Friday, 28 January 2011

Don't tempt fate with a precipitate announcement ... John

This is merely an observation and not aimed at anyone in particular but I note a common theme in postings both here and in the besslerwheel forum and in other alternative energy forums. Before I go any further let me admit that I recognise exactly the same symptoms to a marked degree in my own actions and therefore I speak with some considerable experience.

Researching Bessler and seeking a solution to perfecting a working gravity wheel is what drives most of us and it is commonly observed that many who are involved in this persuit may on occasion have a sudden spontaneous flash of inspiration and illumination in which the solution to the problem is revealed. Further consideration over a period of time - it might be hours, days or months, it makes no difference - and the details acquired in this sudden attainment of intuitive knowledge are confirmed to the apparent satisfaction of the lucky recipient.

Following on from this exciting news and transported by thoughts of fame and fortune, the beneficiary of this amazing insight will be mentally preparing the details of how he will reveal his knowledge to the world with one or two caveats. He will want to ensure that he receives a just reward for his projected success but he will be concerned that the mysterious MIB do not take remedial action to stop any public announcment - and of course he will consider the advisability of patenting his new invention.

These thoughts are common to most of us and understandable, and I suspect that everyone of us has had a moment when the solution seemed clear but upon further consideration it was decided that the design did not answer the problem. There are times too, when even detailed analysis of the apparent solution seems to indicate that we are on the right path and it is only when we come to actually build a model that the truth becomes cruelly apparent.

This tendency to be utterly convinced that you have hit upon the right design does not always fade with experience - I know this better than most! If you wish to share the design and are not concerned about who gets recognition for it, then go ahead and tell the world, but if you wish to have some kind of recognition - and that is perfectly understandable and acceptable - be warned, "multa cadunt inter calicem supremaque labra", or there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. It's best, in my opinion, not to say that you have the solution and you have only to complete construction of the device before revealing it to the world, because experience shows that what was revealed intuitively to you in the wee small hours,sometimes has a habit of tripping you up, by not actually working.

Let me stress that this is not so much a message to others as to myself! To all who would seek the glory of success, contain your excitement; say nothing in public; make a working model first.

JC

56 comments:

  1. What on earth do we talk about??

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good one Trevor. Keep talking. I was just saying that I don't want to see people get too excited about their ideas and then get too disappointed if they fail. It's ok for me, I'm an incurable optimist!

    ReplyDelete
  3. From the writings of Andre Sir and Doug it is clear that just shifting of weights can't run the wheel...a storage system or an external device is necessary...but I am also an incurable optimist....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let us be optimistic and fail, optimistic and fail. Yet one day we will be optimistic and succeed. And that day will come. Of that I am optimistic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Too true,..So I hope everyone is fired up to finnish this thing.I am committed to believe my latest wheel is going to succeed otherwise I would have no motivation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Don't tempt fate with a precipitate announcement ... John"

    One might wish for you to follow your own device...

    ReplyDelete
  7. What I could make out so far is that this wheel mystery wouldn't at all be difficult to solve if only all the knowledge gained so far is pooled up and considered.......

    But this is easier said than done...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Doug....This is regarding your writings on the forces that affect weights in circular motion...

    Of course, I haven't fully understood it as the language used is very technical and I am also not so good at Maths or physics...I wish you had used more simpler ways to explain...

    Anyway...I could make out one thing...You say that it takes more work, more force to move the mass from a larger radius to a smaller radius.....What I would like to state here is let it take more work or more force as it is gravity that is the provider..what have we got to lose??

    Gravity makes the weights to swing and it is gravity that draws the weights closer to the axle while they are ascending...(not levers, springs, etc as you have grasped)

    Now tell me...what are we losing here?

    You need to study the design before actually applying physics..Most do it the other way and conclude that it won’t work..

    Now…after due thoughts tell me do you still think that the wheel won't spin??

