tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post4935731120808497684..comments2024-03-27T11:55:27.988+00:00Comments on Bessler's Wheel and the Orffyreus Code: Do the pendulums regulate or obfuscate?John Collinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13274781515636883957noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-36365952913986389052011-10-03T08:22:00.210+01:002011-10-03T08:22:00.210+01:00Trevor, I know how that feels. We had a typhoon la...Trevor, I know how that feels. We had a typhoon last week, and that knocked out power (and with it, the web) and I was using a connection to somebodies wireless network in the office tower across the street :-)<br /><br />Good luck getting everything back to normal.Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13706263884645654930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-65290264486915620412011-10-03T08:19:09.914+01:002011-10-03T08:19:09.914+01:00Doug, I never said that nature's laws would/ar...Doug, I never said that nature's laws would/are changing. I believe that *our interpretations* of those laws change, based on new observations, new ideas, new theory, new experimental proof. Or just plain "anomalies". Just as science is supposed to do. But instead we often say "that's impossible because..." while instead we should be more honest, and admit that it (whatever "it" is) doesn't fit the model *as we currently understand it". That's all I am saying - Nature doesn't change, our understanding of it changes and changed. Many, many times over.Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13706263884645654930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-15260227092085614122011-10-02T17:32:19.282+01:002011-10-02T17:32:19.282+01:00Andre,..I think I've solved my posting problem...Andre,..I think I've solved my posting problem.I am working from my notebook computer using somebodies wireless network.Trevornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-37640103828300119302011-10-02T16:28:08.989+01:002011-10-02T16:28:08.989+01:00Guys, a nice new site: http://www.pendulum-lever.c...Guys, a nice new site: http://www.pendulum-lever.com/Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13706263884645654930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-28548049210886003332011-10-02T14:51:37.953+01:002011-10-02T14:51:37.953+01:00The reason I'm posting the links to the neutri...The reason I'm posting the links to the neutrino story is because Andre, back in the last blog, declared "@Doug: One of the hallowed laws seems to have bitten the dust, very recently. A pillar of physics — that nothing can go faster than the speed of light — appears to be smashed by an oddball subatomic particle that has apparently made a giant end run around Albert Einstein's theories."<br /><br />On a side note, relativity allows for galaxies to recede from ours at >c. <br /><br />Isn't that interesting how his equations have accurately predicted things he had no way of measuring? What an imagination.<br /><br />His equations, or Newtons's, aren't the laws of nature that bite the dust. They are interpretations of nature, equations borne out of observation. The law of nature hasn't changed, rather , technology is improving, allowing us to observe nature either at a smaller scale in this case, or a bigger scale in the case of receding galaxies, and improve the equations.<br />One of the reasons given for anything >c is multidimensional space. Just as Einstein refined the views of physics with his idea that space and time are inseparable, the theory that we live in a universe that can fold back on itself as well as warp, will further refine our understanding.<br />One other theory says that everything in the universe is interconnected, one giant organism, communicating against a backdrop of a zero point field of energy. Seeing how we are made from stardust, that makes a lot of sense.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-49941709843405506652011-10-01T20:39:15.784+01:002011-10-01T20:39:15.784+01:00@ Great Bear
