Ever since I stumbled on the secret to Bessler's wheel, more than two years ago now, I have been trying turn it to my advantage, but knowing the basic concept and finding ways of using it are two different things. Gradually, through trial and error and through occasional sudden revelations in connection with Bessler's clues, I think I am on the brink of success. I noted down a brief description of the principle I discovered and jumbled up the letters and it has appeared under almost every blog since then.
I know there are many, probably 90 per cent, who think I'm suffering from premature perpetuation, (don't you just love that phrase! I owe that one to Stewart of Besslerwheel forum fame.) but I am sure that when you know the principle you will share my enthusiasm. The reason for this blog, is that I often get asked for more information on what I have discovered and I am hard put to reveal any of it in case I let slip too much information. However there is a clue I can give albeit a vague one.
I am sure that this same principle will be available for another mechanical enigma which has entertained and puzzled us for many years. I refer to the inertial thrust or propulsion engine, also known as reactionless drive. I believe I'm right in saying that to date, no reactionless drive has ever been validated under properly controlled conditions.
The name derives from Newton's third law, which is usually expressed as, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster amongst other proposed sensible concepts have been researched but so far without success.
Without giving too much away I am convinced that the principle I have found will also be a significant inclusion in the configuration of any successful inertial thruster. This means that there may be a reactionless space drive for the future and of course there is potential for ground a sea transport too.
When you consider it, if Bessler's wheel worked as we all believe it did, then what ever mechanical arrangement inside it must be transferable to an Inertial Drive Engine because in order for it to work Bessler's wheel must have overcome Newton's third law:- "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
JC
I know there are many, probably 90 per cent, who think I'm suffering from premature perpetuation, (don't you just love that phrase! I owe that one to Stewart of Besslerwheel forum fame.) but I am sure that when you know the principle you will share my enthusiasm. The reason for this blog, is that I often get asked for more information on what I have discovered and I am hard put to reveal any of it in case I let slip too much information. However there is a clue I can give albeit a vague one.
I am sure that this same principle will be available for another mechanical enigma which has entertained and puzzled us for many years. I refer to the inertial thrust or propulsion engine, also known as reactionless drive. I believe I'm right in saying that to date, no reactionless drive has ever been validated under properly controlled conditions.
The name derives from Newton's third law, which is usually expressed as, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster amongst other proposed sensible concepts have been researched but so far without success.
Without giving too much away I am convinced that the principle I have found will also be a significant inclusion in the configuration of any successful inertial thruster. This means that there may be a reactionless space drive for the future and of course there is potential for ground a sea transport too.
When you consider it, if Bessler's wheel worked as we all believe it did, then what ever mechanical arrangement inside it must be transferable to an Inertial Drive Engine because in order for it to work Bessler's wheel must have overcome Newton's third law:- "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
Yes there is an unequal opposite reaction but it cannot be used . They have been trying for years with the Milkovic mechanical oscillator and it does not work
ReplyDeleteHi John,
ReplyDeleteWrite down how your wheel works, or the secret and email it to yourself, because when it becomes known everybody yes everybody will say ! told you so ! Or I new it worked like that.
John Collins has been claiming to have "the secret" for over half a century , truth is he does not have the secret.
DeleteUnless he wants to prove me wrong .
Well,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think the wheel turning IS the reaction, the reaction to gravities influence and the positioning and movement of the weights.
Second, Reaction-less drive is in much the same realm as true perpetual motion and has been and always will be impossible, but the reaction caused by gravity can be used, just look at hydro-electric dams.
Third, I use Besslers achievements as motivation, but I think he did not want anyone else to build his wheel without paying for it, therefore all clues are misleading, Don't get me wrong if one of you see it in his writings and it works out for you great, but I have to travel the road as I see it. So I rely on my own experience in designing and building my wheel prototypes.
