force to do the pushing.
Bessler said his weights gained their energy by swinging! He said that trying to move weights around to produce out-of-balance won't work. Weights must be forced out-of-balance by something other than gravity. I see only one other force available to do the pushing. That force is inertial momentum. But science says momentum is conservative. Science also says that the inertial kinetic energy in a moving object increases by the square of the speed. This seems to me to be contradictory. To me it looks like inertial momentum is not always conservative. In other words swinging weights can gain energy by swinging! The trick is to harness this energy.
Your quote is correct, gravity cannot reciprocate. It only pushes down. It cannot push up. We don't know any way to turn gravity off so that a weight can rise back up after it has been pushed down. With other engines the pushing force is turned on and off as the engine reciprocates. It seems that this cannot be done with gravity. So we need some other force to do the pushing.
Bessler said his weights gained their energy by swinging! He said that trying to move weights around to produce out-of-balance won't work. Weights must be forced out-of-balance by something other than gravity. I see only one other force available to do the pushing. That force is inertial momentum. But science says momentum is conservative. Science also says that the inertial kinetic energy in a moving object increases by the square of the speed. This seems to me to be contradictory. To me it looks like inertial momentum is not always conservative. In other words swinging weights can gain energy by swinging! The trick is to harness this energy.
Re: re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
I feel the same way.Fletcher wrote:Oh no - I'm not giving up, far from it. Just getting ready for a new phase & mentally clearing the decks to take on new information.
The JC book will be a barn burner, but, you have to wonder if all will be told or some info saved back for the next sales opportunity.
Even knowing a few details about what was behind the cloth may lead someone to the solution.
Like the number of weights. You can bet that Bestler tried everything possible at Weissenstern castle, where he had the time, to wring as much power out of the wheel as possible. More weights or less weights? So he hit on a certain number that worked best. If your trys have a different number that his did, then even though you might be close to the right arrangement....it won't work and you will have missed it.
Mik
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
jim_mich
I am aware that the moon is accelerating in its orbital speed slowly moving away from Earth at a inch and a half a year. I first thought this must mean that because of the relationship between the Earth, the tides and the moon, which is causing this acceleration, that the moon was pushing against Earth and the whole setup was a very big gravity motor. Then this same Dr. Wattenburg, in answering someone else's question, explained that the moon was moving was moving away because of angular momentum and the energy to accelerate the moon was coming from slowing Earth's rotation down as translated to the moon by the tides. It all sounds to me like an example of the inertial momentum you mention and the actual basis of the energy generated from that patent you methodically decimated in a long post of yours I remember.
Concidering how much I believed gravity motors, in particular, would change Earth, I am not thrilled with my conclusion that they may be far more difficult than I thought.
Jim W.
I am aware that the moon is accelerating in its orbital speed slowly moving away from Earth at a inch and a half a year. I first thought this must mean that because of the relationship between the Earth, the tides and the moon, which is causing this acceleration, that the moon was pushing against Earth and the whole setup was a very big gravity motor. Then this same Dr. Wattenburg, in answering someone else's question, explained that the moon was moving was moving away because of angular momentum and the energy to accelerate the moon was coming from slowing Earth's rotation down as translated to the moon by the tides. It all sounds to me like an example of the inertial momentum you mention and the actual basis of the energy generated from that patent you methodically decimated in a long post of yours I remember.
Concidering how much I believed gravity motors, in particular, would change Earth, I am not thrilled with my conclusion that they may be far more difficult than I thought.
Jim W.
Re: re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
I think JC will reveal all he knows in this book. I asked a similar question recently. If you think about it JC has faithfully produced all of Bessler's books & even MT which was a work in progress for Bessler. In that time JC has resisted the temptation to add his comments [which he must have many] or give flavour to the translations so that they stay relatively sterile & ungarnished. That was probably a good thing to do, providing research material of integrity.wikiwheel wrote:The JC book will be a barn burner, but, you have to wonder if all will be told or some info saved back for the next sales opportunity. Mik
Now that all Bessler's works are published JC is free to release his latest work which does contain his personal findings & opinions as separate from Bessler's own actual publications, which we can reference. JC has spent nigh on 40 years researching Bessler so now would be a good time to release his theories & give this search a shot in the arm, now that this discussion board has quite a big membership [critical mass] which should ensure that it does not fade away into obscurity. JMO's.
I for instance haven't even thought about deciphering codes etc so I am really looking forward to reading & exploring that avenue, especially if it is the way forward, which it seems it must, else why would Bessler bother with that particularly cumbersome & time consuming activity.
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
Fletcher said:
"I for instance haven't even thought about deciphering codes etc so I am really looking forward to reading & exploring that avenue, especially if it is the way forward, which it seems it must, else why would Bessler bother with that particularly cumbersome & time consuming activity."
I think a good reason was that he wanted to prove he was the one that had the first working wheel.
"I for instance haven't even thought about deciphering codes etc so I am really looking forward to reading & exploring that avenue, especially if it is the way forward, which it seems it must, else why would Bessler bother with that particularly cumbersome & time consuming activity."
I think a good reason was that he wanted to prove he was the one that had the first working wheel.
re: Dr. Bill Wattenburg
Absolutely, so the codes must do more than point or hint at the final solution for the Prime Mover, to avoid any possible ambiguity about who was first with the principle that gives OU or PM, as defined in his day.