Nice to read you've become a &qu...@ Great Bear<br /><br />Nice to read you've become a "great craftsman". I assume by this that you're playing around with counter balancing weights so that a small weight dropping can make a bigger weight fly up. Good luck with it. <br /><br />Actually, I'm not convinced that this idea was original with Bessler. Shortly before Bessler found the secret of a working PM wheel, there was an Italian inventor who developed the mechanism used in the piano keyboard. It also uses counter balancing so that a light touch on a key can send a far more massive hammer flying upward toward a streched wire to produce a note. Bessler would, most likely, have heard about his mechanism and studied it in detail.<br /><br />Yes, one can often get a few weights to jump about nicely, but the trick is to get enough of them working together inside of a wheel to maintain its imbalance. That, unfortunately, is a far more difficult task to accomplish.<br /><br /><br />Neutrinos moving faster than light?<br /><br />It could be an experimental measurement error or, perhaps, there are certain conditions where this is possible. <br /><br />I remember decades ago it was being hypothesized that another particle, the tachyon, always had to move FASTER than light! I don't hear much about them nowadays, though. <br /><br />It's somewhat messy that modern particle physics has resulted in such a zoo-like collection of subatomic particles. Wouldn't it be an irritating surprise if we eventually find out that most of these particles don't actually exist in Nature, but are only produced accidentally by the various accelerators used to study them! If that ever happened, it would call into question all of the theories concerning the birth of our universe.technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-30822061040520362642011-10-01T18:22:27.294+01:002011-10-01T18:22:27.294+01:00@ Andre
More commentary (on the mass of photons v...@ Andre<br /><br />More commentary (on the mass of photons vs. neutrinos):<br /><br />http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2181<br /><br />These calculations that bring into account observations of electromagnetism and different wavelength frequencies of light (Problem 2,3 and 4) show photons can't be more massive than neutrinos. The world would be different.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-1101880583741875722011-10-01T17:58:11.859+01:002011-10-01T17:58:11.859+01:00I have the same problem as Bessler. Everyone want...I have the same problem as Bessler. Everyone wants to know the secret for free. As we don't have any non-disclosure agreements in place, and there has been no response from anyone wishing to join forces, I feel that one mans secrets are likely to remain as one mans secrets. <br /><br />I will say that after a promising start on this particular idea, It has opened lots of avenues I'd previously never even considered. As I've already stated, I'm not the worlds greatest modeller, so building things to a reasonable standard takes a lot of time, and I have other things to do as well. I'm very happy at what has just happened, though there are some engineering problems to get around before I can produce any actual metrics (and I could be wrong after all). I will add that I haven't got a working wheel, probably not even close to it yet, but I reckon I may have found something of paramount importance. But then again, how many times have you heard that before?Great Bearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-41698205444388081472011-10-01T17:36:56.919+01:002011-10-01T17:36:56.919+01:00Hi guys,..Funny you should ask!Ive been battling f...Hi guys,..Funny you should ask!Ive been battling for a week to post on my computer using the cellphone.All of a sudden every time I post it wipes out my comment...Any suggestions?<br />I managed to sneek a post on a relatives computer.<br />At first I thought John had blocked me or there was some conspiracy because I was so close to the solution of the wheel.<br />But now I think its a problem of authentication of my computer.I really don't know.<br />I am desperate!Trevornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-83053190733597093382011-10-01T17:19:05.394+01:002011-10-01T17:19:05.394+01:00Doug: The OPERA collaboration seminar in which the...Doug: The OPERA collaboration seminar in which they explained how they measured the location is very interesting. It certainly bolsters the claim. But if true, a speed for neutrinos faster than c is possible. It could simply mean that neutrinos have less mass than photons, so that the true c should be the speed of neutrinos, not photons. Nevertheless its known that neutrinos (all three flavors) behave differently in matter than in a vacuum. Whatever it turns out to be, it's a very interesting discovery.<br /><br />@Techno: I hope you sleep well :-) It's an interesting design; I keep thinking of the (deliberate?) anomalies in the drawing. Leupold wasn't a sloppy guy.<br /><br />@John Worton: interesting observation about the T-motif i.e. pendula.<br /><br />@Great Bear: I would love you to elaborate on that statement.<br /><br />@Trevor: How are you doing? Did you not see your post?Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13706263884645654930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-22060870692804866522011-10-01T11:53:25.316+01:002011-10-01T11:53:25.316+01:00Despite being mediocre modeller, indications are (...Despite being mediocre modeller, indications are (but still with some uncertainty) that I may have just become a great craftsman.Great Bearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-31748023119263565202011-10-01T07:34:13.470+01:002011-10-01T07:34:13.470+01:00@ Andre