Forth, here is a clue to my work, as John has elaborated on before, connectivity is the key, the wheel has to work as one big machine ( mine is 9' in diameter ) , that means lots of cables and rods, but it should still be simple. Problem is that something that works for the moment in one position works against you a moment later in another position. I'll get back at it as soon as the weather allows, been -13 to 5 Fahrenheit in the mornings here in Michigan the last 2 months, but will get to it soon.
Just rambling, Bob
It seems a truth that, the LARGER a thing is that is stubborn generally when small, the more likely it will THEN work.
Delete("Size counts!" and "The bigger, the better." Truly, the women P-M seekers of us understand and accept this intuitively but, not necessarily so us guys.)
Nine feet, huh?
So, along this line, if pressed really, really hard in some weak moment, I would cautiously advise as follows:
If the vexing creature only displays a very slight tendency to go-of-itself, then make it BIGGER.
That surely will do it.
As the Emperor say-ed to Salieri . . .
James
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNot exactly sure what your saying here. Just guessing, but have you been drinking, I do, but then I don't go on blogs and ramble incoherently.
DeleteI built it large because of the materials at hand and small measuring mistakes don't make as big of a difference with a large wheel, I also have the luxury of a large space. I have made hundreds of builds and thousands of drawings and have a pretty good idea of how things move on a REAL rotating wheel, do you?
Do you have a test wheel? Or anything useful to share?
Bob
". . . and ramble incoherently."
DeleteWhatever; as it may please you, Bobby.
A tough monkey, huh?
J.
Actually, Bessler's one directional wheels did not violate Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. When Bessler released one of these wheels and it began to rotate, the Earth would react by rotating in the opposite direction. Of course, since the mass of the Earth is enormous compared to that of one of Bessler's one directional wheels, the amount of motion it underwent was negligible. However, on a smaller scale this conservation of angular momentum becomes obvious. For example, if one attaches a metal disc being spun by a battery powered electric motor to the rim of a small bicycle wheel, then the wheel will react by rotating in the opposite direction (the planes of rotation of the disc and bike wheel must be the same, though). Because of this famous conservation law, any attempt to build a device that violates it must be doomed to failure. That, of course, includes any sort of "reactionless" propulsion system. However, you believe that your discovery of Bessler's secret mechanism would be usable in making a reactionless drive work? Well, either you have something truly remarkable or you are just wasting your time. I hope you do something real, John, but I also know we pm researchers are engaged in a pursuit that makes us prone to speculating way beyond where what actual facts we have should allow us to go. Then we must pay for that "sin" with the one painful disappointing failure after another.
ReplyDeletePremature perpetuation! Ha ha...that's a good one. My problem tends, however, to be "delayed perpetuation". I'll be so relieved when the solution finally comes! Ahhhhhh....
Re-actionless drive no. A friend of mine has a working wheel,( I have seen it) I asked him how it worked and he said "the weights fall and through leverage on this ( device ) it creates an over-reaction and that's what drives the wheel" he added " most people try to use the action and that's why they fail.
ReplyDeleteAs the Emperor say-ed to Salieri . . .
DeleteJames
In some ways an N3 violation is the corollary to an asymmetric force interaction - they're similar animals. But in other ways they may be worlds apart - mass constancy is the real stick-in-the-mud, here.
ReplyDeleteThere's tentative reasons to be hopeful, though - for example the apparent absence of a stator. However, as has been said before, gravity's vector may be an effective stator.
As a thought experiment, suppose we could replace the gravitating masses in a working wheel with magnetised ones, and gravity's vector with a permanent magnet stator. In zero-G we would thus expect the permanent magnet stator to counter-rotate with the rotor.
Going further, suppose we had two such wheels, one rotating clockwise, and the other, counter-clockwise, but sharing the same stator (ie. both permanent magnets glued to the same base, or perhaps sharing opposite poles of the same stator magnet). The two opposing counter-torques on the stator would thus cancel each other out. Would this leave an unbalanced linear force from the descending sides of the wheels, towards the stator? Surely the inertias of the rotating masses would be equal on the ascending side, hence the unit would remain stationary?
