I used the term ‘Gravity Wheel’ in the title of this blog in place of ‘Bessler’s Wheel’ to show that gravity wheels might have different configurations to Bessler’s Wheels, although from what I know I don’t think the basics will differ very much.
Fletcher made a comment in my last blog which touched upon a point which most of us will be aware of but which maybe some people missed the potential beneficial consequences of including its actions in our designs. I know its action is used in Bessler’s wheel.
fletch wrote, “ By my reasoning, therefore, for a Bessler wheel to gain in Angular Momentum and be everlasting in motion etc, then some part of the local available Angular Momentum pool must be compensatorily depleted to give the runner Rotational Kinetic Energy.”
A couple of years ago I realised the importance of something connected with gravity wheels which I had been aware of all my life but never considered it’s potential as a source of free energy, additional to that which we already know about, i.e, gravity enabled falling weights.
We design weights to be able to move around with the intention of causing the wheel to overbalance. We can calculate the work done by gravity in making the weights fall, but of course the path of the falling weight is not needed because we only need the perpendicular height of the fall. But if the weight is required to do work as it falls, and still overbalance the wheel, the extra time which the weight takes to fall because it’s doing work, does not affect the calculation, because in the simplest terms, time is not a necessary ingredient.
Therefore if we simply configure the mechanism to react to the position change of the wheel and use gravity to make a weight move into position which overbalances the wheel, we miss the opportunity to use the weight’s action or motion under the force of gravity, to do some work during its fall.
If the weight is in free-fall, it has no potential energy to unleash as kinetic energy, until it lands, but if it does work as it falls then it is using kinetic energy as it does so and it can still cause the desired overbalance by its eventual completion of its fall. The argument is similar that used in describing the friction generated in a brick sliding down a slope but in this case the work/friction could be used to help lift a fallen weight. This action may explain von Erlach’s description of each weight “landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned”. There was little or no padding because the weights were slowed down by doing work, and made reduced noise as they landed.
This idea I believe might correspond to fletch’s comment that “….some part of the local available Angular Momentum pool must be compensatorily depleted to give the runner Rotational Kinetic Energy.”
JC
i don’t think fletchers comment meant that.
ReplyDeletehe was talking about the earth’s angular momentum being compensatorily depleted.
which doesn’t make sense.
to exchange momentum, one object has to be moving at a different speed than the other.
in this example both objects move at the same speed.
the gravity assist maneuver is a good example.
a satellite is moving much slower than the earth so when it slingshots around it gets a boost from the angular momentum exchange.
the earth change is so small it’s nearly 0.
Fletcher says "By my reasoning, therefore, for a Bessler wheel to gain in Angular Momentum and be everlasting in motion etc, then some part of the local available Angular Momentum pool must be compensatorily depleted to give the runner Rotational Kinetic Energy."
ReplyDelete??? Exactly what and where is that "local available Angular Momentum pool" ???
Is it supposed to be the rotation of the Earth, the motion of the Moon around the Earth, the motion of Earth around the Sun, or some combination of them all?
I assume by the word ‘local’ he means what meant, local i.e. within the wheels mechanisms.
DeleteJC
Fletcher:
Delete“ However, as I have done in the past, I offer this caveat (perhaps it will help you find your description).. if I was to explain a runners motive force, and I wanted to map it successfully into the existing framework of Laws and Theories above, then I would conclude that Conservation of Momentum was King. Both Linear and Angular. And logically for a runner to produce usable Angular Momentum (to do Work) as a result of a machine rotating in a conservative gravity field, then I would conclude that the Earth had given up some of its Angular Momentum to my simple machine in order for it to be self-moving and do external Work. “
from the ‘provable scientific facts’ entry.
Sounds like Fletcher is saying that Bessler's wheels were just tapping some of the Earth's rotational energy. If that is true, then they shouldn't be able to work on a large asteroid which has no rotation but has a gravity field strong enough to hold the wheel down against its surface.
DeleteI’d have to get some clarification from fletch, Jeff. Your two quotes seem to me to offer two different explanations, one from the earth’s angular momentum, and secondly from ‘some part of the local available angular momentum pool’, which suggests tapping into the momentum generated by the action of the weights within the wheel, which what I was describing in the blog.
