Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Were the inertia tests conclusive? please comment:

Poll ended at Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:28 am

I don't understand the relevance of these tests to energy creation.
4
36%
The results were skewed by a poor/incorrect setup
1
9%
Results skewed by poor maths
1
9%
There is a conspiracy, & 4 greenies means you work for Govt/Oil
0
No votes
The test appeared reasonably accurate
3
27%
The maths supported the results of the tests.
1
9%
I could do it better.....
1
9%
 
Total votes: 11

User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by Tarsier79 »

I created this thread so as not to invade Dwaynes thread. I have had Peq on ignore since I did this test, but after my interest was sparked, would like to know what exact incorrect maths I did.

Link to Inertia tests: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... highlight=
Tarsier posted the data he thought would be correct to prove mr². But in fact he did not even get that correct. The data was made up; he presented the data he thought would be correct; but he did the math wrong.

The false data undoubtedly did damage and I see Fletcher as a co conspirator because I think he would have caught Tarsier's math error but instead he keeps repeating his falsified data as fact.
I posted the data I got. I didn't make up any time values. I attempted to make the test as accurate as possible, and even posted a video of one setup with the two different weight configurations, which I thought would end the argument once and for all. During the tests I installed the weights back and forth between the different radii to try to reduce errors caused by change in friction in the setup due to factors over time (a problem that has tricked me in the past). Peq, I was hoping your theory would be right at the time, and had it been so, we would probably have a working model by now. I performed a couple of different tests, which gave a result close to calculated accepted physics. I only accepted these laws after proving them via experimentation to myself.

Fletcher is no co-conspirator, and has only ever been open in his own seeking of the truth, assisting tests and theories with an excellent ability and knowledge of WM2D, and a good understanding of physics.

Unfortunately, I had a major computer crash a few months ago. Stupidly I had no backup, and have lost all documented tests, pictures, videos, Bessler related documents and translations, as well as virtually all of my other digital data from the last 15 years.

Peq. if you could please elaborate on where my maths errors were, or what I did incorrectly I would be grateful to correct any of my incorrect conclusions, if in fact that is the case.
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6700
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by daxwc »

So that is the mature way you handle things Peg, you call somebody a liar then run away and hide. Don’t you at least have a video of a flying pumpkin?
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by Tarsier79 »

It looks like he at least voted. Over the last few weeks, having limited internet access, I wasn't able to respond correctly sooner.


For the 3 people so far who don't understand the relevance of inertia to energy creation:

Peq theorizes that a momentum transfer between two weights can occur using the formula mv=mv (eg 1kg x 2m/s = 2kg x 1m/s).
Input these values into the energy formula, E(k) = mv^2, and you have doubled your kinetic energy.

Peq also theorizes that in a rotational device, like a wheel: inertia = mr. This relates to the above theory, as it would take the same force to rotate a 2kg mass at 1m radius, as it would be to rotate a 1kg mass at 2m radius. Using the same energy formula, you would have again doubled your kinetic energy.

Had Peq's theory been correct, this would have allowed us to create a working free energy wheel, able to power itself with massive amounts of energy to spare.

Peq has been trying to prove variations of this theory for years.(http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2580) The results from my test disproved Peqs theory, and the extrapolation of this disproves years of his work. I am not surprised Peq is angry.

I am surprised Peq calls me a Liar, after I was 100% open and honest regarding my test and the results it showed.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by rlortie »

For the 3 people so far who don't understand the relevance of inertia to energy creation:
I am one of the three! I do understand the relevance of inertia to energy creation and/or destruction such as driving a car into a brick wall.

I voted, thinking that what you seek is the relevance between Peq's so called research tests and useful energy put to work, I see no useful relevance.

One can argue, refute, rebuke etc... the math from now until doomsday and never arrive at a suitable answer that all will agree to.

Build something that works or shows objective gain, then let the math geeks have their day explaining the relevant equations.

Bessler did not leave us with clues or what we know to complete a simple High School algebra equation, (8+y=m), it is incomplete!