    Pls feel free to Correct me if I am wrong...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Suresh, 15:11 - Good point. I for once often read and reread what has been posted. It's certainly useful. Perhaps it's an idea to setup some kind of BCDB - the Bessler-Collins Database, where we keep track of assumptions and or ideas with regard to the wheel's inner workings. Might be useful as a reference as well.

    Suresh, as for your comment 7:16 re: the storage system; that doesn't have to be external to the wheel (although even bessler used external pendulums). I think these pendulums were used to govern the amount of oscillation of the "donut" as DrWhat called it. The mechanism that creates "movement for the sake of movement" i.e. resonance.

    On a sidenote, I read some info by a (skeptical) physicist who has been studying the drawings Bessler made: he states that the period of the external pendulums as depicted in the drawings closely match the speed of the wheel. That's an interesting piece of information, as also confirms the accuracy and authenticity of the design.

    That matching period would be logical if these pendulums are used for the purpose of oscillation/resonance, and the second one (there are 2 pendulums) to reset the weights to, say, the 12 0'clock position. In our design the pendulums could be internal to the wheel, but it doesn't matter. There's no need to cover the internals of the wheel.

    Another thought occurred to me today with regard to these pendulums. Remember I was babbling about the 2-stage parametric oscillator. If you have ever seen a video of pictures of the experiments of Milkovic you'd notice the banging noises these devices typically make. This could explain the banging noises witnesses heard.

    Not for weights hitting the sides, but from the output beams of the pendulums.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Suresh 17:09 - I can't speak for Doug, of course, but I think what he was trying to convey that it is often useful to apply some basic physics before trying a design. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that we are building an overbalanced wheel, such that the weights on the left (assuming clockwise rotation) are pushed inward (closer to the axle) by some curved shield thus ensuring that the center of gravity is always right of the axle. This achieves overbalancing, more clockwise torque on the right, and therefore, we assume, the wheel must turn clockwise.

    Now comes nature's threefold trick. The curved shield must necessarily exert a force that isn't axial, but perpendicular to the shield. This force acts downward and to the right. It has a horizontal component that achieves what we want - the weight shifts towards the axle (to the right). But there is a downward component as well! And that provides a counter-clockwise torque. Upon calculation, the geometry of the curved shield ensures that the total clockwise torques are equal to the total counter-clockwise ones, and there's no net torque to initiate or sustain motion.

    Simply put, that (and other things we have not even taken into consideration yet, such as centripetal and centrifugal forces) kind of "tricks" by nature can seriously hamper our experiments and would ensure a non-working wheel.

    It's good to know what will work and won't, that's what he's trying to say, IMHO. It doesn't mean it's impossible, it's just wise to avoid spending time, money and resources on something that won't work in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ok sir...but I am still that incurable...

    Something keeps telling me that it will work...But your language is also a bit technical...sometimes I have difficulty following...

    What I want to insist is that the design is such that nothing would stop it from spinning...there is only one such design...it is an exceptional one...this is what no one seems to understand...that is why bessler was successful...he employed that design...things happen fast and the final output is movement....


    They say when things move very fast even time slows down, don't they??

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's what makes us all tick, I guess Suresh - optimism. But there's a difference between "plain" (unfounded) optimism and optimism based on the notion that one is on to something. I, for one, genuinely believe that we all have some good ideas - "kiiking", DrWhat's donut (I think driven by an oscillator), Trevor's so-far undisclosed "peacock" mechanism, and more. I'm also curious what John has up his sleeve as well. To me, it's clear that (only) overbalancing won't do the trick. That has been tried for so long, there has to be more to it. John also has some good arguments along those lines.

    I am sorry if my ramblings are sometimes hard to follow. I do try to keep it understandable but it doesn't always work. That's just one of my many vices. Rest assured I however mean well :-)

    I agree with you that the result has to be something unique, some number of our "tricks" that overcome nature's tricks c.q. those forces that work against us; and that our efforts shall eventually result in a wheel that simply has to spin. I really feel we are generally speaking on the right track. But as I have said many times before, purely mechanically it is really hard to implement. And it has to be simple. But it can be done - Bessler did it. And if he could do it in his time, all very low-tech, we certainly should be able to do it too and even improve on it.