DeleteJC
FWEIW, I'm thinking now that a Roberval Balance type drive was used by Bessler. It's fairly simple to build and, by constantly shifting the weight(s), the wheel was continuously out of balance. I.E., the weights are always OOB and always falling-----------------------Sam
DeleteMornin .. Jeff was right John, tho 'local' could also mean inside the wheel environment I was meaning in a wider sense to include the fact that the wheel is anchored to the earth.
ReplyDeleteI'll expand my deductions for those interested.
Let me try and clarify my comments further and expand on them where I think it helpful to do so. Let’s stick with the one-way wheels as presumably they are less complex than the dual directionals. It may take more than one post to cover the ground I think is required, with enough detail but not too much.
Besslers’ Self-Moving Machines (“runners”) were an anomaly. They had no known fuel or Energy source. They accelerated and gained in Momentum. And that gain in Momentum also meant they had a surplus of Energy to do Work. Energy being the capacity to do Work, the currency of Work if you like. And due to the Equivalence Principle equates to a vectorial Net Force x a Net Displacement, giving the sustained directional rotation i.e. a Net excess of directional Force.
To try and solve the mystery of B’s. runners we often think about and attack the problem in at least two ways.
1. Bottom Up Modeling :– i.e. in an inspired moment we hope to find a mechanism made up of a combination of simple machines (aka Galileo’s simple machines > Force Multipliers > Mechanical Advantage > Leverage > Archimedes Law of Levers, etc) that when placed around a central axle results in an innate gain of Momentum and Kinetic Energy, just like B’s. Then attempt to explain how and where our machine (our engine, turbine, whatever you want to call it) draws its Energy (F x D) from, and delivers its Work Output, to relate and bring it back into the fold of Classical Mechanics of which it must be a member.
2. Top Down Modeling :- big picturing it - forgetting for a moment about what the simple machine mechanics was. Perhaps it’s possible to logically deduce with some plausibility where the Momentum gain and subsequent Energy surplus could theoretically be sourced from, i.e. what Well B. went to ? And then having made the associations and deductions resume our search for the simple machine mechanics found in a runner having let our deductions put some steerage into our search.
Taking a break .. cup of coffee time .. more to come as I fill in the picture in my mind.
-f
Ok, continuing .. n.b. some background reading may be required !
ReplyDeleteStarting with a revisit of simple machine Mechanics and Classical Physics that relates 100% to your blog topic John. I’m going to keep with Galileo trend because it serves my purpose well, and put it in a bit of a story form so it flows better.
Re : Galileo’s study of gravity force, and his identifying acceleration as the key to his conclusions.
He had already analysed simple machines as all being force multipliers, and established scientific process. “He was the first to explain that simple machines do not create energy, only transform it.”
Paraphrased .. He went on to describe gravity from observations and conclusions from well known experiments he did. The experiment was to release two different mass balls (constant density) from the same vertical height and let them roll down a groove in a declining plane and measure the time it took each to reach a certain point (using a water clock) i.e. reach a lower vertical height.
From this he was able to show that regardless of the mass (and forgetting about frictional losses etc) for any vertical height lost on the inclined plane the velocity was the same for any ball, at any slope. He formed his “Law of Inertia” which much later morphed into Newton’s Second Law.
He deduced that the acceleration for each was the same acceleration. Altho the force on arrival was quite different. Today in Mechanical Physics we know that as F = M A.
Jumping forward mainly for expediency .. Combining Galileo’s and later Newton’s contributions, and some artful Math manipulation, we have the 3 discreet Mechanical Conservation Laws. Conservation of Mechanical Energy; Conservation of Translational Momentum (Linear); and Conservation of Angular Momentum (Rotational). These might look like they are cousins but are all unrelated, and they shall never meet or be confused. Newton also gave us .. for every Action there is an equal and opposite Reaction, etc.
Back to our Galileo simple machine inclined plane experiment. The basis of the argument why gravity is a conservative force and how the experiment directly relates to the 3 Conservation Laws, and action and reaction.
Visitor interruptus .. when I come back ..
-f
Maybe I can get on a bit of a roll .. lol.
ReplyDeletePeople later wondered about rolling balls, hollow spheres, disks, rings etc, going down the incline. The Mechanical and Physics framework of the 3 Mechanical Conservation Laws had been formulated and enshrined in Classical Mechanics and Physics.
