Book Club Blues

[Grimer]

You see two circles forming a VP, transforming to one circle, back to VP, back to one, back to VP...one fig 8 circuit si?

Si.

Interestingly enough, ME, that figure of yours reminds me of a Vesica Pisces design I presented to the Not the Steorn Forum. I got the usual howls of derision from the very clever but very cynical peanut gallery - but one of them said he had done a mathematical analysis of some kind of or other and to my surprise and delight wrote:

"Grimer is right." .... :-)

Apparently, it was generating energy but very little.

On the basis that one can't be a little bit pregnant I knew that I must have cracked it although I couldn't understand how.

I remember that the two overlapping wheels had different numbers of weights to give the asymmetry and that a weight was being transferred back and forth between the two wheels.

The belief that I had guessed right gave me the incentive to persevere in the search for an intelligible solution.

[Gill Simo]

I'm confused ME...but then I usually am here on this board, for the best part.
Grimer's post above for instance.....ME wrote Si.... in reply to `You see two circles forming a VP, transforming to one circle, back to VP, back to one, back to VP...one fig 8 circuit ?`......"Interestingly enough, ME, that figure of yours reminds me of a Vesica Pisces"? What figure Grimer, si is no figure & the only figure in the quote is not ME's.

Whatever

As I'm seeing it ME, you grasped some interest in what I was attempting to convey, enough to run it, the original design, through some program or other.
I've no idea what program but it appears to result in one, an animation & two, yourself & a few others, getting excited about something else...something of which I haven't a clue?
It appears however to be something enough to have you remove the VP circles/discs, replace them with others, with one half of the VP fixed, then not & then run these variants through said program also, again with some apparently interesting results, again, of which I'm oblivious?
So...please allow me to willingly be a student of yours in this instant.....through what, additionally, is your program subjecting the twisted II'gram to (that being all you appear to have effectively done in each case) & why are the results of interest please?

[Grimer]

Grimmer (only one m. please)

Maybe you should post a link to this thread of Walter Clarkson Jnr's. It sounds interesting.

If you are referring to my post on Walter's thread I'll do better than that. I'll repost the whole thing.

Sorry but I just cannot control myself!

If Bessler's PM wheels were NOT influenced by gravity, we would not be here seeking anything.

Just my thoughts!

As usual, you equate gravity with mass. And you think that only imbalance of gravity can rotate a wheel.

I feel sorry for you, Ralph.

Weights have mass, even when there is no gravity. And even when the weights are symmetrically spaced so as to be balanced. Or when in outer space, weights still have mass.

Mass causes momentum resistance to being stopped. Mass causes inertial resistance to being accelerated. Both of these attributes of mass exist with or without gravity. Centrifugal force is the same when on Earth as when in outer space where there is no gravity.

We are here because Bessler built a PM wheel. And he was not a fraud, then we should be able to also build a PM wheel.

But there is nothing saying that Bessler's wheel gained its motive force from gravity. Bessler' never made such a claim. Yes, he said his wheel was rotated by the motions of weights. But NEVER did he claim his wheel to be a gravity-wheel. All such claims are made by Bessler's followers.

So, Ralph, saying that "If Bessler's PM wheels were NOT influenced by gravity, we would not be here seeking anything." is simply your twisted concept that his wheel MUST have been rotated by gravity.

Centrifugal force is the same when on Earth as when in outer space where there is no gravity.

I'm afraid you're incorrect there, Jim. In outer space there is gravity. Two small masses will be pushed together by shadowing each other from the surrounding gravitational fleid (sic). The push is very small but it is there and it has been measured.

Mind you, I completely sympathise with your promoting the case of inertial mass which is much more important in engineering than gravitational mass. The two masses are of course quite different from each other, in spite of what Albert might have thought.

Since centripetal pressures have three orthogonal and therefore independent components I think your belief that you can get energy from their action is probably correct - and very prescient. However, I think you are mistaken in believing that Bessler's wheel did not involve the interaction between NG and EG; between gamma atmosphere pressure on gravity mass and beta atmosphere pressure on inertial mass.

Just my opinion of course - but since, if Driver is right, Walter Clarkson Jnr's thread will become the most important thread in the history of any scientific forum, I thought I may as well firmly nail my heretical opinions to the page while I've got the chance. .... ;-)

Nothing like puffing off one's own commodity, eh! ..... :-)

[Grimer]

I'm confused ME...but then I usually am here on this board, for the best part.
Grimer's post above for instance.....ME wrote Si.... in reply to `You see two circles forming a VP, transforming to one circle, back to VP, back to one, back to VP...one fig 8 circuit ?`......"Interestingly enough, ME, that figure of yours reminds me of a Vesica Pisces"? What figure Grimer, si is no figure & the only figure in the quote is not ME's.
...

The figure I am referring to is the one attached to this post here.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 060#140060

The circles are not overlapping but later on that page he shows a pair that are.

