I edited that part out. It seemed like there were two thoughts in one sentence. The point of 'it doesn't mean that others should follow this approach' is what caught my eye.
Going with the theme of the thread and looking at some ideas people have posted about what the consensus was on different points I thought it was fitting to challenge some of the ideas. One idea was the meaning of 'perpetual motion' and it's change historically. From other threads there is the idea of the implications of the meaning of a working wheel which ties into the contemporary meaning of 'perpetual motion'.
Another thought has been where the energy comes from to overcome the near conservative nature of gravity. It doesn't make any difference to me how people want to approach this mystery. I do think for the sake of understanding, people should be able to defend their ideas with more than 'in my opinion' or 'I feel'. Back to the topic of the thread I think a better question would by 'why' do you have or don't have optimism. I've attempted to move it that way but I suspect I've hurt some sensibilities. :)
So, when I look at the MT designs and what he says about them, I surmise that whatever the device is that makes it work....will work with most of these basic designs. If it is indeed an OOB system, this device is what causes it....and it is a serious imbalance.
That might be with maybe two caveats. Most of the designs have to be an iconic depiction. The motion is too extreme to be practical. The other thought is if there is some form of weight and mechanics that would drive the out of balanced designs of the mt then it should be sufficient in itself.
I'd like to jump to Clarkie's defence. I know and have met Clarkie on several occasions when we have discussed his work in attempting to solve Bessler's wheel, and he has been working on some good ideas and put a lot of effort and money into his designs.. He's a decent guy and IMO not deserving of your sarcastic comments. I know a lot about his work and he has my respect. Many people here don't share their ideas with the forum for many reasons, myself included, and others are happy to offer some excellent suggestions. That is their choice and this is the mark of a democratic organisation. Clarkie speaks his mind, especially when provoked, perhaps the attacks on his input was unwarranted?
'sGravesande defined PM & ruled out external agents which he lists - but Bessler never came forward with his own succinct precise definition - sure he rambles on about how it isnot done [which covers some of the same things that 'sGravesande did] but leaves out others - this lack of preciseness & avoidance on Bessler's part points to an element of ruse & subterfuge about his Prime Mover force that moved the weights - yes, Bessler does say that the weights themselves constituted the essential PM, but here he is talking about the essential over-balancing of the wheel, not about what caused the weights to shift into imbalance that was supplementary to gravity - Bill put it very clearly a couple of pages back about Bessler's fears on sale of his wheel, IOW's once the Prime Mover was known Bessler probably would be open to all sorts of criticism, especially about definitions of PM & whether he could rightly claim his was a PM wheel.
Steve .. your comments about the quick acceleration up to operating speed within a few turns & its ability to do work are a fact - this was a significant force that caused the imbalance of weights [they did not 'guide themselves' as Stewart pointed out] - this force was quite large, not an abberation of the physics of swinging objects etc, yet to be rediscovered - IMO the wheel did not acquire more momentum or reduce back-torque [action & reactional forces] to cause continuous positive torque, this was created by weights being displaced further from the axle & then being repositioned nearer the axle again later - pure weight imbalance caused by a force [a large & obvious force once found].
A point of difference - I'm not certain but I believe the lifting of a box of stones thru pulleys etc was not from a standing start [direct drive] - I believe the hitch over the axle was tightened by pulling on the rope to create friction once the wheel was turning & then it could lift the box of stones [like slip winches work] - the archimedes water screw would have been direct drive so to speak - might be wrong about this but I doubt that his wheels could pull maximum torque from a stand still ? - if we had an answer to that one it might go some way to resolving the differences of opinion about whether Bessler's wheels were always OOB or whether they needed dynamic movement to generate the force ?
If you'll review the flow of this dialog you'll notice he initiated it. There is little sarcasm in my observations of his trying to buy into an idea and his taking an idea posted and to design it.
I asked him what he felt was his most significant contribution to the forum and he failed to answer. He is the one that brought up the point of usefulness. His last post is indicative of his abusive self absorbed character and his record on the forum speaks for itself. I didn't mention his agreeable style that's a lot like, 'yea, what Jim said.' Not much contribution to speak of.
