one of the machines with the math

[FunWithGravity]

Quinn walks warily down the street,
With the brim pulled way down low
Ain't no sound but the sound of his feet,
Machine guns ready to go
Are you ready, Are you ready for this
Are you hanging on the edge of your seat
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat

How do you think I'm going to get along,
Without you, when you're gone
You took me for everything that I had,
And kicked me out on my own

Are you happy, are you satisfied
How long can you stand the heat
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat

There are plenty of ways you can hurt a man
And bring him to the ground
You can beat him
You can cheat him
You can treat him bad and leave him
When he's down
But I'm ready, yes I'm ready for you
I'm standing on my own two feet
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
Repeating the sound of the beat


Another one bites the dust, dumb dumb dumb

:)


OK now thats my last word.

[arthur]

Eskimo Quinn says:

The math for vertical lift and fall is false as being equal.

Is this scientifically true, yes, This is seen where two equal weights are placed on a fulcrum or wheel (try it at home with your push bike upside down), the first one sitting at 7 o'clock and the second one placed on at one o'clock and let fall, not pushed!!!, the second weight will always go past the point of balance because of momentum, it will eventually rock until it balances, but it will never slowly fall until it becomes level.

haha Quinn you are too much

I hope you realize that:

a wheel-
with equal weights at 7:00, and 1:00
will..............BALANCE!!!!!!

seriously.
are you kidding

[greendoor]

haha Quinn you are too much

I hope you realize that:

a wheel-
with equal weights at 7:00, and 1:00
will..............BALANCE!!!!!!

seriously.
are you kidding

Eh? Who's kidding who? Time to learn about clocks, kiddies ...

Eskimo has a point (which Arthur, you agreed with me just a moment ago when I said the exact same thing with different words).

E = 1/2M*Vsquared ... a pendulum falling from 1 o'clock will aquire more velocity and therefore more energy than a pendulum falling from 7 o'clock. (Or 5 o'clock - why confuse things by talking about different sides). With the extra velocity, sure - it's going to overshoot more.

Any balanced fulcrum or beam or pendulum, wheel, pully etc is going to have exactly zero velocity - therefore zero kinetic energy. The only way it's going to descend on one side if if it is unbalanced - and depending on how much unbalance, it will descend very slow or very fast.

Obviously, the faster it goes, the more kinetic energy it obtains. BUT - the trade off is that you are gaining kinetic energy by robbing yourself of potential energy: you are lifting less weight than before, therefore less vertically raised mass will be available for next time.

I don't think maths is Eskimo's strong point. I think he gains full marks in scatology and obfuscation.

[arthur]

greendoor, I just thought this statement was funny:

This is seen where two equal weights are placed on a fulcrum or wheel (try it at home with your push bike upside down), the first one sitting at 7 o'clock and the second one placed on at one o'clock and let fall, not pushed!!!,

because in this situation the 7:00 weight balances the 1:00 weight
and the wheel will not move.

unless maybe quinn is using magic

[Fletcher]

I think this is an example of quinns poor communication skills - if you look closely you perhaps can see how his statement might be interpreted two ways - equal weights 180 degrees apart - no spinny no movey - quinn sort of hints that the wheels should turn until both weights are at 3 & 9 o'cl, which is obviously completely wrong - torque is equal therefore no turning moments & it remains stationary.

The second interpretation is equal weights at 1 & 7 o'cl but at different times i.e. one on the wheel at a time - the 1 o'cl weight has more momentum & Ke at 6 o'cl than a weight placed at 7 o'cl & allowed to rotate thru 6 o'cl - he fails to see that the weight at 1 o'cl has greater Pe which gets transformed into the Ke he is talking about.

He also made another rather large error earlier [which I couldn't be bothered bringing up at the time] about a small weight placed at equal radius on a bike wheel v's a car wheel - he said the weight would turn the car wheel [with more mass] & the weight would have greater Ke at 6 o'cl than on the bike wheel because of the car wheels extra momentum - huh ! - he needs to think more about inertia & Ke of rotating bodies & how that will affect the velocity of the rim weight at 6 o'cl, imo.

[axel]

Quinn's device is just like John Collins and the new book he was going to publish late last year, then early this year, now who knows.

