Hello I Will Try to Help Your Gravity Problems

[erick]

"Some of the other four forces". Huh?

Nuclear, strong/weak.

What do strong and weak forces have to do with a water wheel?

[Fletcher]

Two thoughts occur to me steve - the wheels had a working threshold i.e. overload beyond that tolerance & it would quickly slow & probably grind to a halt, loosing momentum from the system - the pulley arrangements were not overly geared but nevertheless kept the load manageable & well within the critical threshold, without obvious slow down in rpm - the water screw test of the dual did slow it as you might expect, performing work - in that case though the load amount was nearer the critical factor, probably to impress the witnesses & show them its potential usefulness in pumping mines etc, in some way a comparison with the steam engine being developed for that purpose, as well as milling timber etc - if Bessler's wheels couldn't perform an "appreciable" amount of work & firewood was plentiful then they might loose out, regardless of their novelty & intrigue - perhaps Bessler felt he needed to show something like max torque & that is what drove him to apply those loads, that did slow the wheel ?

So going back to the case of raising the stones - if the wheel rpm didn't slow "noticeably" then you might conclude that there was an internal governing system - not a speed governor as we might know it but a part of the mechs action i.e. since weights had to move or be dynamic to create the force to create the overbalance torque then it is reasonable to assume that they had degrees of freedom to move on pivots or hinges etc, by way of example - that means that if they fell unfettered then depending on the distance of the fall [& the rpm at the time] would determine how much torque could be created - a slow wheel [with more time to reposition weights arriving closer to 3 o'cl say] might create more torque ?! - this would be limited self governing brought about by design !

This brings me to the last point made by grimer - impacts are necessary in a dynamic wheel - better to use them than loose them i.e. although impacts are lousy at conserving energy at least if weights or mechs fall in the direction of rotation all available force is being deployed in the direction of rotation & adding to the momentum, & not wasting anything unnecessarily !

[Michael]

"Some of the other four forces". Huh?

Nuclear, strong/weak.

What do strong and weak forces have to do with a water wheel?

Nuclear energy in the form of the suns heat to raise the water. I know you like to go towards the suns gravity for having a hand in its fusion but you have to include the energy latent with the suns mass which comes here in the form of solar energy for at least half of a water wheels "continued"operation.

[Michael]

Fletcher Bessler said the noises were a real part of the motive part of the machine and not a distraction, and that's all he said. What if the impacts were actually the speed control mechanism? The excess energy quickly being drained off by throwing a weight to the side of the wheel, away from the wheels rotation direction. Just a thought.

[Jim Williams]

erick

Gravity doesn't power the sun. That's misleading. The heat coming from gravity contributing to the fusion reaction, which is what I think you mean, doesn't come from gravity itself. It comes the sun's matter resisting gravity, which is in the form of that heat. It takes matter to have heat.

[erick]

Gravity is the match to the gasoline fumes of the matter contained in the sun.

In any case, clearly gravity is doing quite impressive work in the form of creating all of that friction and heat. No?

[Jim Williams]

erick

My description might not be any good and it's kind of a fine point, but it's like this. Gravity is behind the matter having the friction and heat, but it is the matter that's doing the work of creating the friction and heat, not the gravity. And since gravity isn't doing the work, but fusion is, fusion is the energy source of stars, not gravity.

Jim W.

[ovyyus]

Gravity is the match to the gasoline fumes of the matter contained in the sun.

Power output in your analogy is from the burning gasoline, not the match. Therefore, applying the same analogy, power output from the sun is from fusing matter, not gravity.

Glad we could finally agree :)

[DrWhat]

If I rub my finger quickly across the carpet it gets hot and I get a friction burn.

What caused the burn? The force pressing (edited later: I did mean the movement of) the finger against the carpet. Without it there is no heat.

Imagine the force was gravity (eg pressing the matter of the sun together etc). Gravity is doing the work to create the friction.

Gravity becomes the catalyst that takes the state of matter past a certain threshold that then causes the fusion reaction. This of course unleashes a huge amount of power. However if the sun were smaller and gravity did not cause the matter to fuse, there could still be heat. But without movement there would be no heat so like earth, eddies and plate movements create the heat.

So what am I trying to say? Who really knows! Maybe we need gravity in our wheel to work like gravity at the sun. To create a mechanism where gravity takes something past a certain threshold to produce excess power. Not fusion of course but something else.

[ovyyus]

What caused the burn? The force pressing the finger against the carpet. Without it there is no heat.

You obviously won't burn your finger by simply holding it pressed against the carpet. So then what, DrWhat, really caused the burn? T'was the effort of the rubbing! :D

[DrWhat]

I agree, we need pressure AND movement. Pressure alone does not cause the heat. It is the movement. Like gas when already in a compressed state can be at room temperature, but move it (ie change the pressure) and you get a release of energy in terms of heating or cooling.

So of course gravity will do nothing until it elicits movement.