Ralph
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by Tarsier79 »

Ultimately Ralph, self perpetuation is the proof.

Mathematically, the inertial formulas for circular movement and these tests relate directly to conservation of energy and whether or not it is correct. That is the relevance of the tests. The tests are the conversion from mathematics to real world.

There are many ways to attack the problem, and I don't disagree with the way peq has approached it:

1. Theory of energy gain.

2. POP build.

3. Engineering a solution to harness excess energy.

4. Working wheel.

Unfortunately in this case, the build did not support the theory. Why try to build a working wheel if you can't prove to yourself a gain in energy?

Also, I agree. If Pequaid's mechanism was to actually create energy, there is no reason he shouldn't have closed the loop.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by rlortie »

The tests are the conversion from mathematics to real world.
Sorry if my reasoning differs, we are obviously from different camps!

Ultimately Ralph, self perpetuation is the proof.

I pursue via hands on builds of what I believe may hold the solution. To hell with the math, I do not find it useful nor believe it is going to help in achieving a real world build.

If the answer could be found using peq's, Bernoulli, Euler, Newton etc... equations don't you think the answer would have been found by now?

Before the math can apply, you have to have some sort of known physical properties or characteristics to base your formulas on. All we have is assumptions, and assumptions will not buy or trade for objectivity without a known physical starting point.
Why try to build a working wheel if you can't prove to yourself a gain in energy?
Because the only way your going to prove to yourself, is to build it first. Then let the math substantiate your findings.

Ralph
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by Tarsier79 »

Before the math can apply, you have to have some sort of known physical properties or characteristics to base your formulas on.
Agreed. In our approach, those physical properties have to be proved mathematically, and that is what we were attempting to do.
I pursue via hands on builds of what I believe may hold the solution. To hell with the math, I do not find it useful nor believe it is going to help in achieving a real world build.
We have all got different ways of approaching things. There does not have to be a consensus on the "best" way to do things for you or I to do them. What we do leads us in different paths, and to different understandings.

For me, I like to build as simply, cheaply, easily and quickly as possible. I prefer to build one mechanism and study/measure it rather then multiply 4 or 8 on a wheel. I prefer to build a POP and expect a particular result, before designing and testing an entire wheel. Any method you choose will give you its own set of issues to overcome.
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by Fletcher »

Ralph .. Tarsier is making the point that each of us follows intuition to a certain degree.

You have a gut feeling for a direction of inquiry based on the sum of all your experiences, as we do - your experiences Ralph are a mix of hands on practical exercises & also in part based on book learning, including math - for you, & us, they are inseparable though in different proportions no doubt.

The difference being that both he & I want to understand as best we can the application of the mathematical expressions of natures wheelworks to compliment the practical exercises, & hopefully in doing so find a corporeal mechanism that can't be easily explained by known physics & math.

In probability terms I'd say that a person skilled in only the practical could 100% conceivably find that mechanism, just from having an inquiring mind & a desire - the issue is enough time to complete the task.

I'd also equally wager that a person with no practical skills & experience to talk of but 100% literate in maths & physics would not arrive at the solution for that mechanism in any given amount of time [0%].

Clearly Bessler was both practical & literate & so Ockham's Razor suggests that both skill sets are more favourable to finding that mechanism in the shortest amount of time, given an inquiring mind & desire to do so.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by rlortie »

Kaine & Fletcher,

I agree that in your or my approach the physical properties must be proved. The point that I address is the difference in our research attributes,

I reiterate that my pursuit via hands on builds of what I believe may hold the solution is best adapted by throwing the math aside, and let it come after you have something derivative (unoriginal) to base your equations on.

You are quite right in stating that this does not require a consensus on the best way of approaching our common problem. It is best that we each take our separate paths in hopes of covering more unexplored avenues.

I too build as simply, cheaply, easily and quickly as possible. However I find that most of my or submitted designs require more than one mechanism to study/measure, one mechanism does not always provide the action-reaction required. "Any method you choose will give you its own set of issues to overcome."