*Still assuming no frictions for the thought experiments.* Let a solid disk SLIDE (without rolling, like on ice) down the incline a known distance. It would gain a velocity v. Since PE = mgh and KE = ½ mv², then mgh = ½ mv² => v = sqrt(2gh)
It has Translational Momentum which can be found from v x Mass. Translational Kinetic Energy (TKE) from Mass x 1.2v^2. That is the TOTAL Kinetic Energy in the non-rolling instance !
Let it ROLL down the incline slope (must be some amount of dissipative energy losses from Static Friction and Rolling frictions etc but not considered for the thought experiment). The Mechanical Energy Conservation Law says the sum of the TOTAL KE (when rolling) equals Translational KE (TKE) plus Rotational KE (RKE). Its v value is less so that it takes longer to arrive, has less TKE than the previous sliding experiment, plus has some RKE to have the SAME TOTAL KE quantity (capacity to do Work).
* And if we change out disks for rings or spheres etc the inertial factor changes the proportions of each type of Mechanical Energy. These are well known experiments. There is never a gain in Total KE !*
For the purposes of our thought experiments we decide to capture some of the Energy of the disk movement/transition. * We know that in a wheel we have torque from geographical placement, which is Zero Sum ! We hope to use the actual movement into position to do Work elsewhere to assist us reset and gain System Momentum. ** We also know that if the movement is not impeded it would arrive in position with full velocity and TKE + RKE, and IMPACT against our stop. But IMPACT wheels do not work and are not runners ! They are Zero Sum also ! Thousands of experiments and sims prove this.
This time we want to slow the transition speed and use that Energy captured elsewhere to aid us. So we attach a slack spring to the disk/ball, whatever. It slows the transition down and stores Energy as Elastic Energy, which we deploy elsewhere. However the disk also arrives at its stop with less v and consequently less mv and less Total KE. We add in the ideal Elastic Energy component stored and it is still System Zero Sum IINM !
The conclusion is that taking Mechanical Energy from weights/disks transitioning does NOT increase Total available KE – ZERO Sum Game ! That is why we don’t have runners in every workshop or sim program.
-f
Cont .. But let’s step back a moment in our thought experiments. When that disk rolled down the Galileo slope we know it can’t have more Total KE than the mgh it lost. And it can’t run up a slope to higher than it started from (Conservative – also see brachistochrone experiments). And our hands are tied by the 3 separate Mechanical Laws of Conservation. But what happened to the local Translation mv and Rotational mv ? Well, the disk pushed against the incline and the incline pushed back – Equal and Opposite Reactions – the incline is anchored to the Earth system. The Earth system moved away. We don’t always appreciate it because it is proportionally infinitesimal but mainly because we don’t step back out into space and take in the bigger Frame Of Reference (FOR). If the disk rolled down the incline so that it had the same TOTAL KE (TKE + RKE) then it also had Translational mv + Rotational (Angular) mv. Its v was less at arrival. We know its Translational mv is proportional to its v and deduced the incline attached to the Earth was caused to move away a small amount. We also conclude that it gained another type of separate Momentum i.e. Angular Momentum – Equal and Opposite Reactions – the Earth must have given up some of its own Angular Momentum to give to the disk. “FOR” dynamics.
ReplyDelete.................
Therefore .. for a Self-Moving Wheel to have accelerated and gained Momentums, and Mechanical Energy’s (have capacity to do Work), by imo a plausible deduction, it must have an arrangement of internal simple machines that draws out a reactionary force from the local Earth-Wheel couple to give it its characteristic excess directional force and sustainable rotation ! Known anecdotally as gaining in Momentum and System KE. Subsequently, the Earth must have proportionately and equally given up the same amount of Momentum and Mechanical Energy to conform to the Conservation Laws Framework of Classical Mechanics and Physics !
Now possibly the Free-Fuel/Energy conundrum of our engine has a candidate and is no longer faceless, and on further reflection that possibility may help us refine our thoughts on what the internal simple machine arrangements might be to exploit our "fuel" !
Thankyou for your help today Galileo!
-f
Amazing how Fletcher goes on and on AND ON to simply say "Yes, the energy Bessler's wheels put out was taken from the Earth's rotation"!