[jim_mich]

Grimer, there are places in outer space where for all practical purposes there is no gravity. Instead of nit-picking, maybe you should accept my statement that lack of gravity does not nullify centrifugal force nor does it nullify inertia or momentum. Lack of gravity only means you are not being pulled/pushed toward a big celestial body.

Ralph keeps claiming that without gravity (such as in outer space) that there would be no mass.

[Silvertiger]

For all practical purposes...aside from dark matter and other unknowns...Ralph is correct. Can't have one without the other now, can we? Gravity is a byproduct of mass taking up "space"...literally, unless Einstein totally missed the marker on that island. Anywho, please continue. :)

[jim_mich]

No Silvertiger, you missed the point.

Call it force gained by gravity or force gained from motion, without gravity you have no mass, without mass you have no force.

OK! I am an idiot

It is idiots like me who cannot be a little more concise about mass being mass and its weight or density being measured by gravitational attraction.

If it weighs less on the moon, what does it read on your spring scales in an ambient state of no gravity? That is of course, if you can get it to set upon the scales.

If there is no gravitational attraction, what other properties relied on to gain force in motion are absent? Why bother installing weights if there gravitational properties is not needed?

It is idiots like me, with a few other social descriptive problems thrown in, that may have the advantage of finding the solution. Being stupid as well as an idiot helps me to think outside the box, so to speak!

Ralph says, "Why bother installing weights if there gravitational properties is not needed?" In other words, Ralph thinks that the only properties of metal objects (i.e., weights) is gravity. Ralph think that the only way to cause wheel rotation is by means of gravitational imbalance. Ralph ignores the fact that metal objects also possess inertial and momentum.

[Silvertiger]

Hmm that's probably because I was only talking about that one statement lol. :)

[Grimer]

Grimer, there are places in outer space where for all practical purposes there is no gravity. Instead of nit-picking, maybe you should accept my statement that lack of gravity does not nullify centrifugal force nor does it nullify inertia or momentum. Lack of gravity only means you are not being pulled/pushed toward a big celestial body.

Ralph keeps claiming that without gravity (such as in outer space) that there would be no mass.

Newtonian Gravity is like God. It's always about in the quad.

But nit picking apart I know what you are getting at and I agree with you.

The frame of reference for rotation of inertial mass (Ersatz Gravity)is the same everywhere and therefore the centripetal force on inertial mass is also the same everywhere.

If you rotate a bucket of water with respect to the reference frame of the "fixed" stars then the water will move out from the centre irrespective of the local asymmetry of Newtonian Gravity.

Just my opinion, of course. ..... :-)

[eccentrically1]

Mass also determines an object's resistance to acceleration, as well as the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies. If you could go to space where for all practical purposes gravity is zero, then you would still feel a reaction from say, your ship when you pushed away from it. Your tether being stretched would be the evidence there is mass involved.

The reason we can't get past this outer space discussion is because our "ship", earth, is so big compared to the one we put in space. The only difference is the scale.
So, the accelerations are greater because the mass is greater, and the earth has atmosphere that hides the effects of inertia.

[Gill Simo]

Ok....I made a case for motion, I offered & argued the case for a particular motion.
So job done from my angle & thread closed as far as I'm concerned.
Certainly not gonna hang around because it has to be left open.....for folk to waffle on about all the other stuff they think they know...the board's awash with that already should I be interested, which I'm most definitely not.
I'm only interested in pursuing what I don't know, the motion, so I'm better spending my time by returning to that pursuit.
I'll no doubt inform you when I've made more progress, you's having not for sure....and you can, no doubt, ignore it or talk around it in the manner to which you are entirely accustomed.

[jim_mich]

The frame of reference for rotation of inertial mass (Ersatz Gravity)is the same everywhere and therefore the centripetal force on inertial mass is also the same everywhere.

If you rotate a bucket of water with respect to the reference frame of the "fixed" stars then the water will move out from the centre irrespective of the local asymmetry of Newtonian Gravity.

This is proof that there exists some sort of background aether field, which causes mass to resist being accelerated and to resist being decelerated. This background whatever goes by many names. I really don't care what name you give it. My favorite is to call it ether energy. It is from this ether energy or background field that a motion wheel gains its motive force. Thus a motion wheel gains its force from nature. And no physics laws are broken, except IF you try to apply thermodynamic (heat and motion) laws to such a purely mechanical mechanism. Leave thermodynamic laws where they belong, covering thermodynamic situations. Conservation of Energy is a thermodynamic law that covers thermodynamic situations.

Kinetic motion energy is momentum. And the only way for moving weight to exhibit KE is to meet another weight. Then the KE is the difference between the motions of the two weights. Neither weight "contains" the KE. The kinetic energy comes from the background universe as the difference of motions of the two weights. The weights don't supply the KE. The background universe (the ether) supplies the KE. Just as CF is caused by motion relative to the background universe.

