Question for Bill

[bluesgtr44]

coylo wrote:
Hmmm.... what we need if some sort of billionaire philanthropist with a concern for the state the planet, to employ us as a team to work on this full time - research and development. What if, eh.... where your passion just happens to be your job!

Hey, what about this Al Gore guy. I've heard a bit about him and his interest in these kind of things......


Steve

[AB Hammer]

bluesgtr44

Hey, what about this Al Gore guy. I've heard a bit about him and his interest in these kind of things......

Are you sure you want someone who takes credit for inventing the internet????

Sir Richard Branson would be a much better choice of high profile billionaire who would sponsor and still give credit to the inventer.

If we can show that invention that come from our work, we might have a chance. Not just our gravity motors but other ideas that stem from our research. Like mechanical hammers ( I have one so far ) but it is aimed for blacksmiths type operation. Or mabe something that will do repeated actions for industrial application.

[rlortie]

You snooze, you loose!

IN 1994 I was attempting to back my pickup under a trailer hitch, it was after dark and I was alone with no one to guide me. It took me a number of attempts to get the ball directly under the trailer hitch.

I got a bright idea and welded a pipe nipple on the pickup stinger just ahead of the ball in which I placed a piece of PVC pipe that stuck up above the tailgate. I then place a tennis size ball on this similar to size of the hitch ball. I then made a similar one with a magnetic base that could be placed on the trailer hitch socket. Line the two up horizontally and vertically and I could spot my pickup under the hitch with ease on the first attempt. When the balls touched you know you were aligned.

I did not think any more about it and guess what! On the front cover of Harbor Freight Fall sale catalogs 48-D and 48-B, is an advertisement for a "Magnetic trailer alignment kit. Regular price $14.99 on sale for$7.49. Damn it looks just like the one I built in 1994 and cost me under a $1.25 to make.

My point is: we have innovations born of a need in every day life. But how many of them do we consider patenting? I certainly missed the boat on this one!

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Ralph, getting an idea is but the first step. Next you need to determine is the idea is workable. Next you need to determine if the idea could be profitable. Then you need to determine if the idea is patentable or if someone holds a patent. Next you need to determine if you want to make it or have someone make it for you or if you just want to try selling the idea to someone else. If you decide to make it, then can you afford the startup costs? If you want to sell product, can you afford paying someone to make the first batch of parts. Next do you have the marketing skills to sell the device? Do you have the business expertise to handle the taxes and etc.?

What I'm trying to say is that everyone thinks all they need to do is invent some sharp new device then get a patent and soon get rich. It doesn't happen like that. I belong to InvEd.org which is an emailing list for inventors. Most inventors struggle for years trying to make some money from their invention. Most lose more money than they make. A few inventors come up with a great idea then couple it with a lot of hard work. Eventually things start to snowball and they make some decent money from their endeavor. Even just selling your invention idea to someone requires an intense amount of work and financial output before you make your first penny.

Just my penny’s worth of thoughts.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Allen....

Sir Richard Branson would be a much better choice of high profile billionaire who would sponsor and still give credit to the inventer.

I saw an interview with him and was really impressed! He seems like a pretty down to earth guy for a billionaire.

I just want to ask this quick question that's a little off base from what is here.....surprise! LMAO, I know I have a habit of doing this.....

Who here thinks that the prime mover....the shifting of weights and all, is rotating at the same speed as the outer covering of Besslers wheels? Just curious.....I don't think so!


Steve

[jim_mich]

Steve,

Many here refer to the prime mover as being some sort of mechanical arrangement of weights that is separate from the wheel. Obviously if weights move then they cannot be rigidly attached to the wheel. So there are a number of possibilities. The weight pivot or swing is one. The weights roll or slide is another. Or the weights are a separate mechanism like Wagner’s windup turn spit.

Bessler says that the driving mechanism is the weights and he says that the wheel gains energy from the movement of the weights. This would seem to imply that the wheel is driven more by impulse or inertia rather than by out of balance turn spit type arrangement where the weights turn something that then turns the wheel.

I feel that his earlier one way wheels turned due to gravity, but by the time he built the later wheels the forces pushed the wheel directly rather than lifting weights which then fell and turned the wheel.

Just my thoughts.

[rlortie]

Steve,

Who here thinks that the prime mover....the shifting of weights and all, is rotating at the same speed as the outer covering of Bessler's wheels? Just curious.....I don't think so!

Not I! It may be stated that everything must turn with the axle, but that does not limit us to thinking that it turns about or around the axle or at the same speed.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

I don't think anyone can confidently answer that one Steve - it depends on how you think the Prime Mover worked ?

Even a turn spit type arrangement still requires an artificial gravity or anchoring point to run its torque against & we know Bessler said everything turns with the wheel, so that kinda rules that out, even if it could self wind itself.

[Gregory]

Who here thinks that the prime mover....the shifting of weights and all, is rotating at the same speed as the outer covering of Besslers wheels? Just curious.....I don't think so!

Hey Steve,

I think that some parts inside or the prime mover were most likely rotating 2x or more times faster than the wheel itself. Or other things works slower, but it is unlikely that everything worked on the same speed. (If there were more different moving components inside)

But there is also the possibility of intermittent types of motion.

[winkle]

every thing went round at the same speed if considering a 360 degree turn of the wheel

the above is not true if considering less than a full rotation

[wikiwheel]

I don't think anyone can confidently answer that one Steve - it depends on how you think the Prime Mover worked ?

