There is occasionally debate both here and on the Besslerwheel.com forum about the source of the energy used by Johann Bessler’s wheel, and yet not as much agreement as one might have expected. There are many theories, some stranger than others, and yet Bessler makes it perfectly clear where the energy comes from. He says, at one point, ‘these weights are themselves the PM device and the essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity.’
How much more clearly could he have stated it? There is no doubt in my mind that gravity is the chief constituent of what ever provides the necessary drive to cause the wheel to turn continuously. I used to say that gravity provided the energy, but that statement is incorrect because gravity is not a source of energy. I saw this interesting comment on the matter.
In answer to the following question “Since gravity is unlimited, can we use it as an infinite energy source?” Dr Christoper S. Baird responded, “ No, gravity can not be used as an infinite energy source. In fact, strictly speaking, gravity itself can not be used as an energy source at all. You are confusing forces with energy, which are very different things. Energy is a property of objects, such as balls, atoms, light beams, or batteries. In contrast, forces describe the interaction between objects. Forces are the way that energy is transferred from one object to another when they interact, but forces are not the energy itself. Gravity is a force, so it just provides one way for objects to exchange and transform energy to different states.
We can say that energy is a kinetic or potential property of the weights - and gravity can transfer that energy to Bessler’s wheel by causing the weights to fall. We can apply that energy in two ways; one way is to land the weight in a position which overbalances the wheel making it rotate a little bit, but then you need to lift the weight back again but there is not enough energy left to complete the lift required; the second way is to apply some of the energy during the fall of each weight, using the fall to raise the weight that has previously fallen. Perhaps this could lead us towards the solution? If we can find a way to combine the two actions we might succeed. When a weight falls, it will continue to fall until something stops it. The fall of that weight may be slowed if it has to raise another weight as it falls. But when the weight stops it’s fall, if it lands in a position to one side of the centre of gravity, it may not be falling in the same way as before but it can still add its effect to the rotation of the wheel, simply by it being out of balance.
So Bessler’s wheel was enabled by gravity, (and thank you to Bill McMurtry for suggesting that refinement, so long ago that I doubt he remembers now!) Reading the above comments we can see that gravity caused the weights to fall, ‘landing on the side towards which the wheel turns’ and causing it to rotate, through imbalance; but…. during its fall the weight is not doing anything except moving downwards because of gravity, but it could use a portion of that energy generated by its fall, to help raise the previously fallen weight?
JC
Caro JC dai tuoi precedenti report relativi a RV del 5/8 manca la pagina 13 che io ho stampato da altro tuo Blog prima che scomparissero pure li, non è giusto che tu tieni per tè degli indizi che io credo possono essere importanti, tutti noi che crediamo in questo blog non dobbiamo essere svantaggiati .
ReplyDeletePG wrote - “ Dear JC From your previous reports relating to RV of 5/8, page 13 is missing that I printed from your other blog before they disappeared there as well, it is not fair that you keep clues to yourself that I believe may be important, all of us”
ReplyDeleteI would never deliberately withold a page of the RV report, so I’ve checked to make sure it’s all correct. Page 13 is there on that blog, so I don’t know why yours is missing. Perhaps you could try printing the missing page again?
JC
Bessler said
ReplyDelete"...these weights are themselves the PM device and the essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force...".
There is no doubt gravity is responsible for the turning the wheel (due to overbalance on the descending side). However, we know basic weight shifting designs, such as MT13, are break even at best and when you factor in friction and air resistance, they quickly come to a stop. So some unaccounted for force is missing. Could the prime mover Bessler alludes to in MT15 be the missing ingredient, or was the prime mover comment simply a referral to the invisible force of gravity? Who knows, but we do know something is missing.
anon 18:59 wrote: "...we know basic weight shifting designs, such as MT13, are break even at best..."
DeleteThey are only "break even at best" because they don't stay OOB as they turn. Find a wheel design that actually does stay OOB as it turns and that is NOT like those several types of OOB nonrunner designs linked to in the comments two blogs back and it will more than break even and put out some excess energy for you.
