Tuesday, 18 January 2011

Aren't we ignoring what is under our nose - Bessler's words?

Discussing my ideas about gravity-driven wheels (gravitywheels) has sparked some interesting ideas and theories by email which might advance my own research - or perhaps someone else's, but I think I'm on my own as far as believing that Bessler's wheel was driven purely by gravity.

I understand the reasons for the complete and utter rejection of this idea, but I don't think anyone understands why I am so committed to this line of reasoning. If it was based entirely on faith, which has been suggested more than once, I could understand why my viewpoint is ignored, but it's not. In addition I find it quite puzzling that almost everyone interested in this extraordinary project is single-mindedly looking for the solution almost anywhere except one which uses gravity alone.

When you read Bessler's words it seems obvious, to me at least, that he means that his wheel was driven entirely and exlusively by gravity, but because this appears to be in breach of the law of conservation of energy, such an idea is rejected without further consideration. To discard this proposal is to reject Bessler's words as if they were either false or designed to mislead, and while I accept that he didn't want anyone to discover his secret, he took the greatest delight, in my opinion, in teasing his readers with small pieces of information designed to titllate and intrigue. I simply don't accept that he wrote all that he did with the intention of completely deceiving us, his readers. He knew or at least hoped that at some point in the not too distant future his secret would be sold and everyone would eventually know how it worked. At that point he would not be best pleased in having to defend himself against accusations of lying or misleading. He was looking forward to pointing to all the clues in triumphant glee.

However that leaves us with a problem; how do we resolve the issue that gravity is a conservative force? I've posted some of my thoughts about that but I haven't revealed the design nor the key factor which I believe I have. I'm working on that but in the mean time I plan to video some demonstrations  of how the conservative nature of gravity does not necessarily hamper us in our search for a solution.  I'll post them and put a link here in due course.  This may take some time to accomplish.

Watch this space.

 
JC

93 comments:

  1. I am looking forward to your demonstration. And I want to tell you that you're not on your own with the belief of a purely gravity driven wheel - while I am working on the subject feverish, hopefully to prove what is still to prove ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. What we need, in my opinion, is some kind of mechanical advantage. A mechanical amplifier, so to speak. Gravity is called a conservative force for a good reason: everything done using it is cancelled out by equal opposing forces. Hence the reality of the fulcrum. So what we need, if we want to raise a weight against gravity (while another one is falling) is some mechanism that will amplify the available kinetic energy from the falling weight, such that there's ample energy to lift the other one. Such devices exist - pulleys for example. Or the parametric oscillator, which has been shown to generate up to 12 times more mechanical output than has been input. What we need is all kinds and all manner of clever tricks to exploit and amplify the available energy budget in a given configuration. The (nagging) problem that keeps haunting us (me, at least) is how to translate (and synchronize) such mechanisms in a purely mechanical way.

    I know, I know - here I go again but electromechanically it is really simple to realize it. Over the course of last december and this month I have proved to my own satisfaction that electromechanically it can be done - very simple even, using a simple inverted pendulum. The same basic control experiment performed at most universities. Instead of controlling the pendulum such that it would balance itself against gravity (inverted), I did the opposite since I am, of course, not after balance but, instead, imbalance. Using the same basic technique of moving the pivot it's very easy to get the pendulum to swing and, within seconds, to rotate. Once rotation is achieved the energy budget required to maintain speedy and steady rotation is minimal and far less than anticipated. With a heavier pendulum it might even be less.

    Did I build "perpetual motion"? Of course not. Parts will wear out, bearings may size, electronic components will fail eventually. But it does prove that, at least in this way - i.e. gravity-assisted, a COP (Coefficient of performance) greater than one can be achieved.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's the basic control technique I am talking about, using a linear moving pivot. Simple and effective. Notice also how little energy is required.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWJHcI7UcuE&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  4. John, I also have said ( and believe ) gravity is the driving force of Bessler's wheels. Bessler found it where everyone else was looking. Most everyone else was striving for an overballanced wheel.