ReplyDeleteIf that was the case though, then HOW did his wheels do that? The Earth's rotational energy can be extracted using things like constantly swinging Foucault (pronounced "foo-koh") pendulums (see the link below for one invention to do this) and spinning gyroscopes, but doing that requires complicated mechanics. Bessler's wheels were supposed to be "...so simple a carpenter's boy could make one...". Does that sound like Count Karl saw a lot of complicated mechanics when Bessler let him have a peek inside of one of this wheels?
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8299636
Anon 05:24 wrote "Does that sound like Count Karl saw a lot of complicated mechanics when Bessler let him have a peek inside of one of this wheels?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Karl said it was easy to understand & simple to build. Bessler said there wasn't much art to it & a buyer might want his money back.
Thank you fletch, I at least appreciate your thoughts and efforts to explain! But as the two guys above suggested, it all sounds way to complex a problem to resolve and yet Bessler did with his very simple machine. I wonder if ten million, or 100 million Bessler wheels all operating at the same time would slow the earths rotational speed over 100 million years!
ReplyDeleteJC
Anon 3 April 05:24 "Amazing how Fletcher goes on and on AND ON to simply say "Yes, the energy Bessler's wheels put out was taken from the Earth's rotation"!"
ReplyDeleteHe could have just given that simple message but you would forget it by tomorrow lol. There was much more to it than that.
Amazing how Fletcher goes on and on AND ON to simply say "Yes, the energy Bessler's wheels put out was taken from the Earth's rotation"!
ReplyDeleteIf that was the case though, then HOW did his wheels do that? The Earth's rotational energy can be extracted using things like constantly swinging Foucault (pronounced "foo-koh") pendulums (see the link below for one invention to do this) and spinning gyroscopes, but doing that requires complicated mechanics. Bessler's wheels were supposed to be "...so simple a carpenter's boy could make one...". Does that sound like Count Karl saw a lot of complicated mechanics when Bessler let him have a peek inside of one of this wheels?
Perhaps complicated is a relative comparison ,like your mental capacity of what qualifies as complicated versus someone else's with a higher understanding of the subject matter.
"John Collins 3 April 2022 at 08:28
ReplyDeleteThank you fletch, I at least appreciate your thoughts and efforts to explain! But as the two guys above suggested, it all sounds way to complex a problem to resolve and yet
Bessler did with his very simple machine.
I wonder if ten million, or 100 million Bessler wheels all operating at the same time would slow the earths rotational speed over 100 million years!"
Mornin JC .. yes, he did do it with a very simple machine (the wheel) - and inside the wheel were Galileo's simple machine principles (6 or 7 depending on who you read), because there is nothing else in mechanics wrt application of force dynamics ! So by default it only contained simple machines which individually did not break Archimedes Law of Levers. The whole became greater than the parts if you will. *It was how they were combined to give a beneficial outcome of excess impetus that was the secret of his wheels, imo ! Very simply indeed, because Karl said so.
"I wonder if ten million, or 100 million Bessler wheels all operating at the same time would slow the earths rotational speed over 100 million years!"
LOL .. I wouldn't worry about it John *grin*. Apparently change is good, except when it comes to climate and day length ;7)
In B's. time it was the end of a mini ice-age in Europe. 12,000 years ago sea levels were 100 meters lower than today, and temperatures far hotter between ice-ages than today.
Statistically (averages) things should even out - wheels will have different orientations which cancel out mainly. Providing we don't pass a Law that they must all face East etc.
3.5 billion years ago (emergence of first life on earth) the average earth day was purportedly 12 hours. In the time of the dino's 23 hours. So day length has been increasing for eons and number of days per year getting less, and that trend will continue, whether there are 100 million plus gravity runners in operation or not.
For those interested .. why earths day length is increasing ? .. the moon is tidally locked to the earth. However it's elliptical orbit is increasing in distance each year. Such that the moon average radius from earth is increasing by about 4 cms per year. The reason for this is very related to these discussions.
The moon mass has a gravitational influence on earth and visa versa. The moons gravity causes the seas etc to well up like a traveling speed hump (tidal bore) in the oceans. This "wave" has mass, which pulls on the moon, speeding it up i.e. forward force vector, increasing its angular velocity. That means it increases its orbit distance and moves away a little each year. Conversely to maintain the local Conservation dynamics the earth must slow its angular rotation rate and the day gets a little longer. And will continue to do this until we all wink out !