Also, imo, there is no separate, universal prime mover mechanism that you can just add to ANY nonrunner to quickly make it into a runner. I think when Bessler mentioned you couldn't see the prime mover in MT15 he was just saying that design lacked the specific features needed to allow it to automatically raise it's own weights up so that the COG of the wheel could stay OOB as it turned. Those prime mover features, whatever they are, will need to vary from one OOB wheel design to another and different OOB wheel design.
I also tend to agree with those that claim Bessler really only had one OOB design that worked and he just kept making larger versions of it. His wheels had low power outputs and trying to compensate for that obliged him to keep building larger and heavier wheels. If he had managed to talk Karl into paying for it, he probably would have tried building a wheel 50 feet in diameter that would have reached up to the top of the Weissenstein Castle roof!
jason
PS @JC: A comment I made a few weeks ago on that past blog with the 112 comments never did show up there. It was supposed to be approved before being published. Why wasn't it approved? It only explained how it might be possible to extend the range of that Japanese inventor's spring powered car from 40 to 100 miles.
Sorry Jason, now approved. JC
DeletePART ONE
ReplyDeleteI have recently been studying several perplexing or curious quotes from eyewitness and Bessler himself at https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=150394
Here are those quotes along with my interpretation of their meanings:
"...Before translocating the wheel, the Inventor who was performing the test for the officially appointed Commissioners, took out the weights and permitted one of them to be touched, wrapped in a handkerchief. He did not allow the weight to be touched on the end, but lengthwise, it felt cylindrical and not very thick..."
ME: Why were the ends of the weight prohibited from touch? I believe it's because the weight contained rods sticking out of its ends.
-----
"A work of this kind has as its basis of motion many separate pieces of lead [weights]. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time. (This principle [swapping weight pairs] is in fact the one that Wagner said he owed to me - but I was quite wrongly implicated, as I'd never informed anyone about the matter.)" AP 291 Collins translation
"A craftwork must drive itself by many individual pieces of lead, which are now always two and two, one thing takes the outward position, so the other goes to the shaft, and so it alternates on and on." AP 291 Stewart translation
"There are now always two and two. Takes one thing the outer position, so will the other (drive/slide/move) towards the axle." AP 291 Fletcher translation
ME: I believe (some of) the weights inside the wheel were physically placed next to each other in pairs.
-----
"The weights which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards. How suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)."
"...The wheel's own inner force must come into being without external momentum being applied by such devices. It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of 'excess weight', as I describe in Part 1 [AP 291]." AP 348
ME: The use of the term "excess" leads me to believe that only some weights in the wheel were in free flight even though more could have been launched at that moment.
-----
"It is clear that springs cannot drive constantly because they must be rewound. All that remain are weight. If one weight is to hoist another, that is to say, is to be the cause of the rising of another weight, then the hoisting weight necessarily must descend, i.e., approach the center of the gravity, and because the motion must remain within the wheel, this weight can hoist no other until it has been hoisted itself and is able to descend inside the wheel once again. Accordingly, there must be a new weight to raise the previous weight again, and finally, for the thing to manage, the last weight must have a perpetual motion, i.e., when it has fallen to the lowest point of the wheel through the hoisting of another weight it must raise itself up. The hoisting weight must be heavier than the hoisted (otherwise, they would remain in equilibrium, and no motion would result).
ME: I believe the hoisting and hoisted weights refer to those weights physically arranged in pairs inside the wheel. The lighter of the pair is to be ejected and the heavier one remains on the lever (in my proposed design).
PART TWO
ReplyDeleteBased on MY interpretation of the quotes in Part One, I revised a wheel design that satisfies the interpreted conditions (note that the illustrations are not drawn to accuracy):
https://i.postimg.cc/3Nhw0Yj0/besslerupd2.jpg
Figure 1 shows a curvy "Y" lever with (blue) rails on either of its side. Where the 3 arms of the lever meet is the grey fulcrum. A torsion spring is affixed there. The yellow cylinder -- the hoisting weight -- has rods protruding from the ends that slide under the rails. This prevents the weight from being ejected but it can still roll. The red weight -- the hoisted weight -- is a simple cylinder that will be launched. It weighs less than the red one.
