Most important clue?!

[jim_mich]

Thanks John, but that make perfect nonsense.

This could be a worthy discussion, which I think needs its own thread, which if I have time I'll start this evening, about 12 hours from now.

[Michael]

The only thing anyone can say on the point of whether the mechanism was doubled or not, or whether the true form of the wheel was always out of balance, or not, is "I speculate".

[Irish Oracle]

The only thing anyone can say on the point of whether the mechanism was doubled or not, or whether the true form of the wheel was always out of balance, or not, is "I speculate".

No the true form as u put it IS ALWAYS out of balance.

I know the solution and i will say exactly as bessler the wheel can never reach a point of rest/balance thats why it keeps rotating, always chasing the point of lowest center of gravity. But it will never find it.

[John Collins]

This could be a worthy discussion, which I think needs its own thread, which if I have time I'll start this evening, about 12 hours from now.

I look forward to it Jim_Mich

JC

[erick]

"The wheel's own inner force must come into being, without external momentum being applied".

AP pg. 362

[ovyyus]

...You also wish me to inform you why the Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise; well, I'll tell you. The two machines can easily be contrasted, as they worked on quite different principles. The former (Draschwitz) one turned in only one direction, but the latter (Merseburg) one turned, as everyone could see, both ways. The former was provided with felt coverings, but the latter was as bare as a bald head. I have many other machines of various types - some, for instance, with weights, others without.

By stating that he can build PM machines which contain no weights at all, isn't Bessler telling us that gravity and/or inertia are not relevant his basic PM principle (energy source)?

[DrWhat]

I think he was talking about other non PM machines when he said "some... without."

[ovyyus]

I don't think so DrWhat, the context seems clear.

[erick]

IMO it means that the over balance mechanism alone is enough to keep the wheel out of balance to the point of auto rotation.

[ovyyus]

Over balance without weights?

[erick]

Cross bars may not be "weights" but they do have weight ;-)

[jim_mich]

Bill, I don't have a copy of AP. Can you post what is written before and after the above quote? This may help to understand the full context of what Bessler wrote. Thanks.

[greendoor]

By stating that he can build PM machines which contain no weights at all, isn't Bessler telling us that gravity and/or inertia are not relevant his basic PM principle (energy source)?

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater soley based on this quote. The subtle meaning of words in translation is wide open to interpretation. And while I think Bessler was fundamentally honest, I suspect he loved playing with words, and teasing & taunting as close to deception as he thought his consciense would allow.

IMO, the basic principle of using gravity to create motion (like it does in space) instead of stress (like it does here on earth) is to trade height for time. If you get this basic principle, you can see that it could be applied to fluids. I suspect that some of the patents for self-running waterwheels aren't actually follies, but used this simple principle.

So i'm very comfortable with Bessler saying he could build PM devices without 'weights' - because I assume he would still be working with some form of mass that has a CoG to fall.

Maybe you and Jim Mitch are right. Maybe Bessler's wheel would run in zero G. I doubt it - but i'm sure that gravity isn't the only force that can be exploited. But i'm interested in gravity for it's low tech simplicity, safety & cost.

[ovyyus]

Greendoor, I certainly don't think Bessler's wheel would run in zero g. I do think Bessler's wheel employed weights and gravity in order to achieve overbalance and rotation. IMO, Bessler's wheel requires gravity just like a simple water wheel requires gravity. Both are overbalanced wheels. However, gravity is not what lifts the weights just as gravity is not what lifts the water.

On the other hand Jim's inertial approach requires no gravity at all.


Jim, no AP??? I think John offers instant download from his website. IMO, it's a facinating read that's well worth the small investment.

[FunWithGravity2]

Jim Mich

I WAS very much looking forward to your CF thread, but then i realised you already said it all. Trying to convince anyone further would be a waste of time and energy. And to argue with people.....nahhhh not even worth it. I for one believe that you are 100% correct. And i for one appreciate all the info that you give and continue to give regarding formulas. From someone with absolutely no science/engineering background it is very useful.

Thanks


I am working with CF, and find it to be the most interesting and possibly the most rewarding and underexplored area.

Just the shear volume of possibilities with weight mass, wheel mass, acceleration etc etc and the way they all need to be perfect or else in order to get CF to work. In my mind its where anyone who really wants to solve this problem should be looking. If besslers wheel was SIMPLE as a carpenters boy could build it. Then he would have been knocking them out post haste. I believe he needed to rediscover himself the real motive force each time and fine tune the wheel to work correctly each time. Pairs of swinging weights, yeah right, he must be laughing his a$$ off.


dave