    Signed, Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon, indeed, overbalancing (alone) won't do the trick. That's for sure. We need more, like "kiiking" and at least one or two more "tricks". My bet is on the parametric oscillator, as that's simple to implement (the axle is the pivot) and powerful, and easy to keep it's pendulum going. That leaves one more trick. Perhaps a way to more easily lift weights - maybe a non-parallel build of the wheel itself, small at the top and wider at the bottom end. This would (help) automatically lift a weight as soon as it's after 6 o'clock if it's connected to both sides of the wheel with springs or lines.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree fully John, the wheel is driven completely by gravity alone through preponderance of weight. It is also primed by gravity, so it can act creatively in this regard.
    I have high hopes for my latest test wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I must hasten to add though, there is also a healthy ammount of gravity driven inertia complimented by a spring resonance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Conservation of energy or not,...Gravity is above the law.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BesslerWheel.com has been down/inaccessible for a fair while. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Trevor, you are (perhaps) not far off my own thoughts.
    I believe Bessler had a central mass surrounding the axle, imagine a donut. This was suspended by springs. Tappers surrounded the mass, and the mass was made to oscillate at its resonant frequency by being struck in a precise way/sequence. This bounce was elliptical in orbit and created a bias to one side of the wheel. This bias meant the wheel rotated and could do work.
    Just my latest idea.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You are right..DrWhat....I have to agree with you....the weights move around the axle closer while ascending...farther while coming down...something happens at 6 o clock and the weightings start getting closer to the axle...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes DrWhat,...Yes ,you are getting warm,except they are seperate weights.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DrWhat - fascinating concept! This could very well be one of the missing mechanisms. Is this what was meant with a "wheel in a wheel", perhaps? Now, to take your concept a little further, suppose that the tappers would only strike at the left and right side of the "donut" to make it resonate. If weighted pendulums would be directly connected to the donut, instead of the axle of the wheel, they would be vibrating as well. A pendulum, of which the pivot is vibrated (in the horizontal plane) while it is falling, will fall faster, thus increasing potential kinetic energy. All we need now is some mechanism (Bessler's "connectedness" principle i.e. a clutch?) to harvest that energy of the (quickly) falling pendulum and convert it to torque that will drive the wheel, or to store in (in springs). All that remains, then, is some mechanism to reset the pendulums or raise the weights and repeat the cycle.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually the mechanism is so beautifully simple and direct I am too embarrassed to talk about it. No wonder Bessler was afraid to show it because he thought people would not value it and therefore would not pay him.
    There is no centrifugal force involved,...just gravity, but there is a trick, a wormhole if you may, that makes it all possible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Trevor, a picture would help! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  16. who knows,
    perhaps it's as simple as a crank.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A picture would be too revealing...most of the clues are in the poem and the 141 pictures and the descriptions of the witnesses. ...Eight weights are involved...they are attached to individual lever mechanism..there is a secret in the axle design too...that is why bessler wheel's axle was a bit large...the main secret is of course in the lever-weight design....springs don't play a major role...no push is reqd to start the wheel...the trick occurs when the wheel is in motion...Bessler wasn't actually worried that no one would buy seeing the simplicity but was afraid of loosing the secret as just one glance inside is sufficient for any one to replicate the same....

    ReplyDelete
  18. Suresh, you are correct,
    there is a secret to the axle design.
    Its definitely not 1 piece, the shape of its inner ends are important, springs play a major role, if the springs were omitted, the inner workings would fail, due to it moving or tilting to one side much further than it should,
    a hard knock on its side could cause a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with you...springs were employed by bessler but not for storing or running the wheel...otherwise there would be a need to replace them very frequently...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Trevor, is it that the (inner) axle is vibrating, which does the same thing as the "donut"?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Not exactly sir...the weights are supported by the inner axle...the weights at the far end actually drive the wheel...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Suresh,the large axle with small pinions was the best load bearing design that afforded the least friction,not that friction was a problem to a machine that was capable of work.
    You may have noticed the use of large axles,small pinions in clock mechanisms and we do know Bessler was an experienced clock maker.Because of the total weight of the wheel,thin axles would suffer bending.

