Gravity definitions/Keely

[F.Nepure]

Dear All,
A new post - going back to PrimeIgmonite's original Keely/Bessler comparison.
Having researched some of Keely's work, it seems that his viewpoint on what gives matter it's energy is somewhat different to the current Newtonian and Einsteinian beliefs.
And so if this is relevant to understanding Keely's devices - or Bessler's perpetual motion then i believe it should be investigated thoroughly.

In a similar way to Tesla, Keely hinted that all matter/phenomena is produced from waveforms acting in the aether. Combinations of waveforms creating virtual particles which then go on to become the composite parts of more solid atomic structures.
Since the early 1900s, mainstream science has outlawed the concept of aether and modern belief is [or was] supposedly based on the idea that all phenomena is made from atoms, or smaller indestructable particles.
And yet - modern quantumn mechanics has reached a point [of infinitesalism] where it is now dealing with string theories, or wave particles - infinitesimal particles which are in fact a waveform function.
But a waveform in what? Any waveform [light, sound, heat, x-ray, radiation, etc...] needs a medium in which it can create or propogate itself.
And so it seems that we have come full-circle, and may well have to accept the idea that the aether is the undetactable field of space and time that allows waveforms to propagate and travel through this medium, like ripples travelling across water.

1) So is gravitational force is a property of matter itself? [as Newton suggested]
2) Is it caused by mass creating spacetime curvature? [as Einstein suggested]
3) Or is it caused by a field of force? [as Tesla sugested]

Here's another interesting question: If the Newtonian model is correct - why don't all the asteroids in the Keiper-Belt clump together - or clump to a planet?

I'd be interested to hear from those who have strong beliefs in 1),2) or 3). Most people these days focus on 1) when they talk about gravity.
- So it is interesting to bring awareness to the fact that men like Keely and Tesla weren't really into the Newtonian theory. Even Newton himself expressed large doubts over why gravity could be an intrinsic property of mass itself.
I hope this can eventually tie-in with James' post on Keely's neutral centre.

[AB Hammer]

F.Nepure

Now that is food for thought. Thanks

[primemignonite]

Poor old Keely has been so-made the very archetype of most outrageous fraud by the mainstream smear machine, that even I got caught up in it!

Not anymore.

The man was onto something of substance, sure. That his cause was later taken-up by the Theosophists, should not be used as basis for detracting from his quite solid approaches to subjects energetic/sonant, and re-sonant. (And besides, who can say that those mysterians of Theio have nothing to offer truly? Not me.)

His findings and writings, to the effect that all was some form of vibration or other, was founded upon his experiences as A BELLOWS BOY!


Seems that he and some of his fellows worked the giant pneumatics that produced the wind for his church's organ, and it was this that caused him to realize certain things which, in-turn, led him to others tangible, such as the advent of the tiny, turning conch motor hidden in the box, for which a penny per view was charged, making it a paying though minute, real commercial proposition. (Portentous of things yet-to-come?)

Visceral, living experience, it was.

Proposition: throw out all that and what followed, as just so much trash?

I think . . . "not!".

James

PS Many thanks, F. Nepure, for the deserving boost you here give this subject. It is in the area of neutrality where the Bessler secret will finally reveal itself, and then, all will be in a state of most delicious upset to the status quo and it's sychophant worshipers.

[F.Nepure]

James,
I certainly agree with your thoughts on the Keely discoveries. Perhaps we are alone in believing that Keely had indeed discovered something extraordinary - if only he'd left behind an understandable instruction manual!
I am gradually decifering some of his ideas, but understanding his terminology is not any easy task. It's not difficult to see why many people think he was a crackpot.
In the meantime, i want to share a list of ideas which i've had over the last few months. Most of them are a slight departure from the conventional ideas of pairs of weights & springs.
But - i believe that there was an input [from something] to enable the weights to move in an overbalanced fashion.
These ideas are all just for perusal & speculation :-

