Saturday, 8 January 2011

Response to my forum posting about conservative forces.

The publication of my ideas about conservative forces on the Besslerwheel forum was met with a mixture of benign criticism and some somwhat less than favourable comments, as expected. You can't expect to suggest that 300 years of scientific advances might have overlooked some small detail without incurring criticism and argument, and I am not dispappointed by the reaction - it has got people talking about Bessler's wheel again.

What has surprised me is that among a small number of emails I received which offered their support for my conjecture there was one which apologised for not saying so publicly. The reason apparently was that doing so might diminish their standing in some way. I find this remarkable and it seems to mimic the situation between the majority of members and the rest of the world and indeed the whole history of the search for perpetual motion.

Many people who study Bessler's writings look for subtle deceptions and double meanings in everything he wrote and while I am guilty of seeing encoded messages in various places that are not as clear to others as they are to me, I think that he wrote the truth without dissembling and only restricted the information enough not to give the secret away. So when he wrote such phrases as, 'the machine was set in motion by weights'; 'Weights gained force from their own swinging'; 'the weights applied force at right angles to the axis' and Karl's view that' he did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights', I think he spoke the truth and I have no doubt whatsoever that the machine depended on the presence of gravity and indeed was run by gravity alone. I see no need to invoke hidden meanings in phrases which describe in normal everyday language, the way the machine worked.  There is a phrase, 'the law of parsimony, or succinctness', which describes the principle of choosing a theory that requires fewer new assumptions, and in this case the simplest interpretation is the most likely one to be right, I think. 

I understand why some highly intelligent and experienced members of the forum insist on sticking to the belief that gravity cannot run the wheel because it is a conservative force, but I regret that they dismiss my thoughts with friendly humour but no serious consideration. And yet I read Bessler's words and can only conclude that gravity was the mainstay of his machine and just because gravity is a conservative force may does not completely and utterly rule out a way around it.  If my suggestion does not meet satisfactorily the criteria sought by those who would deny it, then I can't help but compare them to the rest of the scientific community who also refuse to contemplate such a possibility.

So once again I point the reader to my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/html/conservative_force.html, where he will read about the 'mysterious other force' which helps the weight complete its rotation without using any additional energy which wasn't generated by its fall.

JC

44 comments:

  1. Yes John you are 100% right,the the wheel is turned only by gravity.This I can vouche for,but the resetting of the weights is carried out by centrifugal force.
    Why we bother about the correct definition of perpetual motion is irrelavent.If I designed a machine to run perpetually,regardless of whether it was using some unknown dark energy or not,it is still perpetual motion period.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Five spaces between each word. Nice. -ssmyser

    ReplyDelete
  3. I respect your view Trevor, although I prefer the idea of resetting the weights using gravity.

    Five spaces Steve? Where?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  4. Most of the movements inside the wheel is due to gravity...this wheel truly deserves to be called as the gravity wheel...

    but the lever principle advantage is also employed in a very clever manner and due to this one weight is able to lift another...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are we not being too puritan? After all centrifugal force is just another form of gravity using inertia through angular velocity.
    If you use only gravity, then you always end up with the keeling senario. On the other hand, centrifugal force is unidirectional and does not affect the integrity of the wheel balance.
    Since the wheel revolves we can make use of this extra-gravitational force and put it to good use. Consider this,...What ever happens, has to happen very quickly, within one second of the wheel's revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are right...inertia also plays a role..

    ReplyDelete
  7. My mistake John, at the bottom of your post each word has five spaces. The paragraph I see reads like this: "So once again I point the reader to my web site at" I thought you were being funny, but apparently only I can see it. Sorry, -Steve

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nevermind. Even my post showing five spaces posted normally. Must be my browser or computer. -Steve

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for clearing that up Steve. Now you've suggested it I might include something along those lines from time to time just for my own amusement.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here's a thought,...When Bessler makes remarks like "the wheel's own inner force must come into play." then we must conclude that it is centrifugal force,there is no other.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Trevor...centrifugal force makes the weight to swing but its gravity that plays a major role...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Correct,...What happens is centrifugal force flings the pendulum weight up like a flail when it reaches the apex where it is locked then gravity takes over to turn the wheel till it reaches the bottom.

    ReplyDelete
  13. John, I believe you are correct... the wheel is powered by gravity. I believe you are wrong in not calling Bessler's wheel a perpetual motion machine! He wasn't using gravity to pull another outside object through his wheel ( like water ).
    Just my 2 cents. Justsomeone

    ReplyDelete
  14. Trevor...I have a feeling that you have got it all wrong...the weights aren't flung in the way stated by you...Don't mind my strong objections...but it is a fact...Bessler wheel mechanism is entirely a different matter altogether...that is the reason it is yet to see the light of the day...

    ReplyDelete
  15. If Bessler talks about acrobats,shadow boxers and loud heavy clubs,the theres got to be something very busy happening.
    Sorry I don't think the wheel turns quietly just through some clever geometric trick.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am not saying that the wheel turned quietly...it made some metal noises certainly...but the way the things were arranged internally was very artistic and not realized by anyone so far...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes of course,it would have to mechanically artistic in order to cyclically smooth and swift.

    ReplyDelete
  18. There is a special arrangement Trevor which really looks and also performs wonderfully...I haven't spotted such a thing anywhere in the web nor in any book...not even here in this forum till now...And all the bessler descriptions of the wheel will be matched once we get to see that design...it could happen in a year or two and not before...at the moment no one has this design..

    We are either misguiding or getting misguided with the present thoughts....original realization is required before starting to build one...it could take years also..