Fetcher is correct in stating: "each of us follows intuition to a certain degree." It is well noted on this forum that I hate math. That is not to say that I have not been forced to learn and utilize it. I would not have gained the acknowledged right and be recognized as holding a civil Pe degree in mechanical, and structural engineering without it. I do not sign my name: "Ralph E. Lortie Pe" even though I have the privilege of doing so.

Bessler, to my knowledge did not speak or dwell on any mathematical reference regarding the fundamental basis of his operating machines. He followed intuition and that allegedly (by his words) gave to him from God. I rather doubt if this was a mathematically equation handed to him on a piece of paper.

Yes: I work on a gut feeling for a direction based on the sum of experience and empirical skills, And yes, I do take the time to do the math on a given design before proceeding to a build. But obviously the math is not approached until after I have a draft to base it on. Known mass and configurations of placement are defined before the simplest of math can be derived. If it shows positive then a build is in order with the added incentive the math provides.

Your corporal mechanism you speak of cannot be explained or discovered by known physics until you have the physical evidence to base it upon. You cannot change/fore-go the mindset of physics working with accepted known equations, those that uphold conservation of energy as we know it.

There are known assumptions that some of the laws of physics were written in such manner to agree with Newtons Principia,these assumptions weigh heavy in the laws regarding fluid dynamics and mechanics.
You have a gut feeling for a direction of inquiry based on the sum of all your experiences, as we do - your experiences Ralph are a mix of hands on practical exercises & also in part based on book learning, including math - for you, & us, they are inseparable though in different proportions no doubt.
To this, I cannot refute, I agree 100%. Our differing minds that should be collaborating these indifference's is what leads to productive advancement.

One side wishes to find the answer before build with no objectivity to prove their findings, while the opposition wishes to build first, proving the expressions of natures wheel works. Compliment not the practical exercises, but rather the reality of the findings. "Hopefully in doing so we find a tangible material of nature (corporeal) mechanism that can not be easily explained by known physics & math."
In probability terms I'd say that a person skilled in only the practical could 100% conceivably find that mechanism, just from having an inquiring mind & a desire - the issue is enough time to complete the task.
You have it nailed down with the above! Yes time is always relevant, whether it be the mathematician with pencil and calculator or the 'hands on' trial and error builder who pays no heed to what math has to say. I place my bet on the latter!

Not unlike my present build. First I designed it, made note of all physical properties and then did the math. The math is explicit, allowing indexed positive an negative torque value readings for every 10.28 degrees of rotation. Friction versus inertia (motion) are addressed.

It is an OB gravity design, the COM point is maintained at a right angle well outside the axis. The math tells me that if not properly secured to a grounded foundation the machine will tip over due to the gradient (mass) differential between the descending and ascending halves.

I am confident that I have finally beat the "width for height" syndrome that many have admitted was their downfall.

The first physical build showed engineering shortcomings in the design regarding connectivity. Only a second build, now under construction will tell if this problem has been solved, not create more problems.

Ralph
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by Fletcher »

Ralph .. Bessler in all likelihood found a mechanism, to do the trick, as they say - he was also a learned man, by his own accounts.

Also by the testimonial of others, who used terms like 'versatile in mechanics' to describe him.

Fischer says about the Landgrave [Bessler's Patron] "His Highness, who has a perfect inderstanding of mathematics, assured me that the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel...' - letter from Joseph Fischer to J.T. Desaguliers, 1721 - clearly Karl was mathematically educated & inclined yet he saw only a simple mechanism.

s'Gravesande says '...The inventor has a turn for mechanics, but is far from being a profound mathematician" - letter from Willem Jacob 'sGravesande to Sir Isaac Newton, 1721 - clearly s'Gravesande thought Bessler's skills as a mathematician were at best economical.

Wollf was also a capable mathematician as he details how he wrote about PM in his "mathematical lexicon" - Wollf also says how Besssler found the solution by "laborious experimentation".

Wollf & s'Gravesande were in a good position to assess Bessler's mathematical prowess [underwhelming by their standards].