When you get me out of the water of facts and rational thought I'm really out of my element. Peter seems to thrive on attacking people and other fallacies out the yin yang.
You can defend him all you care to but if you honestly look at this dialog you can see the only defense I have are the actual facts of what has transpired.
A point of difference - I'm not certain but I believe the lifting of a box of stones thru pulleys etc was not from a standing start [direct drive] - I believe the hitch over the axle was tightened by pulling on the rope to create friction once the wheel was turning & then it could lift the box of stones [like slip winches work] - the archimedes water screw would have been direct drive so to speak - might be wrong about this but I doubt that his wheels could pull maximum torque from a stand still ? -
I totally agree about how the rope is used to lift the load... like a cathead on a fishing boat. I have always wondered if the external pendulums were not used for lowering loads loads to give it controlled back pressure.
Personally, I think the wheel would have hauled the load upwards then the reverse pull/tension on the hitch slackened to allow a controlled descent of the box [while the wheel kept turning in the same direction], rather than stopping the wheel & reversing it so that it acted as a brake on the way down - otherwise the box of stones would have caused some speed up in the wheels RPM, like coasting in your car down hill while in gear, the RPM's still increase even though there is engine braking.
Bill put it very clearly a couple of pages back about Bessler's fears on sale of his wheel, IOW's once the Prime Mover was known Bessler probably would be open to all sorts of criticism, especially about definitions of PM & whether he could rightly claim his was a PM wheel.
This might be clear but it's speculation of Bessler's fears. The conjecture of other words supports the basis for Bessler's fear by circling that conjecture back to the premise.
I don't see a fact supporting any of this circle of reason. If I might be blunt without hurting anyone's sensibilities would it be too much to ask for a fact?
the Archimedes water screw would have been direct drive so to speak - might be wrong about this but I doubt that his wheels could pull maximum torque from a stand still ?
I agree that the Archimedes water screw is not a direct drive and I do not believe you may be wrong! At start there is no head or pressure and once stopped that head is quickly depleted. The torque against the wheel is built as the water is forced to rise. Not unlike a torque converter in an automatic auto transmission.
By the way! I wish to nominate Bessler007 as armchair philosopher of the month!
My personal experience regarding Clarkie agrees with John Collins statement. I regard him with high respect. He is not one to sit back and philosophize over non-productive issues. A man of few words, but when he does say something it is worth giving thought to.
G'day Fletch....Those descriptions are the basis of this contraption to me. The things he couldn't hide....this is free information of a source that is so hard to refute. The whole setup might end up being a farce in terms of PPM and how it is defined.....but this he couldn't take from the peoples own eyes.
So, if one choses to believe that Bessler was not a fraud....as I try to do....this is more than just an ability to perpetuate a movement. He even speaks of this, calling it a PERMO simply because it has the ability to also do meaningful work!
When I think about this, I can't help but think it is being held back....for this to have the ability to hold and maintain a steady rate of speed and still do work, it would have to be....else it would reach a maximum rate of speed and that would be it's work. This would be a zero potential situation IMO. So, this thing has enough OOB potential to not only accelerate to a steady rate of speed....it can also pull a load at some point while doing it.
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
A point of difference - I'm not certain but I believe the lifting of a box of stones thru pulleys etc was not from a standing start [direct drive] - I believe the hitch over the axle was tightened by pulling on the rope to create friction once the wheel was turning & then it could lift the box of stones [like slip winches work] - the archimedes water screw would have been direct drive so to speak - might be wrong about this but I doubt that his wheels could pull maximum torque from a stand still ? - if we had an answer to that one it might go some way to resolving the differences of opinion about whether Bessler's wheels were always OOB or whether they needed dynamic movement to generate the force ?
To be honest, Fletch...we don't know what that maximum torque was....we only know what he displayed. I really think he took no chances of something going awry and he was not displaying the full potential....he wanted it to look good and he knew how to do it!
Hey Ralph.....
I agree that the Archimedes water screw is not a direct drive and I do not believe you may be wrong! At start there is no head or pressure and once stopped that head is quickly depleted. The torque against the wheel is built as the water is forced to rise. Not unlike a torque converter in an automatic auto transmission.