Cracking N3 would have to be the top priority upon solving PM, and the search would certainly be invigorated. But for now i still feel that nothing i've seen in the world of PM research even really speaks to the challenge. It's a whole 'nother bucket of spiders, innit.
Hurray! I finally managed to post something on this blog! I got a new laptop a few days ago and "tweaked" it to the point where I could not make posts anywhere! I think I've got the problem solved now. In my zeal to keep cookies off of my hard drive, I blocked some ones that are critical to making posts here!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm a believer in the inviolability of Newton's 3rd law. Quantum entanglement shows that the universe is actually more concerned about conserving angular momentum than it is about limiting the speed of information travel to that of light.
Still working on my latest wheel model and decided to try moving the spring attachment point on my levers 0.25 inches closer to the lever's pivot and changing the secondary spring to drum attachment point to another location. I'm rapidly running out of options to try and new interpretations of the most ambiguous of Bessler's clues. Something's got to work and soon!!!
This personage states enthusiastically in faith: "Something's got to work and soon!!!"
DeleteT'aint necessarily so!
If a thing CAN, it will do-so in IT'S own time, not ours.
"The cheeky hubris of Mankind knows NO bounds."
Certain posters upon this site labor long and hard and particularly, to prove that admonition accurate absolutely.
James
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteon another note, did you remember to finish your book.
Also have you any idea how many people are looking or chasing bessler's wheel.
Still working on the book with only about four chapters to go before I can finally submit it to the publisher and concentrate 100% on my Bessler research. I was hoping this book would be the one in which I was finally able to reveal the secrets of Bessler's wheels, but that was not meant to be. Maybe the next book.
DeleteI'm not really sure how many people are doing "serious" Bessler wheel research. Perhaps at any given time there are a few dozen worldwide. Most pm seekers are really not that interested in exactly how Bessler did it. They assume that there are many ways and, of course, their "pet" approach must be one of them. All of them, very likely, will eventually be forced to give up their search either due to disability, death, or disillusionment. Of course, should one of them actually produce anything mechanical that works and does so in anyway remotely similar to what Bessler produced, he will probably proudly proclaim that he has found Bessler's secret. Don't believe it! There are currently, imo, enough clues available to decide if a particular device is a genuine duplication of Bessler's invention or not. Not anything will do. It must meet somewhat specific structural and performance criteria.
Spent a few hours over the weekend trying to crack JC's code, but it's pretty tight. The last few characters seem the only weak spot - the slight inconsistency in the alternation of the numbers and letters also, but it's so far defeated anything i could throw at it. I suspect some kind of keyboard cypher is used, but with little certainty...
ReplyDeleteHowever JC's suggestion that the wheel might've accomplished an N3 violation leads me to think that perhaps whatever the message encodes is another false start - if what he thinks he's found is dependent on an effectively cancelled counter-force then i'm skeptical it's going to work. I disagree that any asymmetric interaction is per se equivalent to an N3 violation - i can only envisage an asymmetry in terms of a Noether exception; a time-dependent exploit, essentially lifting something when it's lighter and/or dropping it when it's heavier, by somehow modulating the effective weights of masses, because varying rest mass or gravity itself seems to be axiomatically out of the question, and N3 is principally enforced by the invariability of rest mass.
Effective weight is obviously subject to balance conditions, spring attenuation and so on, the types of things we all try but which so far have drawn blanks, so i accept my view may be unreasonably blinkered here.
But there's still room for optimistic specualtion: if the effective mass of a weight can indeed be modulated, then a reciprocating linear motion of such a variable mass in conjunction with a constant mass could yeild a net displacement. For example, suppose one is floating in space with a bat and ball, and the ball is connected to the bat by a length of elastic: if the ball's mass is variable, then changing it at the exact moments it changes direction generates propulsion; bat away a heavy ball and retract a lighter one, or vice versa, rinse and repeat, et voila.
