| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rlortie
Addict
Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 6765
Total Words: 924,626
Location: Stanfield Or.
Reputation: Highly regarded
|
|
 |
|
Mark
Enthusiast
Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 249
Total Words: 22,461
Location: USA - California
Reputation: Respected
|
 Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:22 am Post subject: Re: re: Gravity is not a conservative force. |
  |
|
| Kaine (Tarsier79) wrote: | | 1. To lift the 4, we need a gravity enabled prime mover. That specific prime mover Bessler used will create about 25% counter-torque in the system. |
The underlined part... is a very curious statement.
| and wrote: | | ... assuming the translation is roughly correct: |
I think that "roughly correct" works well enough translation-wise. The challenge is in the interpretation. Most people have a tendency to take Bessler's clues literally. For example; the 4:1 enigma, the AP Wheel, and the Toys Page. After immersing themselves in Maschinen Tractate it's quite natural to presume that everything describes the mechanics of wheels and mechanisms, even though Bessler tells us that one should look at things with a discerning mind. He did not say eye.
The Toys Page is a prime example of what I mean. The images on that page were dubbed "toys" even though Bessler used the word "games". To me, it's an important difference. Toys are the things you play with, games are how you play with them.
I seriously doubt that the four lines starting with "He shall be called a great craftsman" (4:1 enigma) literally describes a mechanism; much less, how it should work. Instead, I believe that it is a non-clue that presents a puzzle that sticks annoyingly in your mind so that when you're contemplating the abundance of clues, images and concepts, your mind will be drawn toward those select few that lead to a solution. It may well be just a loose string, to tie them together.
N.B. - I did not say the solution.
Like always, this is merely my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
Tarsier79
Devotee
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 1612
Total Words: 116,528
Location: Qld, Australia
Reputation: Well respected
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:04 am Post subject: re: Gravity is not a conservative force. |
|
|
| Quote: | | Like always, this is merely my humble opinion. |
Absolutely, I should hope everyone takes everything not factually proven as an opinion. A good example being the title of this thread, "Gravity is not a conservative force."
Just to reiterate. If you are one who believes gravity is conservative, like me, then with the statement that 1 is falling while 4 is being lifted, then IMO ;) whatever force he used required the 1 to fall to enable the 4 to be lifted. The 1 that falls is energy wasted, but enables the prime mover to lift the 4. So, we are actually only lifting 3, then 1 is required to fall again to reset, leaving 3 available for energy output. Hence the force of 1/4of the weight being used to force the prime mover into action.
Mark, of course there are the other options for the interpretation of this particular section, including the one you have put forward. The above theory will also not fit into CF or momentum based Prime mover theories.
So, my advice to Preoccupied would be to consider as many options as possible for potential meanings of possible clues, and make up your own mind, rather than relying on consensus.
|
|
|
|
daanopperman
Aficionado
Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Posts: 546
Total Words: 74,822
Reputation: Respected
|
|
|
|
Ken
Enthusiast
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 199
Total Words: 14,519
Reputation: Banned
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm Post subject: re: Gravity is not a conservative force. |
|
|
One can say that it is impossible to do anything, while at the same time be sitting on the couch. And if you stay sitting on the couch, your opinion might seem to look like it is fact. However it only appears to be fact because of the couch/ass configuration.
Once a person sees how the device works, and then goes back to the clues Bessler left. The clues are accurate. They match the device. however some clues will not help one bit in figuring out how to build the device.
Like the archer shoots and the bow twangs. Or something like that. That is a useless clue when designing. That is more of an artistic rendition of the wheel while it is turning.
However when he says things like, A carpenter apprentice could build it. That is true.
It looks like a peacock tail. good clue, it does.
If Bessel said, "It looks like, it can be compared to, or it has" those clues are good clues.
Most of the clues the witnesses gave, should be treated the same way the guesses people give today.
Unless they SAW, ignore it. Almost all of the guesses by the witnesses are wrong. If not all of them.
8 weight per rev, turns both ways, etc are valid. The witnesses summations are useless.
The bottom line is Bessler was right, and he left enough clues to figure it out.
If a person decides they are smarter than Bessler and that the entire exercise is way more than just looking at clues then building, they have ZERO chance at finding anything.
He is a clue for everyone. NON -Bessler like.
When I discovered the movement, then started building it, I only had 2 weights counteracting the movement the one weight falling triggered, and when they shot upwards, it was with so much force it cracked the frame of the wheel. The weight almost busted out of the top of the wheel.
Approximately 1 to 1/2 pounds ( 2 weights 1/2 to 3/4 each) cracking a 2x2. How hard do you have to hit a 2x2 with a 16 to 24 ounce hammer to crack it?
BESSLER LIKE CLUE!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can take my finger and poke you in the shoulder and even move you by pushing with brute force and never hurt you.
I can take my finger and flick your shoulder, you never move you, no brute force, but your ass will jump because it stings.
Brute force did not crack the frame. The speed of the weights did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That cannot happen anymore because of small change I made in the frame. and adding the other 2 weights.
If you are imagining a teeter totter with 4 weights on one side and one on the other side, you aren't going to figure it out.
The word CONSTANT.
Gravity is constant as long as you are standing on the planet.
Is a gravity powered wheel a closed system? Depends on your insight.
It is no different than using wind power. However, gravity again is constant.
I tap the gravity source, use it, then tap the source again. I am not creating any gravity.
In certain places in Wyoming the wind never stops blowing. If you stick your windmill there, does that mean you have discovered perpetual motion?
Now imagine a windmill that had to rotate as long as the wind was blowing and its blades were spinning. It would appear that there was no possible gain to be achieved.
Half the time the blades turn the right way, the other half the time they spin backwards. Only when you keep the orientation correct do you generate a gain.