Figure 2 shows a very basic wheel with 4 levers spaced evenly around a cw spinning wheel. For each lever there is a yellow weight set inside (4 in all). Two red weights are placed inside neighboring levers on the descending side of the wheel, against the yellow weights. The levers have stops above them to prevent inward swinging (toward the axle) which would damage the springs.
Here is the process:
1. Figure 2 shows two (rolling) weights near the bottom of the wheel. The red weight is ejected by the forces of the triggering hammer and the unwound spring. The yellow weight is held back by the lever's rails. The red weight then follows a precise trajectory, landing onto the 12 o'clock lever (when it moves into the 3 o'clock position) on top of a yellow weight.
2. Figure 3 shows two weights beginning to roll via gravity down the 4 o'clock lever. Both weights gain kinetic energy as the lever is swinging downward. In turn the spring of the lever gains considerable torsional potential energy from the heavier yellow weight (plus the red one). This creates a powerful projectile system that will later launch the red one even further.
3. Return to Step 1 above.
What happens behind darkened curtains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elPlcVOby-8
Some corrections to my earlier comments. In Post One:
ReplyDelete"The use of the term 'excess' leads me to believe that only some weights in the wheel were in free flight even though more could have been launched at that moment."
I better reading would be:
"The use of the term 'excess' suggests to me that the wheel was overfilled with weights and those extra weights were put into flight."
In Post Two:
"The red weight -- the hoisted weight -- is a simple cylinder that will be launched. It weighs less than the red one. "
Is should be:
"The red weight -- the hoisted weight -- is a simple cylinder that will be launched. It weighs less than the YELLOW one."
I illustrated the use of repelling magnets in another blog as a triggering mechanism to swing the lever back up. If magnetism alone suffices it could replace the pole hammer altogether. This would mean fewer moving parts = simpler construction = less wear and tear = less maintenance. Here's a another illustration involving magnets placed on the levers and the inside of the drums:
https://i.postimg.cc/NG7cv8Rg/besslerupdm.jpg
@mryy
Deleteyour wheel won't work for the same basic reason that neither mt29 nor any variation of it won't work
https://www.orffyre.com/MTHard029.gif
To Anon 04:14:
DeleteUnlike MT29 my design features (red) weights in *free flight* to cause the wheel's rotation. MT29 is a "tethered" system. The striped weight(?) at the bottom is stringed to the sideway T-pendulum apparatus. All components of MT29 are attached or in contact with another at any point in time and are in effect ONE ENTITY. The system will find its equilibrium (rest) therefore. Without an animated example I am not sure how MT29 is supposed to work now that I think about it. I assume all other MT wheel drawings are "tethered" and non-runners and thus were not destroyed by the inventor.
@mryy
Deleteactually mt29 is untethered because when arm C slips off of pin B on the axle arm C and the raised weight H it connects to will be in free fall for a short time. weight H pulls down tooth I that finally hits a tooth on wheel A to make it turn. if the wheel is started by first letting H drop as much as it can then wheel A will turn but it won't be able to raise weight H back up again to its start position so A can keep turning. similar will happen in your wheel. if you let the 3 o'clock weight drop as much as possible then it won't be thrown up to the same height again when it reaches 6 o'clock and the pole hammer hits its lever to launch it. unless that happens your wheel cannot keep turning.
@anon 18:26
Delete"actually mt29 is untethered because when arm C slips off of pin B on the axle arm C and the raised weight H it connects to will be in free fall for a short time. "
No. Weight H is strung from I/G so it is tethered even when it is "free falling". Except A and B the components of the setup are part of or attached to pendulum D which hangs off a frame. Even so, A and B are in physical contact with the other components so they all constitute a single entity. And the wheel will eventually reach equilibrium... My pole hammer is in absolute free fall after lift from the catch-and-release tab of the axle. My red weights are in absolute free flight after launch. They are NOT attached to or touching anything during those moments. That is UNTETHERED. I believe this makes a huge difference in a workable design.
"similar will happen in your wheel. if you let the 3 o'clock weight drop as much as possible then it won't be thrown up to the same height again when it reaches 6 o'clock and the pole hammer hits its lever to launch it. unless that happens your wheel cannot keep turning."
