## Friday 11 May 2012

### Gravity lies at the heart of all movement on the planet.

In yesterday's post I was trying to say that the traditional explanations of why gravity cannot be used to drive a wheel continuously, must be wrong because the evidence that Bessler's wheel was genuine is so compelling.  I wanted to get away from the oft-parroted words we learn from text books, wikipedia etc., and think for ourselves.

I have tried the well-tested route of analogies, one of Eric Laithwaite's favourite ways of explaining things, but people still get side-tracked into irrelevant details.  They simply don't get the allusion to gravity being analogous to the wind.  The origin of the wind is always introduced no matter how many times I say 'you have to look at this as a local effect'.

Instead of trotting out the same old stuff, why don't we think about the problem and use our commons sense?

Gravity is continuous, we know that because when we drop something it falls to the floor - it happens every time!

I can pick up a book off the floor and replace it on a shelf and restore the potential energy lost in sending the book to the floor.

Let's say I fire a rifle horizontally, the bullet hits the ground 500 yards away at a point level with the ground I'm standing on.  At the same time I drop another bullet from my hand level with the rifle and both bullets hit the ground at the same time.  Gravity was only responsible for making the bullet drop to the ground.

Those are the features which define a conservative force.  It is a continuous force; energy lost by it is capable of being restored by reversing what happened; and it is not necessary to take into account the path of a fallen object when calculating the work done by gravity.

Now it is always said that for those reasons gravity cannot be used as we wish to use it.  But each of those definitions can apply to wind and water currents, so why separate them from gravity?

Yesterday the sun was introduced again.  My fault, I mentioned it.  The thing is that the features of a conservative force mentioned above must be applied locally.  We don't know where gravity originates so we just need to look at how it manifests itself here on earth.  I tried to accommodate those who wish to include the sun in their argument by fixing on the fact that air is affected by gravity just as everything else is.  We know that the air is more dense closer to the earth's surface because of gravity.  It is analogous to the oceans of the planet.  If you dived to the bottom of the deepest ocean you would be crushed by the sheer weight of water above you, and a small bubble of air would escape from your flattened lungs and shoot towards the surface of the water.

As it rose the bubble would get larger and larger.  Air at the surface of the eath is like that and as it rises each molecule gets larger and less dense.

Yes the sun affects the air currents but gravity holds it down and would do so without the sun.  Solar energy may be responsible for the winds that blow, but gravity enables them to rise and fall, and create varying pressures. Gravity acts on molecules of whatever is with its field whether it's air, water or lumps of lead. The conservative force of gravity lies at the heart of all movement on the planet.

I wish everyone would accept Bessler's statement that the weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’".  Then we could go about trying to explain why that can be so.  I have tried and will continue to try to find the solution but sometimes I feel as if I'm banging my head against a wall of taught science.  No-one thinks for themselves any more but takes everything they are told for granted - parrot fashion.  I'm not saying that people don't understand what they have learned but sometimes it is easier to assume that that is all there is to the facts; there are no other factors to be considered, when perhaps a little lateral thinking might help us to understand how to solve the problem.

JC

1. "...when perhaps a little lateral thinking might help us to understand how to solve the problem..."

That's exactly what we need - lateral thinking! I like your analogy with the oceans, and the crushing weight of the ocean at great depths.

Consider a modern submarine. It weights thousands of tons, and sinks, obviously, like a brick when its ballast tanks are allowed to be flooded. Yet by evacuating the ballast tanks with pressurized air (which it already carries within itself) the entire thing rises - against gravity - to the surface.

In others words by transfer of mass the sub can control its buoyancy.

Bessler maybe found a way to transfer mass on the fly and/or influence "buoyancy" of the weights.

2. John..,we do accept that the weights are themselves the perpetual motion device,its what you do with them that makes the difference.

3. Basically the discovery has already been made TWICE . Nothing to discuss . THANK YOU John for your opinion (as far as my ideas are concerned ) because it finally gave me the momentum I needed ( no pun intended ) to understand this device . I will prove to be the foremost authority on Bessler's device ... John , you can have the remainder .

4. Most generous, thank you Chris.

JC

5. It would be very interesting to know just how many aspiring perpetual motionists are actually engaged in construction at this moment.
Care to hazard a guess.

