BesslerWheel.com

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi,

Lets narrow the search by forming a list of what we think it is not and why!

This list would deserve its own section for quick reference so it will not get lost in the post, if every entry was polled then the readers would see how credible the members view that post!

This may have been posted before but it will take to long to find out, and it needs another look!

I believe that Bessler's Wheel can not use Lever Leverage as the RPM of Bessler's Wheel was to fast, the Centrifugal Force would have killed the levers leverage!

I just thought we could save some time!

Regards Trevor

_________________
I think our main differences is you see it as a physics problem, and I see it as a mechanical problem!
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!

[jim_mich]

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi jim_mich,
you posted this,
Trevor Lyn Whatford wrote:
I believe that Bessler's Wheel can not use Lever Leverage as the RPM of Bessler's Wheel was to fast, the Centrifugal Force would have killed the levers leverage!

And I believe exactly the opposite.

If you really want to narrow the list then eliminate gravity as a source of energy because everyone knows that what goes down must be lifted back up thus gravity is a zero sum game.

On the other hand CF increases by the square of the wheel RPM and thus as the wheel picks up speed the CF gets stronger and stronger. But because the weights stop moving each time they impact they must start moving again each time. This starting and stopping limits the top speed of the wheel, but CF does not limit the speed.

Just my opinions.

You are welcome to your opinions don't you just love forums as we are all welcome to our opinions! and my opinion is the gravity is a legitimate energy input in most of my devices, and if you lift the weight in a counterbalance rotary lift then you can gain from Gravity what you save on a more efficient lift, I will upload sum stuff on this soon, but for now take a look at the Dynamic Juggler and crunch some numbers!

I would value your opinion on the Dynamic Juggler as alway

I agree with your CF section for the best part but where is the input energy coming from? perhaps I should have said that CF would kill off most of the levers leverage torque, do you no of any thing that can be rule out? as I am not off to a good start!

It is a bad day if I am not made to think so cheers Jim you have made my day!

Regards Trevor

[rlortie]

I agree with jim_mich, only I believe it is reverse of his description.

You do not eliminate gravity as a source of energy. PE gained from gravity can be used to lift as well as fall.

The term 'lever' is usually portrayed as a bar and fulcrum which is called a class or type one. There are also lever classes called types two and three. The example of a class two is a wheelbarrow while class three can be found in nature throughout the human body. This could very well be where Bessler found it when referring to finding the answer in nature.

Do not eliminate gravity as it is not a zero sum game when it is employed to work against itself.


Cf on the other hand is not the answer either, it may increase in exponential force with speed but that force is directed to the axis of the vortex in which it turns. IMO it is not known to apply force on a tangent or chord of a circle applying force at a right angle to the axis.

I agree that Cf does not limit the speed, it has no physical restraint producing acceleration of gyration but the other side of the coin says it will not create it.

The following is in Jest!

I tied a string on a ball, laid it out on the floor and started pulling on the other end of the string creating the same force as Cp-Cf, the ball followed the path of the pull, it did not attempt to gyrate radially.

Just my opinions.

Ralph

[rlortie]

I am going to get nailed for making the statement;

Cf on the other hand is not the answer either, it may increase in exponential force with speed but that force is directed to the axis of the vortex in which it turns. IMO it is not known to apply force on a tangent or chord of a circle applying force at a right angle to the axis.
To clarify this, Cf is indeed created by inertia forcing the mass to follow a straight path which does make for a directional tangent in relation to the axle. Unfortunately the retaining force (Cp) dictates the path the force is directed.

Ralph

[Mark]

[FunWithGravity2]

FWIW

I believe the Jim and Ralph Disagreement is the most productive and worthwhile argument for the board. I fall on the chicken and the egg side. Not sure which on comes first but i'm pretty sure one doesnt' hanppen without the other. I'm a vertical only guy right now.


Crazy Dave

_________________
Si mobile in circumferentia circuli feratur ea celeritate, quam acquirit cadendo ex
altitudine, quae sit quartae parti diameter aequalis ; habebit vim centrifugam suae
gravitati aequalem.

[rlortie]

FWG2,

IMO your own signature says it all;

[FunWithGravity2]

Thanks Ralph,

ME ALSO.

Dave

And so everyone else does not have to google it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi

I would have said last week that Fluid weight shift could be ruled out because of compression time and besslers wheels RPM, but I am fast realising that this list will be very short!

We live and learn!

Regards Trevor

[rasselas]

I rule out nothing. I would like to, it's a very common thing to do as a mathematician, to say... "not this way, it only gave error".

To be fair... I rule out everything I tried and that didn't work. But those are just specific cases. As for generalities... I'm unsure.

I tried springs... they failed. I tried ropes... they failed. I tried levers... they failed. Yet I don't give up on them... thus I don't know as to why I should give up on gravity or centripetal force or buoyancy just because they have not worked in the past in particular arrangements with particular frictions and ratios and sums of masses.

But I think I learn from my mistakes all the same. I better understand how the bearing and the hammer and the spring work.

They say, "What goes up must come down"... but does that mean that something can not rise up in the first place? Or perhaps higher on the second bounce? [as a reference, see the post on near absolute-zero temperature iron balls dropped on cooled iron plates... in regards to super-elasticity].

Yet I take an interest in your ideas and discussions... just take them with a grain of your own self's salt.

Rass

[not_me]

[not_me]

[ruggerodk]

Is it less 'smarter' to mention it?
;-D

_________________
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -

[not_me]

rug, they were reminding me of a discussion my brother and brother in law had. They were both saying the same thing but didn't realize it.