Scott F. Hall - Gravity Wheel (joke)
| Quote: |
| I watched the youtube videos Bessler1 and Bessler 2 and, despite the negative comments left there, I thought paddyboytube's design was intriguing in its simplicity of interior click-clacking weights. I took 15 minutes to build one and here is the result in video. It looks pretty efficient in resisting friction and it makes a pleasant, uniform noise as it moves, too. I'll have to try making one of these on a very large scale with many more of these log weights spanned through the center. --Scott F. Hall, August 8, 2007
To see more of Scott F. Hall's creative work, google his full name. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uLPMGrMohc |
http://www.youtube.com/user/hallsf
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Scott+F.+Hall%22
Simple gravity toy
You certainly found a simple, easy to replicate, device.
It is similar in principle to the simple gravity wheel with hammers.
I shall try to get Sun et al to build one.
Conservation of Energy Roadblock
| gaby de wilde wrote: |
| This kind of devices both explain why- and embarrass me for-doing just research. |
One advantage of scientific theory is that they lead to solid development of many devices. They also helped in the elimination of many other experiments .
Some stupid people also misapply such theories to block the developments of many useful inventions. The First Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Conservation of Energy is correct in saying - Energy cannot be created or destroyed; they can only change from one form to another. Later, mass was considered as a form of energy.
However, to apply this Law correctly, we need a closed system. What we mean by a closed system is that there is no external energy flowing into or out from the system under consideration.
We cannot just ignore the flow of energy in or out because we do not know how to use it. The best scenario is that of the "boat in calm water and good sunshine". Previously, many scientists did not know how to use solar energy. They misapplied the Law of Conservation of Energy. They wrongly concluded that muscle energy must be used to move the boat.
Many scientists today do not know how to use gravitational energy continuously. They are misapplying the Law of Conservation of Energy. They wrongly concluded that a pulsed pendulum or pulsed rotating wheel cannot Lead Out Gravitational Energy.
Sooner or later, they will have to accept the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory. When that day comes, working on the gravity devices will be respectable. (Your work is helping to bring that day closer by the hour.)
Gaby, you are just a little bit ahead of the times. In the ancient days, the term is a prophet. You know the fate of prophets with your knowledge of history!
Re: Conservation of Energy Roadblock
| ltseung888 wrote: | ||
One advantage of scientific theory is that they lead to solid development of many devices. They also helped in the elimination of many other experiments . |
| Quote: |
| Some stupid people also misapply such theories to block the developments of many useful inventions. The First Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Conservation of Energy is correct in saying - Energy cannot be created or destroyed; they can only change from one form to another. Later, mass was considered as a form of energy.
However, to apply this Law correctly, we need a closed system. What we mean by a closed system is that there is no external energy flowing into or out from the system under consideration. We cannot just ignore the flow of energy in or out because we do not know how to use it. The best scenario is that of the "boat in calm water and good sunshine". Previously, many scientists did not know how to use solar energy. They misapplied the Law of Conservation of Energy. They wrongly concluded that muscle energy must be used to move the boat. Many scientists today do not know how to use gravitational energy continuously. They are misapplying the Law of Conservation of Energy. They wrongly concluded that a pulsed pendulum or pulsed rotating wheel cannot Lead Out Gravitational Energy. Sooner or later, they will have to accept the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory. When that day comes, working on the gravity devices will be respectable. (Your work is helping to bring that day closer by the hour.) |
I have already defined flow. We must stop thinking in constant symmetry of paired reactions. All reactions have 3 attachment points not 2. There is not just an action and a reaction.
There is cause, action and reaction
Monopole magnets do not exist. So there can never be a reaction with just 1 of the poles. The reaction will always involve 3 points. Your parallelogram is the same thing as my 90 degree rule or my 3 way interaction concept and it is the tool to measure flow. We need 3 things not 2. It comes from some place -> it does something -> and it leaves the open system some place. Just like a machine does not just have action and output. It needs some input to create output.
What are your thoughts on this?