Silvertiger's enigmatically-entitled 'expanded nothing hypothesis' over on the BW forum sounds like just such an exploit, if it bears out. Despite his present confidence that it couldn't be the basis of Bessler's mechanism, it would nonetheless be a proof of principle of a potential N3 manipulation.
I just wish i could work out what either he or JC is up to, so i could evaluate their principles myself... the suspension's killing me.
An asymmetric force interaction with an N3 violation would make our wildest scifi fantasies seem positively restrained, potentiall opening up interstellar travel to the masses. Backyard engineers would be able to knock up interpanetary craft in their sheds and garages, and larger organisations could launch interstellar voyages for a few billion or less. All you'd need would be a hull and life support systems...
Vibe,
Deletecheck out Cannae Drive on Google, yes, that's cannae, as in "ye cannae change the laws of physics !"
Here's an interesting little article about an inventor who came up with what he claims would be a workable reactionless propulsion system. I'm skeptical, of course, but his approach is novel.
ReplyDeletehttp://jnaudin.free.fr/images/hbart.jpg
It's actually a fairly standard attempt, and falls foul of the traditional problem - no form of cushioning the impacts changes the fact that they remain fully elastic with regards to mass constancy, hence the inertial integrals at both the cushioned and uncushioned ends always sum to zero.
ReplyDeletePoint of fact; some years ago i investigated a device successfully patented as a working inertial drive, by a French Canadian inventor named Maurice Coulombe. The reason it took my interest, besides the granted patent, was that it did indeed appear to be real - it consisted of two loosely-connected carriages, which could be floated, suspended from hanging wires or set upon tracks, and a pair of solenoid-fired weighted armatures on one of the carriages. Crucially, the net masses of both carriages were equal, yet, when the solenoids were fired, their impact energy was asymmetrically distributed between them.
Imagine it like this - suppose you have two identical bricks, connected by a short length of string. You bring the bricks together, into contact, and then discharge an impulse between them - could be a hammer and anvil, a firecracker, whatever. The bricks thus propel each other apart. Because their masses are identical, we would expect, due to Newton's 3rd law, that both masses would have equal speed and displacement. So they'd fly apart, until all the slack on the string was taken up, at which point they'd be jerked back together again, with no net distance traversed.
Instead, Coulombe's carts received different amounts of energy from the impulse, and thus DID have a net momentum and displacement after each cycle.
So it was an exciting set of experiments to analyse. The patent offices had accepted that it was a viable mechanism for propelling various types of vehicle, especially watercraft and submersibles.. this, after examining the demonstration models they'd insisted he build (owing to the controversial nature of the claim). Surely it would also work in space?
If so i wanted to be first to be able to validate this. Coulombe had maintained that it should indeed work in zero-G, however he wasn't getting any younger and i'd hoped i would be able to vindicate his convictions while he was still able to enjoy his due recognition...
As ever in this field, there was to be no such happy ending. After months of investigation, i finally worked out what was going on, and it was, as you'd expect, all perfectly consistent with basic mechanics: whereas most of these types of claims turn out to be 'stiction drives' (exploiting the variability of speed-dependent static friction), Coulombe's device was sinking recoil from the armatures asymmetrically through the suspension wires, rails, or water surface (in the float-test version). The unbalanced force was thus being effectively earthed, and i was forced to conclude that if it was sent into space it would just float there, wobbling on the spot. Coulombe passed on a few weeks later. Suffice to say i took no satisfaction whatsoever from the endeavor, and was left feeling like i'd both robbed a man of his dying wishes and trashed his life's work. Add to that the fact that naturally, i wanted it to be real.. and had it been so, it would also have been overunity, since the anomolous KE would've been a function of the asymmetric distribution of impulse energy, rather than a remnant of the impulse energy itself (all of which would've been accounted for by the carts' reciprocating displacements, and entropic losses). It felt like all my Christmas's had been cancelled at once.