6. @ Trevor

Depends upon what is your definition of "aspiring perpetual motionists". By my definition, 100% of them would be "engaged in construction at this moment". But, in reality, maybe 10% are and the rest are procrastinating, socializing, armchair philosophizing, or waiting for their next "wrong track" idea to strike. The number of active Bessler mobilists actually on the "right track" currently is probably less than about ten on our entire planet!

@ JC

Just as the Earth's gravity field and the Sun's energy work TOGETHER to create our EVER blowing winds, so, too, the Earth's gravity field and the energy / mass content of the weights inside Bessler's wheels worked TOGETHER to create their EVER rotating motions. Unless this is accepted as the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then one can make zero progress in producing a continuously rotating, mechanical PM device.

However, the MOST important question a Bessler mobilist should be asking himself is HOW did Bessler maintain the CoM of a set of weights on a wheel's descending side AS ITS DRUM ROTATED? This requires that not just a "static", but, rather, a "dynamic" equilibrium be achieved and there is a profound difference between the two types.

A static equilibrium has a "tipping point" beyond which it can not recover and which it will stubbornly resist moving toward because it "prefers" to keep its CoM at some starting position. ALL rotary PM wheels with the exception of Bessler's suffer from this problem (interestingly, however, in the Asa Jackson wheel, this effect could have been used to produce a rapid "stepping" rotation of the wheel). With a dynamic equilibrium, however, there is NO resistance to further motion as the tipping point is approached. Rather, as the starting equilibrium approaches its tipping point, it IMMEDIATELY responds by forming a NEW and identical equilibrium whose CoM is then positioned at the SAME location as was the old equilibrium's CoM!

The effect is similar to what happens when a small rodent climbs inside one of those wire exercise drums and begins running up its inner wall. As he climbs the wall, the drum begins to rotate. He then compensates for this by running a bit faster and, since his CoM is now located a bit farther from the punctum quietus, the torque on the drum increases and so does its rotation rate. At some point, the rodent will be running as fast as he can and the drum will be rotating as fast as it can. If the rodent suddenly quits from exhaustion, he will be quickly carried by the drum up along its opposite ascending side until the resulting counter torque acting on the drum uses up all of its angular momentum (not that high with a wire drum). The rodent will then oscillate back and forth with the drum for awhile until he comes to a stop below the axle.

The bottom line: IF your model wheel's only turn so far until they reach a "sticking point", then all you have is a STATIC equilibrium. You will need to find a way to turn it into a DYNAMIC equilibrium if you are to have ANY hope of achieving success. Creating dynamic equilibria requires "connectedness" between your "perpetual motion structures" and the careful use of spring tension where needed to assist in getting things past sticking points.

7. If the wheel was genuine then you should stop explaining things using classical physics. You'll end up being disappointed in the end. The mechanical applications always consume energy. Classical physics was created using passive applications (such as free throw,rolling balls, etc. etc.)which need an actuator, an energy source. If the wheel was genuine then the theory behind it must be explained by modern physics.

8. Wenn eine Idee am Anfang nicht absurd klingt, gibt es fÃ¼r sie keine Hoffnung ~ Albert Einstein

1. If an idea does not sound absurd at the beginning, there is no hope for them~ Albert Einstein

2. If someone achieves to make the wheel, you'll see what I mean.

10. This comment has been removed by the author.

11. John,.. I would like to know,if one of us come with a working wheel solved,how is this going to affect your blog and your publications?
I do not want to negatively affect your patronage or your income.

12. Trevor,
How unselfish of you , putting others before yourself .

13. That's kind of you Trevor, but I shall be delighted if one of you succeeds. I have my book almost ready for publication. It is the new updated and rewritten biography of Bessler. There is a lot of additional information about his life after he left Karl's patronage, and I'm sure I can get it published. There is talk of a film about Bessler, mind you it's only talk but I think it might have better chance of reaching the screen if someone succeeds in building a working wheel.

I may continue with the blog, I don't know, it all depends on what happens.

JC

14. Taken From My Blog ( short and sweet ): To the World : Truth in Jeopardy
When I began this search I had the idea that validation could be sought through the approval of persons I felt were experts and authorities on the subject . I was wrong . The experts , thoroughly immersed in their own delusional ideas have failed to recognize the design which Bessler himself has left for someone to rediscover . I regret that I have now given the basic design over to the scrutiny of less knowledgeable people than myself . However , the concept that I presented for the images/animations is incorrect . When all is said and done I only hope that the world will be fair in it's recognition of me as the individual that brought this information to the light of day . Bessler was a remarkable and honest man that was short changed in his efforts to tell people the simple truth although it took him a long time and much effort to discover it .

