Posted by Roby (207.204.137.249) on March 17, 2002 at 03:25:36:
In Reply to: Re: Thoughts... posted by Scott Ellis on March 14, 2002 at 23:46:48:
Good discussion Group. I believe that level 1 is Besslers wheel. We tend to lose sight of several eyewitness points, the main being a simple arrangement of levers and weights. There are other less noticeable points brought out in John Collin's book but still very important.
The biggest problem is that everyone is trying to build their own wheel, surely duplicating other efforts and after building several, with a large investment in time and money (while other needed projects suffer), we resort to putting it on paper and discussing possibilities.
I believe the KISS principle still applies.
Looking forward to more discussions.
: You bring up a good point Christopher! That was actually an oversight on my part. I had originally sent this message as an email to some friends, then I copied it onto the discussion board and forgot to remove that part.
: As for your question:
: To me, any scheme employing weights, springs, levers, ramps, pendulums... any purely mechanical contraptions at all (even gyroscopes and magnets), would be considered a "level 1" device (as you describe it). I am sure that Bessler could have made use of any and/or all of these things in his wheel.
: To me, a "level 2" device would be an electrical or chemical in nature. There are plenty of efforts going on in this area as well (see keelynet and JNL labs). I think it is possible but quite unlikely that Bessler made use of these principles.
: If Bessler's wheel was purely mechanical, then I think it must have exploited a dynamic physical principle that is not at all obvious. The sheer number of people who have tried and failed in this endeaver illustrate that fact. So I think natural but obscure physical principles (like parametric oscillations and impulse/impact) are good places to look for possible insight.
: Best,
: Scott
: : Scott,
: : Please take this as it's meant, all in fun but...
: : "keep these ideas in confidence" ??
: : You have a globaly available website. You're sharing with more
: : people than I have ever met. I just thought that was kinda
: : funny. :-)
: : Now, I'd like to answer your question with another question
: : right back at you...
: : What is your opinion, and what do you think the general concensus
: : is, on the different "types" of "free energy" devices? What I
: : mean is, your suggested approaches are very complex, as are many
: : of the other contemporary approaches I read about on different
: : sites. Do you think most people have totally given up on purely
: : mechanical, "level 1" type devices in favor of more complex
: : approaches that exploit the stranger properties of physics?
: : The reason I ask is two-fold. First, I am genuinely interested
: : in your answer to this question as I have stuck to my guns and
: : worked only on "type 1" devices since the first day I ran across
: : your site. Second, I have no idea how else to reply to your post
: : since those particular ideas are far beyond what I have employed so
: : far in my designs :-)
: : Thanks