Thus extracting energy from the either is simply a matter of manipulating motion, of manipulating inertia and momentum of weights. Nothing magical about it. Nothing that can't be explained by simple physics formula. But it's something that is very hard to believe except it be placed, running, in front of you.

And for this knowledge, I've been hog-tied and horse-whipped by the nonbelievers.

I've procrastinated much too long. Back to the basement work shop for me.

[rlortie]

jim_mich writes:

So, Ralph, saying that "If Bessler's PM wheels were NOT influenced by gravity, we would not be here seeking anything." is simply your twisted concept that his wheel MUST have been rotated by gravity.

Ralph keeps claiming that without gravity (such as in outer space) that there would be no mass.

Ralph says, "Why bother installing weights if there gravitational properties is not needed?" In other words, Ralph thinks that the only properties of metal objects (i.e., weights) is gravity. Ralph think that the only way to cause wheel rotation is by means of gravitational imbalance. Ralph ignores the fact that metal objects also possess inertial and momentum.

RESPONSE: Jim, this is a bonifide example of word twisting and misinterpretation. First off: if gravity was not an influence, we would not be here. Nor would anything not tied down including air and water. In fact I question if the solar system and galaxies would exist. So when I say: "without the influence of gravity", I mean it literally, the statement has nothing to do with mass.

[ME]

uh, oh.... Posting Analysis Request...
(those things often go so very wrong, so I try to keep it short)

Gill Simo,

"one fig 8 circuit si?", I read this as: "You also see a figure eight, yes" - ("si" is ÿes" in Italian).
As I interpret Grimer: Grimer confirms some possible importance of VP - but is it enough?: at least interesting enough not to discard it too soon.

That "some program" is just a quick&dirty write-up to render some animation (not a simulation); - the base is simply and only the infinity-linkage (perhaps orientation corrected), the circles are show - I can put them anywhere I like.
Perhaps the usually overlooked part of the infinity-linkage is that right-side swing-capacity effect: an interesting property on itself. So "why are the results of interest please" - everyone has their own interpretation of "weights (in pairs) gaining force from their own swinging". At least we see a "pair", that "swings" - but: is it enough?

As you know for yourself, the same thing can be applied in different ways and different situation.
I consider such situation as a good thing or good sign ! - as in: meant as a compliment, not a ridicule.

A big mistake: I tried to combine this with Jim's idea...(and hoped he wouldn't respond, or otherwise take it lightly): my bad.
Jim is an interesting guy with some interesting ideas, but sometimes: no sense of humor (I know he has some).

The interesting part:

Throw away everything except the rotating environment

which answers:

If you could go to space where for all practical purposes gravity is zero

But such discussion leaps-over/side-tracks this topic way more than I have.

As I'm seeing it ME, you grasped some interest in what I was attempting to convey

And still interested I am...
Time for a new thread at some other time perhaps.

At least thanks for your attempt, and I wish you a good progress,

Marchello E.

[eccentrically1]

The frame of reference for rotation of inertial mass (Ersatz Gravity)is the same everywhere and therefore the centripetal force on inertial mass is also the same everywhere.

If you rotate a bucket of water with respect to the reference frame of the "fixed" stars then the water will move out from the centre irrespective of the local asymmetry of Newtonian Gravity.

This is proof that there exists some sort of background aether field, which causes mass to resist being accelerated and to resist being decelerated. This background whatever goes by many names. I really don't care what name you give it. My favorite is to call it ether energy. It is from this ether energy or background field that a motion wheel gains its motive force. Thus a motion wheel gains its force from nature. And no physics laws are broken, except IF you try to apply thermodynamic (heat and motion) laws to such a purely mechanical mechanism. Leave thermodynamic laws where they belong, covering thermodynamic situations. Conservation of Energy is a thermodynamic law that covers thermodynamic situations.

Kinetic motion energy is momentum. And the only way for moving weight to exhibit KE is to meet another weight. Then the KE is the difference between the motions of the two weights. Neither weight "contains" the KE. The kinetic energy comes from the background universe as the difference of motions of the two weights. The weights don't supply the KE. The background universe (the ether) supplies the KE. Just as CF is caused by motion relative to the background universe.

Thus extracting energy from the either is simply a matter of manipulating motion, of manipulating inertia and momentum of weights. Nothing magical about it. Nothing that can't be explained by simple physics formula. But it's something that is very hard to believe except it be placed, running, in front of you.

And for this knowledge, I've been hog-tied and horse-whipped by the nonbelievers.

It's not proof of an aether field, it's proof of reference frames and conservation of energy in the water bucket-person system.
Physicists have been looking for the particle responsible for mass, the Higgs Boson, after it was first theorized to exist, (Higgs just won the Nobel prize for it) and some evidence has been found.

Frames of reference aren't going to provide energy from some mystical field. They just provide different answers to the same measurement in the two or more frames.