If you read my Post 2 above there are TWO weights -- not one -- now rolling down the 3 o'clock lever ramp. The heavier, non launching yellow weight substantially increases the torsional PE of the spring of the lever. Once the lever is triggered the unwound spring transfers that energy to the launching red weight only. I am predicting the greater spring tension will be more than sufficient to throw the weight up a further distance. This would not have been possible if it was only one weight swinging down the spring-loaded lever before launch.
@MRYY
DeleteSomeone once referred to designs like MT 29 as "Self Kickers" for obvious reasons and it is well known that they do not work. MT's 28, 53, 56, 80, and 105 are also self-kickers. You claim your weight ejecting wheel is different. But it is really?
You think that extra yellow weight rolling around on each lever will put extra energy into the lever spring that will then allow the red weight to fly back up to the 3:00 lever again after the lever is hit by the pole hammer. But, when your wheel's pole hammer comes down and hits a lever, it will have to then lift TWO weights up even though only one gets launched to become airborne. That uses more energy which will exactly cancel out any extra energy stored in the lever's spring that might make it easier for the pole hammer to launch the red weight up so it won't rise any higher than it would if the yellow weight was not present.
I tend to agree with anon 18:26 that your wheel is not workable because no matter how many extra weights or magnets you add to its levers, they won't allow the launched weights to rise high enough to land on an empty lever at the 3:00 position. For your wheel to work, the launched weight will need to tap some additional energy stored either in the wheel or obtained from the environment.
@anon16:12
Delete"But, when your wheel's pole hammer comes down and hits a lever, it will have to then lift TWO weights up even though only one gets launched to become airborne. That uses more energy which will exactly cancel out any extra energy stored in the lever's spring that might make it easier for the pole hammer to launch the red weight up so it won't rise any higher than it would if the yellow weight was not present. "
I was thinking that too... BUT could it be possible for the action to consume less energy in lifting 2 weights and launching 1 versus lifting 2 weights and launching 2? If so the launched weight would receive some leftover energy. And, could it be possible for the increased spring tension to effect greater acceleration of the lever's upswing which alone would empower the launch?
No matter. I have another idea to address the issue. :)
I. The Wheel (illustrations not drawn to accuracy):
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/SKxcNTy0/besslerupd3-leverstops.jpg
Figure 1 shows a curvy "Y" lever with blue side rails *underneath* this time. Note that the rails are a little shorter than the long lever arm. Where the 3 arms of the lever meet is the grey fulcrum. A torsion spring is affixed there. The yellow cylinder -- the hoisting weight -- has rods protruding from the ends that roll over the rails. The red weight -- the hoisted weight -- is a simple cylinder that will be launched and weighs less than the yellow one. This new lever design shows the red weight on top of the yellow weight in a "hoist-like" configuration.
Figure 2 shows a basic wheel with 4 levers spaced evenly around a cw spinning wheel. In its unloaded state the lever is roughly perpendicular to an imaginary radius passing through its fulcrum from the central axle of the wheel. Each lever has a green stop above to prevent inward swinging (toward the axle). A pair of long blue stops (or guides) on opposite sides of the drum width is situated so they are next to the tip of an unloaded lever arm. See Figure 3 for top view of the lever and blue stops. The purpose of the blue stops is to guide the yellow weight back into the rails after roll-off at the wheel's bottom. Though not shown each lever holds a yellow weight (4 in this case). A wheel will utilize a minimum of 2 red weights or more depending on size and performance specifications. The red weight are placed in neighboring levers on the wheel's descending side.
II. The Process (illustrations not drawn to accuracy):
https://i.postimg.cc/RCLCXM7R/besslerupd3-process.jpg
1. Figure 4 shows two (rolling) weights near the bottom of the wheel. The yellow weight drops off the rails of the 6:00 lever and onto the drum. This instantly causes an imbalance of the highly-tensioned spring and, along with the falling pole hammer, triggers a fast upward swing of the lever. The moving red weight is then ejected and follows a precise trajectory, landing onto the 12:00 lever (when it moves into the 3:00 position). Take note of the position and movement of the yellow weights around the wheel.
2. Figure 5 shows two weights beginning to roll via gravity down the 4:00 lever. Both weights gain kinetic energy as the lever is swinging downward. In turn the spring of the lever gains substantial torsional potential energy from the heavier yellow weight (plus the red one). Take note of the position and movement of the yellow weights around the wheel.