    Let's stay optimistic, I say!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Karl was surprised while gazing at a simple arrangement of levers and weights...To me this means that no storage or any amplification was involved....

    If the system is such that it entirely feeds on gravity while traversing both uphill and downhill I fail to understand the need for an additional storage or amplification system...

    The wheel can simply draw energy from gravity as much as it requires to sustain itself at any given point of time….

    Bessler himself had mentioned something about greed...could this be related to the wheel's appetite for gravity???

    Both doug and Andre sir are convinced overbalancing alone won't help...but I would again request them to reconsider the above...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Amplification is definitely involved in bessler wheel....say, a lever-weight (pendulum) swings from the centre and lands at 3 o clock it is at a more advantageous position than its counterpart or any other pendulums in the wheel...here doesn't the amplification starts??? This way all the weights on the descending side amplify the energy by virtue of their distances from the axle....this keeps happening constantly....

    I would like to know if this makes any sense...

    ReplyDelete
  15. A small flat stone when thrown fast over a large expanse of water in a special way it skims and literally flies and doesn't sinks till the thrust remains....This is known to all...

    Similarly, the weights somewhat fly or move so fast and there is no much downward thrust while they are ascending in the wheel....

    ReplyDelete
  16. A bessler wheel toy would become very popular and appear on most of the dashboard of cars everywhere...A miniature working bessler wheel (hanging model)would also make its appearance simulataneously keeping every onlooker astounded...just think of it....

    ReplyDelete
  17. John,..The reason why I have got involved in this project is probably as a child of four I was intensly fascinated by turning wheels.I can remember dismanteling a clock and my father spun the balance wheel and said it would go for ever!
    Now that I appreciate the true virtue of perpetual motion I would like nothing better than for the world to inherit such a machine that would solve our energy needs simultaneously eliminating the pollution forfit.
    If there is any glory that comes with,well thats a bonus,but that is not my motivation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ever since I read doug's writing on the forces that affect weights in circular motion, I have been racking my mind like anything for a clear understanding...

    Andre Sir...your expertise is required to clear the following:
    1)a mass moving from a longer to shorter distance from the axis, then the velocity increases and so does the relative mass...

    Is This applicable to the weights in bessler wheel as they don't move that fast.

    2)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....

    Will the same happen to the weights in the bessler wheel? We shouldn't forget here that gravity helps the weights to reach closer to the axle whereas gravity is not helping the ice skater...also, the weights really don't have to pass thru 9 o clock position, and they straightaway start rising from 6 o clock point itself....

    ReplyDelete
  19. Has bessler hinted anywhere in his writings/drawings about employing storage/amplification system in his wheels???

    If the answer is a NO then we can very well ignore them too and only concentrate on the simple wheel design as observed by Karl...

    ReplyDelete
  20. A word about resetting of the weights at every full circle as being presently envisaged...

    In the actual bessler wheel design...this resetting happens automatically...we needn't think of it as a separate problem...

    ReplyDelete
  21. And finally, a point to ponder...what was it that bessler did not want us to know when he concealed a weight with a hand kerchief???

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Suresh - I'm very flattered that you refer to my "expertise"; but I'm certainly no expert like a physicist. I merely am familiar with some basic physics, Doug is more experienced I feel. But to answer your questions, yes, as far as I can see all this -basic laws of physics- also apply to the Bessler wheel, I don't see why not. The only thing I can imagine is what I called "tricks", mechanisms, devices that amplify forces such that we are able to overcome those counter-forces that nature throws as us. And we'll need all the "tricks" we can think of, that's for sure; and they have to be simple. Not an easy task. One thing we should keep in mind that many of these "counterforces" apply to rotary systems. So, when we think of tricks and amplifiers, we should think of devices that are not rotating. Even Bessler did that - remember the pendulums connected to the wheel. I think those are definitely part of the tricks - and we KNOW that those (especially in the case of 2-stage oscillators- act as mechanical amplifiers. The force available at the output end of a 2-stage parametric oscillator (inside or outside the wheel, but NOT part of the rotary systems) is twelve-fold that needed to keep the weight swinging! That's a definite amplification of force we need. Our "energy" budget is after all very limited.