1) Weights fall on both sides, but when they land, one stores energy in a spring, and the other just dissipates it.
Like two men falling from a building. One lands on a huge pile of cardboard boxes - the energy is absorbed/dissipated.
The other lands on a spring/trampoline, which absorbs the energy at the same rate as the cardboard boxes, but then releases it, creating a reactionary force.
Possibly incorporating a ratchet/one-way mechanism to ensure that the energy trapped in the spring can only propel the machine forward.
Theoretical possibility of more energy on the side of the spring. i.e. energy is dissipated on the other side.
I.E. a form of reaction engine. Like hurling steel balls from a shopping trolley - you propel yourself forward through reaction.

2) The concept that an air container in a waterbath can have force applied to it off-centre, [i.e. on either side of a wheel's axis]
and yet it is possible that the overbalance is compensated-for by the changing water level. Doubtful how this can help any specific design though.

3) Raising the weights using thermodynamic means, possibly incorporating Archer's loop [thermodynamic recirculation loop].
Via an airstream or 2 seperate airstreams of different temperatures. The temperature difference giving suction/lift between the two, to then raise the weights.
And of course - the thermodynamic energy required to generate the lift would have to be less than the energy generated on the falling side.
Similar to a Stirling engine. But cannot see how it could get to over-unity.
If an Archer's loop does allow a temperature to be sustained with apparent over-unity power consumption then this may be an avenue [as that Australian inventor believes].

4) Overbalance through aerodynamic means, probably through a combination of aerodynamic shapes [& manipulation of aerodynamic shapes on the moving/travelling component]
And also perhaps an airstream circling around the wheel rim.
Imagine a skydiver with a large free-spinning propelor strapped to his back [didn't the SS try this...?With pulse-jet engines at the tips of the propelor?]
Definately going adrift of the matter here....

5) Vortex energies. Why did Bessler draw pictograms of swirling/rising vortex systems, like those in rising thermals and tornados.
Rather like the spectacle of a tower of Buzzards [or other birds of prey] circling up gradually on a thermal.
These drawings possibly symbolic of the means that enabled weight to generate more power falling than it took to rise. [or possily not]

6) Manipulation of electromagnetic fields. Might sound a bit far-fetched for 1710 but Bessler did have a lode stone, and MT116 & 118 look like they might represent a magnetic field.
But this is probably pushing the envelope. Certain electro-static generators did exist at this time [simpler versions of the van der graaf generator].
Possibility of a flow of magnetism being manipulated to provide constant force shielding magnets or revolving magnetic fields, etc...
But - much work has been done in this area [to no avail], and it is unlikely that Bessler had such knowledge of magnetism [but not impossible]

7) Possibility of developing energies from a balanced/opposed conservative-force system. i.e A tug of war that turns on and off, but always equalizes itself. So it never moves anywhere.
Theory similar to a standing wave, or scalar waveform.
Otis T Carr, a student of Tesla's referred to an equation that went something like +4 divided by -4 = 0. But that this was no normal 0 [it wwass a special 0!]
And this supposedly explained the operation of his Tesla-inspired Utron anti-gravity craft [which never flew in public] - but i like the idea...
Many of the MT drawings show a closed system, which appears futile. You move arm A, it pushes arm B which then drives arm A again. Apparently pointless?

8) Similar concepts to those dreamed up by Eric Laithwaite and Bruce DePalma on an anti-gravity system using opposed gyroscopic precession forces to create reactionless propulsion.
Problems seem to be the very high amounts of rotational energy needed to generate a very small amount anti-gravity effect.
But there may be possibilities for this type of system if it is incorporated into a wheel.
i.e. the whole reaction assembly travels around in a circle, and is timed to generate it's reaction impulses at the appropriate moment.
But again, the energy required to spin up gyros may be greater than the weight loss.
And difficulty in calculating forces once the system becomes dynamic.