As all of us here know only too well, the buzz is great while it lasts, yet symmetry is a cruel mistress.
This wasn't my first assault on N3, nor least, my last. But say what you want about the dodgy wigs and alchemy... that Newton's a hard man to put down..
I've uploaded a few vids of some of the tests here:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjZjG1ari_I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcPMvYGYLVc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HeSnPXXJ6k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIP2iRSROQQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-belrK46zUc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HshxceTTWg
I've seen devices like this in the past. In most cases they are just "swimming" through the air with all of the fanning motion going on. However, I've often wondered if it might be possible to use two cylindrical permanent magnets to get around the 3rd Law. The two magnets would be forced together and placed into a plastic tube so that, when they were released from each other, they would tend to fly in opposite directions down the length of the tube. One of the magnets, however, would pass through a coil of wire wrapped around one end of the tube and that action would then generate a voltage / current spike in that coil. The current from that coil would then be routed to another coil at the other end of the tube and made to flow so that it produced a magnetic field at the center of that coil (which would be inside of the plastic tube) that then accelerated the second magnet as it flew toward the other end of the tube. The result would be one magnet that suddenly came to a halt while the other sped up. The tube carrying the two cylindrical magnets and their two coils should experience a net force in the direction of the slowed down magnet. Well, it all sounds nice, but, unfortunately, nature is not obliged to conform to what we think it should do!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBrilliant thinking there! Just the sort that might eventually crack this thing. Unfortnately though you're right - and it's the mass constancy problem that's spiting your ingenuity; the transfer of energy from one end to the other is incidental to the fact that the inertial acceleration and deceleration integrals of the respective magnets still cancel.
DeleteTop marks as it's not one i've encountered before, but unless the effective masses can be varied when they change direction, or else, transferred down the wire along with the current, it's just another wobbler.
As i think you've already sussed, conservation of momentum is generally considered even more fundamental than CoE. If CoE is nature's front bottom and she ain't putting out, CoM is the back bottom... so, just don't even..
Sorry, it's late, i'm drunk..
But JC and Silvertiger's insinuations they may be skirting with effective variable mass exploits is nothing to snigger at - such an affront really would be both a CoE and a CoM violation. Which on the one hand makes it all the more unlikely they're correct, but on the other, all the more profound if they're right..
I reached model #1106 today and still no success. I'm starting to get this suspicion that all along I have been using the wrong approach as to how the ascending side levers are counter balanced so that they can "rise in a flash". My lever shapes and interconnecting ropes, however, are still correct, but that, by itself, is not enough. I need to rethink how I am using the springs in my designs. If they were being used correctly I should have found success by now. I will have to give this much thought over the coming days. Stay tuned.
ReplyDeletePlease John!... why don't you wait until you really have something?!!
ReplyDeleteHere's a tip,...gyroscopic won't work,... inertia yes maybe.
Its been five days now and no working wheel yet from John !
ReplyDeleteI just found the perfect accessory for my new laptop. I can now dispense with having to use the wall outlet power supply that came with it!
ReplyDeletehttp://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Self_b8a6d8_1631980.jpg
Your link came with "web attack: fake flash update download"! warning from my antivirus software Ken. So I can't visit the site unfortunately.
DeleteJC
Sorry to read you got a warning from your antivirus software. My latest version of Norton detected nothing wrong with the image. Maybe you got an erroneous warning? Then again, maybe it slipped past my antivirus software. I downloaded the image and it caused no problems for me. Here's the same image from a different site which again did not trigger an alert from my antivirus software:
Deletehttp://www.keelynet.com/images/laptopselfcharger.jpg
There's gotta be a catch... probably won't be able to find a Windows 7 driver for it.
DeleteAlso, looping the power around like that might cause the electricity to stagnate.
My wife asked some time ago why I plug the ends of my extension cords together after I roll them up, I told her it is to keep them charged, so now she does it.