    You state that in the Bessler wheel gravity is actually helping the weights to get closer to the axle. I don't think this is the case, just as it is not the case for the iceskater. Centrifugal forces work here against us. Once we overcome that, yes, indeed, the velocity increases (that's why the iceskater spins so fast when they retract their arms).

    Has Bessler indicated somewhere amplification being used? Not in some many words, although he did state (correctly) that a truly skilled craftsman would be that person that can make a heavy weight fly up while a lighter one goes down. Of course that can only be done with some form of amplification - a pulley for example can do that. Or that parametric oscillator. And don't forget that the drawings show exactly that: pulleys and (external) pendulums. He sure was aware of the properties of pendulums (certainly as a clockmaker). I think we should not ignore his own drawings.

    18:29 you state that the weights reset automatically...how I wish that was true. Certainly physics will not agree here, unless with some novel mechanism. I think that is the whole point - we need that "amplifier".

    Finally, I don't think he was hiding the weight when he showed it wrapped in a handkerchief. Maybe John can say something about it, he's the expert, but I seem to recall that the spectators were allowed to see the weight, and they noticed that it was pierced lengthwise. To me that either indicates something with a spring, or perhaps a sliding weight.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And...don't forget the moving pivot. Also a very powerful too to make a heavier weight go up while a lighter one goes down...all we have to do is move the pivot a little. I have to confess that naughty me of course has been thinking of ways to make that very smooth, even with a (very) heavy load: a linear bearing of high quality. But even that introduces considerable friction with heavy loads. So the naughty part is that I was thinking of a so-called Halbach array: magnets forming a frictionless linear bearing.

    Obviously Bessler didn't use that... but it's nifty and effective.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "powerful too" should be "powerful tool". Pardon me.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Guys,..guys,..keep it simple.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I was the same as you Trevor except I was about six when I took my bike to bits and my Dad got mad at me and tried to make me put everything back together and I didn't quite succeed! I guess I've been trying to get things to work ever since. I liked to put the bike upside down and give the front wheel a good spin - it seemed to me that it would spin for ever in those days.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  27. Andre Sir...that answers many things....I must conclude that you are an expert in your own might...you must also share with us how you got interested/involved in all these in the first place...was it at an very early stage???

    ReplyDelete
  28. Another point to ponder...

    What did bessler mean by comparing his wheel to the grandness of a peacock's tail???

    Was he referring to the levers sticking out from the axle like that of in peacock's tail which Trevor insists or was he pointing to the eye centre in every plume or any other intricate pattern in the tail which could have some resemblance to his wheel design??

    Was it just to give us an idea about the position of the weights while the wheel was stationery???

    Let's see who is going to enlighten us with the best possible explanation....

    ReplyDelete
  29. Suresh, you are very kind. As for the peacock's tail: I think Bessler was possibly referring to a technique of resetting the weights. Maybe that what's he trying to tell us with his "and still you don't understand?" drawing (the Apologia pentagram wheel) - the white areas perhaps show the peacocks tail closed and the black expanded. It might be a clue as to how he reset the weights, for example.

    As for my interest, at early age I was known as the Great Destroyer of clocks and all kinds of formerly useful mechanical apparatuses. I did lean some things of taking things apart, especially that it was much harder to get it back to working order again. Electronics is another area of great interest (and limited skill), and photography especially with (you guessed it) with classic mechanical analog equipment. Digitizing it (scanning film) is another hobby.