9) A stirling engine [or similar heat-engine concept] which makes use of the cooling effect generated by a vortex [central low pressure in air/water developed by centrifuge]
This is obviously straying away from Bessler's pairs of weights & springs but is as close as my mind can get to free energy.
Ambient or solar-heated air/water is used to expand a piston/chamber [in conjunction with the opposite, contracting cold side].
A heat exchanger using centrifuge/vortex of water is used to provide the medium to contract the piston/chamber on the cool side.
Any energy comes from the temperature difference. If it takes more energy to drive the vortex/centrifuge whirlpool then it's not over-unity.
Basically - a heat pump engine.
The only novelty in this is the idea that the cooling effect is generated by the low pressure in the centre of a whirlpool
- rather than using another conventional radiator/heat exchanger [like a fridge].

10) Large central pendulum swinging back and forth from 3 O'clock to 9 O'clock. Pendulum pivots on one-way bearing/ratchet on axis.
Rest of wheel runs full 360 degrees, and has weights that can move outwards due to CF.
CF forces from 3 O'clock to 9 O'clock move these weights out [at speeds under 80rpm]
These then act on a mechanism which provides a shunt to the pendulum at 3 O'clock.
The pendulum then powers as it swings back on it's one-way bearing.


- Easy to get drawn away from the simple weight concepts, but thermodynamics does offer many new avenues of thought. I hope there is some inspiration in there for the development of ideas.
I often have ideas and then don't develop or test them.
It's difficult, because you have to have a lot of faith in an idea to go out & buy materials & put a design into 3D.
The idea has to seem perfect in your mind & on paper before going out and spend money & time on it.
But then again - i once spent ages building a hubless motorised unicycle [and was certain in my mind that it would work...]
I even registered a patent for it!

[primemignonite]

Dear F.,

It was a very large spate of information that you put up there.

Yes, I agree. Keely will be vindicated just as Bessler will, and
hopefully sooner than later.

From the "Keelytech" site, I became entranced with the high
level of workmanship he lavished upon his instruments. I sup-
pose it is now all possessed by the Theosophical Society people.

You present ten sections of ideas. All are interesting but with one
or two being more-so than others.

For me, the first takes the prize. However, the last sentence part,
which implies a constant loss of mass from a system as a rocket
would, cannot possibly be right for the Bessler model, I think,
but as to all the rest - great!

Here are some links to information headed right down this first
alley of yours:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wwwboard/messages/1202.html
It is from Scott's "Thoughts" string from long ago. The information
is relevant and essential.

I thought the part on pendulum behavior fascinating, though
the one of real use being about impact v. impulse.

The "Bull Engine" referenced there, was to the purpose of
achieving a reactionless propulsion. Bessler's wheel I believe
to have been but a successful circulat version of the Bull device.

I could not reach it just now on the Naudin pages, his site seems
to be down for the moment. If you like I can e-mail it. I archived it
just in case.

And . . . read too, all about Airy's theory on the possibility of PM, but
let us do remember that the laws of Thermo had yet to be hewn of
solid straw, starting seriously in 1847, one naturally supposes.

It too, also supplied by Scott, but on the outside of the Forum
at: http://www.besslerwheel.com/airy/index.html

As for 5), where are these drawn vortices of Bessler's to be seen?
I would very much like to view some. Maybe they were darker
imaginings inspired by his wife or the servant girl, possibly?

Part 7) relates directly to part 1), I think. Phase relationships of
events were very much being manipulated to positive effect,
I am sure. You write at the end "Apparently pointless?",
to which I would respond with "Appearances can be deceiving."

Eric Laithwaite was the proto-typical English eccentric professor.
It is too bad he's no longer around, for I'm positive he would have
been a contributor here.

Ah yes . . . Bruce de Palma!

I spent a couple of delightful afternoons with him in Santa Barbara,
listening to monophonic George Wright organ LP's, and pouring
Beefeater Gin through "the south end", as in a sacred ritual. (George
never sounded better.)

