Re: Some engineering thoughts

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Bessler Discussion Board ] [ FAQ ] [ Back to BesslerWheel.com ]

Posted by L. P. Marken (212.186.255.4) on February 20, 2002 at 17:47:07:

In Reply to: Re: Some engineering thoughts posted by Scott Ellis on February 19, 2002 at 20:17:52:

Hello,

Many good points there. I guess my main argument against a "simple" mechanical gravity approach (using only old world parts) is that the Moon and the Earth are so... well, big! The gravity from those enormous bodies would work the same way on all parts inside the relatively small Bessler wheel, so how could there be an unbalance?

The "someone would have done it by now" theory is not logic, but more of a statistical thing. Given the number of people in the world and the time that has passed since Bessler, the chances that he made something that noone else has ever been able to replicate, seem very small to me.

Also: I think human flight came along just at the time when it could be expected. The combustion engine, combined with an understanding of aerodynamics made it possible. If the Wright brothers had not done it, someone else would have. If Einstein had never been born, someone else would have given us relativity. And so on. I do not think any individual in the history of mankind has made a quantum leap contribution to progress that would otherwise not have happened. Progress will come when the time is right. There are plenty of examples of people who produced similar inventions at practically the same time.

I agree that we do not understand gravity. I do not even think that we understand the most basic structure of the universe. It seems to me an elementary particle should not be considered a "thing", but rather a property of space itself. Like a dent in a sheet of metal. The dent has no independent existence.

I would also argue that causality may work both ways. If present choices alter the past, how could we possibly know? Almost a Doc Brown quote there :-)

Our observation of an expanding (maybe even accelerating) universe could mean something or nothing. It all depends on how big the universe actually is. If the portion of the universe that we can see is just a tiny part of a much bigger volume, the expansion could be local.

I have not read all the links yet, but I guess someone must have considered that possibility. And if not - following my own argument - someone will! :-)

LPM

: Hi Lars, thanks for your post.

: First, I'd like to point out that a machine that taps into any of the natural motions you describe would be made out of mechanical parts, and possibly even weights. Thus, it is perfectly consistent to seek a way of tapping into, say, the earth's kinetic or rotational energy, using mechanical devices and contraptions.

: You say that none of the natural forces you describe could account for the documented behavior of the wheel. What makes you so sure? The gravitational force of the moon is quite strong; just look at the work it does on the oceans every day.

: Also, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the earth are enormous. In fact they are astronomical. ;)

: Finally, to argue that something is impossible "because someone would have invented it by now if it WERE possible" is extremely poor logic, and has been shown again and again to lead to erroneous conclusions. One could have used the same argument about human flight less than 100 years ago. (Please see my historical perspective on human flight.)

: I think the real question comes down to gravity. The fact is that we really don't understand it. It is the last natural force yet to be unified into a general theory of the universe. We're not even sure what causes it. Therefore, IMHO, it seems a bit premature to rule out our ability to somehow tap its force.

: (If you think we actually understand gravity, please see this link, there are thousands more like it.)

:
: Did you know that the universe's rate of the expansion is accelerating? It is, and here are some links about it:

: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9802/27/accelerating.universe/
: http://www.msnbc.com/news/224520.a parts.

: : I firmly believe that if some bisarre twist of nature made such a design possible, someone (besides Bessler) would have figured it out hundreds of years ago. The way I understand mechanics, there is no way it could be done.

: : Approaches that COULD work would have to tap into the environment in one way or another, using

: : - the Moon's gravitational pull
: : - assymmetric properties of the Earth's rotation
: : - variations in barometric pressure
: : - variations in temperature
: : - solar energy
: : - cosmic radiation

: : ... those are the ones I can think of right now.

: : BUT: None of the mentioned approaches could possibly give the results described in the accounts of Bessler's wheel. It did not only rotate, it was able to do considerable work. It had to be fraud, I can see no other alternative.

: : I think the way to approach the Bessler mystery is not "how can I make a PM wheel using 1700s parts?" but rather "How can I create an illusion of a PM wheel that would fool everyone in the 1700s, using 1700s parts?"

: : I leave a small opening for the possibility that a chemical reaction of some sort could do the trick. That is, not making the wheel turn forever, but for a month or two. Kind of like the "nodding birds", which keep on nodding as long as there is water in the glass.

: : Any thoughts?