    ReplyDelete
  23. But there is a secret in the axle design too which we shouldn't ignore

    ReplyDelete
  24. No, the axle was like that because slimline bearings were not available for large shafts in those days. There was no secret to the axle other than this.
    The secret was in arrangement of the weights and their levers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Andre,..The axle was solid, it does not vibrate or wobble. It needs to be a solid fulcrum to accommidate oscilating planetary weights.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I differ here Trevor...the axle is not normal...it has dual function....the primary function is to bear the load, of course...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Suresh, agree with your thoughts,
    Have you seen, what i've seen.
    Anonon

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bessler said there is nothing that remains stationary on the axle.That includes a cam or anything that would slow the wheel down.

    ReplyDelete
  29. DrWhat,.. I will give you a picture,plans,or even a DIY kit.Just let me give my remuneration first.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The axle moves as well
    Anonon

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bessler was right...But bessler was very clever too...he didn't reveal the actual axle modifications he had made on the axle...and this is part of the mystery...if we ignore this then we are getting anywhere...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Suresh,
    perhaps bessler did reveal the axle, and more in a clever way.

    anonon

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes Anon,..The axle turns with the wheel as a whole with the pinions in the bearing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sorry trevor,
    never noticed pinions, pinions give a direct connectedness to the outer left/right axles, which would counteract against the inner workings.
    anonon

    ReplyDelete
  35. Now I am a bit lost. Very interesting discussion, but we do know that the (outer?) axle was rather large, a bit odd even. Some have suggested that this was to accommodate some kind of planetary gear driven by (two, that is a pair of) weighted pendulums. As I understand it, Trevor is talking about a solid, stable, non-vibrating axle used as a fulcrum for oscillating planetary weights. Which are not stationary connected, so I guess with some "donut" mechanism that may double as a clutch? Trying to paint a mental picture here. Can you say something about it, Trevor?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Whatever Bessler revealed he did it in a very clever way...we have to know how to intercept the meanings...there are certain things he never disclosed and they are the most critical clues...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Andre,..The large main shaft and small pinions is just standard clever engineering practice,for maximum strength with minimum material.As an engineer I'm sure you appreciate that.You do realise that the wheels were incredibly heavy,so it was a necessary factor.
    If you can accept this then you will progress to the real priority of how the weights can turn the wheel through the preponderance of weight.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anon,..The pinions were the two bolts they removed when they dismantled the wheel. It's in one of the demontrations.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Trevor, thought pinions were a type of gear,
    were the pinions you are referring to the bolts that held the outer ends of the axle to the vertical columns ?
    What i was referring to was the axle protruding into the wheel disc.
    the main reason the cover of the axle, is long as well as having a large diameter would be to strengthen a split axle, the frame of the disc stops it collapsing.
    still trying to work out how the device, that runs around the inner axle ends, work.

    Anonon

    ReplyDelete
  40. I don't think there was a split axle.The two bolts screwed into the plugged ends of the main large shaft were the main bearing axles.
    They turned around with the main shaft.How else could he fasten a small crank onto the bolts connecting to an external pendulum for governining the speed.
    I can say this with confidence because I know how the wheel works.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The split axle point referred by anon could be true...And, why was the bessler wheel axle unusually large???...there is a reason for this....we would be able to solve the wheel mystery only when we solve the actual bessler wheel axle design....definitely a solid, stable, non-vibrating axle used as a fulcrum for oscillating planetary weights is not the right answer....And also, the doughnut mass shape being referred is also off the mark..the weights are very independent...they are the main suppliers of motive power which drives the wheel at large....