These devices and books seem to never pan out. lmao.

If the book has been published and we didn't see it, I apologize.

[Mak#1]

If it had not been for John Collins and his thirty years of research, how many people on this or any other forum would have even heard of Johann Bessler? Maybe a dozen, and of those dozen, most would still believe him to be a fraud.If John says he has a book on the way, I have no reason to doubt!!!

[John Collins]

I don't blame you for being sceptical about my new book, Axel, but it is on the way. I just don't seem to be able to stop adding new information as it comes in! But I have finished and am just tidying up the illustrations plus I have to add references to all the quotes in it.

JC

[JohnnyD]

Hi John,

Sorry if this has asked before (and if it has, please point me in the direction!), in brief, what's in the new book?

JohnnyD

[John Collins]

I think it's been asked before or I might just have added it to a post previously.

The new book contains the same as the first book, but it has a lot more information about Bessler and his life. But the biggest addition to the book is the information I have deciphered from all of his work. It is a huge amount of stuff and will amount to about half the book so the complete book will be twice the size of the original.

This new information is not guess work it is factual and backed up with detailed explanations of how I discovered it. It will undoubtedly lead to a reconstruction of Bessler's wheel with internal mechanisms with the same design as his original.

You may ask why I haven't succeeded in reconstructing it if I have all the information to hand and I can tell you that I am working towards that end now. It may be that I shall fail due to some error in my interpretation of a particular piece, but you will see when the book is published how near I got. I believe that I will succeed and I plan to have the book published at the same time, but that time is running short and so I will publish this year regardless of whether I have actually built a working model or not.

One thing I do know is why Bessler was so certain that he had succeeded where all before had failed and you will understand why too, when you see how it worked. The concept is simple, but hard to build unless you have the original in front of you to copy. I have the original but it is 'fractured' into about a dozen separate pieces.

Reference the decoding section of the book, although I have deciphered most of his clues there are still two areas which remain closed to me. But I have made some progress in understanding them and even if I have been unable to extract their meaning I am certain that someone, such as Mr Tim, will make progress in deciphering them. These two areas contain a hidden text which will give more detailed instruction in construction of the wheel.

So before I can publish I have to complete the illustrations and give references to all the quotes used in the book. If I make any further headway in deciphering the last two areas of code I shall add them if possible before publication, and if not I shall post them on the internet.

John Collins

[rlortie]

I was catching up on posts over at "overunity" and read the following posted there by Fletcher. I do not feel that the particular thread he posted it on is worthy of his thoughts expressed. I hope he does not mind and considers this a compliment, I am quoting it here!

Since nobody knows how Bessler achieved his self sustaining wheels then whomever finds a way to achieve the same 'apparent result' can in all good conscience call it 'their wheel/design' - others might however have some objection to that person calling it 'their design', perhaps preferring to call it Bessler's - that would be an entirely emotional subjective response without proof & would be very dependent on how well your discoveries correlate to the 'apparent clues & drawings' of Bessler, if at all - that wouldn't be known until after a successful build & perhaps the penny has dropped, or not, as the case may be.

Since Bessler went to extra-ordinary lengths to obfuscate his clues & drawings & not reveal prematurely his principles, & they have not been found or reproduced [in the public arena] nearly 300 years since, then I suggest if you find a way to create a self sustaining wheel you can either attribute it to yourself or to Bessler if you prefer too, by showing the causation & effect in coming up with the correct principles & design retrospectively, if you or others are able to make the connections.

The point is PM [if the cap fits wear it] build it before you start attributing naming rights to any particular designer & builder - who knows, you calling your design Bessler's might be offensive to him !

[ssmyser]

John, your statement about having the original in front of you... are you suggesting that you have an actual piece (or) pieces of one of Bessler's original wheels????

[John Collins]

I wish!! No I meant that I have a drawing of the complete design of the mechanism inside the wheel, but it is in many pieces which don't seem at first sight to connect but I have worked it all out and am building it. You may not hear from me for two or three weeks or possibly longer, as I have other family problems occupying my time and they come first even in these circumstances.

John

[ssmyser]

I wish you success on your build, looking forward to the book, and best wishes with your family. Thanks for the clarification. -Steve

[RRRRyan]

EDIT: nevermind