Several people have suggested that it doesn't matter how many mechanisms there are in Bessler's wheel, as only one will be needed to prove the principle. I had resisted this idea because I was convinced that Bessler was adamant that there were five (mostly this is just my opinion) and I thought that anything less would not do. So anyway, in the last few days I have been building and fitting just the one new mechanism to the wheel. It is a new design and very simple. The result is excellent. This time the mechanism reacts exactly as I want it to, according to the parametric oscillation principle I described on my gravitymill web site. The shifter mechanism throws up the primary weight at six o'clock with some force and throws it up again with less force after the twelve o'clock point.
Now I need to lock the mechanism in a neutral position before attaching some balancing weights to the other side of the wheel so that the assembly is balanced what ever position the wheel is in. The plan is then to release the mechanism and see what happens. According to Bessler one 'cross bar' hardly moved the wheel, but what does that mean? Does he mean that he had to nudge the wheel a little to complete a full turn, or does he mean that it turned but extremely slowly? I can't somehow believe that the wheel would turn slowly and evenly, but I suspect that it managed most of one turn and then needed a small nudge. The thing is, how convincing would that be? It must have been enough to convince Bessler that he was on to something, so I guess I'll just have to try it and see. I suspect that in the end I'll have to put more mechanisms on. I might of course be completely wrong - again - and perhaps what most people are telling me is true, that parametric oscillation is not the answer. Only they'll have a job to convince me!
I'm going to be away for a couple of weeks starting next week- Spain again! - so I'll close comments early next week and go into silent mode for fortnight. I'm hoping to finish this latest mechanism before I go, but I think my wife has other plans for the next couple of days so I probably won't be placing any updates on it before I go!
JC
For what it is worth, John, I think you are right. One mechanism, such as overbalancing, is not enough in a fully mechanical design. Pumping the swing definitely helps, as a few simple tests with a linear bearing in a pendulum have shown me. It definitely adds speed to the swing and that's exactly what one wants from 6 o'clock. Like I wrote earlier, IMHO it all comes down to maximizing and optimizing the energy budget. Gravity is one of the weakest natural forces, so we need all the help we can get. Like Trevor wrote, another mechanism might be required, such as his "lively children" implementation. Pounding something might not add much force in itself, but I've read some research that shows that pounding a surface that has the properties of a spring does add to the force of the impact. Pounding (short, sharp pushing down on) a piston - perhaps with a spring under it to maximize effect - may be something, and can be easily converted into rotation as any engine proves. Perhaps a Melkovic-type 2 stage oscillator (pendulum), whose output can also easily be converted to torque, can also be incorporated inside (or outside, if need be!) the wheel and minimal energy is required to maintain the movement of the bob. At a certain point there should be more than sufficient energy to keep it going, as all these mechanisms tap into a free source - gravity. I have no idea if it would still resemble JB's original design, but is that important? Not to me, to be honest, but I can imagine, after all your research, that you want to replicate the original thing.
ReplyDeleteAs for myself, I have two different implementations of two very simple designs in mind, nothing like Besslers, I am afraid, and not "purely" mechanical either, but it will use parametric oscillation as well, as my simple experiment showed me this to be quite effective. I shall have to do some calculations on the energy budget - it wouldn't be worth anything if I have to input more energy than comes out - but gravity should more than compensate for that. Friction losses should be minimal since the mechanism for the entire thing has only one moving mechanical part in both designs.
Sorry for the long rant, but I guess the bug has definitely bitten me too :-)
John, Just curious what your wife thinks about all the feedback you have recieved since your disclosure.
ReplyDeleteShe gets very angry about the negative comments, but she says if I put myself up to be shot at, people will take shots at me, so little sympathy there! But that's the beauty of the internet. You can put up ideas and get instant feedback. You have to be realistic and expect some people to disagree and if you can deal with that then there isn't really a problem. The positive responses more tham make up for it.
ReplyDeleteJC
Lol, she gets very angry, but has little sympathy. LMFAO, doesn't add up.
ReplyDeleteWhat's to add up? She doesn't like the negative comments. She thinks I shouldn't allow the anon ones and that I should not be suprised when people abuse the system. That is why she's unsympathetic. Maybe I will ban anon comments.
ReplyDeleteJC
Couldn't agree more with banning the Anons. -ssmyser
ReplyDeleteI second that! Annoying and tiring people, although I must admit there have been on occasion a few good ones.
ReplyDeleteJohn, could you please tell us what was Bessler talking about when he wrote "one 'cross bar' hardly moved the wheel"? I haven't read that comment, thanks.
ReplyDeleteOh John,John,what do we have to do to convince you.I really think that Bessler's referance to five had nothing to do with a pentagram,or five segments.
ReplyDeleteWhat he implied was that there must be five vital ingredients or properties of mechanical physics that must be in place before the principle can manifest itself for the wheel to work.
One cross bar with two weights is sufficient for proof of principle.Even without the prime mover a single crossbar that is primed with two weights will apply gravitational torque for one half turn,then it will free wheel for up five turns before it comes to a stop.
That's my gut feel,take it or leave it.Perhaps you can think about it on your holiday...Enjoy.
Lucius, the passage you are referring to comes from my translation of Bessler's Apologia Poetica.
ReplyDelete"... If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw Wagner's calculations clean out of the window!"
Trevor, I respect your gut feeling - but also mine!
Temporarily I have restricted comments to registered users only. I may change it back to anyone again soon.
ReplyDeleteJC
RE: Andre
ReplyDelete"Gravity is one of the weakest natural forces"
You dosent ment it for reall dont you??
If yes ..there is nothin more to add ...
I tought ...naah this is such a huge statment that make me wonder if it was not just a joke.