    So yes, I guess it all started at an early age :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Andre sir...great...but the most I like about you is your maturity, your openess, your egoless nature, your unselfishness....I think almost everyone (myself included) here is not divulging their entire secrets, but you are a class apart...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wow, Suresh, I'm almost walking beside my shoes now. It's like a dating site, haha. Hi, I'm Andre, 6'1, mature, open, egoless, unselfish, photog, seeker of perpetual motion and a otherwise generally harmless geek. Lol! :)

    What I like about this little group we have here is the generally positive attitude, and willingness to share and listen to each other. Many people have great, original ideas. I like listening and toying with mental pictures of ideas and inventions. I'm also fascinated by curious people like John, who systematically, in a methodical and determined way keep researching a given topic for a very good cause. All too often great inventors are written off by history as cranks and lunatics, and that's extremely unfair as many are not.

    We (especially John) are not only imagining and researching how Bessler did it, but also, in the process, vindicating the man. I like that.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I wish that was true too, Andre.
    When we talk about mechanical systems, it's more accurate to refer to advantage rather than amplifier. If we use a lever to make lifting a weight less strenuous for us, the advantage we gain (less force is required) is lost to the distance we have to move the weight. In the case of parametric oscillation, the lesson here is that the common center of gravity of the two masses is also moving, correct? In the moving pivot pendulum the center of gravity is between the bob and the pivot, somewhere along the shaft, depending on the weight of the bob and the velocity of the oscillations. So the losses are distributed in a different fashion, more difficult to visualize, I know, and the math formulas make my head hurt, too.
    I've been doing some reading and thinking about the reference to the grindstone in Bessler's wheel. Did he say somewhere that this was the principal of his mechanism? Millstones, I think, weighed anywhere from 85 pounds for a small one up to several hundred pounds for a large one. And as everybody know, the more massive something is, the more potential energy it has (E=mc2). If it was a large one, that would help account for the necessity of such a large axle. But how to get it spinning? Perhaps that was the purpose of the spring B. was observed pushing down on. That was possibly the ignition for the large wheel. The small wheels were under constant tension, correct? They had to be tied down? Since they only turned in one direction, perhaps the ignition springs for those wheels was of a different configuration. There aren't many eyewitness accounts of the small wheels, are there?, so I'm not sure if the ignition spring could have been reset between demonstrations, if that was the reason the wheels needed to be restrained, or I could be completely out in left field here.
    If the mass at the center was used as a flywheel, how did he gear it down, or up, to release energy from it? Cone-shaped pulleys and leather belts? Da Vinci conceptualized a continuously variable transmission - did he use that concept? Once energy was possibly taken from the flywheel to help the wheel rotate past the point where it wanted to reverse direction, what fueled the flywheel? It would be a mistake to think the wheels' descending weights' energy was "looped back" to the flywheel, I think. That would imply perpetual motion, wouldn't it? Maybe the spinning mass of the flywheel was somehow used to help the weights move to the center on the ascending side? I'm having trouble visualizing that, though.
    In clockwork, if we believe there might have been any clockwork in any of the wheels, the mainspring's tension is released more smoothly via a balance wheel/balance spring mechanism. Maybe there was some combination of torsion-type springs. If there were hidden clockwork inside that even Karl couldn't see, B. might have employed that as well, either for controlled release of energy or additional storage of energy, or even both. He could have installed a coiled spring in that huge axle, although eventually it would unwind without a mechanism to rewind it.But we still have the problem of rewinding tension in springs.
    Also if there were foliot inside the wheel, how were they attached to the axle? In the drawings, they are attached to the end of the axle. But the demonstrations make no mention of them. He said they "modified" the wheel's movement; what does that mean? Did they regulate it, as they do in clocks from that time ? In those clocks the T-shaped foliots pivoted at the intersection of the two bars, and the weights on the top bar were movable to vary the rate of the oscillations. I think it's difficult to tell from the drawing if they pivot in the normal way or if the extra set of rods are attached to them in such a way as to move the pivot point.