YET, Bessler found a simple mechanism, from experimentation, with some mathematical education behind him - he without doubt did use terminology like 'force' & 'movement' [see MT notes] so was familiar with their meaning & proper use, perhaps as we would use them today.

YET, we know very little about his actual physics knowledge & education [as we would describe it today] because his descriptions in MT are not consistent, or ordered, or structured, or coherent, IMO - some people here do a far better & comprehensive job of describing their drawings than Bessler did for his purportedly school of mechanics.

What we do know is that he was a proficient mechanic - he knew about force & movement, & momentum, but never mentions the concept of energy except as work output [force x displacement, & leverage].

Clearly, his mechanical skills were enough to do the job & any mathematical or, classical physics knowledge as we would recognize it today, was ancillary.

So, we are looking for a simple mechanism, that has some extra-ordinary physical & mathematical qualities when the elements are combined - that much seems obvious.

Whether you come from top down math approach or bottom up build approach the answer will still be the same from which ever direction you approach it - your dislike for math is well known - for others it seems a logical method to cull out erroneous concepts quickly, so shortening the potential time taken to find a solution - I know you have been 'at it' for some good number of decades, & that was with an aversion to math.
Last edited by Fletcher on Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by Tarsier79 »

Truthfully, my mathematics are somewhat limited as well, but probably slightly above average. Bessler called himself a mathematician, but it is good to know his peers didn't think much of his abilities.

Ralph, horizontal displacement of the COM will not give you any advantage. For a weight to perform work, the COM needs to drop. To reset, you need to lift it. If there is an answer in leverage / positioning / momentum, it will present itself most obviously in a gain in PE (or PE converted from KE). Once you find a single mechanism to do this, the rest will follow.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by rlortie »

Fletcher,

I thank you for a very elegant response, a foundation which both camps, the mathematicians and the trial and error group can relate and build from.

Eventually I will post the math of my latest gravity induced OB fluid molecular design. A design not found or related to anything Bessler made public.

Kaine wrote:
Ralph, horizontal displacement of the COM will not give you any advantage. For a weight to perform work, the COM needs to drop. To reset, you need to lift it. If there is an answer in leverage / positioning / momentum, it will present itself most obviously in a gain in PE (or PE converted from KE). Once you find a single mechanism to do this, the rest will follow.
Sorry but I beg to differ, not objectively proven yet except on a calculator and paper. I have found a way to keep horizontal displacement of the maximum COM at a right angle to the axis without dropping more than 10.28 degrees at which time it resets itself. The Com need not drop if you can retain the torque value gaining from 0 or 360 degree to maximum at 90 then diminishing to and beyond 180.

The answer to leverage/positioning and momentum has been addressed and will become self explanatory. Pe is constant within the gravitational tolerance of the above described degrees. Not unlike Bessler's the machine should quickly accelerate to its Cf, Cp boundaries within two to three revolutions.

Consider a unicycle OB machine, offering maximum torque when restrained in static mode, then release it!


I will continue this on the appropriate thread.

Ralph
User avatar
Mark
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:18 am
Location: USA - California

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by Mark »

Tarsier79, I believe that your testing was more than adequate to show the reality of the situation. Maybe some day it'll soak in. Maybe.

In regards to the last few posts [by Tarsier79, rlortie, and Fletcher] -- I am generally in agreement.

I know that most folks understand this to be intrinsic to the discussion, and in particular to Fischer's/Karl's comment (I can't remember whose words) regarding the "carpenter's boy/apprentice", but I believe it deserves to be pointed out... a compound mechanism - more than one mechanism acting together - is not necessarily a complex mechanism.

edit - deleted a stray bracket
Last edited by Mark on Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by Tarsier79 »

Thanks Mark. As you can deduce, my aim was mainly to guage the interested parties and where their views lie. I probably should have added: "I really don't care about this nonsense" to the bottom:)
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Tarsier79 questions Peq ;)

Post by Tarsier79 »

Pequaide, you have accused me of lying, and of using mistaken maths, yet haven't provided further information here. If you have something of worth to say, you have your ampitheatre and a small audience....
Post Reply