15. What information did you bring to light, Chris?

JC

16. John,
A mere interpretation of the basic workings of Bessler's machine . My interpretation of the principle wasn't correct . But now I think it is . Someone will eventually have to give me some credit for my efforts because this very thing that we are talking about will lead to the wheel manifest .

17. Okay John,I understand.I feel much better now that I have your blessing.
I'm pretty sure you are really going to benefit from Bessler's vindication.
As for me,I won't forget you.

18. John,
It often takes great effort to merely get people's attention . Whether you realize it or not you are the biggest fish in the pond ... the second father of all of this so to speak ... and although you don't necessarily recognize your own influence I assure you that I do . I can feel history being made ... and you and I are at the forefront .

19. I hope that I don't disappoint you Chris, when I share my information about the wheel. The design will be clearly attributable to Bessler, I just hope it works. As I've said before even if it doesn't, I'm confident that what I publish will help someone to complete the task.

JC

20. You're not being clear John on how I would possibly be disappointed when you show your information .

21. John, where did you get this additional information about his life?
It is desiring to to find and learn much as possible about him,family and descendants.

22. Chris wrote:

"When all is said and done I only hope that the world will be fair in it's recognition of me as the individual that brought this information to the light of day."

I'll be happy to give you the recognition, BUT, I STILL haven't the faintest idea what "this information" that "you brought to the light of day" is! However, you seem to be saying that your interpretation of it was incorrect. BUT, maybe someone ELSE'S interpretation of it would be better and any concept based on that would be a step in the right direction. Can you state, briefly and succinctly, what you noticed in those MT illustrations that were alluded to in a previous blog entry? If I can understand what you found, maybe it will add to my knowledge of the interior mechanism of Bessler's wheels.

Yes, the hopefully soon coming solution to the mystery of Bessler's wheels will do much to stimulate public interest in the man and his inventions. There will be books and movies about them and, MAYBE, his "weak" wheel design can be further improved to output more power. The minute someone shows Bessler was NOT a fraudster, people will see that, indeed, "free energy" technology IS feasible and will want to own and invest in its development.

Right now, I feel like we are WITHIN a year of having THE solution to the Bessler mystery. BUT, it will only come from a VERY dedicated "right track" mobilist who is continuously verifying his interpretations of the MANY clues in the Bessler literature as he continues to build one model wheel after another. Sooner or later, he will eliminate all of his incorrect interpretations of those clues and what will remain will be the correct interpretations and a nice model wheel spinning away in his shop or on his monitor screen!

23. Vincent, I have a contact in Germany who is studying papers from the era and sending me anything he has found relating to Bessler. He has his own agenda so the information has come in in bits and pieces over the last few years. I won't get everything available because some of the papers are suffering from mould and are currently undergoing preservation treatment and won't be released for some time to come.

JC

24. How could i get people to take the mechanism to save lives after a shipwreck seriously !
If i put it on the internet people will laugh and giggle , thinking i am making it all up .

25. Very interesting John,
Thanks.

26. Do any conservative forces reverse what happened? It takes another force to reverse what happened.
What reverses water currents? Gravity? Or the sun?
How did the bullet get in the rifle? Gravity? Or a person?
How does the book get on the shelf?

I don't get the proof-by-analogy approach if we can leave out the part of the analogy that can disprove the idea we have.

Molecules of air don't get larger the higher you go, they just spread farther apart.

Gravity is at the heart of static equilibrium to borrow TG's phrase, not movement.
It doesn't enable the wind to rise, or create the pressure differentials, those are the result of temperature differentials.

You aren't banging your head against the wall of taught science, it's reality.
It doesn't matter what we name anything.
Observation is what matters.
No one has ever observed gravity to lift mass of any size, shape or substance, bessler either was a fraud or discovered renewable energy.

27. Doug wrote:

"No one has ever observed gravity to lift mass of any size, shape or substance, bessler either was a fraud or discovered renewable energy."

If one has a 10 pound weight 5 feet from the fulcrum of a 1st class lever and the other 10 pound weight is only 4 feet from the fulcrum, then one can SEE EXACTLY how gravity lifts a mass as the latter weight flies upward!