On third thought, I've decided to ret...@ Andre<br /><br />On third thought, I've decided to return to my original statement that the Leupold Lever Wheel as shown in TMG was meant to turn CCW despite its right sided center of gravity.<br /><br />I think that Leupold purposely drew this lever wheel with its center of gravity on the right side in order to show the reader that it would not continue to rotate ccw.<br /><br />There, now I can finally go to sleep!technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-11546542122977674562011-10-01T07:03:58.238+01:002011-10-01T07:03:58.238+01:00@ Andre
I just reviewed your previous post and to...@ Andre<br /><br />I just reviewed your previous post and took another look at Leupold's Lever Wheel. I now am in agreement with your observation. That wheel (Fig. XI as well as the other one shown on the page (Figs. IX and X) are BOTH supposed to turn clockwise. As you noted for the lever wheel, the center of gravity is (175 right units - 163 left units)/12 = 12 right units/12 = 1 right unit which is slightly to the RIGHT of the axle and should cause cw motion. Of course, the wheel will not turn much before it achieves equilibrium.<br /><br />This now changes the way Bessler's "Connectedness Principle" would allow this wheel to become a "runner".<br /><br />For cw rotation, weights passing the zenith of the wheel and on the upper quadrant of the right side would have to help pull up left side levers as they approached the zenith of the wheel. In this scenario, ALL of the weights recruited to shift the ascending left side levers will be on the wheel's right side.technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-72820029069443220362011-09-30T23:39:37.813+01:002011-09-30T23:39:37.813+01:00Update for Andre:
http://usersguidetotheuniverse....Update for Andre:<br /><br />http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2169Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-20982937579793591602011-09-30T21:35:37.331+01:002011-09-30T21:35:37.331+01:00@Hi, Trevor
@Doug
There are two wheels being di...@Hi, Trevor<br /><br /><br />@Doug<br /><br />There are two wheels being discussed, Leupold's that had 12 weights and Bessler's that had 8 weights. My calculation of 24 cords is for Bessler's wheels. For the Leupold wheel one would have 12 weights x 3 cords / weight = 36 cords.<br /><br />That's alot of cords, but if more weights are "recruited" for each weight lifted and the total number of weights in a wheel goes beyond twelve, then the number of cords can become truly staggering. <br /><br />I think there is a wheel, MT 14 I believe, that had 24 weights. Bessler even suggests that this wheel could be made to work, presumerably, by application of the Connectedness Principle. Again, assuming at least three weights recruited to lift each weight as it approaches the wheel's zenith, we are talking about 24 weights x 3 cords / weight = 72 cords! <br /><br />Bessler would have used the least number of cords to do the job for his wheels. But, once again, finding that number will require a great deal of experimentation.<br /><br />Sooner or later, using the "Build, baby, build!" approach, someone is going to find the magic arrangement of levers and cords that will make these wheels work. The matter will not be done by "armchair" philosophizing on any blogs or forums, it will be a "lone wolf" discovery and it will change the field of free energy research forever.technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-17835947521000124212011-09-30T20:51:41.472+01:002011-09-30T20:51:41.472+01:00Techno, you might want to recheck your calculation...Techno, you might want to recheck your calculation of how many cords would be in your wheel.Dougnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-81523429791972346962011-09-30T20:13:42.742+01:002011-09-30T20:13:42.742+01:00Hello!..Is anybody home.Hello!..Is anybody home.Trevornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-87963707895434347202011-09-30T20:10:20.781+01:002011-09-30T20:10:20.781+01:00HelloHelloTrevornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-18893469216388166162011-09-30T19:46:39.508+01:002011-09-30T19:46:39.508+01:00@Andre