Re: Conservation of Energy Roadblock
| gaby de wilde wrote: |
|
There is cause, action and reaction Monopole magnets do not exist. So there can never be a reaction with just 1 of the poles. The reaction will always involve 3 points. Your parallelogram is the same thing as my 90 degree rule or my 3 way interaction concept and it is the tool to measure flow. We need 3 things not 2. It comes from some place -> it does something -> and it leaves the open system some place. Just like a machine does not just have action and output. It needs some input to create output. What are your thoughts on this? |
My approach is as follows:
(1) Come out with ONE theory. In this case of Cosmic Energy Machines, we came out with the Lee-Tseung Theory.
(2) Apply the theory to as many cases (or inventions) as possible. Find the limitation of the theory. So far, the same theory holds in all cases we investigated.
(3) Place maximum focus on the actual inventions. Try to improve them from the viewpoint of the Lee-Tseung theory. Thus we are able to improve almost all known Cosmic Energy Inventions.
(4) Place minimum focus on alternative theories. Most Cosmic Energy Inventors have problem explaining the source of energy of their working machines. Some came out with obviously wrong explanations. For example, Sung believed that the source was the energy in Permanent Magnets. Liang believed that the source was Ying-Yang. Beaden believed that the source was Zero Point Energy.
(5) Trying to understand a wrong or still developing theory is too difficult. There would be miscommunication and misunderstanding. There would be too much emotion involved. Nobody wanted to look bad, especially inventors who poured in sweat and blood.
Lawrence Tseung
Single theory focus Leads Out minimum attention to alternative theories.
Improve the Lee-Tseung theory
| ltseung888 wrote: |
|
My approach is as follows: (1) Come out with ONE theory. In this case of Cosmic Energy Machines, we came out with the Lee-Tseung Theory. |
Yes, this is the theory I'm talking about.
| Quote: |
| (2) Apply the theory to as many cases (or inventions) as possible. Find the limitation of the theory. So far, the same theory holds in all cases we investigated. |
The theory may also be applied to other theories.
| Quote: |
| (3) Place maximum focus on the actual inventions. Try to improve them from the viewpoint of the Lee-Tseung theory. Thus we are able to improve almost all known Cosmic Energy Inventions. |
I don't think this is a good concept, the skeptics want theories drawings videos patents etc etc They are crazy so they want everything at the same time. This leads me to conclude they should get nothing or everything at one time. I think that will be the best way for you to find serious investors for your friends. What I try to say is that the Lee-Tseung theory needs to be developed as much as the inventions.
| Quote: |
| (4) Place minimum focus on alternative theories. |
This is what all other inventors did wrong! If you suggest alternative theories should be ignored then who would anyone look at yours?
| Quote: |
| Most Cosmic Energy Inventors have problem explaining the source of energy of their working machines. Some came out with obviously wrong explanations. |
What do you mean obvious?
| Quote: |
| For example, Sung believed that the source was the energy in Permanent Magnets. |
Do you know the source of the energy in permanent magnets? And where does it lead in from? If we don't know it it may be the same source? no?
| Quote: |
| Liang believed that the source was Ying-Yang. |
But... Ying Yang is the philosophical way of saying the same thing as + and -? This is a good description of something we don't understand. Just like Prana?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prana
| Quote: |
| Beaden believed that the source was Zero Point Energy. |
ZPE is just a name label. Its the same thing as dark matter, Ęther, stardust, Newman's gyroscopic particles etc etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28classical_element%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust#Stardust
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/joseph-newman
My new theory is that the Lee-Tseung theory tries to explain the same things one extra time in stead of replace other theories. Comparing the theory with other (may it be less mature) theories allows for the Lee theory to be applied to the inventions using their inventor own wording.
I'm convinced the law of the parallelogram can also be applied to a 3 point interaction.
Please share your opinion on/experience with Wesley Gary's device. I think things become very obvious there.
| Smith wrote: |
| This device does not work. If You don't believe - You can make a copy of bessler or just search @ PESwiki |
Hello Smith,
Yeah, we got tricked by the art professor. lol I do agree, professor Scott should repair this device. So far I haven't figured out what is is that is wrong with it.
My best guess is that the weights are to small and the pulse is to short to keep the device spinning. I'm not saying it will work if we change that. I'm trying to say that if the effect exists this is not the best way to get momentum out of it.
I guess the topic serves as a place holder for future thoughts. One positive side, this device doesn't seem to suffer a lot of friction either.
One could make it highly adjustable. I'm sure you can get an interesting feeling of the effect by tuning it.