    ReplyDelete
  42. Suresh,..I've just explained in my previous post why the main shaft was so large.It gives maximum strength for lowest weight.The small end bearing pins give lowest friction for maximum strength.This is standard clock making practice.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Trevor....you are right, but there is more to it than that.....clocks also have axle inside axle...the hour needle, the minute needle and the needle that indicates the seconds are all housed in the centre in a single hole...one over another...Pls give this a thought...

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm not talking about the whole clock mechanism,I'm talking about the design of individual clock wheels,how they are made for strength,designed so the their axles do not bend.I wish I could draw you a picture.

    ReplyDelete
  45. My point is ,..Bessler applied his clock making experience to the wheel,which includes even the pendulums.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I have trouble arriving at some kind of clear mental picture. Let's simplify this. Bessler indeed was an experienced clockmaker. Imagine a scaled up clock, like an old-fashioned alarmclock. It's ticking (speed) is governed by an escapement mechanism. What happens if you remove that governor? It runs very fast until the clockwork is exhausted. Suppose that we have some escalator-type of mechanism (such as a pulley?) that raises and drops weights vertically such that this rewinds the clockwork. Or, alternatively, the clockwork is used to raise and reset the overbalanced weights, or to make sure they never reach "equilibrium". Wild ideas, I know, but is this along the lines of what you're trying to say, Trevor?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Andre,..Please don't let me lead you on by referring to a clock,because there is actually no time for there to be any kind of kiiking or accumulated swing of pendulums.
    I was merely trying justify Bessler's use of such a large diameter shaft.It was for strength purposes and not because there was anything hidden in the barrel that was secret.
    No,..what happens in wheel must be swift and direct in such a way that the weights are put out of equilibrium,and it must happen every half turn.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Trevor...I agree there wasn't anything hidden in the large axle shaft but it sure holds a trick...Tell me, why did bessler mention that the axle rotated along with the wheel???....

    The main trick is done by the levers and weights..the second trick by the axle shaft...

    Take it from me...the large size of the axle has nothing to do with the heavy load....the load distribution in bessler wheel is entirely a different story altogether....

    ReplyDelete
  49. The very fact that the main shaft rotated along with wheel proves that it was just part of the wheel frame.It had to be robust and firm other wise it would absorb the precious oscilation that he valued,'movement for the sake of movement',Remember those weights weighed nearly a ton in total.

    ReplyDelete
  50. As I had stated earlier....bessler was very clever in revealing....certain things were done with an intention to keep us off the right track...the bessler's statement on the axle is one such thing....

    One thing is very clear....we are still miles behind....unless we work out all these things the bessler wheel is definitely going to be out of reach....

    ReplyDelete
  51. Well,..I'm happy that my search is over. The rest is just a formality.My sleepless nights are just a memory and I can look forward to full disclose once my interlectual property is secured.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Trevor, that's an incredibly optimistic assessment. In other words, you have not only worked out the inner secrets of Bessler's wheel, but proven to your own satisfaction the entire mechanism? Or you already have a working prototype, perhaps?

    I'm just incredibly curious. In fact I'm so curious that I'm willing to sign any NDA just to hear some details.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Bessler gave the secret away when he said,"one weight goes down while the other goes up."
    It's like I said,you have to incorperate the gravitational force in the wheel in order to get something out. If man does it,thats energy,but if you let gravity do it, thats something for nothing. This means that scientists cannot debate the issue,because gravity is free,but of course there is a trick.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Trevor, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    When do you think your intellectual property protection will be completed and hence when do you estimate to disclose publicly?

    ReplyDelete
  55. You can't trick physics.
    If you can't imagine a gravity driven wheel whose design allows it to turn using only two weights, one falling and the other magically rising against gravity, and centrifugal force, as a result of the other falling, as simple as you could test it, then how can anyone imagine a design more complicated being able to turn? And that would include connecting the weights with levers (which adds more friction by the way!). A design with levers like this at its' simplest would have 4 weights and the forces become even more complicated to account for.
    Bessler was ahead of his time, yes. He discovered a clever way to store and release energy that had never been thought of before. What could that have been? is what you should be asking. He didn't break the law of conservation of energy. One of the consequences of that law is a perpetual motion machine would only be possible if it didn't lose energy to it's surroundings. If you had a wheel with no friction at the axle (impossible) and no air molecules to drag on it (impossible) then you have a chance.