* it would take a lot of gravity runners to equate to even 1000th of the moons influence I should think *
-f
Thanks fletch, I wasn’t too concerned, 🤔
DeleteJC
Anonymous3 April 2022 at 05:24
ReplyDelete" If that was the case though, then HOW did his wheels do that? The Earth's rotational energy can be extracted using things like constantly swinging Foucault (pronounced "foo-koh") pendulums (see the link below for one invention to do this) and spinning gyroscopes, but doing that requires complicated mechanics.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8299636 "
does anyone no if this self powering electric pendulum actually worked? i thought i would have heard about them earning there owners a small fortune. it looks like there is far to much friction and energy wastage to work? are there other self powering gyros or pendulums that made it to production and sale? it would prove the free energy physics works even if it is to complicated to build at home.
Yes, this device will work, but it suffers from the same problem B's wheels suffered from...low power output for a relatively small machine. To make a Foucault pendulum generator power something like a house with thousands of watts, you'd have to have a weight with a mass of tons and use a portion of the outputted power to keep it swinging constantly. Like B's wheels, this invention is a novelty that won't be of any practical value in today's world. The same applies to a gyroscopic generator. Imo, the future of energy generation on our planet will be fusion reactors.
Deletewill work is different to does work. lenz law and other losses? there must be a self looping proof of principle demo from the patent somewhere if it is real?
Delete@anon 23:46
DeleteAn invention does not have to work when actually built to be patented and many things get patented without there being a working model in existence. The invention just has to be an "innovative" or new DESIGN compared to previous inventions in the same category. As long as an inventor does not claim his machine is violating the first law of thermodynamics and making energy out of thin air and a patent examiner does not see anything obviously physically impossible about it, he can get his patent without having to produce a working model. If the inventor DOES claim his invention is making energy out of thin air, then he MUST provide the US Patent Office with a working model for their inspection and only then can he hope to get it patented. So far, no inventor has done that. But, the inventor of that Foucault pendulum generator did not claim that in his patent.
His device just extracts a tiny amount of the Earth's rotational energy and turns it into electrical energy. If he had millions of his machines all swinging away constantly and used their electrical power to produce microwave radiation that he beamed out into space, then the Earth would gradually slow down and eventually stop rotating! One side of the planet would always be in sunlight and would get really hot while the opposite side would always be in darkness and get really cold. People would all have to move to the Earth's "terminator" or twilight border between day and night to survive and there would be constant violent storm activity there due to the differences in the temperatures of the atmosphere there..
@Anon 05:14 This is an interesting discussion. The inventor names the patent "magnetized foucault pendulum electrical energy source" & says it will turn the generator at 1500rpm & produce 250kilowatts of electrical energy. Some of that energy is used to energize the pendulum amplitude so it is in continuous motion and swing. The rest of the energy produced is stored or sent for use elsewhere. The examiner could easily see the logic of the "intended" simple mechanics of energized swinging pendulum, pivot, gimbal and gear trains to generator etc etc. Since it didn't claim to be making free energy out of thin air as you called it, & was taking earths rotational energy to drive itself, it fitted into a class of patent application that already existed & was granted to the inventor. Is that summary correct?
DeleteDoes that mean that Fletcher's theory of energy production or work done by a self driving wheel using earths rotational energy in a similar manner to power itself, but without the electrical generator self excitement feedback, would also fit nicely into this classification? His theory if I understand also does not claim to make energy out of thin air. Could he patent the concept with the proviso that he hypothetically had equally understandable simple mechanics supporting the patent, should he have them? Unless I completely misunderstood he also would not be claiming to have produced energy from gravity or to have violated the first law of thermodynamics either.
It raises interesting generalized possibilities other than having to always produce a working model to an examiner to study where free energy is mentioned. Especially for those interested in taking patent protection steps should they be inclined to do so.
@anon 07:22
DeleteYou asked "Could he (i.e., Fletcher) patent the concept with the proviso that he hypothetically had equally understandable simple mechanics supporting the patent, should he have them?"
Of course he could. But his application would have to include the details of the mechanics of his invention that extracted the Earth's rotational energy.
Assuming he is right and Bessler's wheels actually did use the Earth's rotational energy to work and Fletcher somehow managed to reverse engineer those mechanics used in Bessler's wheels, then Fletcher would NOT be able to patent them. The reason is because you cannot patent someone else's invention even if any patent that past inventor previously owned had expired and his invention is now in the "public domain". Fletcher would have to have an obviously different way of doing the same thing.