The only difference between wind power and gravity around the world is, most places the wind stops blowing. Gravity never stops.
For the wind to blow, there has to be a power input. Sun shining causing high and low pressure areas.
Not for Gravity.
So if I include the earth as part of wheel, with no external power source creating the gravity. The system becomes a closed system. If I do not include the earth, and place the device in space it won't work.
Lets look at the last premise.
"So if I include the earth as part of wheel, with no external power source creating the gravity. The system becomes a closed system." ONLY if you KNOW the power of gravity comes from within the earth.
No one knows where gravity comes from, therefore no one can know if it is a closed loop system.
Why does anyone want a closed loop system anyway? The wording reveals they are not self sustaining. Close the loop and the law of conservation of energy clamps down on you.
OPEN loop systems is actually what we are looking for. Closed circuit open loop. The input circuit is closed using an output from the device. However, unless the system is an open loop system, no energy can enter the system.
Its like saying you want the door closed to walk into the next room.
If you build an electrical device and it has more power out than goes in, the power comes from the open loop condition of the system, even though the input circuit is a closed loop within that system.
Gabriel Kron. Negative resistor.
The open loop system with a closed loop input circuit, transforms unusable energy into usable energy. If the system was closed loop, the unusable energy could not enter the system.
So what we really have is an open loop system where unusable energy (gravity) has now been harnessed and put to use. The only reason gravity was unusable was because of the design.
If I am using the entire earth as part of my device, and it lifts a few pounds. That isn't really that amazing is it?
What will be amazing to me is the transformation of society.
The device won't change mobile power much, but it will transform stationary power sources. Airplanes will still need fuel to fly. Same with trucks delivering goods. This could be a help to electric vehicles for recharging.
Read the clues, create a design based on the clues. build it. Re-read the clues. This is all it takes.
|
|
|
|
Ken
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:19 pm Post subject: re: Gravity is not a conservative force. |
|
|
| Quote: | | The 1 that falls is energy wasted, but enables the prime mover to lift the 4. So, we are actually only lifting 3, then 1 is required to fall again to reset, leaving 3 available for energy output. Hence the force of 1/4of the weight being used to force the prime mover into action. |
This summary is incorrect. 1 falling weight without wasting anything lifts 4, for a total of ,,,,,,wait for it,,,,,,,5.
It is amazing that this could not be added easily when presented. Instead 4 plus 1 equals 3. The brain that gets 3 for an answer, will never come up with the solution.
|
|
|
|
eccentrically1
Aficionado
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 905
Total Words: 62,390
Reputation: Well respected
|
|
|
|
Ken
|
|
|
|
Tarsier79
|
|
|
|
Ken
|
|
|
|
eccentrically1
|
|
|
|
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
Posts: 1121
Total Words: 128,111
Location: England
Reputation: Appreciated
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: re: Gravity is not a conservative force. |
|
|
| rlortie wrote: | | Quote: | So is gravity conservative or is it the mechanics employed. Lets take a look at the other side of the coin.
Conservation Laws, in physics, any of a group of laws stating that in a closed system that undergoes a physical process, certain measurable quantities remain constant. Many consider conservation laws the most fundamental laws of physics. In the 18th century the French chemist Antoine Lavoisier was the first to formulate such a law, the law of conservation of matter or mass, which stated that, in a chemical reaction, the total amount of matter of the reaction compounds remains constant. This law was expressed in a more general form as follows: The total amount of matter in a closed system remains constant.
By the beginning of the 19th century, scientists had realized that energy occurs in the different forms of kinetic energy, potential energy, and thermal energy (heat), and that it can be converted from one form to another. As a consequence of this insight the law of conservation of energy was formulated by the German scientists Hermann von Helmholtz and Julius Robert von Mayer and the British physicist James Prescott Joule. The law, which states that the sum of kinetic energy, potential energy, and thermal energy in a closed system remains constant, is now generally known as the first law of thermodynamics. In classical mechanics, the fundamental laws are the laws of conservation of linear momentum and of angular momentum (see Mechanics; Momentum).
The law of conservation of mass may be considered valid for chemical reactions (the changes in mass, equivalent to the produced or absorbed energy, are not measurable), but (as was later determined) it is not valid for nuclear reactions, where a much larger quantity of matter is converted into energy. In 1905 Albert Einstein showed, in his special theory of relativity (see Relativity), that mass and energy are equivalent. Consequently, the separate laws of conservation of mass and of energy found a more general and exact formulation as the law of conservation of the total of mass and energy.
"Conservation Laws," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. |
I enjoy seeing the word 'Constant' as it has a similarity to 'perpetual'. I also note that the law of conservation has already been busted once when we entered the nuclear age, so why not again?
Ralph |
Hi Ralph,
Does this mean Bessler was the Father of Quantum physics?
A PHD in physics does not mean you can think it just means you can copy! Anyone that can think knows there is something wrong and that Gravity is not a conservative force in nature! Not to many of them here , when most get there information off the internet.
_________________
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!
|
|
|
|
Trevor Lyn Whatford
|
|
|
|
Trevor Lyn Whatford
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 2:17 pm Post subject: Re: re: Gravity is not a conservative force. |
|
|
DP
Edit, Hi all,
All this talk of one lifting four, no one has learnt anything here, you have to look where the true weight is to know how to use it!
To many people look at a wheel and only see two sides, left and right, when you should look at the important sides before building a wheel, that is top and bottom, if there is more weight at the bottom then do not build it, to save my self time I stick magnets to a bike wheel where the weights would have been if I had built the wheel, this give me a good indication to see if it is worth building!
PS, I did not want to waste a DP. Regards Trevor
|
|
|
|
Tarsier79
|
|
|
|
|
Log in
Register
Search
Blogs
Blog News
Polls
FAQ
Wiki
