How many principles did Bessler have?

[unstable]

MrTim, I wish you the most sincere wishes that everything will behave as you expected. Money or no money (this is a subjective decision) it is time for this great mystery to be revealed and the first one who succeeds will make a huge contribution to society.

Claudio

[Fletcher]

Well said Claudio - a huge contribution to society !

I see the moment it happens as a slow seismic event, rumbling us out of the Dark Ages and ushering in a modern Renaissance of acceptance and use.

Whomever it is, they will have my utmost RESPECT ! It wouldn't have come willingly or easy !

And if a member of this discussion board band-of-brothers I would be happier still. All power to your elbow Mr Tim - I'll buy your book whether I know how it works or not beforehand. As long as it has some of your sardonic wit to which I have become accustomed lol. And isn't 800 pages !

[WaltzCee]

I just edited an old post here
viewtopic.php?p=182903#p182903

The last forum wouldn't let us edit such an old post.

[agor95]

I just edited an old post here
viewtopic.php?p=182903#p182903

The last forum wouldn't let us edit such an old post.

I think you are getting enthusiastic of the subject other than the topic in principle. How many posts have you deleted?

[WaltzCee]

How many posts have you deleted?

If I were enthusiastically deleting posts why would I mention it?

Don't be stupid.

[axel]

He used the principle of honesty. We won’t call his invention , the Embezzlerwheel.

[agor95]

He used the principle of honesty. We won’t call his invention , the Embezzlerwheel.

You have a good point to single down to the fundamental root of his principle.

Looking for the fundamental root of the wheels' operation that causes it too operate by definition is right. Therefore honest.

Naturally he was obtuse while being honest. Being honest and open is not a way too riches but too honour.

<deleted lines>

Regards

[vlmmoa55]

Hi

I would like to ask how many 'Principles' Bessler eludes to.

I know of two:
1. Principle of access weight.
2. Principle of connectedness.
.

it has as many principles as wheels that turn at different speeds, i.e. 3 or 4

[Tarsier79]

My opinion:

Although Bessler says the word "principle" many times, the most important factor is the one that causes PM.

The answer is 1.

He had many implementations of that 1 principle. There is one way to beat COE. If you know it......

[Leafy]

I agree with Tarsier

The whole world couldn't figure out 1 principle, what is the chance of there is a second one?

[Georg Künstler]

by Tarsier79 » Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:23 am
He had many implementations of that 1 principle. There is one way to beat COE. If you know it......

He had 2 principles the self starting version and the version starting with a finger push.

The self starting version is, as Bessler said, one side full, the other empty. this version is runnong one directional.
The version started with a finger push requires to be activated with a push/pull, it is bi-directional.

The one directional wheel is more powerful and the power output is depending on the building size of the wheel and the mass.

[Leafy]

He had 2 principles the self starting version and the version starting with a finger push.

The self starting version is, as Bessler said, one side full, the other empty. this version is runnong one directional.
The version started with a finger push requires to be activated with a push/pull, it is bi-directional.

The one directional wheel is more powerful and the power output is depending on the building size of the wheel and the mass.

You define principles as car, train, or plane.

I define principle as engine. IF you understand engine, you should be able to build car, train, or plane.

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .
In my view, if the weights are lifted by levers then this is one theory of operation. If they are lifted by ropes and pulleys this is another theory of operation.
In both cases the weights take the same path, so they would be one and the same principal.

I don't think Newton lied, i think he made a mistake when he applied his logic to a rotating frame.

I'm modeling this glitch in Newtonian physics, changing different variables in the
mathematical expression that's emerging but have yet to examine it in a rotating
frame of reference.

I'll SIM a comparison between the maximum torque compared to torque
180° out of phase. It's going to be a static comparison.

inverted pendulum__1634643536_69.143.100.181.jpg (11.28 KiB) Viewed 3357 times

I doubt Newton ever saw a pendulum like unto this! It begins to descend negatively (c.w.) with a Com practically at ( 0,0 ) then whoa the vectors defy gravity and it flys upward in a flash!

It's like balancing a baseball bat in your hand.

Unfortunately it tends to drift off the top in the positive direction to keel territory.



I haven't managed to control this pendulum in a rotating frame.

The hunt continues.

The future has been around for a long time
We've just not gotten to it yet

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi WaltzCee,

I was just waving my arms around, haven't tried it yet. Maybe your idea is better. I don't know how I managed to screw this up but got it on the wrong page and can't seam to get rid of it-----------------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

Hi WaltzCee,

I was just waving my arms around, haven't tried it yet. Maybe your idea is better. I don't know how I managed to screw this up but got it on the wrong page and can't seam to get rid of it-----------------------------------Sam

Haven't tried the arm waving thing yet. How's that working out for you?

I've considered poly pendulum systems for a long time. Maybe it's possible to derive the infinite series that would describe a collective CoM. Plot that in your pipe and smoke it.

Knowing that, a design might be simplified to a structure operated by some single force. The God force. (Isaiah 44:24) A sweet spot?