I think that the fixed axles of Bessler's wheels preclude the use of any sort of hidden Foucault type pendulums inside of their drums to power a wheel. The same goes for hidden gyroscopes.
"Anonymous5 April 2022 at 15:46
Delete@anon 07:22
You asked "Could he (i.e., Fletcher) patent the concept with the proviso that he hypothetically had equally understandable simple mechanics supporting the patent, should he have them?"
Of course he could. But his application would have to include the details of the mechanics of his invention that extracted the Earth's rotational energy."
... Fletcher here ... you previously said ..."The invention just has to be an "innovative" or new DESIGN compared to previous inventions in the same category." ... I would fully expect to provide drawings to support the claim of innovation or new DESIGN in a category, as would anyone choosing this route.
"Assuming he is right and Bessler's wheels actually did use the Earth's rotational energy to work and Fletcher somehow managed to reverse engineer those mechanics used in Bessler's wheels, then Fletcher would NOT be able to patent them. The reason is because you cannot patent someone else's invention even if any patent that past inventor previously owned had expired and his invention is now in the "public domain". Fletcher would have to have an obviously different way of doing the same thing."
... Here I largely play devils advocate, and I would disagree with you for these reasons. Firstly you assume that I will have reverse engineered the mechanics used in B's. wheels. This implies that I was able to unravel the mechanical construction details from his assortment of published sources and individually identify, sort, and coherently repackage them. And in retrospect see the threads of continuity thru his sources that any reasonable person could expect to see, pull, and put back together cohesively. Being able to reverse engineer from "sources" requires to pass the 'reasonable and obvious' sniff test, imo. Could or can others see the 'blue-print design' in hiding, that any reasonable person might also reveal, piece together, and see? IMO, if no blue-print design is evident, or discoverable, then it can be Patented as that persons rightful design, if they chose too. They may for instance alternatively refer to B. in part of the machines name etc as more than a nod and a wink to him (even if no blue-print is conclusively found).
Secondly B. did not Patent his innovative and new DESIGN in his time (i.e. there is/was no expired Patent). So his design essentials were not in the public arena, or in some library for instance, where there was a reasonable chance of finding them after 300 years. Information about his feats, and his books, are in the public domain, .. but that is not first hand reliable evidence, and at anecdotal level at best, imo.
"I think that the fixed axles of Bessler's wheels preclude the use of any sort of hidden Foucault type pendulums inside of their drums to power a wheel. The same goes for hidden gyroscopes."
... Agreed. As I mentioned in a post lower in the blog today. This was my problem with the electromagnetic Foucault Pendulum and all Foucault Pendulums. At the equator there is no precession force i.e. no rotational torque. At the poles the pendulum rotates a full 360 degrees in 24 hours. At 30 degs Latitude that takes 2 days. At Paris's Latitude that is about 32 hours. The point being it is a very weak force (rotational torque) indeed, strongest at the poles and zero at the equator. Gyro's need to maintain high rpms etc.
B's. wheels purportedly had constant rpms, presumably at various locations (latitudes and longitudes), and orientations. Due to their various tests etc they had ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more POWER than the Foucault pendulum in the Patent, because they did circa 50 rpm rather than a maximum of 1 revolution per day. This is compared to size and weight etc, obviously.
Good discussion points all the same.
P.S. Like I could have just said "Yes, the energy Bessler's wheels put out was taken from the Earth's rotation !" I could have shortened the above reply to "Patenting - does it pass the Humpty-Dumpty Test".
Delete"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again"
;7)
-f
Fletcher wrote: "IMO, if no blue-print design is evident, or discoverable, then it can be Patented as that persons rightful design, if they chose too."
DeleteIf you did come up with any pm design that worked and got a patent on it, you could actually lose that patent at some future time. That would happen if, after your patent was granted, someone else unraveled the secret of Bessler's wheels and showed that the design you patented was essentially identical to his design.
As soon as that happened, Bessler's design, even though unpatented and hidden with codes for centuries, would be considered "prior art". In the US that would immediately render your patent "void" even though you came up with your invention independent of Bessler and the design would be considered in the "public domain".