3. Return to Step 1.
* Given that the new lever design is self triggering, a pole hammer may not be needed.
** I may be biased here but I feel the proposed design is more faithful to the many clues and descriptions left by witnesses and the inventor himself.
A variation of the previous design (illustration not drawn to accuracy):
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/GpgFHHxh/besslerupd3sl.jpg
This time the blue guides are angled so their bases at the drum are proximal to the tip of the swung-down lever arm. When a yellow weight rolls off, it can transition right onto the pair of guides without having to travel some distance across the drum first.
And visually/artistically it looks SHARP to me. Together the lever and the guides appear to form the number 7. Like the number 5 does anyone know if it's special here as well? Again it looks SHARP!
This latest design of yours should jam up even worse than the previous ones when that pole hammer comes down and hits a lever!
DeleteI prefer not to employ a pole hammer because it means few moving parts and (probably quieter) more efficient operation. As I stated before the self-triggering lever of this latest design could make it obsolete. And repelling magnets are a possible alternative if a supplemental trigger mechanism is needed.
Delete"Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler."
In the continuing pursuit of a Bessler wheel reconstruction, I applied the following quotes offered at https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=150394.
Delete"The main mechanisms should remain serviceable for many years. All the inmost parts, and the perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement. In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go around together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary on the axle. My axle has many compartments and is pierced all over with various holes."
"My axle has many compartments. The lifting end of the long lever could be in one of these compartments."
"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, and if/when one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds up four quarters high."
"Seen sideways or full-face it is as glorious as a peacock's tail. It turns to the right and to the left; it spins around in any direction, whether laden or empty." Apologia Poem Puzzle - Collins
-----------
In the latest revision I removed the catch-and-release pole hammer and in its stead, added 4 gravity-driven thin poles passing freely inside compartments/holes cut through the axle. A small weight is attached to the middle of each pole which serves to increase the downward trigger force and limit the pole movement (in the opposite direction of the target lever). I combined the swing stop and the pair of guiding stops surrounding each lever so they become a single component. If the ends of the levers are made to resemble fork tines, a bi-directional wheel can be constructed by doubling the levers and the stops in a mirror-image arrangement. I illustrated a bi-wheel in a previous blog. The latest design of an unloaded cw spinning wheel:
https://i.postimg.cc/tCk6gKv2/besslerupd4.jpg
It's looking like a swastika, no? Were the sages of yore dropping a pretty big hint about the construction of a pm wheel? Hmm. Now add cylinder weights to the wheel and I guess it resembles a peacock tail with eyes and all...
Here's my final post of the day (it's Friday!!). I reduced the poles from 4 to 2 weighty ones. The ends of each pole triggers the two levers opposite each other on the wheel. The pole is shaped like an "I".
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/W397zjcv/besslerupd5.jpg
"Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler."
https://i.postimg.cc/hvpXfrWC/besslerwupd6.jpg
DeleteIn this latest revision the ends of the rails below the levers are curved down. The guiding stops have "serifs" coming off of the side. In a bi-directional wheel the hoisting weights of the non-lifting half of the paired levers will at some point roll out of the rails, disrupting the wheel's motion. This modification is one way to prevent that.
Man vs. Nature:
https://www.facebook.com/Boyans-Archaeological-Journey-1712663435682340/videos/ke-kai-o-kahikianother-performance-by-the-great-halau-ke-kai-o-kahiki-under-the-/1724279497854067/
a clearer, albeit clipped upload:
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/video/2020/04/18/ke-kai-o-kahiki-first-place-hula-kahiko-kan/
"Dr" Christoper S. Baird either made a huge error in his statement, or is totally ignorant of the definitions of force and energy.
ReplyDelete- "energy is a property of objects" - no, it is not a "property" of anything, but is rather a condition that some objects find themselves in; a property of an object is something that the object can never be without, such as inertia.
- "gravity cannot be used as an infinite energy source" - apparently he does not believe in infinitely long distances: while in reality such would be impossible, in theory, an object falling from an infinitely tall height would have an infinite kinetic energy at the bottom of its free fall, since the starting gravitational potential energy would be infinite.