    Did the pendulums store the energy? I don't think so. They released it, more than likely, just as pendulums in clocks do.
    There were two; one for each direction in the large wheel. The small wheels probably only had one because they only turned in one direction. He admitted there were springs inside, we all are aware, and that they weren't utilized as his detractors suggested. So it seems to me the "magic" is how he arranged the springs to store the energy.
    Your friend,
    Sherlock

    ReplyDelete
  56. Doug, I agree that one cannot trick physics as we understand it today. But we can work with physics. I can think of at least two ways of imagining a design using two weights that does exactly that: one weight falling and the other magically rising against gravity, and centrifugal force. I am sure, as I built one electromechanical variety. The one I built utilized a linear (electromagnetic) bearing, moving the pivot. That's one way. Another way would be a double pendulum with half moon shaped weights on either end that are able to rotate. If both weights are rotated simultaneously overbalancing is achieved and the whole thing rotates purely by gravity. This has to be switched around on every half-rotation of course to sustain it. That's not so easily done purely mechanically - friction will use most if not all of the available torque. The best way is probably to stop the pendulums from free fall (inner wheel) and absorb (and store) that energy in springs connected to the inner wheel, and transfer it subsequently, via the springs, to the outer main wheel. At the same time this should rotate the weights again and the cycle repeats. That might work as it's more efficient IMHO.

    All very nice but overbalancing alone isn't powerful enough, and that's why I keep droning on that we need more tricks. Moving (pulsing, or oscillating) the pivot is one way to do that, and surely there are more ways.

    Trevor however seems to have come up with some kind of mechanism that does something clever with the weights. I am very curious what that is, all the more since he seems to have proven to his satisfaction that it works.

    I can't wait to hear more about it!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Think of it like pedaling a bike

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anon is right...it is just as simple as pedaling a bike...4 pairs of pedals...Gravity acts like the man pedaling....And I think Trevor is still way behind....he still needs to get certain things straightened before he discloses anything...I hope trevor is not buying time...

    ReplyDelete
  59. That's the whole thing,if you don't manage mechanism which works with two weights,and start adding more of this and that,than you and up becoming more frustrated, and with more friction.Fundamental point from Sherlock.Bessler said, that empty wheel would run longer.I build and finished mechanism, such, when sixteen ounces fall, four pounds fly up.The test was very disappointing.Theories and reality are in many ways two different things.The problem is,unless someone is sponsored by government or corporations with unlimited resources (time,money etc.)to try convert every theory in to working model will be very difficult.For single person like me, it is a Passion and at the same time a gamble.

    ReplyDelete
  60. DrWhat,..protection could take a while,but a dem on U-tube could be much sooner.

    Doug,..Yes of course you cannot trick physics,but you can use a legal ploy or as Andre said you can work with physics.

    Suresh,..The only reason I need time is to get the wheel looking reasonably presentable for dem,bearing in mind I have to use readily available materials.In mass production one can use proper machine shop fascilities,John will understand this.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Bessler made a grave mistake by delaying disclosure....hope it is not repeated....

    ReplyDelete
  62. The wheel didn't weigh nearly a ton. They would never have been able to move it.
    An electromechanically driven weight with a moving pivot sounds promising, but it still boils down to the same principle; all the energy is contained in that mechanism, none of the force is transferred out to the wheel. Don't you understand? You could have a group of these mounted and spinning around and the wheel would just sit there.
    I've never seen gravity ride a bike...

    ReplyDelete
  63. Doug...neither have I seen gravity ride a bike...but it is akin to it...if the pedal ends weigh sufficiently and the bike is designed as per bessler wheel norms then gravity would definitely run it...

