Thursday, 24 October 2013

Gravity loophole and eggs on faces!

Having witnessed a plethora of advice on the Besslerwheel forum from the advocates of the opinion that the likelihood of gravity turning out to be the main driving force for Bessler's wheel is about as likely as the survival of a fart in a cyclone, I can only say that I look forward with unbounded enthusiasm to the day when we can look at all the naysayers, who regard us as naive at best, and say..."We told you so, but you wouldn't listen!"

Somebody described us as "naive" and yet the word  naive describes people who tend to believe in whatever they are told, without questioning whether it is right or wrong. Perhaps the word should be applied to those sceptics instead. How else can you describe their complacency in stating in the strongest possible terms that Bessler's wheel will never be driven by gravity alone?  They state with unparalleled self-satisfaction that such machines are impossible and Bessler was either a fraud or used some additional force to achieve the same result.

Why are the words that Bessler used taken as lies or misleading statement at best?  He states in no uncertain terms that the weights are in themselves, the source of the energy, saying " these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity.  To this end they are enclosed (page 21) in a structure or framework, and co- ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing.  This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation. "

The above statement is unequivocal and should be taken seriously instead of examined for double or hidden meaning .... or downright lies.

So the only conclusion is that there must be loophole within the accepted laws governing gravity which would allow devices such as a gravity-wheel to work as Bessler described - and there is.  It isn't even a loophole - just an overlooked facet of the subject.  I know it and I can prove it, so if I'm right then all you know-it-all sceptics are about to have egg on your faces.

Loophole;  an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. wikipedia

JC

12 comments:

  1. You're so right John, my sentiments exactly.
    Are you anywhere near your proof of prototype?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, the loopholes and face-egg!

    I have always wondered just what the loophole was that allowed x-rays to become actually real, as we were reliably informed by one no less than a Lord himself - one Kelvin of the Royal Society itself - that said rays were said by this he in some proposed fact, to have been "a hoax."

    "X-rays are a hoax!" - Lord Kelvin (No equivocation here.)

    Also, along a line-similar, my wonderment has wandered to the FACT of the advent of heavier-than-air powered flight, as contra-distinguished from a like, high contrary OPINION, as made by that same lofty personage, that went something like this

    'Heavier than air powered flight is impossible!'. (From memory now, thus the semi-quotation here.)

    My dear Lord of no uncertain highness, we now and here ask of ye posthumously (and expecting answerment to resultantly shower down) as to the following:

    "How is it that ye SO ERRED twice at least? We need to know."

    This would be the question for which we await Heavenly reports..

    In view of the above, as combined with quite a bit of the same mouthy (or written) pseudo prognosticative nonsense as coming from individuals that should know better, to the two already mentioned and expounded-upon lengthily and intelligently, by our own distinguished author/moderator, the following ONE I would add:

    Scientific Foot-In-Mouth Affliction. (SFIMA)

    Now we have a trio for describing our antagonistically doubting, lab-coated (or, chalk for the ones that cannot 'make the grade' research-wise) sciemystics.

    It must be said that it is so that we - as amateur seekers-after the ostensible impossible - HAVE excuses made all ready, for sometimes making of outlandish utterances here, there, or even everywhere on occasion, these honestly being due to the very fact (naturally) of our energetic and most enthusiastic, eternal and youthful, good natured amateurishness . . . BUT . . . certain of others of the undoubtedly high and professing (if not all quite yet mighty in one another's eyes) have NOT.

    No excuse can there be for such illustrious of reputation engaged mouths a flapping, before brains are put fully in-gear! (Or, pens a scratching - whichever.)

    There exist numerous of other like-examples, these two here being simply the most exquisitely delicious and "authoritative," of the whole marvelous decrepit collection.