- "in contrast, forces describe the interactions between objects" - actually "Dr" Baird, the only difference between force and energy, is that energy is force acting over a distance, and there is no need for more than one object to do this.
- "forces are the way that energy is transferred" - this is not always true; sometimes energy arises from a transfer of momentum, which according to some physicists doesn't involve forces, but I digress here.
- "gravity is a force" - ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Gravity is NOT a force. Period.
"Dr" Baird, have you never learned what the equations are for force and gravity?
I will show you what any high school student knows:
E=F*d, where E is energy, F is force, and d is the distance that the force acts along. F=m*a, where m is the mass of the object, and a is acceleration.
It is also well known that GPE(due to gravity)=m*g*h.
M is mass, h is height (distance), and g is gravity, which is also the:
oh yes, that's right, A for ACCELERATION!!!
Wow, "Dr" Baird, isn't that amazing? Gravity is actually acceleration.
No wonder why its measured as 9.8 m/s^2, and not 9.8 Newtons of force.
If you don't have mass in that gravitational field, you don't have force.
And if you don't have a distance for that force to act upon, you don't have energy.
Very well said anonymous if I knew your name I could give you the design so long as you promise to share it with everyone at the proper time. Just one more thing so no one's confused the 9.8 constant of gravity applies to Earth the constant of 9.8 isn't the same everywhere planets have different measurements and Mass density for all those people who make assumptions just to clarify:-)
DeleteBy the way the speed in which a object falls is also influenced by the resistance of the gas liquid or lack thereof. You also can simulate mechanically many different conditions in a system and there are many different ways to communicate information in this Orffyerus highly skilled!
DeleteI sense some antipathy by yourself anon 22:20, towards Dr S Baird’s comments in response to a simple question, yet I feel that his responses were couched in the same style as the questioner, and not intended to be a detailed intellectual explanation which I believe you have taken exception to.
ReplyDeleteIn the same vein my blog was written, not to be taken in too detailed a manner but to considered as a thought experiment. I accept what you say but would ask that you respect Dr S. Baird who is an esteemed professor at West Texas A&M University.
JC
"Great men err, too: they weigh less, than nothing." - Bessler
DeleteTo Anon 22:20:
DeleteGlad you mentioned the gravity constant of 9.8 m/s^2. That brings me back to the subject of those non-runner designs wherein the weights are constantly "tethered" to the wheel system. At an ever-present acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2, gravity will relentlessly bring an imbalanced wheel to equilibrium sooner than any weight-attached lever or chord can move periodically to keep the wheel's overbalance. Gravity wins in other words. It comes down to sustained reaction time.
Mryy timing is important if the system use this timing for position as it relates to its geometry of course only if it uses it in the relationship to that position in order to have a gain of momentum. however the mass being manipulated may not always be dependent on this method other methods could be used to simulate mechanically what is needed to achieve the same results that is why Bessler said it could revolve in any direction.
DeleteThanks, SG, for another one of your clear as mud explanations!
DeleteShemp
Over your head again huh. Shemp!
DeleteYou are improving though, SG. At least this time you spelled my name right!
DeleteShemp
https://alchetron.com/cdn/shemp-howard-6c8197e5-77b6-4b35-befd-02e7927936e-resize-750.jpeg
Be-be-be-be!
How many amps did they to apply to that probe to get the surprise look on your face? It seems like you're enjoying it way too much!
DeleteDon't be disheartened Shemp they just might find a cure for you through gene therapy!
Delete@Shemp
DeleteI disagree about how you spelled that sound you used to make when you were among the living. It really sounded like it should be spelled "YEEE, beee, beee, beee, beee..." Incredibly, you made it while inhaling!
According to Wikipedia "[You] emitted this sound when scared, sleeping (done as a form of snoring), overtly happy, or dazed. It became [your] trademark sound as the "nyuk nyuk" sound had become Curly's."
I guess you made it at the end of your comment because you were "overtly happy" that SG spelled your name correctly?
internet personae ? i thought pm seekers were much less deluded than adopting personalities.