: : Lars ||:-)

Follow Ups:

Re: Some engineering thoughts John 12:37:44 02/22/02 (0)
Re: Some engineering thoughts correction :-) Øystein Rustad 06:14:27 02/22/02 (0)
Re: Some engineering thoughts Øystein Rustad 05:54:01 02/22/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Comments:	: Hello, : Many good points there. I guess my main argument against a "simple" mechanical gravity approach (using only old world parts) is that the Moon and the Earth are so... well, big! The gravity from those enormous bodies would work the same way on all parts inside the relatively small Bessler wheel, so how could there be an unbalance? : The "someone would have done it by now" theory is not logic, but more of a statistical thing. Given the number of people in the world and the time that has passed since Bessler, the chances that he made something that noone else has ever been able to replicate, seem very small to me. : Also: I think human flight came along just at the time when it could be expected. The combustion engine, combined with an understanding of aerodynamics made it possible. If the Wright brothers had not done it, someone else would have. If Einstein had never been born, someone else would have given us relativity. And so on. I do not think any individual in the history of mankind has made a quantum leap contribution to progress that would otherwise not have happened. Progress will come when the time is right. There are plenty of examples of people who produced similar inventions at practically the same time. : I agree that we do not understand gravity. I do not even think that we understand the most basic structure of the universe. It seems to me an elementary particle should not be considered a "thing", but rather a property of space itself. Like a dent in a sheet of metal. The dent has no independent existence. : I would also argue that causality may work both ways. If present choices alter the past, how could we possibly know? Almost a Doc Brown quote there :-) : Our observation of an expanding (maybe even accelerating) universe could mean something or nothing. It all depends on how big the universe actually is. If the portion of the universe that we can see is just a tiny part of a much bigger volume, the expansion could be local. : I have not read all the links yet, but I guess someone must have considered that possibility. And if not - following my own argument - someone will! :-) : LPM : : Hi Lars, thanks for your post. : : First, I'd like to point out that a machine that taps into any of the natural motions you describe would be made out of mechanical parts, and possibly even weights. Thus, it is perfectly consistent to seek a way of tapping into, say, the earth's kinetic or rotational energy, using mechanical devices and contraptions. : : You say that none of the natural forces you describe could account for the documented behavior of the wheel. What makes you so sure? The gravitational force of the moon is quite strong; just look at the work it does on the oceans every day. : : Also, the kinetic energy and angular momentum of the earth are enormous. In fact they are astronomical. ;) : : Finally, to argue that something is impossible "because someone would have invented it by now if it WERE possible" is extremely poor logic, and has been shown again and again to lead to erroneous conclusions. One could have used the same argument about human flight less than 100 years ago. (Please see my <a href="/flight.html">historical perspective</a> on human flight.) : : I think the real question comes down to gravity. The fact is that we really don't understand it. It is the last natural force yet to be unified into a general theory of the universe. We're not even sure what causes it. Therefore, IMHO, it seems a bit premature to rule out our ability to somehow tap its force. : : (If you think we actually understand gravity, please see <a href="http://einstein.stanford.edu/gen_int/story_of_gpb/gpbsty2.html">this link,</a> there are thousands more like it.) : : : : Did you know that the universe's rate of the expansion is accelerating? It is, and here are some links about it: : : <a href="http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9802/27/accelerating.universe">http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9802/27/accelerating.universe/</a> : : <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/224520.asp">http://www.msnbc.com/news/224520.asp</a> : : <a href="http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0104/03supernova">http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0104/03supernova/</a> : : <a href="http://focus.aps.org/v5/st8.html">http://focus.aps.org/v5/st8.html</a> : : <a href="http://enews.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/SNAP-1.html">http://enews.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/SNAP-1.html</a> : : <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/20010407/bob14.asp">http://www.sciencenews.org/20010407/bob14.asp</a> : : <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/darkenergy_folo_010410.html">http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/darkenergy_folo_010410.html</a> : : If there is some force constantly accelerating the universe's rate of expansion, isn't it possible that we could tap that force? : : Just my $0.02. : : -Scott Ellis : : : : : : Hello all, : : : I found the besslerwheel site yesterday. It makes fascinating reading, but I find it a bit strange that people in our time and age are STILL trying to make a PM wheel by using weights and mechanical parts. : : : I firmly believe that if some bisarre twist of nature made such a design possible, someone (besides Bessler) would have figured it out hundreds of years ago. The way I understand mechanics, there is no way it could be done. : : : Approaches that COULD work would have to tap into the environment in one way or another, using : : : - the Moon's gravitational pull : : : - assymmetric properties of the Earth's rotation : : : - variations in barometric pressure : : : - variations in temperature : : : - solar energy : : : - cosmic radiation : : : ... those are the ones I can think of right now. : : : BUT: None of the mentioned approaches could possibly give the results described in the accounts of Bessler's wheel. It did not only rotate, it was able to do considerable work. It had to be fraud, I can see no other alternative. : : : I think the way to approach the Bessler mystery is not "how can I make a PM wheel using 1700s parts?" but rather "How can I create an illusion of a PM wheel that would fool everyone in the 1700s, using 1700s parts?" : : : I leave a small opening for the possibility that a chemical reaction of some sort could do the trick. That is, not making the wheel turn forever, but for a month or two. Kind of like the "nodding birds", which keep on nodding as long as there is water in the glass. : : : Any thoughts? : : : Lars \|\|:-)
(Archived Message)

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Bessler Discussion Board ] [ FAQ ] [ Back to BesslerWheel.com ]