    Dough....the problem is we don't understand and we sort of ignore, even if a valuable clue is provided, that there is one design that will work...it is purely mechanical...just over balanced wheel...

    Even if the wheel had weighed a ton it could have been moved with the help of some sort of crude coasters...

    ReplyDelete
  64. Sorry Suresh, you're wrong. 2000 pounds? Have you ever lifted a ton with your friends? It might have weighed 300 pounds. That would take 2 strong men to pick up and transfer to new supports.

    It wasn't an overbalanced wheel. Bessler said so himself.

    No one can design an overbalanced wheel. The center of mass of a rotating wheel cannot be kept in a 90 degree arc using gravity alone, period.

    S. Holmes

    ReplyDelete
  65. Lighten up you guys,..When I said the wheel weighed a ton,it was just a figure of speech,or that it could potentially weigh a ton.
    I anycase,they did not move the wheel until they had removed the weights first,comprehende!

    I think what anon meant with the referancs to a bike was that,if you straighten your leg you allow the gravity of your body to push the pedal down.It does have merit.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Trevor...Can it not be called as an over-balanced wheel???

    ReplyDelete
  67. Yes,..it's exactly that.The center of gravity starts at the top and moves to the side,then to the bottom,thats the work cycle.Then it starts all over again.
    The mechanism is so arrange that the weights can never find equilibrium,..fascinating isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Trevor, now you have me worried,
    The weights close to your axle, are they only weights ?

    ReplyDelete
  69. There are only eight weights,eight arms, nothing else.I am only using four for my prototype because my wheel hub is not wide enough,but that will do to prove a point. The weights are closer to the hub on one side and further away on the other.Each weight does have a spring.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Trevor, I've been thinking long and hard about what you've stated so far. Now I have two questions: 1) is there a ratchet or clutch mechanism involved and 2) does your prototype run?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Andre,..I can see I have conveyed the wrong impression that my wheel was completed by virtue of my self confidence.It will be finnished any day now.
    What I can say is the theory is rock solid in fact if you saw the plan you would agree there is no other way.
    To answer your first question,..No there is no ratchet or clutch because that implies you are going to extract work from the pendulums.On the other hand if the weights are connected to the main wheel with springs they will drag the wheel around and still be able to oscilate,provided they out of the center of gravity.A ratchet or clutch would immediately stop any oscilation,where as springs will not.
    I know you might think I should not be so confident without a turning wheel but when you know that you know that you have cracked it,it's hard to conceal the secret.
    I'll give you a tip.The wheel cannot work with only two weights,it has to be more,connectivity is the by word.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Why not choose an obvious source of energy, e.g. the rotating earth, find a way of continually slowing it down, e.g. using springs to fire off masses in an eastwards direction, and then find a way of exploiting that extra energy (taken from earth and given to the masses)? I agree that the last bit is hardest!

    By the way, do we know if Bessler (always) oriented his wheels east-west, i.e. with north-south axles?

    Arktos

    ReplyDelete
  73. Hi Trevor

    I am very excited to see your wheel. I have one question though. It is my understanding that Bessler said that his wheel will work with just two weights, but just barely. If that is truly the case, then your wheel must not be the same configuration as bessler. I guess that's more of a comment then a question.

    Any way, best of luck.

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anon....No east-west direction by Bessler...The wheel is self contained and powered by Gravity...The same wheel can be run in space beyond the earth too...provided the weights are made of Iron and a sheet of magnet is placed below the stand to act like gravity...

    So you can see that direction orientation of the wheel is not the matter...

    Mark...The wheel should also work with two wheels...the problem is we haven't seen it practically yet....and in that case, you could be right...Trevor's wheel design could be a different one...and if that be the case..then it might not work...as there is only one design that will work...