[bluesgtr44]

BAR and Steve,

Might you please include attributions with quotes?

BAR, in your very last post, I recognized my own quote
but not the source of the others; I'm sure the case
is vise-verse for those others.

For instance, Grimer's postings always do include
them, so we know who was doing the writing to which
he responds.

Thank you, gentlemen.

James

I am not in full understanding of this one.....I do try and make every attempt to credit the source. If I am missing one, I cannot find it! I did address Grimer directly on a post of his. Was this the one you question? Just a bit confused, sir.


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

G'day Fletch....

Two thoughts occur to me steve - the wheels had a working threshold i.e. overload beyond that tolerance & it would quickly slow & probably grind to a halt, loosing momentum from the system - the pulley arrangements were not overly geared but nevertheless kept the load manageable & well within the critical threshold, without obvious slow down in rpm - the water screw test of the dual did slow it as you might expect, performing work - in that case though the load amount was nearer the critical factor, probably to impress the witnesses & show them its potential usefulness in pumping mines etc, in some way a comparison with the steam engine being developed for that purpose, as well as milling timber etc - if Bessler's wheels couldn't perform an "appreciable" amount of work & firewood was plentiful then they might loose out, regardless of their novelty & intrigue - perhaps Bessler felt he needed to show something like max torque & that is what drove him to apply those loads, that did slow the wheel ?

So going back to the case of raising the stones - if the wheel rpm didn't slow "noticeably" then you might conclude that there was an internal governing system - not a speed governor as we might know it but a part of the mechs action i.e. since weights had to move or be dynamic to create the force to create the overbalance torque then it is reasonable to assume that they had degrees of freedom to move on pivots or hinges etc, by way of example - that means that if they fell unfettered then depending on the distance of the fall [& the rpm at the time] would determine how much torque could be created - a slow wheel [with more time to reposition weights arriving closer to 3 o'cl say] might create more torque ?! - this would be limited self governing brought about by design !

This brings me to the last point made by grimer - impacts are necessary in a dynamic wheel - better to use them than loose them i.e. although impacts are lousy at conserving energy at least if weights or mechs fall in the direction of rotation all available force is being deployed in the direction of rotation & adding to the momentum, & not wasting anything unnecessarily !

The Kassel wheel did show a reduction in speed that was noted with the water screw attached....from 26 to 20 rpm's. Bessler has mentioned that there were differences in the workings of the Merseburg and Kassel wheels with, of course, no details. Go figure! No doubt, he was aware of the notation documented in the witness testimony citing the speed consistency from loaded to unloaded, so if it was of any concern he could have made sure it did not duplicate itself with the Kassel wheel. He was already paranoid about the dubious interest in his discovery and the likes of Wagner and Gartner already building their own wheels to try and refute his. This might would make him a bit more cautious as to demonstrable information and its disemination. Basically, he purposefully made changes so as not to be predictable to those who were trying to "steal" his principle! And if this principle was simple.....would these changes not be simple to do?

A governing system would be a viable reason for this consistency of speed considering that we are not even remotely aware of the principle as it is now. It seems to me that there could still be some type of a constant within the machine besides gravity and the weights/mass. Who is to say that, depending on the set up he uses to capitalize on the principle, it would not have the ability to apply the pressure/weight/force at differing points along a perimeter, thus the ability to maintain a predictable constant speed within a certain load range.....say 0-15lbs. of load would show no appreciable loss in speed. This would be in line with that "brought about by design" you mentioned.....I think this might just be a bi-product of the principle itself....it's inherent to the operation although not nessecary. Thus, he dealt with it in the Kassel design to cover over this anomoly(?).

I can't deny that there has to be some form of impact within the confines of the wheel. It has to stop something, somewhere or there would be weights flying through the rim. These could be contained or muffled as would seem the case in the first two wheels, where there was no mention what-so-ever of any impact sounds....I do believe that if impact is used, it's there for added torque/force, it is NOT needed to maintain the wheels rotation or to apply the basic torque/force already inherent to the applied principle.

There have been a lot of new people coming here and that's an awesome thing IMHO. The most important part of trying to solve anything, is the ability to "gather information" and evaluate that information as to what each individual may or may not see useful.....we're not all at the same level of understanding the basic physics involved in this quandry nor are we all on the same level of the availability of information provided from the testimonies of Bessler's wheel and how it operated. I am simply trying to provide some information that might be valuable to someone else who is at a differing level of understanding than I am. Just because I can't see it from my perspective, doesn't mean that this may not be a nudge in the right direction for another person who has a much deeper perspective on things than I do......information is vital to any research, again...IMHO! My sig. line by Einstein shows where I come from in this line of thinking. I'll probably always have more questions than answers.

G'day to you too, Grimer! Thanks for the responses BTW....

If I were there I would have timed it. The fact that he didn't shows the remark was made by a layman not a scientist. The term "exactly" just means that he couldn't tell the difference.