    James

    PS It is so that Scientism's high priests and ritualists will not find any friend in this writer - on the extreme and intense contrary, actually. For far too long, now, the mouthy and too forward Establishment Darlings have enjoyed their prickly sadistic ways, such impositions beginning essentially with the Skewer King himself - Dirks! (Though obviously highly capable in ways important, the man was insane in others.) Soon enough A JUST END will be put to this stench of arrogance now gone fully mad, as well as wicked-corporate; their moralless disgusting ease to be turned topsy-turvy. (Here we might handily think "World Extinction Event: FUSKUSHIMA." For this they shall be thanked properly.)

    Developing . . .

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with 'naive' - in fact i've found it to be something of an understatement, rather, the most vociferous naysayers seem to be those least competent to their assumed roles of protectors of the faifth, their confidence inversely proportional to their actual knowledge. To a man, they're the first to invoke all sorts of psuedoscience in support of their unshakable beliefs.

    As for the hunt, i can't help but wonder if your current hypothesis involves a solution to the toys page - and likewise, with regards to resolving the many other clues.. how consistent is it with the various descriptions of Bessler's mechanism (ie. one side empty, the other light, pairred weights alternately gravitating to center then climbing back up, one taking an inner position, another outer, giving simultaneous upwards and downwards impetuses etc. etc..?) Also, do any of these aparrent contradictions see resolution in your design - eg. not OB despite the above described weight positions?

    One other burning question i have - does it necessitate using the 3rd dimension - or is a WM2D model possible (and if so, have you verified it this way yet?) As ever, please ignore if i'm prying too far..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uh, i mean "one side empty, the other full", of course..

      Delete
  4. Hi Vibe my hypothesis has little connection with the toys page, although there are clues there which seem to relate to them they are not as convincing as the ones I have found elsewhere.

    I don't see any contradiction in the clues you have mentioned. I have taken a number of translations of the actual German words used and it is quite possible to amalgamate the clues into a coherent whole.

    And to answer your last question, no; there is no need to use the third dimension in Bessler's wheel. Consider the first wheel, it was only 4 inches thick by 4-6 feet. Not much room for any lateral action between the the two coverings.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fascinating, thanks for taking the time to answer... however you dodged the question of simming - i've been finding it invaluable for quickly sketching ideas, and would sim before building just to minimise unnecessary graft.. granted it's no alternative to hands-on, but at the same time it seems an irresistable sanity check on any prospective build marathon.. so i'm curious about your thoughts on this..?

    Personally i'd all but given up on 2D and was back to playing with Mecanno.. axial scissorjacks FWIW, nothing fruitful tho..

    And the reason i find discrepancies in the descriptions above is because they imply that the paired weights are in the top half of the wheel (so it's top-heavy), which seems hard to reconcile with his asserted stipulation that "in a true PM everything must go around together - there can be no part of it that remains stationary on the axle" - from this i'd concluded that the weights must be following a roughly-circular trajectory around the face of the wheel as it turns... however if they're not rotating with the wheel in this way, but also not hanging from the axle in 'quasistatic' kind of way either, then they must be following a small circuit constrained to the top half of the wheel. I guess that's not exactly paradoxical but it's certainly a mechanical conundrum, at least to my frazzled imagination..!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't comment on simulating because I have no use for it Vibe. For me there is only one way of testing a configuration and that is hands-on building in my workshop. One major advantage with that is that you can see alternatives during the build and make alterations as you go. Also I don't trust simulations because, as they used to say if you put rubbish in you get rubbish out ....and also I am not sufficiently clever to work with them!!!

      JC

      Delete
  6. Again and as usual, the Vibe's observations, tentative conclusions and ruminations (both specifical as well as of the mere-miscellaneal), do so-far PASS the test of logic's fair application - sort of - but, with some few rough edges beginning to display.

    (Glory be! What might be this? Cracks now seen in the affront?)

    To this admiring and marveling reviewer (with the above one caveat being kept in-mind) every single word seems one acceptable barefacedly but . . . as we all know well, APPEARANCES can be things peskily deceiving.

    Honestly, now, how could this newly appearing novelty of wordiness be otherwise considered, considering it's presently unknown but seeming "distinguished" SOURCE - know what I mean?

    Ahem! Might we now not begin to sniff a whiff of that indescribable scent of a Technoguy wickedness as reborn or . . . is it JUST ME who so-errs in the early detecting????