DeleteMost people don't know that Shemp was actually a mechanical genius and obsessed with pm. Here's a rare photo of him working on one of his pm machines:
Deletehttps://postimg.cc/VrJ4kKQF
See Shemp everyone that wants to help you and to cure your Affliction of anal retentiveness they're probing you what a kind gesture aren't you so so special!
DeleteBy the way Paul says hi!
Adopting personalities really! anonymous it's better than having no personality at all how can you be so dull!
DeleteNice build, Shemp. I like the way you cut off old table legs to use as the supports for your pm wheels. Maybe SG is just jealous that you had something actually constructed while all he can do is pour out more of his muddy "explanations" here?
DeleteI finally found where anon 09:27 got the image of that perpetual motion machine he used to make his fake photo of Shemp working on the machine (nice job btw). It's here on this art auction site:
Deletehttps://www.lot-art.com/auction-lots/19th-Century-Perpetual-Motion-Machine-Models/559-19th_century_perpetual-17.6.21-cottone
It's marked "Sold" and its description says:
"19th Century Perpetual Motion Machine Models
circa 1840. Built by Henry Barber at Scott, N.Y.
Max Ht. 19 w 17 in."
Notice that the image actually shows two machines placed next to each other so the buyer got two machines for his money. Sounds like a good deal for items that are each about 180 years old. I wonder how much he paid for them?
Maybe all you pm wheel builders out there should hang onto your nonrunners because they could be auctioned off to art collectors someday for some serious money.
PM Dreamer
@PMD
DeleteI did some research and found out they were sold in June of 2021 for $900. Here's a close up image of the card in front of them. It looks like the one on the left was a miniature combination water wheel and water pump or Fludd type recirculation mill where the water falls and turns the waterwheel which then operates a pump to raise the water back up again. I'm not sure if the one on the right is a separate machine or was somehow supposed to work with the one on the left. Such a machine can run, but only for a short time.
https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/Cottone/89/701989/H0087-L255512714_original.jpg
Imo, $900 isn't too much to pay to own a pm wheel that was built earlier than the Asa Jackson wheel which was made around 1860. Art collectors look at that as an investment and hope to eventually sell for a much higher price. Problem is that there's no guarantee of that happening. Still it's nice to own unique items like this. How much would one of Bessler's wheels go for nowadays if one was available for sale? Maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars even if half the parts were missing and it was a mess.
As far as learning physics goes some of the best teachers had a good sense of humor a few come to mine particular Albert Einstein and how about Richard Feynman if you can't understand what is funny you can't learn what is important in life. A quote from Einstein It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. Quote from Richard Feynman I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
ReplyDeleteAs far as learning physics goes some of the best teachers had a good sense of humor a few come to mine particular Albert Einstein and how about Richard Feynman if you can't understand what is funny you can't learn what is important in life. A quote from Einstein It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. Quote from Richard Feynman I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
ReplyDeleteyou seem to think that is a sense of humor , turns out it is humor of sense.
JC : ‘We can say that energy is a kinetic or potential property of the weights - and gravity can transfer that energy to Bessler’s wheel by causing the weights to fall.’
ReplyDeleteGravity also causes the weights to fall on the ascending side. In other words, the two objects in question - the weight(s) and the earth - interact *with each other* and transfer kinetic and potential energy with each other that cancel each other. Two objects. Two. Objects. No gain. Not enabled by gravity. Wrong. Just wrong.
If you could only make the Earth's gravity field weaker on one side of a wheel than the other, then any horizontal axle wheel could become a pm wheel. Here's how one cartoonist depicted that:
Deletehttp://www.kilty.com/graphics/cavorite.gif
In case nobody recognizes it, the "cavorite" in this cartoon was a special alloy that was used in H. G. Wells' sci-fi novel "First Men in the Moon" to allow a ball shaped, crew carrying craft to defy Earth's gravity and be pulled right up to the Moon by its gravity.
Unfortunately, no one has ever found anything that works like cavorite. I guess that's because Nature doesn't want making pm wheels to be too easy. Thanks Nature for all of the extra hassle you are putting us through!
@Jeff, that isn’t relevant in my opinion. They may well “interact” with each other, but their masses are so vastly different that the weights will move and the earth will, to human eye, remain stationary. What about all the other trillions of movements affecting the earth? No, sorry Jeff you are so wrong.
DeleteJC