I believe he would have an easier time getting the archimedes screw going as a direct drive the way his drawing interprets it working, much more so than lifting the load of stones.....I still refer to my above about us not really knowing the full potential....we only know what was displayed.
I remember it being mentioned about the lowering of the load and how the wheel acted as a governor....I'll have to try and make sure it's not another one of those "...arrangement of levers" like old Frank did....the type of documentation with nothing to back it up.
I read over those documents explaining the performance and I just think to myself "what would it take to accomplish that"?!?!?
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
I come here every day to read the posts but I'm trying to resist the urge to comment! I'm busy earning some extra money working for my old employer and that leaves little time for all the other things I'm trying to do.
I'm trying to finish the book, build a model of Bessler's wheel that works (aren't we all!) and write out my decoded stuff and post it on my web site. Don't go there yet because its not up yet and anyway there is a proviso.
I have a dilemma. , I think I've decoded enough to understand the principle behind Bessler's wheel and I'm trying to find the time to build it. But because someone else might get there first, I'm writing out the full explanation and I intend to encode it again and post it on my web site. In theory that should provide evidence that I did know the answer even if someone else actually makes a working model before me. At some stage I'll provide the method for decoding what is there.
I have a hard time resisting the temptation to give vague clues to help, but as Bessler said one word might reveal my secret.
I'm sure there are many here who will disapprove my plans but I hope they will forgive me because if I don't succeed in making the model work I will be publishing all details in my book and I intend this forum should know all, well before publishing date. Then you will all be able to have a go.
John
In any group or organization, it is beneficial for there to be at least one voice that always says what needs to be said.
You're trying to copy Bessler by authoring your own MT like publication. How cute. One thing though. Bessler had a working wheel. So encoding what you think might be the instructions for building a dream wheel is a waste of your time, and a waste of our time tuning in to this additional drama you've come up with instead of publishing your book.
PS: I have already built a good prime mover mechanism that works. With this prime mover mechanism moving around on one wheel, and another bare wheel turning beside it, there is no difference in the RPM between them both from start to coasting stop.
In other words, this prime mover mechanism does not at any time unbalance the theel it is attached to.
This prime mover mechanism creates a force of 1/2 pound in a travel of 2.75 inches.
Using heavier weights in this prime mover mechanism would of course create more force to work with.
PPS: This is what I meant by the "wrong person" discovering the secret.
Last edited by wikiwheel on Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Philosophy of science is the study of assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
.
Before you can know the implications of this discovery it is necessary to understand the difference between the foundational underpinnings of physics and the assumptions.
Some are driven to discover this very extreme motion based on feelings of some of the foundational ideas having concise mathematical descriptions while accepting the assumptions of physics purely on the faith that smarter men than they have arrived at those conclusions.
A major motivation for me in this inquiry has been seeing how some mechanics don't quite follow the assumptions of the conservation of energy and the conservative nature of gravity. That's what the math at several levels indicates. There are some that are satisfied with their feelings about this but I would rather understand it as much as I can.
That's why I would rather deal with specific facts contrasted to the vague generalizations of politicians. I'm funny that way. You can't nail down jello. Some with a political bent know that all too well and do a better job imitating jello than jello itself.
A major motivation for me in this inquiry has been seeing how some mechanics don't quite follow the assumptions of the conservation of energy and the conservative nature of gravity. That's what the math at several levels indicates. There are some that are satisfied with their feelings about this but I would rather understand it as much as I can.
That's why I would rather deal with specific facts contrasted to the vague generalizations of politicians. I'm funny that way. You can't nail down jello. Some with a political bent know that all too well and do a better job imitating jello than jello itself.
I have no problem taking what intrigues me from these threads and just leaving the rest alone. It doesn't matter whether it is based on fact or a generalization...it's about whether it might help me understand something a little better. We are a diverse group....it would be a shame if everybody approached this in the same way.
And on the jello thing.....I nailed some down on the USS Albany in the 1970's.....Not sure if you are familiar with Navy food, but....I'll bet it's still there!
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