A delightful person to visit, and to hear expound upon various
wonders, as he imagined them, but alas, now gone too as with so
many others I recall. [He never did crank-up that "N-machine" for me,
though I did get to see it - like a wondrous time machine, I thought it
appeared.

At 9) we arrive at the practically exclusive province of Ovyyus' himself.
In this terra incognita et terribles, I have no thoughts-constructive
whatever. Sorry.

10) is too reminiscent of Poe's nightmarish scene of torture from
"The Pit and the Pendulum". On it, I can proceed no further with
reflections-sane.

"I often have ideas and then don't develop or test them.
It's difficult, because you have to have a lot of faith in an idea to go
out; buy materials; put a design into 3D. " - F. Napure

Ah!, but the trick is to get it operating into THE FOURTH!

Thanks for writing.

James

[F.Nepure]

James,
Thanks for your thoughts on those.
Yes -idea 1) should have been reaction-less [or reaction minimising] in line with the concept behind Bull's fantastic thumping-spring engine.
I realise that most of these avenues have probably been gone over many times in years past by the majority of the discussion group.
I expect the gyro-propulsion of inventor Alex Jones has probably been discussed on this forum also. [which was what originally inspired Eric on his gyro-quest]
The vortex connection came from the bizarre MT116, 119 & 120. Which sprang into my mind when i was looking into Viktor Schauberger's trout motor & Repulsine craft.
My studies into understanding Keely's tortuous verbiage on dynaspheric force continue slowly!

[erick]

Dear All,
A new post - going back to PrimeIgmonite's original Keely/Bessler comparison.
Having researched some of Keely's work, it seems that his viewpoint on what gives matter it's energy is somewhat different to the current Newtonian and Einsteinian beliefs.
And so if this is relevant to understanding Keely's devices - or Bessler's perpetual motion then i believe it should be investigated thoroughly.

In a similar way to Tesla, Keely hinted that all matter/phenomena is produced from waveforms acting in the aether. Combinations of waveforms creating virtual particles which then go on to become the composite parts of more solid atomic structures.
Since the early 1900s, mainstream science has outlawed the concept of aether and modern belief is [or was] supposedly based on the idea that all phenomena is made from atoms, or smaller indestructable particles.
And yet - modern quantumn mechanics has reached a point [of infinitesalism] where it is now dealing with string theories, or wave particles - infinitesimal particles which are in fact a waveform function.
But a waveform in what? Any waveform [light, sound, heat, x-ray, radiation, etc...] needs a medium in which it can create or propogate itself.
And so it seems that we have come full-circle, and may well have to accept the idea that the aether is the undetactable field of space and time that allows waveforms to propagate and travel through this medium, like ripples travelling across water.

1) So is gravitational force is a property of matter itself? [as Newton suggested]
2) Is it caused by mass creating spacetime curvature? [as Einstein suggested]
3) Or is it caused by a field of force? [as Tesla sugested]

Here's another interesting question: If the Newtonian model is correct - why don't all the asteroids in the Keiper-Belt clump together - or clump to a planet?

I'd be interested to hear from those who have strong beliefs in 1),2) or 3). Most people these days focus on 1) when they talk about gravity.
- So it is interesting to bring awareness to the fact that men like Keely and Tesla weren't really into the Newtonian theory. Even Newton himself expressed large doubts over why gravity could be an intrinsic property of mass itself.
I hope this can eventually tie-in with James' post on Keely's neutral centre.

The answer is 1 and 2. Gravitational mass is a property of all matter but that mass comes about as a result of it's relative velocity to the rest of the surrounding Universe as Einstien described. All mass of all matter is defined by the rate of acceleration of that particle from the Big Bang. So in short 1 and 2 are not in opposition to each other.

[iacob alex]

.....at : www.alamy.com/stock-photo-keely-motor-f ... 90255.html
The first ( and the worst...) fraud is to cheat oneself...
Al_ex