Posted by Øystein Rustad (213.145.185.102) on March 03, 2003 at 12:06:15:
In Reply to: excess weight posted by gill simo on March 03, 2003 at 09:27:20:
Excess weight is excess weight*arm*distance.
It would mean that less weight*height has been risen by the wheel/drum, than the same weights has applied to the drum for every revolution.
His principle is what he discovered, and must be a principle wich is not in contradiction to Newton, BUT in accordance with Newtons laws of motion.
And so he did/discovered !
I claim (believe) to know what basic principle he used.
It can be used in a varity of mechanical constructions.
Or to say it this way, the weights pushing the system to overbalance can be mounted and constructed in several ways.
It does NOT involve a stationary or semi-stationary object creating negative force vectors in "undesired directions"
(like Georgs idea)(no offence,
or saying georgs` idea won`t work)
First clue :
If you raise weights in a wheel to a certain height B,
at top dead center. from a certain height A at dead bottom.
How high can the weights fall ?
without interference of any stationary object,
and without the use of springs !!
If we consider Newtons laws to be true, it would be H = B - A
both falling and rising. Net = down - up = 0
First step :
Find out how all the falling weights can fall from a higher place than they where lifted by the drum.
Yes, it can be done, and yes, it is true !
Still Newtons laws holds, and is actually the reason it can be done.
Next step : Make use of this new falling height (with principle 2, to make a usefull (bigger) unbalance
in the principle 1 weights, from a small force (work) from principle 2 !
Have a nice day :-)
: hi folks
: i dont often contribute to this board although i regularly take a look at whats going on. From time to time however i feel the need to drag u all back onto some sensible path. please forgive me if this sounds somewhat big headed, it isnt meant that way.
: as always it would appear that the vast majority of you are concerning yourselves with looking 4 new insights, new clues, new translations etc and i am once again left wondering why.Is it not the case that bessler left us with not so much a clue as a simple statement of fact! the weights in his wheel moved to some principle of perp movement and they achieved this in accordance with HIS theory of excess weight. it would seem that to this day people assume HIS thoery to mean THE theory, THAT principle of excess weight whereby a wheel is top heavy and therefore wants 2 move downwards.to this end everyone seems to busy themselves trying in vain 2 come up with some querky method of achieving just such an excess weight perpetually, something that we all know as IMPOSSIBLE, and dare i say it..IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. If my memory serves me well then bessler actually used capital letters in his text here, it was `MY theory of excess weight`and it must surely be the case therefore that he was without doubt refering to HIS theory and not THE theory/principle that we all know. if u or i were to build a working pm device that operated 2 THE theory then would you any more than me claim it as YOUR theory? Obviously not. Unpaletable as it may be it stands 2 reason that bessler imagined excess mass around an axle in some way that me u and the rest of mankind have yet to imagine and as such if any of u out there are attempting to design/build a wheel that does not adhere to some entirely, hitherto unimagined theory of excess weight then, with respect, common sense predicts that you are wasting your time.
: before you pick up a pen, screwdriver or patent application form you need FIRST to look at weight around an axle from a truly new perspective, you need to discover excess weight around an axle in some way that has never before been appreciated and understood before.
: i have a theory of MY own. it may be correct, it may be nonsense and i am only too willing to argue its merits with one and all but before i do i would like to see if anyone else out there has any NEW interpretation of excess weight other than the obvious one that we all know. In short does anyone have