When a runner is in the public domain it will be studied by all and sundry. Especially by us with a deep B. interest. We will feverishly dissect its every mechanical nuance and compare back to what we have on B. and his wheels. And like the story of Humpty Dumpty and the Kings men we MAY be able to identify every single shape in B's. works that previously we could not put back together again, and this time retrospectively do so. And claim that the prior art (of drawings, codes, and ciphers unraveled) existed and we can show ALL the individual parts and how they come together to make a B. runner. If so, on weight of evidence, that would support a claim of prior art, and probably give grounds to void a Patent to a latter day inventor.
DeletePersonally I think that is very unlikely. All machines of the wheel kind are made up of ONLY simple machines (force amplifiers) - no exceptions ! 'Unfortunate for those attempting to break the Law of Levers and MA.' That would apply to B's. runners and the inventors runner. So it comes down to whether the invention was "innovative and/or a new design" ? And that would be the legal argument around indisputable and FULL PROOF of prior art. Secondly I don't believe that B. did leave ALL the parts to be found in his documents etc. As far as I can tell his only concrete steers are that there is something special behind Storksbills and the late hand drawn addition of the Spinning Top to the theorized replacement Toys Page. Everything else is an amalgam of simple machines of one form or another which are mechanically commonplace.
On that note, it is interesting to think about B's. addition of the Spinning Top as perhaps seen thru his eyes, in his time. It wasn't until many years later that d'Alembert described the detailed physics with math for a Top. Even Newton's descriptions were inadequate. So B. would have only known general physical characteristics which we are all familiar with. The point imo was to loosely point towards another force of Angular Momentum, as I've said previously i.e. not to Precession itself. IOW's, an additional Momentum related force to make a runner. It seems he added it in at the last minute otherwise imo there was nothing of clarity anywhere else to link him to the use of this force conjecture.
In general terms 99% of researchers believe (and continue to believe) gravity and weights is the main player to be manipulated to find a runner. Less than 1% believe that another force is paramount to having a runner and whilst gravity and weights is intrinsic it is not that main player. If another force alongside gravity and weights makes for a runner, which is made up entirely of simple machines, then one would hope that B's. works would mechanically clearly identify just how these simple machines played nicely together, to win a potential future prior art challenge.
My Opinions !
-f
wouldn't the toys page have all the prior art proof of extraordinary mechanics in it?
DeleteI'd expect it Should show all the elements of the mechanics required, if rearranged to play nicely together, to construct a runner. Thus, point to prior art authentication.
DeleteThe mechanical representations of items A and B are not conclusively identified and appear open to more subjective interpretation. C, D, and E are more clear cut "machines". All of A thru E appear to mechanically be Galileo "simple machines", by definition. The odd one out is the Spinning Top addition. It is not a simple machine in the mechanical sense - fwiw !
The B. translated commentary becomes more important as it provides both information and context i.e. Partly it says paraphrased 5 children games to be applied differently, etc etc. One take-out - not 6 games !
-f
electromagnetic foucault pendulum -> milkovic s2 gen with electromagnet pulse?
ReplyDeleteI guess Fletcher is right; I must be pretty stupide. Why not just use gravity----Sam
ReplyDeleteEach to their own Sam .. Maybe we do have to rewrite all of Classical Physics and Mechanics, especially if you are correct and I am wrong. I know many of us are on the back nine of life and would like to see and understand a runner before moving on. Just maybe my contributions to John's Blog Topic "Some Thoughts Worth Considering in Designing a Gravity Wheel" can be a catalyst for the way some think about solving the mystery of B's. wheels .. or not lol. Good luck to you all-the-same Sam !
Delete-f
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum_exchange_tether
ReplyDeletethis is helpful.
an earth -wheel system doesn’t exchange mass with its environment.
no exchange is going to occur between the earth and wheel because they are not only physically attached but gravitationally attached as well.
Fletcher, You really piss me off some times----------- anyway; laugh all you want. I suppose I take the wheel much too seriously. I just think, well never mind--------Sam
ReplyDeleteIt's the same for me and you Sam, and everyone .. we only have theories until we don't - and that would be when a real POP build appears that people can understand why it works. I'm offering up an alternative theory to your Gravity Only one, and discussing where the energy might come from. Which might lead to some mechanically innovative thinking for some researchers. If you get one going I'll be just as pleased as anybody else. And happily eat crow !
ReplyDelete-f
Ragazzi state fantasticando troppo il pendolo penzola verso il basso per gravità come qualsiasi cosa pesante.