Bessler was neither a fraud nor the discoverer of "renewable energy" (is this the new term you are now using instead of "environmental energy source"?). He simply had a wheel that managed to keep the weights on its descending side a bit farther from the axle than were the SAME number of weights on its ascending side. Any mechanism that does this (and I still think that there is only ONE kind, Bessler's, that will work for rotary machines) will automatically force the descending side weights to lose energy / mass at a greater rate than is gained back by the ascending side weights. That means that, during each wheel rotation, there is always a bit more energy / mass left over that was extracted from the descending side weights which can then be used to accelerate all of the structures of the wheel or to operate "outside" mechanisms attached to the wheel's axle. There is nothing mysterious about the PROCESS that went on in Bessler's wheels, just the mechanism involved. Finding that mechanism is just a matter of time.

We probably won't have THE solution in time for 6/6/12. BUT I think there is close to a 100% probability of it being found and revealed before the 6/6/13 anniversary!

28. You lifted the weights onto the lever, Ken. Not gravity.

Renewable energy and environmental energy source are interchangeable in meaning.

He didn't have an overbalanced wheel unless he had an external force.

Your energy/mass analogy is still completely off the mark.

29. Doug writes:

"You lifted the weights onto the lever. Not gravity."

Actually, I did not mention who, if anyone, lifted the weights onto the lever. Maybe the weights were intially balanced with the fulcrum midpoint between them and something happened that caused the fulcrum point to slide closer to the weight that was lifted.

"He didn't have an overbalanced wheel unless he had an external force."

His first two publicly demonstrated wheels were perpetually overbalanced and had to be tethered to keep them from running. NOTHING from outside of those wheels was responsible for their overbalance.

"Your energy/mass analogy is still completely off the mark."

The concept of extracting energy / mass from an OB wheel's weights is the ONLY one that can rationalize what Bessler's wheels were doing once one has eliminated the possibility of a hoax or some sort of "renewable energy" source for them.

The level of testing his wheels underwent convinces me that no hoax was involved and the fact that the Weissenstein wheel ran for almost two months demonstrates that the "onboard" energy source it had was ALOT more powerful than what could be achieved via a mainspring powered clockwork mechanism. If we are to believe Einstein (and I DO), then EACH of that wheel's weights had enough energy / mass in it to reduce a city to rubble. Doled out at the rate of 25 watts, it could have keep the giant wheel turning at its terminal rotation rate for BILLIONS of years!

30. "If one has a 10 pound weight 5 feet from the fulcrum of a 1st class lever and the other 10 pound weight is only 4 feet from the fulcrum, then one can SEE EXACTLY how gravity lifts a mass as the latter weight flies upward!"

If one has a lever with weights on each side, then one either has lifted those weights onto the lever, or one's imaginary friend has lifted them. Do you have an imaginary friend, TG?

"His first two publicly demonstrated wheels were perpetually overbalanced and had to be tethered to keep them from running. NOTHING from outside of those wheels was responsible for their overbalance."

Then Wagner was right, they were spring loaded. They only ran for 30 minutes at a time.

"once one has eliminated the possibility of a hoax "

One can't eliminate the possibility; the evidence was destroyed and the only witness died keeping his word. Big mistakes. Hoax then became a greater possibility.

"The concept of extracting energy / mass from an OB wheel's weights "

Mass represents potential energy, period. That's what the equation says.

Einstein's equation doesn't say: gravity converts mass (not potential energy!), in microscopic increments of matter (at a subatomic level!), into mechanical kinetic energy that we can somehow apportion between our engines and their loads, no further analysis necessary; because I am the great Technoguy.

31. You're all wrong I tell you!

32. We need an amplifier. Yes, I know I've said that many times before. We need a differential. How? Oscillations are powerful. This guy is doing just that on Youtube:

I don't agree with this statement that it's overunity, but the fact remains that he causes his daughter (on the fulcrum) to be raised just by using his index finger. Minimal energy input. No matter which way you look at it, that *is* very effective and powerful amplification, by clever use of oscillation and leverage in a simple contraption.

And that's what Bessler did, I think. If one can raise a heavy weight easily, as this man is obviously doing, the rest is engineering.

33. Andre, Andre.

1. How much does the girl weigh?
How much does the bike weigh?
How long are the effort and resistance arms of the lever?
The pedal crank is a second lever, making the device a compound lever, in three dimensions.

