Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

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

Moderator: scott

John doe
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:34 am

Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by John doe »

After my first few failed attempts at getting a runner, I decided to review my my past failures.
After another 12 hour shift at work I sat down at my desk and reviewed my notes and drawing for a few hours before going to bed.
Upon waking the next morning my subconscious spit out a new insight. Basically it's a different (simpler) perspective on the original problem. If it holds true it will allow me to design build and test models quickly and modify them in my Mental workshop. I already have a new design I'm looking forward to testing to see if this theory holds true.
I believe it is the missing principle bessler alluded to.
If so I should have a runner shortly.
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
John doe
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:34 am

re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by John doe »

I think besslers connetedness principle needs to be explored further.
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

John doe wrote:I think besslers connetedness principle needs to be explored further.
Bessler's cross-bars are part of his connectedness principle.

The motions of one weight must be connected to the motions of a second weight. This is done by the cross-bar.

The balanced wheels had two and two weights...
Bessler wrote:Namely, a craft-work must itself drive
from many separate pieces lead;
which are NOW always two and two;

change a thing outward the position,
such drives the other to the shaft;
this is soon here and that there:
and also swaps forth and forth.
Note that Bessler does NOT write about weights rising and falling (Such was Wagner's concept, which Bessler wrote was falsely attributed to himself.) Weights gained force from their motions. The motions were inward and outward. One weight interconnected to a second weight, by a cross-bar. Then later, Bessler NOW used two and two things, so as to cause a balancing of his wheel, so that one set of mechanisms could coast in reverse as another set of mechanisms powered the wheel forward.

Bessler once again used double entendre. Two and two things/weights in each mechanisms so as to cause balance. Also, two and two things/mechanisms, i.e., two forward mechanisms synced so as to be balanced, and two revered mechanisms synced to be balanced. Thus by using the word "things", he can mean both two and two weights, and also two and two mechanisms. Double entendre. Two meanings in a single sentence.

Image
sleepy
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:53 pm
Location: earth

re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by sleepy »

Hello again,John Doe.
I remember when you first came to this forum and stated that you would have a runner by Easter.Of course that didn't happen.You said you hadn't had time to work on it.But eventually,you admitted that the idea was a non-runner and you went back to the drawing board without ever showing your original idea.Maybe someone here had your answer.Now here you are ,once again touting the idea that is the ONE! Have a runner soon! And once again you do not share your ideas so that the very experienced and very knowledgeable members here might help further your quest.If you will not seek help here,then at least slow down,catalog your progress with photos and notes so you don't repeat your mistakes,and don't let over-confidence get in your way.Keep trying,and if you do get a runner,do the right thing and help your fellow humans.Many of them are suffering needlessly.
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
John doe
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:34 am

re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by John doe »

Thank you for that excellent post sleepy. Your logic is sound.
I will seriously consider your sage advice. Thank you again
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
John doe
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:34 am

re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by John doe »

Thanks also for your reply Jim Mitch. What you are saying makes sense but I dont have enough information to draw the same conclusions as you.

I am thinking that is a more of a general principle that may have been overlooked by the scientific community in general.

For example:
Principle of least effort

The principle of least effort is a broad theory that covers diverse fields from evolutionary biology to webpage design. It postulates that animals, people, even well designed machines will naturally choose the path of least resistance or "effort". It is closely related to many other similar principles: see Principle of least action or other articles listed below. This is perhaps best known or at least documented among researchers in the field of library and information science. Their principle states that an information seeking client will tend to use the most convenient search method, in the least exacting mode available. Information seeking behavior stops as soon as minimally acceptable results are found. This theory holds true regardless of the user's proficiency as a searcher, or their level of subject expertise. Also this theory takes into account the user’s previous information seeking experience. The user will use the tools that are most familiar and easy to use that find results. The principle of least effort is known as a “deterministic description of human behavior.�[1] The principle of least effort applies not only in the library context, but also to any information seeking activity. For example, one might consult a generalist co-worker down the hall rather than a specialist in another building, so long as the generalist's answers were within the threshold of acceptability.

The principle of least effort is analogous to the path of least resistance.
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7458
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by agor95 »

Principle of Turbulence

Turbulence in a system is like heat on a macro scale, as atom vibration in the micro size.

I see some designs could be employing this but not in a simulation.
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

Post by ME »

Principle of non-contradiction
One thing can't be part of a system and out of a system at the same time.
But two things can, they are separated for some reason - it depends how the separation is done: Inner/outer radius, potential/kinetic energy...

The connectedness principle (MT009) could refer to the balance between those.
With "two and two", one part of one thing could balance with one part of some other thing, while one part of a thing could also balance with the second part of the same thing - but for a whole different reason.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
John doe
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:34 am

re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by John doe »

I think your at least partially right me.
I think it's the relationship between the 2 that create the balance and imbalance.
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
John doe
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:34 am

re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by John doe »

To put it plainly move one weight towards the center while moving one away from the center. Rotate 180 degrees rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
John doe
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:34 am

re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by John doe »

Well I have taken your advice sleepy. Post my idea in plain English for the whole world so that I can draw from the extensive knowledge of the master builders of this board. So far all I hear is crickets. I might as well as went outside and wrote it on the ground at night and got the same response.
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
sleepy
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:53 pm
Location: earth

re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by sleepy »

I would love to see your new idea but i cant find it posted. Are you sure it loaded. I checked in community buzz also.but could not find it. Please point me at it.
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
John doe
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:34 am

Re: re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by John doe »

[quote="John doe"]To put it plainly move one weight towards the center while moving one away from the center. Rotate 180 degrees rinse and repeat ad infinitum.[/quote ] <<< this one. It's more of a concept or principle than a design but the design should be very easy I have several options in my head
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
John doe
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:34 am

re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by John doe »

Think of a modified mt 26 or 27
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Fundamental design flaws and new insight.

Post by rlortie »

MM 026, 027 will not work; Its not the position of the weights but their suspension points that pack the force, they balance!

So what kind of modification do you have in mind?

Ralph
Post Reply