    ReplyDelete
  75. Pls correct it as `The wheel should also work with two weights...`

    ReplyDelete
  76. Trevor, so, to summarize, the design so far is that we have a rigid steel axle, with a number of fixed arms connected to it, currently four but could/should be more, with a single weight connected to each arm. Every weight has a spring attached presumably to connect it to each arm, so that it can swing freely in every direction. The weights are possibly interconnected, perhaps also with springs or wires - with 4 weights, resembling a parallelogram or a rhomboid somewhat. It's an overbalancing design, so additionally there must be some mechanism that ensures the weights that are rising are are closer to the axle and the ones going down are closest to the rim of the wheel i.e. farther from the axle. That could be done in several ways (the "donut"?)

    Are the weights completely free to swing in every direction?

    Keep us informed of your progress. Very intrigued here. It IS a simple design.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Suresh,..Bessler said one cross bar and that means four.A cross bar means a cross not a single bar,so it cannot work with two.Your right there is only one design that will work and that is,..4,8,or 16.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Andre Sir...You seem to have got it all wrong...The arms are actually connected to the rim..the weights are not interconnected...each lever-weight is independent...and there is no other mechanism additionally to raise the weights...the weight on the opposite side lifts it...

    ReplyDelete
  79. I would like to thank John for his lively Perpetual motion blog.There is nothing like a communial interaction to kinder or evoke new enthusiasm for this project.
    This is the only way we are going to reach our goal and press on through moments of discouragement and self doubt..Thanks John.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Thanks Trevor - I better post another blog to interrupt this long list of comments, but please continue to comment, I enjoy rading them.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  81. Suresh, if that's right then I indeed completely have gone astray. I was of the impression that Trevor had a design based on pendulums fixed to the axle.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Andre Sir, neither are the pendulums fixed to the axle nor the weights free to move in every direction....the weights are in total control of the levers...The wheel interior is a bit decorative and it is designed to aid the raising weights...complicated to comprehend but infact the entire thing is so simple...more simple than you have described...How I wish you were nearby...I could have shown you a drawing of it...of the artful arrangement...It's the arrangement that matters...

    ReplyDelete
  83. Andre,..Don't get confused,you are correct.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Remember the peacock's tail.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Trevor...how will they swing and hit the rim at every revolution????

    ReplyDelete
  86. They don't hit the rim.The tug on the springs that are connected to the rim.The rim was only there to hide the works.The knock is caused by the placing of the weights.I've given away too much already.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Why do the weights need to hit or be near the outer rim, its more preferable to use weight near the center.
    The rim can be used for levarage and tranfer, without weights near the rim.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Bessler somewhere has stated that the rim is not normal...

    eight sounds were heard at every revolution...

    How will the swinging effectively take place???

    Anon...if the weights are not near the rim then the leverage cannot happen..

    ReplyDelete
  89. We still don't seem to agree on the forces that affect weights in circular motion.
    When a mass in motion moves from a short distance from the axis to a longer distance from the axis, its' angular velocity and its' kinetic energy decrease. As its' velocity decreases, so does its' relativistic mass (not its' rest mass, that's constant, 4 pounds or whatever). As its' relativistic mass decreases, so does its' ability to do work. In a wheel, this means the mass does less work, or applies less force at the rim.
    If the situation is reversed - a mass moving from a longer to shorter distance from the axis, then the velocity increases and so does the relative mass. It takes more work, more force to move the mass from a larger radius to a smaller radius. It doesn't matter how you get it back to the smaller distance from the axis, whether you use levers, springs, pulleys, electronics, magnets; the net result is you haven't gained any force or work. If you spin around in one spot with your arms outstretched and pull your arms in closer to your chest, like an ice skater, you can feel how it takes more strength to do this compared to pulling your arms in while you are not spinning around.
    Now do we see why we must store and release energy to turn a wheel? Our attempts to turn a wheel with shifting masses will always result in the same thing as I'm sure you've all discovered many times: a wheel that (sigh) doesn't turn.