34. PART I:

Doug writes:

"If one has a lever with weights on each side, then one either has lifted those weights onto the lever, or one's imaginary friend has lifted them. Do you have an imaginary friend, TG?"

Whether one has manually placed the weights on the lever bar or they somehow naturally formed there is IRRELEVANT to what happens when the fulcrum moves toward one of the weights. The RELEVANT point is what happens as the fulcrum moves. When that happens, the weight the fulcrum moves away from will suddenly be able to release an amount of energy / mass that EXCEEDS what the weight approached by the fulcrum will need in order to rise and that weight WILL rise. In a VERY similar manner, the weights on the descending sides of Bessler's wheels were able to output MORE energy / mass than was required by the ascending side weights to rise and rotary motion DID occur. Unlike the case of the simple lever, however, the mechanism in Bessler's wheels was able to repeat this IDENTICAL motion, ad infinitum (assuming, of course, no part failure or complete weight energy / mass depletion was allowed to occur), during EVERY 45 degree increment of wheel rotation.

Yes, I have an "imaginary friend". Everytime I study the clues Bessler left us, I imagine that he is speaking directly to me and guiding me, one struggling step at a time, toward the replication of his marvelous invention!

"Then Wagner was right, they were spring loaded. They only ran for 30 minutes at a time."

They certain did use springs, but NOT as Wagner's crude copy wheel did. The springs in Bessler's wheels played a CRITICAL role in stabilizing the positioning of the weighted levers so that those levers whose pivots were passing the 9:00 position of a CW turning drum could "rise in a flash". His wheels ONLY ran for 30 minutes during ONE "official" examination? I'd be dancing in the street if I could get one of my model wheels to run for 30 SECONDS! You forgot to mention that the Weissenstein wheel ran for almost 2 MONTHS!

"Einstein's equation doesn't say: gravity converts mass (not potential energy!), in microscopic increments of matter (at a subatomic level!), into mechanical kinetic energy that we can somehow apportion between our engines and their loads..."

35. PART II:

Without the driving force of gravity acting on the descending side weights in Bessler's wheels AND also some resistance present for that force to overcome (such as that provided by lifting the ascending side weights, the aerodynamic and bearing drag always present, and any external load attached to the axle), the descending side weights could not lose a single fraction of a picogram of their energy / mass content. BUT, once such a force is present along with a lesser amount of drag to overcome, then, indeed, the descending side weights WILL begin to move and lose a fraction of a picogram of their energy / mass content in the process during each wheel rotation. The weights lose their OWN energy / mass, but gravity serves as the catalyst for this process. The amount of that loss or gain will be precisely determined by Einsteins's famous equation and NOT just because I said so.

What I am saying is studied in most high school physics classes. Did you have physics in high school?

@ Andre

I don't like to use the term "parametric oscillator" when discussing Bessler's wheels because it begins to move one away from "right track" designs using carefully interconnected levers toward "wrong track" designs that involve isolated gravity activated pendula within a wheel's drum. That is NOT how Bessler's wheels worked, BUT, most likely, IS the principle behind Asa Jackson's famous wheel.

In the case of the Jackson wheel, the parametric oscillator was probably two diametrically opposed sliding weights inside the central structure and the "pump" was an additional pendulum bob weight that could shift the CoM of two other weights from one side of the axle to the other. But, to allow this motion to take place spontaneously, Jackson would have had to have found some way of carefully counter balancing the opposed weights with springs so that they could "slide in a flash" when it was time to reset the central structure and prepare for the next pulse of torque that would be supplied to the large outer wheel through that traction structure at the 6:00 position.

36. "...if I could get one of my model wheels to run for 30 SECONDS!.."

I rest my case. The only other thing anyone need know about your models is, in your computer simulations, they turn at 1 rpm.

The W wheel ran for a few days, the guards were bribed, and then the wheel was rewound, and the seal was rewaxed. Or there was a secret entrance. Why is that so hard to imagine?

I took honors physics in high school for two years and university for three years. I'm familiar with physics.

Gravity is a catalyst? This just gets better and better.

Naturally formed weights on levers? Have you been going to John's school of analogy?

38. You're all wrong I tell you,..You have to look for the wormhole!

39. I am right and everyone else is wrong .

40. LOL!

I'm not here to cast doubts upon anybody's knowledge of physics or their mechanical abilities. Truth be known, we ALL, including me, could do with a bit more knowledge and skill and, ultimately, life is really one long (and generally painful!) learning experience.