Martin
hi i am working on bessler's wheel in my spare time from 1975 without any success as if a blind person searching for the light in the dark room. plg.
ReplyDeleteOK, it has inconvenienced some people so I have reopebned comments to anyone. Sorry for this but I learn as I go along.
ReplyDeleteJC
Martin, in standard physics textbooks gravitational forces are indeed described as the weakest of the four natural fundamental interactions, these being electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction ("strong" and "weak nuclear force") and gravitation. Nevertheless, I am sure that one would disagree with this when one dropped a 20 pound weight on ones foot :-)
ReplyDeleteJohn, thanks for the info.
ReplyDeleteHow can Suresh say that Trevor is on the right track, when in fact, nobody, not anyone of you have a working wheel!?
ReplyDeleteWell..LIB...you are right..no one has a working wheel yet...but one could have a runner soon...
Being on the right track means being on the road to success, and it does not necessarily mean possessing a working wheel.
Trevor has been long enough in this...his clues match with that of Bessler's simple clues..
even if Trevor claimed that he had a working wheel you still wouldn't believe..you would ask it to be unveiled. Same bessler dilemma would unfold..
The very name (Bessler Wheel) has lost its credibility despite it being very intriguing. One of the reasons for this is that it could not be replicated so long after Bessler. And this could be because no one is thinking like Bessler. Originality is important in any invention of this sort..normal debate or research won't help..Bessler was extremely passionate...
Confidence and belief are important. Trevor has both..he is optimistic..his hints shouldn't be taken easy..
And, if Bessler had done it, why can't anyone else?
Suresh, I call that religion.
ReplyDeleteIt's not scientific thnking by any mean .. Science, real science, is based on facts.. There are no facts about Bessler's wheel, only supposition..
The ONE thing missing is fact. A working wheel. That's it.. Everything else is pure theory.
And, what a theory it is!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhen someone gets it right soon, we should have a working wheel ready. Many scientific breakthroughs have begun this way...
Since there is only one design that would work we aren't seeing the wheel until someone, somewhere catches up with it...and till that time you could call it as pure theory or even refer to it as a religion.
Things so far, I am making a conserted effort to complete a working prototype of the wheel which I hope to call THE CONSTANT POWER WHEEL.
ReplyDeleteIt should be called what it is, a wheel constant in power, constant in rpm, and constant period. Which makes it ideally suited for 50 cycle a/c power generation.
The mechanics is proving a bit tricky,trying match up the mechinics of the prime mover with the mechanics of the gravitational weights, it has to be just right. That is why a definite completion date has not been set.
Trevor... is it your prime mover a lever? Perhaps a spring? Or a pulley? Could you tell us something about it?
ReplyDeleteLever in all probability..
ReplyDeleteNo...It is an oscilating mass..."movement for the sake of movement."
ReplyDeleteIs it very complicated?..because it has to be very simple..
ReplyDeleteIt's not complicated but because it is lively, it must be free of friction.
ReplyDeleteForgive me if I sound a little arrogant or over confident, but when you're ahead you don't mind helping out,so long as I can just pip you at the post.
We need as many sucsessful wheelwrights as possible in order to convince the pharasitical mind set of the scientific community especially the physicists, I would love to knock their socks off. I joined this blog because it also motivates me, because when you get to my age your enthusiasm and strength becomes a little threadbare, especially when you have had so many failures you have to pluck up the courage to even try the next configuration. Anyway I'll be okay so just hang in there.
I can understand...Well, all the best...keep up the tempo....you will succeed..
ReplyDeleteNo Suresh, he won't succeed. Nods to LIB for showing logic. Trevor what's your issue with the scientific community? They don't have anything against you. I think it's jealousy. If you took the same amount of energy you say you've put into wheel building and applied it to actually learning something you'de put recognition in its proper place.
ReplyDeleteI'm not against science, I used to get top marks for science,I love science and open mindedness. I against the closed minded scientific community that declares that perpetual motion power is impossible and that heavier than air craft could not fly,derr.You have to agree there, otherwise why would you waste your time here. Just remember what you said on Aug.2nd.,because I love a challenge.
ReplyDeleteTrevor... Keep going, you already have the anon's "he won't succeed" go and get the "he succeeded"
ReplyDeleteIf any inventor or innovator would pay attention to pathological skeptics we'd still be debating whether cooking food over that new-fangled thing called "fire" is beneficial or not. Keep up the good work, everybody!
ReplyDeleteYour stout support for the great cause is quite refreshing every time, Andre Sir.
ReplyDeleteDespite all this, if still someone fails to achieve success, at the end of it all, what would the future scenario be like?
I mean, is it possible to fix a time limit and then ensure the individual publishes everything, like JC sir did it?..Or is it alright to allow this entire saga to continue the way it does?
Anons, skeptics and even the normal people are eventually bound to loose interest and finally get irritated. Is it their fault? Do we have the right to keep them in suspense for indefinite period?
thanks Suresh, you are a great champion yourself as well. To answer your question, and the very good points you make, I personally wouldn't mind some sort of open-source collaboration effort. With the help perhaps, by a couple of (openminded) professionals. We could combine all ideas and concepts and have skilled craftsmen build the ideas we have. I wouldn't mind helping to finance that.
ReplyDeleteThanks to JC sir for sharing his idea of John besslers wheel and informing all of us his day to day development.In my view it should be 8 weights in the wheel and there must be out side support to these weights. we should take support of ground at 6 o'clock and the weight slide up at 30 digree untill it reaches 9 o'clock position. plg.
ReplyDeleteI'd say, thanks for Cultural Science for having rigor, else, we would have Obama win the nobel price for peace..
ReplyDeleteOhh ... Wait ...