DeleteBob
Of course, the cable shown can not work. Since the voltages being connected to each other are equal and in opposition to each other there will be no current flow in the cable. A lot of pm devices "function" in a similar manner. All of their output power goes right back into them to reset them and, as a result, none is left over to be delivered to the outside. When wheel shaped, such devices may even have a constantly displaced center of mass, yet they will not turn! They remain in whatever position they are placed into.
ReplyDeleteLOL it's a joke - the cable could be wired positive to positive or positive to negative, but a laptop typically runs at 24V, while USB power is 5V... IOW wired in either direction it would immediately fry the USB bus.
DeleteAs for a PM device powering itself, it's either PM or it ain't. IOW the devices you describe are merely less than 100% efficient. If any device were just 101% efficient, then in principle losses could be reduced to less than 1% leaving a small free excess, but regardless, even the losses are free energy and would be revealed as such through calorimetry...
I've now reached what I call the "Great Fork" in the road of my Bessler wheel research. I had traveled down the first branch in the road for 1100+ models and failed to find success. I now realize that branch leads only to a dead end. That fork looks justified by a particular interpretation of the clues Bessler's left. I now believe that easy to make interpretation was a deliberate trap Bessler set for those, like me, that thought they would quickly reverse engineer his wheels' secret pm mechanics. I've now permanently abandoned that fork and am beginning to head down the other one (there are only two, thank God!). This second fork can also be justified by a different and more difficult to make interpretation of the clues he left. In the last two days I have done nothing with my wm2d models except try to mentally visualize how I will start down the second fork. I think I now have a way to start in mind and will try to begin today if possible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Vibrator that, when it comes to pm devices, it's either pm or it's not. I'd also go so far as to say that, to truly be pm, one's imbalanced wheel design must keep its center of mass on the wheel's descending side continuously as it rotates. If that center, at any time, drops directly below the axle of the wheel, then it's not pm. Many wheel builders only have the foggiest notion of where the center of mass of their wheel is at any point in it's rotation and do not realize how it starts to sink the instant the rotation begins. Sometimes they realize that their design is losing torque, but hope that there will be enough momentum after startup to carry the wheel through a "dead spot" or even overcome the "friction" or negative torque they are observing. It won't. To be truly pm an imbalanced wheel must have a positive driving torque at all times. In Bessler's wheels that torque would eventually drop to near zero, but not actual zero, as they sped up. That was actually a good thing because it prevented a wheel from tearing itself apart due to centrifugal forces. But, even when one of his wheel's stopped accelerating, it was still producing a positive, though miniscule, amount of torque. Just enough to overcome air resistance and various bearing frictions and keep itself moving at a constant speed. Was it possible for the center of mass of one of Bessler's wheels to be located directly below its axle? The answer is yes. This condition only existed in his two direction wheels when they were stationary and was because each of the two one direction wheels it contained had its center of mass located on the opposite side of the axle from that of the other one directional wheel. After startup, however, this situation immediately changed. One of the one direction wheel's would withdraw its center of mass back to the center of the common axle while the other one direction wheel's center of mass drove both of the one direction wheels inside of the drum that contained both of them.
PM or not PM? I thought we'd all dispensed with describing anything as PM. If it is reliant on gravity then it's a gravity-wheel.
DeleteJC
I still use the term "pm" because of its historical association with these devices. Whether or not they are truly pm or not can be a matter of much debate. We will not know for sure until we have one up and running and can study what is happening to the mass of its weights as it continues to output mechanical energy to its environment. One can certainly call Bessler's wheels "gravity wheels" and, I believe, they were even once referred to as "gravity mills" or something like that. By saying "it's either pm or not pm" one is just saying that one either has a working wheel or he does not. Sadly, I know of no one currently who has a working one although occasional bogus claims to success seem to crop up every few years. When someone finally does have success, then we'll all know about it because they will be talking about in on the tv news and major universities will have degreed professionals analyzing its mechanics. Until that happens, this field of inquiry will mostly consist of rumors, hoaxes, and never ending suggestions for various devices of which the vast majority will not even be built or simulated. Such is the nature of the subject. Bessler had multiple working wheels and, despite decades of effort, only made 4,000 deutchthalers off of Karl and some extra pocket change from the public for demonstrating them. I just hope that when someone finally does find a design that works, if ever, he will not suffer the same sad fate that Bessler did.
