Thursday, 4 November 2010

Bessler's "Connectedness Principle".

A couple of weeks ago I received an email asking me what I understood by Besslers "connectedness principle". I answered to the best of my ability at the time, but I have had further thoughts about it which I thought I'd put down here.

In his Maschinen Tractate number 9, Bessler says:-

"Because experience shows us that the ball-driven wheels like those seen in the present figure and diagrams were of no avail, people speculated on another principle, namely on weights. To be sure in all the weight drawings that I have found, these weights appear simple and are not connected together with belts and chains, even in Leupold, but nothing can be accomplished with any device unless unless it responds due to my connectedness principle..."

In my original version I changed the phrase "connectedness principle", to something I thought was more accurate, but since then I have been persuaded that the above phrase is probably closer to the original intention.

So what did he mean? The word "connectedness" doesn't even appear in some dictionaries and is probably more akin to the literal translation of Bessler's language than an apposite English word.  It is a noun and is defined as "a relation between things or events http://www.thefreedictionary.com/connectedness - or a "state of being attached, ability to be connected". http://dictionary.babylon.com/connectedness/.

I don't feel that these get to the actual meaning intended by Bessler. For clarification I looked up some synonyms for 'connected' and found :- "linked, joined, united, coupled, associated, combined,engaged", and there are several more.

"Connectedness" conjures up the idea of things being joined together or united, but in my opinion it also suggests the amount or intensity of a connection which may vary in some way. The coupling of two objects may well be described as connected but their connectedness might be less than or equal to a theoretical maximum. How can we determine what was meant?

One could argue that two things are either connected or not, but it depends; it might be a loose connection in the same way that a nut might be loose on a bolt and therefore it can allow some movement in the connection - or the nut is tight and there is no movement; or it might describe a man on a length of elastic doing a bungee jump - he can stretch the connection and be pulled back to a degree; or a dog which is connected by its lead to its owner - he can pull the dog or prevent it running away but he cannot push with the lead because it's a made of a chain or a length of leather and therefore one might describe it as connected but the connectedness is not as complete as it could be with say a metal rod which is inflexible.

It may be a two-way connection but one way is rigid and the other is flexible. The connection may be, to a certain degree, more or less flexible than it could potentially be.

Bessler must have intended something other than a rigid connection otherwise there was no point in establishing the idea of a "connectedness principle". He implied that his wheel required his connectedness principle in order to function, therefore we might assume that the connection in question was not rigid and unyielding but that the two connected objects were capable of some movement which was independant from each other at some point. For instance if a weight fell and in doing so moved another weight, that would require some connection even if it was only a brief collision with the other, either by direct impact or by means of a rope or chain. Subsquently the fallen weight would have to return to its former position in order to fall again but would perhaps be able to do so without pulling the other weight with it.

Such a "connectedness principle" might also permit delay in certain movements of weights which would be advantageous in some designs.

I don't know what the answer is, but I thought I'd pass on my musings as food for thought. In the mean time I have a theory and I am testing it. I don't know if it will help but given the variety of possible connections outlined above it will probably take me some time to work my way through them. The only thing I do know is that in my design a connectedness principle as described above is a vital ingrediant.

JC

19 comments:

  1. A very good elaboration on what I have always considered a 'sticky' passage by Bessler. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. -ssmyser

    ReplyDelete
  2. He might have meant a clutch, which was probably an unknown device at the time. You may recall that I speculated that inverted pendulums have been used (perhaps a pair); are allowed to free fall, and then braked (stopped) by some mechanism to transform the kinetic energy and transform it to torque (which needs to be stored, in springs,for example). A clutch (and springs) would do just that. As soon as the rotation of the main wheel has carried the (now stopped) pendulums far enough (or, alternatively, the overbalancing weights at both ends of the pendulum are reversed so the cycle can start again) the clutch disengages and the cycle repeats.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...to transform the kinetic energy..." should be read as "to harvest the kinetic energy" in the above post.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Connectedness,...I say nothing!

    ReplyDelete
  5. All I can say is,...Andre you are on the right track,but are these just your thoughts or have you a build that can be tested?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think connectedness means levers connected to weights...always keep things simple...that is the main secret in bessler wheel construction..