Even a turn spit type arrangement still requires an artificial gravity or anchoring point to run its torque against & we know Bessler said everything turns with the wheel, so that kinda rules that out, even if it could self wind itself.

"to cause a weight to 'lightly' fly upwards..."


"lightly" and "fly" If "lightly", then that implies that the weights were raised by CF as they flew across the zenith, and not PUSHED or HIT by another object.

I just wonder if those were the actual meanings to Bessler's words.

I have built a system which creates and harvests CF to continually raise and lower other weights, but at the moment can't translate what it is into rotary motion.

I can't wait to tell what it is after JC distributes the new book in 2009.


mik

[graham]

Hey Fletcher, if weights are "Flying" lightly you might be on the right track with your Aerodynamic Lift theory.
Can you give us a general idea of what you have in mind ??

Graham

[DrWhat]

I thought John's book was coming out in 2017! :-)

[Fletcher]

Graham .. anecdotal evidence - I prefer to wait until I have built & tested my full theory before revealing the design - the question is where did the energy come from if it doesn't break the CoE law - from the air molecules which are an energy sink in this context.

Lets start with jim_mich's comparison of translations [he laid it out nicely so why do it again] form DT [1719 & after AP 1717] - I have bolded in Red the word 'flight/escape/flee which is a word play from DT which marries closely with the AP pounds & quarters riddle IMO.

Forum: General Discussion Posted: Mon 14 May, 2007 9:43 am Subject: re: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed..."

Comparing the three translations phrase by phrase...

The internal structure of this drum (or wheel) consists of weights arranged according to several a priori, that is, scientifically demonstrable, laws of mechanical perpetual motion.

inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of perpetual motion,

The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of perpetual motion,


-------------

After the wheel completes a single rotation, or after a single force is applied to the wheel,

so arranged that certain disposed weights once in rotation,

work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement,

-------------

the motion drives the wheel unceasingly.

gain force from their own swinging,

to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely

-------------

As long as the wheel's whole structure does not change, the wheel continues its revolutions without any further assistance from external motive power.

and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement.

that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity - without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation

-------------

Other automatic machines,

Unlike all other automata,

such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other "automatics"

-------------

such as clockwork, springs, and hoisting weights, necessarily require an external restoring force.

such as clocks or springs or other hanging weights which require winding up or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them,

e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding.

-------------

The upper weight is not attached to an external mechanism, nor does it rely on external moving bodies by means of whose weight revolutions continue as long as the cords or chains on which they hang permit.

on the contrary these weights are the essential parts and constitute perpetual motion itself;

For this concept, my "principle of excess weight", is NOT just an external appendage, an "added-on device" which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cords or chains, from which it depends, permit.

-------------

As long as it remains outside the center of gravity, this upper weight incessantly exercises universal motion from which the essential constituent parts of the machine receive power and push.

as from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity;

NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the "essential constituent parts" which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity.

-------------

These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium

and when they come to placed together, so arranged that they can never obtain equilibrium,

To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium

-------------

(or point of rest)

or the punctum quietus

or "point of rest",

-------------

for themselves but incessantly seek with their admirably fast swing to move

which they unceasingly seek in their wondrous speedy flight,

but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity

-------------

and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside and are proportional to the size of the housing.

one or another of them must apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn will also move'.

which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing, This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.

=============

It amazes me the above variations in interpretation.

Al Bacon's translation is green.
Henry Dirks translation is black, used in PM-AAMS.
Mike Senior's translation is blue, used in Das Triumphirende.

Forum: General Discussion Posted: Fri 19 Jan, 2007 3:13 am Subject: re: could someone answer this question

I have tried to find the word "swing or swinging" by translating that part of AP in both German and Latin and it does not seem to be there. This is by Ted Bacon and I do like the idea of different input...but, I was not able to find it....

The word you're referring to in that part of the text is 'Flucht',

which translates to: flight/fleeing/escape ... "in their admirably quick flight".

At the being of the paragraph the word 'Schwunges' is used. If you want to look up its meaning just drop the '-es' ending as that is only added for the genitive case. It means swing/momentum ... "impressed force of the swing".

I'm just working on translating that whole paragraph and I'll post my results here when I've finished.

Stewart

In the AP poem Bessler throws in a what seemingly is a random word visualization about have you ever seen sparrows fighting over crumbs on a mill wheel - below is Stewarts thoughts on that passage [thanks Stewart] - I feel he is also drawing an analogy but not about how many weights.

I think what he means with the last two lines of that bit ("as I only recently noticed, when I came to such [a] quarrel.") is that he only recently appreciated the analogy when he happened to see such a fight, rather than only recently appreciating the folly of adding too many weights to a wheel.

Lastly [but not exclusively], the AP woodcut pie diagram "do you not still understand" - this was published at the end of AP [1717] when he thought a sale of his wheel was imminent so could afford to put his best clue forward to establish priority - it was a pictorial representation of something to do with his wheels, that something was important - it is not a mechanical arrangement - IMO it looks like a stylized windmill & IMO would be the one & only time he referred to his Prime Mover other than with the odd word game or obscure reference, especially as time went on.

The toy page - shows mechanical arrangements for shifting weights - the hand drawn spinning top [a whistling top] is IMO his obscure representation in MT [unpublished] of the Prime Mover force & is the only drawing there that is not a mechanical arrangement.

[graham]

Nice post Fletcher, some food for thought here, thanks.

I believe you are the only to try the A L approach, good luck with it.

Graham