I'm sure that the Leupold Lever Wheel ...@Andre<br /><br />I'm sure that the Leupold Lever Wheel is supposed to turn ccw. It always has six lever pivots on each side of the axle, but, when at equilibrium, will always have five WEIGHTS on the left side and six on the right side (with one weight hanging directly below the axle). The wheel shown is supposed to be in an equilibrium orientation. You might want to recheck your calculation of the horizontal displacement of the center of gravity of the twelve weights. It should be zero.<br /><br />Somehow Bessler figured out a way to make levers approaching the "zenith" of a wheel rise up ahead of schedule. No, I don't think that, like MT 13 there was a massive axle hung pendulum weight involved nor were the axle or lever stops sliding around. <br /><br />Bessler mentions that his wheels contained ropes or cords and this is, most likely, how he did it. They must have interconnected the levers in such a way that the levers approaching the top of the wheel would SWING up toward their descending side stops as other levers (on both sides of the axle) SWUNG toward or away from their stops. This action would serve to continously maintain the center of gravity of all the wheel's eight weights on the descending side of axle. This fits in nicely with his writing that "weights gained force (that is, torque) from their own swinging."<br /><br />What exactly were the cord connections that he used in his wheels? That, dear net friends, will be a matter of a great deal of experimentation to determine. Obviously, there must have been a large number of interconnecting cords involved because during each wheel rotation, each rising weight on the ascending side of the axle would probably have been connected to several sinking weights which would have shared the work of lifting it. For example, if each weight was lifted by three other weights, then, since there were eight weights in one of his one directional wheels, there would need to be a total of 8 x 3 = 24 cords.<br />And all of these cords would have to be arranged within the drum so that they did not rub against each other and begin to fray as a wheel rotated.<br /><br /><br />@Great Bear<br /><br />I like your quote by Niels Bohr. I've always been fascinanted with his discovery of the structure of the atom. He made his discovery while doodling on a paper towel at a cookout on his summer vacation! Now that is what I call great science!<br /><br />It's been my experience, however, that when my numbers don't add up, then the only discovery I make is that I've made a dumb math mistake!technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-19613531568726285092011-09-30T10:58:59.143+01:002011-09-30T10:58:59.143+01:00"If you believe momentum is conserved , then ..."If you believe momentum is conserved , then you can't believe bessler had a gravity wheel!" <br /><br />Let's not also forget that in the past it's been "PROVED" that: the Kangaroo will die of exhaustion after a short journey, the bumble bee can't fly, that metal ships can't float, wooden or metallic aircraft will never get off the ground, and anyone travelling in a carriage that moves faster than 30 M.P.H will die of suffocation as all the air is sucked out! And don't forget that it was accepted that the swing of a pendulum slows down as the amplitude diminishes!<br /><br />I think it was Niels Bohr who said that after hypothesizing and then performing an experiment to verify your results, if things turn out as expected you've made a measurement, if they don't, you've made a discovery.Great Bearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-77128950766338415362011-09-30T08:14:02.357+01:002011-09-30T08:14:02.357+01:00Actually, Techno, MT 13 is interesting in other wa...Actually, Techno, MT 13 is interesting in other ways as well. Surely it's a way to flip ('reset") levers, but it introduces a lot of friction. Instead, if one would use the pendulum (similar to the one in MT13) in a 2-stage oscillator, the up-and-down gyrations of the output beam can easily and powerfully drive a cam with notches (like on a musicbox drum) that catches and flips levers. I imagine this would introduce less friction, and, significantly, since there's a almost complete absence of a "equal and opposite reaction" in such devices, the pendulum swing (system clock) is not influenced by the load.<br /><br />So basically it would do the same as depicted in MT13, but with less friction, more force, and no impediment on the swing.Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13706263884645654930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-33794609600131566742011-09-30T07:48:00.749+01:002011-09-30T07:48:00.749+01:00Techno, my pleasure - it's an interesting draw...Techno, my pleasure - it's an interesting drawing - a bit intriguing actually as there are some anomalies. <br /><br />Are you sure it's meant to run CCW? If one adds up the measurements as indicated, the right side has not only more levers (i.e. top 12 o'clock one tilting to the right) but also more distance (175 total as opposed to the left side 163).