Delete"I've now reached what I call the "Great Fork" in the road of my Bessler wheel research. I had traveled down the first branch in the road for 1100+ models and failed to find success. I now realize that . . . "
DeleteGood!
Finally!
"Better late than never".
Indeed!
So, is final, blessed relief to BE OURS?
DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!
"If a thing seems too good to be true, likely it isn't".
The Grim Reaper, however, does DELIVER that very needed thing but, at WHAT thousandth model? How many reports of these things not working, are we all yet to bear?
-J.
I'm now starting down that second fork that is the last branch of spring arrangements I can try. Something tells me, however, that it won't take another 1100+ models to find success with this fork. However, I have decided that 1200 models will be my maximum limit. It I don't find Bessler's secret pm mechanism by then, then I'm not destined to find it...ever. Although that will official end my pm research for life, I will still steadfastly maintain that Bessler was not a fraud and did, indeed, have a genuine working imbalanced pm wheel. I can then only hope that someone else in the future can finally succeed where I failed. At the rate I'm testing designs, I may hit the 1200 model mark by this summer...maybe late summer. Let's hope for success. This mystery needs to be solved and sooner better than later.
DeleteJohn!... it is definitely a PM gravity wheel!
DeleteJohann Bessler said it was perpetual motion, who are we to claim it is not .
ReplyDeleteWe are educated people that live in a day and age that has come a long way in our understanding of physics and definitions applied to physics and thus the correct terminology, something somewhat lacking in his day. That doesn't make him dumb by any means, just lacking in knowledge of correct terminology. Wish I had his knowledge of Gravity wheels.
DeleteBob
Yes. The term PM is useless since all it implies is lossless operation; not excess work. OU is a more meaningful term, implying an asymmetric interaction thus demonstrating an open thermodynamic system previously thought exclusively closed.
Delete'Free energy' OTOH is too subjective a term - arguably applying to solar, in all its myriad forms. Similarly, 'energy from gravity' could equally be applied to solar, since it is gravity squeezing the nuclei together.
If an asymmetric gravitational interaction is possible, then by definition gravity is not an inert field, but something active, not passive. The energy source would thus be some more fundamental energy exchange responsible for manifesting the G-field.
None of which would change the facts that gravity itself is a static field, and a closed loop trajctory through a static field yields zero energy. Thus we can also conlcude that such an asymmetry can only be accomplished if 'effective weight' can be modulated, since gravity, and mass, cannot be.
But at this stage i'm just boring myself...
Technology Submission - State of the Art - Novel InFlow Tech - Featured Project Development;|/ ·1; Rotary-Turbo-InFlow Tech / - GEARTURBINE PROJECT Have the similar basic system of the Aeolipilie Heron Steam Turbine device from Alexandria 10-70 AD * With Retrodynamic = DextroRPM VS LevoInFlow + Ying Yang Way Power Type - Non Waste Looses *8X/Y Thermodynamic CYCLE Way Steps. 4 Turbos, Higher efficient percent. No blade erosion by sand & very low heat target signature Pat:197187IMPI MX Dic1991 Atypical Motor Engine Type. |/·2; Imploturbocompressor; One Moving Part System Excellence Design - The InFlow Interaction comes from Macro-Flow and goes to Micro-Flow by Implossion - Only One Compression Step; Inflow, Compression and outflow at one simple circular dynamic motion / New Concept. To see a Imploturbocompressor animation, is possible on a simple way, just to check an Hurricane Satellite view, and is the same implo inflow way nature.
ReplyDelete