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  33. I exceeded the character limit on my last comment, so I had to edit some sentences out. I left the pertinent thoughts in, though.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I forgot to mention a thought I had about the springs. The self-winding pocket watch was invented in 1770 and was improved on afterwards. Here is a link to the wikipedia entry:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_watch#Perrelet:_1770

    (I think you have to cut and paste it into your browser)

    Is it possible Bessler used something similar in his wheels? I'm not sure, but the concept seems to fit. If the pendulum in the wheels fulfilled the role of the rotor in the watch, which keeps the mainspring wound, could the pendulums keep a tension on a spring in the wheel? As long as there was something to keep the pendulums oscillating back and forth, similar to the motion of a person's arm who is wearing a watch. And it would have been an earlier undocumented discovery of the 1770 discovery.
    What do you guys think? Am I one beer short of a six-pack? My elevator doesn't go the top floor?

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  35. Doug...very good thoughts....it would take several days reading to get to know everything all that you have suggested as far as I am concerned...actually I didn't know bessler wheel would be so much sophisticated...But, nevertheless, I still feel simplicity is the name of the game...gravity is there for the asking...and all that is required is a trick or two, as suggested by andre sir, to get the motion going....what is happening is we are carried away by orthodoxy way of understanding basic physics most of the time and don't try it out practically...The very fact that bessler was scared to let anyone from glancing inside clearly reveals that all that was to be protected from prying eyes was not secretly hidden in the axle or anywhere else for that matter...And, moreover, Bessler wasn't that much advanced in physics and even physics wasn't that much advanced in that era...Just simple swinging of the weights and the weights landing at the far end with a mix of a trick or two on the ascending side is all that is required...believe it or not...And finally, thanks for your valuable input which is very useful in educating oneself...

    ReplyDelete
  36. A word about the axle...The unusually large size of the axle of bessler wheel is very intriguing, isn't it??? Well, let me shed some light on the same...When you have to accommodate about 8 lever-weight mechanism you have got to have a large axle...one reason is just to ensure that these mechanism don't clash as well as maintain proper timing for them to cross-over one after another for the swing...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Suresh, any of the things I've suggested were possible could be used as a "trick or two". But they aren't really tricks, they are solid science. I'm not suggesting that all of them were used together in any of the wheels, I'm trying to figure out what could have been different about the internal structures of the 2 designs that he had to make so one design turned only in one direction, and then, when he was challenged to build a wheel that turned in 2 directions to prove that there wasn't any clockwork, what modifications were necessary to accomplish that.
    I' m not sure if the axle would have needed to be so large for 32-40 pounds of weights. Also, if you think about it, an average man today weighs around 180 pounds, so if one of the observers was lifted off the ground when he tried to stop the wheel by grabbing the rim, could 32-40 pounds rotating at 26 RPM get the job done?
    It seems that the wheel must have had more mass somewhere; we could plug the numbers that we do have from the demonstrations of the large wheel into the physics formulas for circular motion and gravity acceleration and arrive at a good approximation of the wheel's actual ability to do work and also, a better idea of how much it weighed, if we trust the numbers from the demonstrations.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Doug...again good response from you...A trick or even a gimmick is actually referred here as a clever scientific principle not tried before or thought of by anyone....a shortcut you may call...or a point which simply means a novel method of getting across a problem...bessler really did use four such methods in his wheel to solve the problem...a man could have been easily lifted off the ground...in the bi-directional wheel two sets of 8 lever-weight mechanism have been used by bessler...arranged one set against another...one set remained idle by locking itself while another performed normally when direction was changed....this is double the weight suggested by you and coupled with inertia one can understand the mighty force involved...and finally, let me make one thing very clear....by going through physics laws we are only going to face more confusing and delays...one has to be a very odd person and possess original and natural thinking...

    ReplyDelete
  39. Doug....another point came to my mind....if each weight weighed 4 pounds then 8 pounds would weigh about 32 pounds plus say another 32 if we presume them as 16 weights....and, by the way, these weights were not in one closely packed bunch but scattered in a circle approximately 12 feet diameter...and take into consideration the 26 rpm inertia...and also, add to this the other structural weight going round...now would you still think that it can't lift an average sized man trying to stop it???