    Therefore, then, at least tentatively, DO let us have more of it for the testing as well as scenting-out, if we might?.

    And also, too, which would be nice, A WHEEL ITSELF aturning actually, this to match nicely that grand mass of oceaned verbiage as he (or, she) so pours-forth - SUCH pretty and ruminative techno-banter being a one thing to be appreciated naturally, but . . . desired, tangible reality being quite an other and, a thing far, far more essential? (No?)

    So-be-it!

    Onward and upward!

    Tally-ho!

    CHEERS!

    James (Naughty ice-pick-equipped Iconoclast, headed for puffing and strutting wind baggery. "Heeeeere's Johnny!!!")

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi there... wordy? i try to be as succinct as poss, but may sometimes struggle for clarity... and no i'm not TC (though i enjoyed much of his musings, i disagreed with some of his ideas. I was only lurking back then anyhoos..

    And no, unfortunately, i don't have a wheel either. Lately i've spent some time simming through various unstable systems, but no decisive asymmetries yet. This evening i've been making an effort to find a non-dissipative gravitational loss mechanism - just because Bessler''s success suggests there should be one (the inverse of his principle), and a loss mechanism might be easier to pin down than a gain - even though they're both the same animal, albeit reversed.

    I ended up playing with levers, with pairs of weights moving on each end. The idea was to have a see-saw that was only bearing moving masses, rather than stationary ones. So on one end a 2kg mass falls, lifting a 1kg mass, and something similar happens on the other end, and the balance on the beam is the offset between the offset between the two pairs of pulleyed masses on each end. Dynamic inequilibria, type stuff. Didn't really go anywhere though...

    It's a different handle on the problem though - how to drop and re-lift a mass, losing energy from the system in the process. At first you might think it's as simple as not harnessing all of the drop energy, and just letting the rest get wasted... but that's a dissipative loss - the total system energy remains constant. That's not what we're after.

    Somehow, there's a way of dropping a mass then re-lifting it, and losing energy, without simply wasting it to heat.

    If it can be found, it can be inverted... so soz if i read like so much excess verbiage, but i'm focused on aiding the hunt, more than critiquing others' literary efforts..

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey John,

    Thank you for the last three, apparently divinely inspired, posts. I know you wrote them to the world but I am taking them as if they were intended entirely for me. I usually don't read blogs or follow the bulletin boards as they are a distraction and tend to pull my thoughts off course.

    I nearly laughed to tears over your commentary about replacing your wheel. Fascinating that I just replaced mine for identical reasons.

    I also learned some B-factoids that I was previously unaware of, thanx.

    Very curious about your particular selection of MT drawings as my preferences have not narrowed to much less than thirty for several years and actually tend to drift as old ill-proven assumptions fade. I applaud your confidence in some select few drawings.

    I have to ask what the harm would be in divulging your list of favorite drawings without commentary on a final construction? The rest of us 'slow' people would likely have little clue what you are going to do with them as we do with B himself.

    I do understand your desire to snatch the ring for yourself but I have tried to shun the evil plant, do the opposite of B, and share, just hoping to be in the ring of winners before that long cold sleep. Your “list” might just stir up a little more interest and excitement as well, possibly even a little confusion. God knows you stir more excitement than I. The current web site has been up for a few years and have yet to get but three email, excluding the inner circle (SE,U,Aussie, and the mysterious, Professor Left Mitten) and you have numerous responses to every post.

    MikeyNed

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please do not write to me @ the gmail address as I only use it for identification purposes and your email will only be read by NSA.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey MikeyNed, good to hear from you! You and I (and those others you mentioned) go back a long, long way and its good to know you're still in the game. I'm delighted to know that you have enjoyed my posts and I'm going to consider revealing the drawings that have given me the clues I needed, but not in this post! I'm may write a new blog for posting after the next one. Nothing too mysterious about that, it's just that I have already written the next one.

    Let me know what you think when I tell you.

    JC

    ReplyDelete

The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...