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with the clutch or brake mechanism.
    though not in relation to Connectedness,
    it may refer to the axle wheel relationship.
    Bessler stated,
    "there's always the danger that a surreptitious shove would knock it out of balance and bring it grinding to a halt."

    Spinner

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trevor: no, I have no physical build yet. For fun, I made a couple of designs in CAD/FEA en tested them. I have 3 possible embodiments: One electromechanical with only one moving part, one half-mechanical with inverted pendulums and electro-mechanically moving pivot, the third would be the "pure" mechanical Bessler variety, as the former two are not. Replicating the Bessler variety is the most difficult in my view, that's why I focused on the (in my eyes) much simpler electro varieties. I still have the team I was talking about earlier; maybe next month when I have some time I'll have them build the electromechanical version first, which is extremely simple. That those will work is quite certain, the energy budget is positive. But it's not Bessler's variety.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks, it's nice have some serious hands on competition.Getting this wheel to show overunity is like trying suck blood out of a stone....but we'll get there sooner or later.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When bessler could do it why can't we????
    Bessler didn't have any one before him who could have left so many clues and books...but still he did it...it is certain that bessler wheel is possible...it is also a fact that the wheel design is very simple...but it is not very certain that this bessler wheel could be achieved in a different way..then why not we just concentrate on the bessler design which is very much proved beyond doubt by bessler himself???
    If we just stick to bessler's simple clues and carryout a thorough mental research till all clues are matched then there is no reason why this can't be achieved..Sometimes, it is really very pathetic to see people deviate..Sometimes, it gets very interesting to see some even get very close enough...

    I have read some books on bessler and searched the web and interacted with some on the subject..but I must conclude we are still far away from that wonderful bessler wheel...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Trevor said...

    Connectedness,...I say nothing!

    And I say that Trevor think he´s hydraulic leavermonster.

    connectedness principle means Magnet,pneumatic,hydraulic. What about rotating air inside of wheel ? does it involve somehow? Air have mass too and when it rotates it can help lift weights equipped whit wings.

    Propably hydraulic might be a solution(or not :D)

    P*V*T=constant

    ReplyDelete
  12. I would rather think it has to do with balance of system structures.The priming as opposed to the working weights.Just pure simple mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Trevor is absolutely right...It is just pure mechanics involving balance of system structures..But how are we going to achieve the same? Frankly speaking, one doesn't requires a work shop in the initial state..you have to get it right through mental efforts..this could take years...it all depends how intense the thought processes happen..we have to keep in mind the simple bessler clues...a state arrives where we can feel that we have reached the final stage which requires no further testing...then straightaway the demo model has to be built..

    What is happening at the moment trying out various combination in the workshop can lead us nowhere...as I said it has to be first realized mentally..

    The bessler wheel design is such that when you get it right in the mind we will know for sure that it is not going to fail..such is the mechanism..

    ReplyDelete
  14. Touch'e,...Great minds think alike!

    ReplyDelete
  15. In my device which I'm rebuilding now, the weights don't move fast enough against the fixed points. So, I had to store their kinetic energy in springs which when released with the pull of a catch, transfer the energy fast enough to keep up with the wheels rotation.

    Axel

    ReplyDelete
  16. Are you saying your wheel is rotating now as it should? Then you also must be on the proper track..but the energy being stored in the springs and then getting released and this indicates that it is not as per the actual bessler design...

    Bessler's actual secret is in the proper lever-weight design without relying much on the springs..infact, the springs may not be required at all...

    ReplyDelete
  17. You are correct, it is not the Bessler design. Looking at the machine at standstill you would say that it's way off the mark.
    But the hard points are needed. Perhaps Bessler compressed all I have inside to hide it?
    I cannot say it is turning on its own or not.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bessler design is very simple. He didn't hide much as we often mistake. The fact here is, so far none of us have realized the actual bessler design so far. If we happen to realize it then all his simple clues would match. If the model is built (uni-directional) then straightaway it would start turning....

    This is the idea...but difficult to grasp by many..Never build a model before realizing the design...that wonderful wheel design...bessler design..

    ReplyDelete
  19. I really thankful to you for this great read!! You did a very great job, keep it up.
    axlewheel

    ReplyDelete

The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...