I feel sure that I have read another account where the wheel was in fact timed under load and was found to reduce in speed. Perhaps someone else whose memory of where they have read something is better than mine could confirm this.

I am a bit confused here......if he states that it "rotated at 40 rpm's" would not have to have timed it? Time pieces were common in this era and considered to be meticulous works of art to many. To mark a point and time the revolutions doesn't seem to be that difficult....I have complained before about the time not being presented as far as an acceleration rate is concerned, there is simply a mention that within a rotation or two it reached full speed and maintained that speed with "regularity". But, no mention as to how long it took to reach that speed....that is a bit of info I would like to know! Grimer, I wasn't presenting this in a way as to actually have you solve this aspect, it was just informational and I presented it in the form of a question simply because I think it begs to be asked! When and if we find out just how this man did it, things like this will just fall into place.......kind of like a "DOHHHHH" moment. The acceleration rates appear to be pretty rapid as far as simple adulation of the witnesses of these events were concerned.....FWIW.....

When I see a bunch of great thinking and discussion about the where-with-all of this from a fresh view point such as Grimer, BAR, Pequad and the such I like to throw the information out there......actual information from testimonials as to how Bessler's wheels performed because, if one is to believe he actually did it, this he couldn't hide.....he couldn't try to make a shitty little poem with clues, he couldn't tongue twist the information.....he couldn't conceal these things because it wasn't his testimonial to present. All he could do was be at the mercy of what was witnesses and try and present things in a way so as not to give away too much. He HAD to display his work!

So, with this in mind....I present these quandries and questions because that is what science is about.....asking the questions with a common goal of solution. Again, just because I can't see something in this as far as a solution goes.....doesn't mean that someone like Grimer won't! It could have set off a light to you or someone else.


Steve

[BAR]

Two things bar. First of all the 4th dimension, as generally accepted, is the measurement of time in/on/ etc. space. Do you agree?
If not please explain. If so; again I am asking you where gravity puts the kinetic energy of the mass it took the energy away from. I am asking for the particulars. How is it stored. Where does it go. Gamma rays, although an interesting analogy, are measurable. For your theory to be valid the energy that is taken away has to be measurable in some form or frame, or else it is nothing but nothing, a pink elephant.

Michael that is incorrect, the 4th dimension is not the measurement of time, it IS time. In 3 dimensions we need time to show mass in motion (as energy), but if an entity was given yet a 4th dimension of time can you imagine what that means? Evidently you are confused but most are in understanding the 4th dimension. If you ever read the "Flatlander" hypothesis of topography in how 2 dimensional beings can not understand 3 dimensions, it is a nice analogy. Absolute fiction, but a nice thought experiment of logic. Totally impossible, but being crippled by less dimensions is the point I am trying to make.
Michael, you seem like an educated man and I respect your questions, but if you understand that photons are energy, then how can you ignore their change of energy in the gravitational field? This is also the concept of gravitational red shift. I must say even Einstein was troubled about the properties of gravitation. That was the difference between his special and general theory of relativity. A baseball is a material object with mass, as is a stone. So when one uses your analogy of throwing it up and landing on a ledge, we can not see what gravitation does to the nuclei of the ball. The packets of energy called gamma rays does tell us what is going on. So as I explained before how does a packet of energy change in a gravitational field without interaction with other material bodies, and yet gain or lose energy? Magic? Created and destroyed? :):)

Ok the gravitational field is by the uncertainty interaction of the most fundamental components of mass that exists, the mass of the electron. So imagine gravitation as the ultimate miniature electron "billiard balls" exchanging energy. Balls collide, energy is conserved. Now imagine these electron billiard balls doing this forever. Now imagine the frames of our time in the measurement of forever being ONE frame, the interactions of forever occuring simultaneously. THAT is the 4th dimension. In the 4th dimension time does not pass for an entity, all the time of past and present in the forever is a part of the entity no differently than width, length or depth is of a material entity in 3 dimensions. So in our limited 3 dimensional experience we can not see energy being exchanged and conserved in the 4th dimension. All we can see is the continuous availabilty of energy in this. Now the interactions can be shown to be omnidirectional, they have equil probability to interact in all directions. The problem is the uncertainty momentum is a finite quantity of mass density and by probability its interactions must obey the inverse square law. The omnidirectional momentum of interaction can never average to zero, there is always some components of momentum left. If this momentum did not change by the inverse square law it would not cause any energy differential in mass entitys. The inverse square law allows the momemtum differential to exist, so then the momentum differential can exist across the nuclei of atoms and cause the force of gravitation. This property of infinite time as a dimension is how energy can be created and destroyed. :)

[BAR]

Ok I started this thread to help those to understand gravitation. Now I am a newbie at boards so please have some tolerance with me. So if you want me to continue just vote! If discussion about wheels or different possibilities of force with machines interest you please start another thread. Was this hijacked or not? I do not want trouble, I am just making an opinion. Thanks. Trust me we have not even scratched the surface in this. :)