<br /><br />Indeed, I find it odd too that the left side levers are more close to the circumference, so maybe you're right. It doesn't make sense to me, unless the horizontal plane (with levers) can shift, or maybe the pins are can shift? <br /><br />As to your observation of MT 13, I always thought of the "connectedness principle" as some kind of clutch. Suppose that the pins are able to shift (by a clutch?). That would/could be one way to flip levers quickly, or adjust things while running.<br /><br />Just my two cents...Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13706263884645654930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-82905099685208120512011-09-30T07:32:50.098+01:002011-09-30T07:32:50.098+01:00@Andre
Thanks for checking out Leupold's thir...@Andre<br /><br />Thanks for checking out Leupold's third gravity wheel.<br /><br />You are wrong about its direction of rotation, however. The wheel is intended to turn COUNTER clockwise. It has weights farther from the axle on the left side than they are from the axle on the right side in an attempt to achieve this ccw rotation. <br /><br />The problem with the design is that one only has five horizontally farther weights on the left side producing ccw torque while there are six horizontally closer weights on the right side whose torque precisely opposes this. Thus, the wheel has zero torque and can not turn.<br /><br />If one computes the average horizontal displacement for all twelve weights, it is seen to be located exactly on the vertical line passing through the axle.<br /><br />Yet, Bessler says his "Connectedness Principle" will turn this failed design into a "runner".<br /><br />To me, it would seem that, like MT 13, this design could work if the right side levers approaching the top of the wheel could be made to quickly lift up toward their descending side (that is, left side) stops. This action would then significantly reduce the opposing torque of the right side weights and permit the ccw torque of the left side weights to drive the wheel ccw.<br /><br />If this can be done, then the center of gravity of the design's twelve weights should remain on the left side of the axle at all times during wheel rotation.<br /><br />Now, all that remains to figure out is HOW the Bessler's Connectedness Principle would achieve this feat.technoguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-1793290673350578272011-09-30T06:34:16.822+01:002011-09-30T06:34:16.822+01:00Some (i think) interesting observations about the ...Some (i think) interesting observations about the wheel Techno indicated in Leopold's TMG:<br /><br />1). Note how the levers on the left side are closer to the circumference of the wheel. <br /><br />2). As depicted, the wheel is nearly symmetrical (but not quite) with 5 (sic!) levers on each side (ignoring the vertical ones on 12 and 6 o'clock). However the lever on the 12 o'clock position is tilted to the right side. <br /><br />3). Therefore the top and bottom levers do not cancel each other out. <br /><br />4). The "negative overhang" of the lever in the 2 o'clock position (to the left of its pivot) seems to be slightly shorter than the others. Could be a inaccuracy in the drawing, but all the other ones are depicted quite accurately.<br /><br />5). As to observation (1), assuming a clockwise rotation (more torque on right side, 175 vs. 163), it's a bit odd that the levers on the left side are actually closer to the circumference of the wheel. <br /><br />6). If one studies the levers on the 11, 12 and 1 o'clock positions, one notes that the ones on the right side seems slightly shifted both vertically and horizontally. Did Bessler indicate with the "connectedness principle" that the whole lever system can shift horizontally within the wheel i.e. that the two vertical halves (along the a-b line, and c-d line) could be shifted? Note also that the C is not on the same line as the D.Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13706263884645654930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-44653350552878905672011-09-30T03:49:32.518+01:002011-09-30T03:49:32.518+01:00If you believe momentum is conserved , then you ca...If you believe momentum is conserved , then you can't believe bessler had a gravity wheel!<br />Techno's analysis of overbalancing wheels doesn't mention it. <br />If you want to design a gravity wheel, C of M is one of those rudimentary laws that a design has to break.Dougnoreply@blogger.com