DeleteYou guys are fantasizing too much the pendulum hangs down by gravity like anything heavy.
DeleteIndeed it does PG. We'd be barking up the wrong tree if we only considered gravity force.
DeleteFWIW Bessler's Toy Page doesn't show a pendulum (Foucault or otherwise) but it does show an upright spinning top that will exhibit Precession Forces (Coriolis Force - fictitious), as does a Foucault Pendulum force magnitude subject to Latitude, i.e. induced rotational torque and momentum exchange between Top and Earth, imo.
-f
This is a curious tale.
ReplyDeleteA student, who was late to a lecture, thought the questions on the board were his homework. The other students, who were not late, knew, or considered the questions to be unanswerable questions.
Without the knowledge that he shouldn't be able to answer the questions, he found the solutions.
If we didn't know that PM is supposedly impossible, would it increase the chances of finding the solution?
How much of an obstacle is the collective belief that it is impossible?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PFb2JxBpDI
The institutional belief that it is impossible is strong and an obstacle if you let it be.
ReplyDeleteThe video was very good RH46. Rather than the "power of positive thinking" perhaps it is the "absence of negative thinking" that matters most? And that takes constant practice and an open mind.
I'm not too keen on that channel but sometimes the subjects are interesting.
ReplyDeleteHow much truth is there to the tale? Who knows?
I honestly believe he wouldn't have solved the problems if he didn't think it was expected that he should.
We are expected to fail with our gravity wheels, and the majority of us know it only too well. I would go with the "absence of negative" and not "positive thinking" too.
Excellent post RH46.
DeleteIn the early days of British network television, in the late 1950s and early 60s, there was a regular 5 minute astrology slot after the early evening news on ATV. This was written and presented by Evadne Price and her signing off phrase was, ‘think lucky and you’ll be lucky.”
Ms Price, it would seem, practiced what she preached – . She was a successful actress, novelist – with more than thirty published works, – a columnist in the women’s magazine of the day for more than 25 years and wrote more than a dozen screen plays for stage, screen and TV. She also lived until she was 96 years old.
Throughout my life I have always seen the glass as half full and looked on the bright side of things by default. It’s also known as being an incurable optimist. But is that the same thing?
Not knowing that something is impossible allows one’s imagination to flow unchallenged, but believing that it is impossible is a massive wall to climb that most people would not even attempt.
We saw a chink of light in the servant’s accusation that gave us a minuscule grain of optimism that made us think, “what if…?”
JC
I've found the old saying to be true..."Optimists are just pessimists who haven't lived long enough yet."
DeleteYes, but I’m unwilling to suggest that I won’t live long enough to become a pessimist. I’m optimistic that I will outlive any pessimism!
DeleteJC
Positive thinking is important to achieving anything in life. But, no matter how positive one is, if he only continues to fail again and again and again at some endeavor, it will eventually drain the positivity out of him and replace it with paralyzing despair.
DeleteMany who chase pm for years, if they live long enough, just wake up one day and announce they are quitting. They reach a point where the only cure for their emotional and mental anguish is to make a clean break with the subject. It's like going "cold turkey" to quickly recover from some unhealthy drug addiction.
I'd like to talk to someone like that years later to hear what his thoughts are on the subject. Does he regret quitting? Would he ever jump back in again? Does he have any interest left in pm? Does he still think it's possible? Does he now think that Bessler's wheels were all hoaxed? That's easy to believe considering how many thousands of pm chasers must have tried to find the secret of Bessler's "simple" design over the centuries without success.
I think that would be a very interesting conversation. But, it's the kind we never see on free energy sites. Long time members on those sites are just mentioned as having died recently or they quietly fade away and we're not sure if they're still alive or not.
This is us!
ReplyDeleteGoogle Search .. A famous Henry Ford quote, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't – you're right,” emphasizes how much attitude determines success or failure. This is true for most projects you take on and certainly for technology initiatives.
Soz for the unlucky 48th comment in this thread, but because loaded overbalancing torque is delayed in its delivery, the greater time spent gravitating DOES increase the cycle's momentum yield - despite not altering the per-cycle energy yield from a static start.
ReplyDeleteClosed-loop gravitational interactions yield zero net energy, all else being equal.. however time-variant interactions yield non-zero momentum; and with statorless momentum gains being the name of the game, this point is non-trivial