My point, however, remains. Whenever an object does work, it LOSES some of its energy / mass content and whenever an object has work done on it, it GAINS a bit of energy / mass. What makes this difficult for many to accept is the fact that there is a vast difference between the amount of energy transfered between two objects and the amount of mass associated with that energy transfer. For example, when you heat a pot of soup on your stove, it's thermal energy is clearly increased and evidenced by its beginning to boil. But, no one is aware of the ALWAYS accompanying INCREASE in the mass of the pot of soup which is on the order of picograms. But, that mass increase DOES take place. If it didn't, then most of modern physics would be invalidated!

What has this to do with Bessler's wheels? Simple. It means that there was a HUGE amount of energy associated with the tens of pounds of mass of the weights in Bessler's wheels which, if extracted by a properly designed OB PM gravity wheel, would be available to perform "useful" work in the environment outside of the wheels. And, when we finally have replicated Bessler's wheels and gotten the attention of the world's physicists with them, the mass of the wheels' weights will be the FIRST place they will be suggesting as a source for their outputted power.

@ Doug

Yes, my model wheels only turn, for the moment, at 1 rpm. BUT, that is because I PURPOSELY limit them to that speed so I can better observe the interactions taking place between their levers. Without that restriction, they can easily, even during a brief 45 degree increment of rotation, reach speeds in excess of about 10 rpms. One of my goals is to use a model wheel to replicate the 26 rpm terminal rotation rate of the Weissenstein wheel. By carefully adjusting the masses of its sub wheel's weights, I should be able to determine fairly accurately what size weights Bessler used in it. Right now, I'm guessimating about 8 lbs for each weight.

"The W wheel ran for a few days, the guards were bribed, and then the wheel was rewound, and the seal was rewaxed. Or there was a secret entrance. Why is that so hard to imagine?"

Almost ANYTHING is possible IF one tries hard enough. However, I trust the words of Count Karl and Bessler. If the Weissenstein wheel had ever been sold for the asking price and the fraud discovered, their reputations would have been ruined FOR LIFE. I don't think they would have taken that risk. I know I wouldn't have. If and when I reveal a design for Bessler's wheels, you can be sure that it will be THE one and that it WILL work IF constructed by a "competent" craftsman (sadly, they are a vanishing breed nowadays!).

1. My point remains also. Gravity has never been observed to lift mass.

Any mass increase associated with lifting lead weights into a higher position, however small, came from the person that lifted them, and would be converted into a wasted form of energy , heat from air drag, when allowed to fall.

41. Doug wrote:

"My point remains also. Gravity has never been observed to lift mass."

You need to REread my comment above. ONLY an OBJECT can lift an object. Gravity does NOT provide the energy / mass for the lift. That comes from the OBJECT doing the lifting NOT from gravity. HOWEVER, gravity (or some other force field) can make the exchange of energy / mass from one object to the other possible. No gravity (or similar force), no lifting.

An object can't lift another object without an energy input.
Object 1 can't lift object 2 until someone, (not gravity or another object) lifts object 1.
Object 1 gets the initial energy/mass from the person who lifted it.
No person, no lifting, no exchange of energy/mass to object 2.

43. Doug wrote:

"Object 1 can't lift object 2 until someone, (not gravity or another object) lifts object 1.
Object 1 gets the initial energy/mass from the person who lifted it."

I've never said that an object can be lifted without it being supplied some energy / mass at the expense of some other object(s) energy / mass content. My point is that there is NO need for HUMAN intervention in the process as you insist above. Consider the following hypothetical.

A meteor comes screaming down through our atmosphere and impacts the ground. As it forms an impact crater, a large quantity of dirt and rocks are ejected and some on it lands on some nearby house's roof. All of this would take place WITHOUT a human supplying the necessary energy / mass needed to lift the ejected material onto the roof.

44. The impact of a meteorite would flatten everything around it for several miles. There would be nothing left to land on. But that obscures the real point. If some rocks landed on something, you'd still have to move them from there to your wheel. The rocks wouldn't be much use on top of a roof or something. Now if you could set up your wheel to catch incoming meteorites, then you've got something. Don't you think it's easier to catch rain?

You're grasping at straws to find an instance of free (gravitational potential) energy.
Ain't no free, bro. Only renewable.

http://www.nrel.gov/

45. Doug wrote:

"You're grasping at straws to find an instance of free (gravitational potential) energy."