    ReplyDelete
  40. If we use a lever to make lifting a weight less strenuous for us, the advantage we gain (less force is required) is lost to the distance we have to move the weight....Doug

    Agreed...but in the case of bessler wheel, the advantage gained by using levers is not entirely lost as some of the burden of moving the weight closer to the axle is, in fact, shared by gravity....Such is the design..

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ok, Suresh, let's look at a weight/lever combination in an overbalanced wheel moving closer to the axis on the ascending side of the rotation. If the weight is connected to another weight by a wooden or metal rod(s) , the rod has to be connected to the wheel to create a fulcrum point for the weights to revolve around. If the fulcrum is in the center of the rod, then the weights simply balance each other, and neither weight can lift the other, agreed? So this lever/weight combination wouldn't help turn the wheel would it?, If the fulcrum is at any other point than the center, so one weight can lift the other, can you see that once the weights have shifted to a balanced position, one weight below the other, they remain that way? Can you see that no matter their position in the rotation, 3,6,9,12 o'clock, that they always will remain in this position of balance, with the same weight always below the other? So after that happens, they simply become a single weight in the wheel; and, they can't "reset" without some force to reset them. This is the point you are missing I think,: gravity holds them in this relationship; it doesn't force the weights back to their unbalanced position. And this applies to any configuration of weights, levers, pivot points, connections to the wheel at any point, etc. In physics, this is referred to as entropy. That means everything in the universe is trying to reach a state of balance, of equilibrium. Sort of like when you blow up a balloon, the air doesn't fill up one corner of the balloon, does it? Of course not, the air balances inside the balloon and fills up the balloon everywhere, equally. The molecules of air are evenly distributed in the balloon. Entropy, balance has been reached in the balloon.
    Is there a force that can overcome the force of gravity holding the weights in a balanced position? It would have to come from somewhere else wouldn't it? That's the secret to the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Doug....You are quite right...I think I would have to read your latest input several times...but still, I will try to reply....Eight weights are being used and they make up 4 pairs...each weight is attached to a special lever....all equally spaced...and in the normal situation they balance each other out...and your explanation perfectly fits...Now in the actual bessler wheel the situation is entirely different...bessler had included a scientific gimmick in the weights...that's the reason he had it covered with a handkerchief...secondly, another gimmick was in the levers....thirdly, one in the axle, hence the large size...and finally one in the wheel structure and all these combined really look very grand and make the movement possible....movement for the sake of movement...without one of these tricks the entire wheel would come to a grinding halt...the setup is such that the weights are not allowed to rest...and they keep trying to balance each other out but in vain...they are not just the passive weights as stated by trevor...now each of the gimmick is such they all play an equal role...one is connected with the other...Gravity is very cleverly used up by both sets of weights on the ascending as well as the descending side...gravity indirectly also helps the ascending weights due to the incorporation of a gimmick...Only seeing is believing...Karl had seen it and it was enough to convince him...All this is possible in mechanical construction...a high standard of exactness is required to be maintained...there is no storing of energy....And as long as this setup or position is maintained the motion will continue....the interesting part is that all looks very simple too and one glance is enough to reveal everything....if you happen to see it you will also say why no one thought of it before....

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well. Suresh, it seems we're the only ones left here. If there is a mechanical gimmick in the weight, what is it? What is the gimmick in the special levers? In the axle? In the wheel structure? There aren't that many gimmicks we can pick from. You'll have to be more specific, or we'll just keep talking in circles like this. Keep talking in circles, very punny.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The MT 13 drawing looks like it might represent a rotor for winding a spring. As the spring unwound and turned the wheel, the bars on the inner circle, as they pivoted past the top of the rotor, would give the rotor a push, and also the rotor would help flip the weight around, if the angles were correct. I guess I'm not the first one to notice this. If we design it so the rotor can wind the spring in either direction (double ratcheted) it would be more efficient.
    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  45. Suresh, I meant to reply to your comments about the man's weight. You said that in the bidirectional wheel one side locked itself and the other side performed normally. If that was the case then the weights in the side that was locked wouldn't have any affect on lifting the man. Anyway, let's just say that we can agree the wheel had enough inertial mass in total to lift a man, whether the most mass was in the center or in the rim with the weights only matters to the final design and how big you want to make it.
    Right?

