Posted by D. (199.60.107.1) on May 31, 2003 at 15:43:16:
Leon, allow me to make an assumption and also give you some advice that may save you years of trial and error. It seems to me that you are in the same situation that anyone who first approaches free energy get's into (myself included). You begin by thinking, it's the device, it's the device, when in fact you should be studying how mass behaves under force. Any "device" is also subject to the same laws as the mass you are trying to move. The key...is the movement of the mass. You should strive to undertake to learn physics first. Here's an an example, and John Collins if you are reading this it will further illustrate what I was implying regarding water. Bessler's weights were cylindrical, but no one was allowed to see them. Typically the means to this device has been sought by the movement of the weight itself. But...what if the partial answer, ergo one of the "priori of perpetual motion", is the movement of the weights mass without moving the weight itself. Imagine these ""weights" were actually made from ceramic, or hollow steel, or were a hollow wooden vessal, painted with tar, and partially filled with water. Inside was an unknown design of chambers, or even a simple door (for this example). Held by the center, the water at the bottom, the weight would drop straight down. If the weight was to hit a side attatchement, or lever, imparting some of it's momentuum to it (the main device), as well the attatchement caused the weight to rotate clockwise, before the weight came to rest on the machine (whereby the rest of it's momentuum is imparted to the dmachine), the weights mass would then be off to the side of the weight, ergo-further outside of the "wheel", or device. Once the wheel has rotated by the weight, and the weight is now on the other side, the door opens, (or say it is already partially opened) and the water now fills the empty side of the chamber, resulting in the "mass" of the weight being closer to the axel. This is one example. What if instead it had to do with chambers, or a spiral pattern inside the weights, that caused a mass imbalance (or difference in center of gravity) when the weights were rotated...(ergo the cylindrical shape)? Could be what the top illustration was representing...
Hope my point reads well.
David