LOL! That's a good one! I never said there was any "free" energy being provided by Bessler's wheels. Energy / mass can neither be created nor destroyed and it is really only "free" in the sense that one does not have to pay as much for it as he would for fuel or electrical power.

If Bessler's wheels outputted energy / mass then it had to come from SOMETHING that was located SOMEWHERE. It could not have come from Bessler's body or the Earth's gravity field or ANYTHING else outside of a wheel. It came from INSIDE of a wheel and the ONLY things inside of his wheels were air, wooden support structures, wooden levers, metal pivots, some lubricants, cords, springs, and, of course, LEAD WEIGHTS. Now, I'll leave it to the more astute readers out there in PMland to decide which of those items was the SOURCE of the energy / mass that his wheel's outputted.

It makes NO difference whether the weights in Bessler's wheels were inserted by hand on the ends of their levers or if they fell from the sky and miraculously attached themselves to the ends of the levers. The energy / mass his wheel's outputted was NOT provided by Bessler or the heavens, it was the result of the unique MOTIONS of the weights within a wheel. Those motions with the help of the Earth's gravity field continually allowed the descending side weights to output a bit more energy / mass during their descent than was required to lift the ascending side weights during their ascent. The wheel could then use the discrepancy in these amounts of transferred energy / mass to accelerate all of the structures of a wheel or operate "outside" machinery.

46. " Now, I'll leave it to the more astute readers out there in PMland to decide which of those items was the SOURCE of the energy / mass that his wheel's outputted."

None of the above. The source of energy had to come from anywhere except the interior of the wheel. The motions of the weights are irrelevant in a conservative force field; the definition explicitly states that the path of the particle from one point back to the same point doesn't matter in calculations. The work done is the same, regardless of the path (or motions). And the work done is always a net zero sum. So ergo, the energy had to come from somewhere else. The descending side weights can't "output" more energy than the ascending side weights "input". That implies that gravity is accelerating the weights on one side faster than the other. There is no discrepancy in energy conversion amounts in a gravitational field. You are a poopyhead.

47. Doug "illuminates" us with:

"The work done is the same, regardless of the path (or motions). And the work done is always a net zero sum."

Quite fortunately for us active, Bessler mobilists, this statement does NOT apply to Bessler's wheels! The unique SUSTAINED displacement of their weights' CoM GUARANTEES that the weights will always lose MORE energy / mass during a complete "closed path" rotation than they gain back. The excess energy / mass lost per weight per rotation can then be used to accelerate ALL of the structures of the wheel and operate any machines attached to its axle.

There is NO place other for the outputted energy / mass to come from except the WEIGHTS inside of his wheels.

48. Unfortunately for any mobilist, it applies to Bessler's wheels. The "sustained displacement" can't be sustained by gravity. There is no "output" from descending weights. You are a poopyhead.

49. Doug writes:

"The "sustained displacement" can't be sustained by gravity. There is no "output" from descending weights. You are a poopyhead."

I AGREE! With the FIRST part and MAYBE the THIRD part!

The displacement of the CoM onto a wheel's descending side during rotation, I am VERY convinced, is not possible without the use of spring tension. There are MANY clues to how this is to be done, but I won't go into that now.

The descending side weights, being farther from the axle on average than the ascending side weights, MUST move faster vertically than the ascending side weights rise or there would be a "pile up" of weights near the top of a wheel. This difference in vertical velocities assures that the descending side weights will be TRANSFERRING energy / mass to the drum and axle FASTER than it is being REMOVED from the axle by the ascending side weights. This DOES result in a "pile up" or accumulation of energy / mass in the wheel and axle that will accelerate them or operate "outside" attached machinery.

Hmmm...I think "poopyhead" in French means "genius". Thanks, Doug, it's always nice to be appreciated!

50. "The descending side weights, being farther from the axle on average than the ascending side weights, MUST move faster vertically than the ascending side weights rise..."

The descending side of the wheel turns faster than the ascending side... now that's a good trick! Good luck again, french genius!

51. Thank you a lot for sharing this with all folks you really recognise what you're speaking approximately! Bookmarked. Please also talk over with my web site =). We will have a hyperlink change agreement between us

My web page: scholarships

52. Because the admin of this web page is working,
no doubt very shortly it will be famous, due to its feature contents.

Here is my web-site: Email Console