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  46. Doug...you could be right about the bi-directional wheel....enough inertial mass to lift a man....I find that now you are beginning to accept that gimmicks can really help the motion and that's a good sign...even bessler got it after a long research....just four such gimmicks....I have those clear ideas in my mind...I am still thinking of making a working model...but waiting for a favorable time to start...the initial task would be to build a lever-weight mechanism..all the eight should be similar and of equal weight..the weights are the essential parts and no storage is required as stated by you in mt-13...eventhough bessler has left many clues it is difficult to arrive at the main technique without a discerning mind...original thinking is required as the configuration is unique...I am very happy that you are in a listening mode now...I must say your earlier writings on perpetual motion had really sent me into desperation....I was worried that physics was against it...but actually it is not...these mechanical gimmicks make it possible...now coming to the part of revealing I think it is better to build a model first and then facing the public would be a better option...it has taken so much even to convince you...we should form some sort of pact…it is worth it…but first you need more convincing…there is still a fear in me that you could always retract by quoting basic physics..people have the habit of brushing off everything or get distracted by thinking of a storage system....Swinging of weights is great...resetting process is automatic...lot of ball bearings make it all possible...the movement should continue as long as the arrangement remains or parts wears and as long as there is gravity....We should wait for Andre sir's comments...

    ReplyDelete
  47. A farmer that watches the weather will never plough.

    ReplyDelete
  48. There is a time for everything as per destiny....bessler built it before hand but couldn't sell it...he died a bitter death..this will happen but it pays to know if it is in one's destiny...and it is good to have all the knowledge ready before starting...there is no point in delaying and giving other reasons once it is started...everyone that is here is not going to succeed...if it has taken 300 years already...what difference would one or two more years make...let the deserving achieve....

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yes ,..Time will tell!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hi guys - I've been very busy for a couple of days. I shall have to read up on everything that has been posted. A very interesting discussion indeed, I must say. I like the clockwork/mechanism observations of Doug and the discussion with Suresh. I too noticed some interesting things in the Bessler drawings that remind me of clockwork. Tomorrow I have some more time and will respond more completely, for what it's worth. 2 cents, perhaps :-)

    ReplyDelete
  51. As for the "pact" - Suresh, I am more than willing to finance a prototype build when we have something tangible. Remember, I have these guys available, right here at a major university - the machine shop, the engineers, CAD/CAM, the whole shebang. I wouldn't mind working with all you guys on this. I don't care about the fame and fortune. We should, however, call it the Bessler-Collins gravity engine.

    ReplyDelete
  52. A very positive thought from Andre Sir....there cannot be a better human on this planet to entrust with bessler's lifetime efforts and findings...I am very comfortable now and don't wish to take it to the grave by delaying further...I would suggest that we get it clear first that there is only one design that’ll work and that is the bessler design...I have been harping on this theme ever since I joined this blog if anyone can remember... bessler too found it the hard way...the design should be such that anyone hearing about it should be able know instantly it is the right one that we have been waiting...I too didn't get it so easily..it came after 20 years of intense brain racking....I once again thank Andre sir for his magnanimity...

    ReplyDelete
  53. That's great, Andre. I didn't know you had everything together there to work on a prototype. That makes things easier, especially the cad/cam. Do the engineers tease you about your perpetual motion quest?
    Are we just going to collaborate here on John's blog? I don't have a problem with it, if John doesn't mind.

    Doug , the stubborn physics guy

    ReplyDelete
  54. Doug, Andre, Suresh - go for it!

    I like that your comment was the 55th one on this posting, Doug!

    JC

    ReplyDelete

Johann Bessler’s Legacies.

Bessler’s wheel is one obvious legacy and although there are some who believe that it’s potential power output is too limited to be of pract...