    Doug (Sherlock) Holmes

    ReplyDelete
  90. Darn to the power of ten! I have been racking my (granted, severely limited in both capacity and availability) gray cells over this, reading and re-reading what we've been talking about so far. Guys, Doug of course is completely right. What he is describing is standard classical physics, and there's little hope we can use quantum physics here (ok, ok, bad joke). I also have been reading and re-reading what John wrote on gravitywheel.com about wind, water and so forth. That works as motive power since we can create a pressure differential which can drive and engine. An interface so to speak to the forces available in these mediums. With gravity we have a problem: it's everywhere, acts on everything, given no significant differences in distance with respect to the planet, in equal amounts. What Doug says about changing positions of masses in a rotating system is exactly right and are absolute laws.

    John, in his treatise on gravity in gravitywheel.com says it nicely too - we need something, anything, that helps us complete one revolution of the wheel *without* adding energy from the outside. So far that of course has eluded us. If you read John's description of the problem (go ahead and re-read it!), one could think of adding a flywheel, perhaps driven externally, which will smoothen out rotation and store some energy. The result would be that the wheel rotates a little further before stopping and starting to fall back (reverses direction of movement) and comes to a stop. But it will never be enough to complete one rotation. Again, standard textbook physics. We keep hitting the energy budget barrier, even ignoring losses from friction and air resistance.

    And that's our problem. We are looking for more energy out than we put into the system. And that's impossible since we can't create energy. So, let's forget that idea.

    Instead, we should be looking for a higher coefficient of performance. Something that enables us to harvest more energy out than *WE* put in. In other words: an amplifier.

    John speculates on the website that it might be possible to create that "gravity interface" (pressure differential, amplifier, whatever we want to call it) by using two masses that do act *independently*, conserve their own energy (thus NOT breaking any laws) but their combined actions (reactions?) result in amplification of the forces available. Now that's an interesting concept although somewhat contradictory. If they act upon each other they are no longer independent.

    However, there *are* devices that do just that. They act independent although they are connected and part of the same system (device). I know you will be horrified but once again I draw the reader's attention to the 2-stage parametric oscillator. An *overbalanced* beam, a fulcrum, with a oscillating weight on one end and an output beam (end) at the other. In rest, the weight keeps the whole affair in balance and nothing happens of course. It just sits there. Things change however when the weight is allowed to swing. This requires very little energy to get it going, and even less to keep it swinging. The results on the other end are however quite amazing. It does things we want. First, the force available at the "output" end is greater than the energy required to get the weight swinging. It *amplifies* it. Actually, but a factor of 12. Secondly, and even more amazing, when (if at all possible!) we stop the output beam but pressing on it, the swinging weight is NOT AFFECTED. Not at all even. It just keeps swinging. In other words it acts *independently* from the rest of the system. As soon as we release the output beam, the effect is present again and we can harvest that energy *without affecting the weight*.

    In other words - this is a mechanical amplifier! This is what we need.

    Shouldn't we focus on this effect and utilize it?

    ReplyDelete
  91. I made a few typos in my enthusiasm. "but" should be "by" when I say "but a factor of 12", should be "by a factor of 12" and the same applies to "but pressing on it"; this should be "by" as well. There's more but I think you'd understand my ramblings.

    Another thing I didn't mention but might be interesting also here is the moving pivot with respect to pendulums. Very efficient to change the balance.

    ReplyDelete
  92. One last remark and then I'll keep my mouth shut for a while. Don't forget the remark of DrWhat, the "donut", the oscillating mass around the axle, does exactly that - by oscillating it changes the pivot of the whole thing! Oscillation (at a resonant frequency) is a very powerful *amplification* effect. In fact it electromechanics it's everything - just look at a Tesla coil. At resonant frequency it gives us huge amplification. Little input, huge amplification.

    End of rambling.

    ReplyDelete
  93. "In fact it electromechanics" should be "In fact in electronics". And now I really will shut up. Sorry guys, I had to ventilate my thoughts.

    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...