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think I have it and I don't think it will be that long. Now I know you have heard this many times before but each new revelation has it's potential for success. Just bear with me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. John,
    On your website gravitywheel.com, you ask why a conservative force such as gravity can't be used to generate energy since wind and water currents are used this way. The logic you've overlooked is that the sun and gravity work in concert to create the wind and the water currents to provide that energy. Sun evaporates water, raising it's potential energy, gravity pulls the water down to the earth and the stored energy in the clouds is converted to kinetic energy in the rain. The wind is different, but the result is the same.
    So in other words, in this way,gravity can't generate energy by itself; it requires the sun. When I lift a weight in the air, in this scenario, I am the sun.
    You said "If some additional force was briefly added to the mix...the solution lies in finding a mechanical arrangement which adds that brief force." Then you said "each weight acting independently of the other, conserves its own energy". The problem here is if one weight is falling and lifting the other weight, then the two weights are not acting independently. Any mechanical advantage, or amplification of force if you prefer, is cancelled out by the fact that the two weights are part of the whole; there is no force taking the place of your hand (from the other website besslerswheel.com.
    On that website you said the weights follow two open paths or loops and are closed by each other's separate actions. That's another logical pretzel you've made. Everything inside such a wheel is in a closed path. It doesn't matter how anything inside gets from one place to the next, eventually all the parts close their paths, connected or not.
    Respectfully,
    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Doug...Good reading...I would like to add something here..It would be very difficult to convince anyone about the possibility of the wheel without a working model...and at the moment we are not able to build a working model though the concept is clear mentally...

    Bessler did it...We are convinced bessler's story to be true...There is one very success design and at the moment it is not realized by anyone..

    If you knew what I know then you wouldn't be writing all this...Even bessler realized this after so many years...there is one design and it will work...it will prove all non-believers wrong...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Doug,

    The key to understanding this analogy is to see that it doesn't matter how or where the wind or water originates. It is the action between wind and windmill blade, locally.

    It is perfectly possible to make one weight fall and in doing so, raise another one without the action being part of the whole. It is difficult to explain how this is done here, but it is a common misconception that such an action is inevitably self-balancing.

    In my design the two paths of the two weight are open loops and are only closed by the complete rotation of the wheel, and this can only be achieved by combining the paths of the two open loops.

    I'm going to enlarge on these points on my website because it seems to me that the vast majority of readers (maybe everyone) do not understand my explanation.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  23. Suresh,
    There isn't anything about this I don't know or understand. I'm as creative and imaginative as anyone I know. Everyone has access to the same facts (and fictions).
    John,
    So you admit, then, that the analogy breaks down? Gravity only works in one direction? It doesn't push water up into the sky? Or heat up the atmosphere, creating zones of unequal pressure? Because if you want to ignore the sun in a cyclical analogy this way, then there is going to be one HUGE elephant in the room.
    Your second paragraph is romantic, but you're saying weights inside a rotating wheel don't affect the wheel. That's exactly what we're talking about. Weights' movements affecting the wheel. If their motions don't affect the wheel, what turns the wheel? So you're not making sense.
    Your third paragraph is yet another logical pretzel you've pulled out of the oven.
    Read it again, and you'll see how this statement is just circular logic (pun intended).
    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  24. No Doug, I don't believe I admitted any such thing, I was making the crucial point that the origin of the water, wind or even gravity is irrelevant to the argument. I certainly didn't suggest any of the other, frankly, odd things, you mentionend either.

    No my second paragraph wasn't romantic, it was factual and I was talking about the commonly held misconception that such designs will always balance each other.

    The third paragraph is merely a statement of fact. Pretzel? What have they to do with any of this?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  25. John,
    Pretzel logic is a metaphor: twisted reasoning that doesn't explain something rationally.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pretzel%20logic

    Just because you say something is a fact doesn't make it so. You have to prove it. Of course you can make two weights unbalanced, and one weight will be higher, or closer to the axle. That's not what I'm saying is wrong with what you've posted anywhere. What I'm trying to get across here is that the weights, once they have moved into this position, then the gravity force they undergo on the other side of a wheel won't have enough..swing or impetus to reset them to fall in their power arc. I think those are like the words you've used to describe this. I don't have to see a model or diagram to know this. I can picture things like this in my head. I think people can get confused about forces in mechanics, it's too complicated to explain here.
    If you're going to compare harnessing the power of gravity to harnessing the power of wind or water, then to draw that comparison, or analogy, by the definition of analogy, you have to explain the similarities between the two things. Otherwise, there is no comparison; there is no analogy. How do you harness gravity's conservative force like we harness the wind's conservative force or falling water's conservative force? The answer is you can only harness gravity's force in one direction: down. You can't harness gravity in an upwards direction, it's fighting you all the way.
    Can't you see the holes in your arguments?

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Doug...it was good reading again..I really like the way you are trying to verify the facts...very few people are good at it... Your point below..

    'You can't harness gravity in an upwards direction, it's fighting you all the way.'

    is very much true in one sense...but there is a way we can get around this....it is a very big hurdle...it was what bessler discovered...it took many years....a normal person can't understand it...you have got to be very unconventional...you need to be as odd as bessler...if one goes thru what bessler has written it can be easily seen...but with discerning eyes of course...

    The levers holding the weights have to be designed in a very special way to overcome the pull of gravity when the weights are in climbing mode...I can't elaborate here as it would really be a giveaway...

    ReplyDelete
  27. As you say Doug, there is too little room for detailed explanations here, but I'm rewriting some of the arguments I've published and hopefully that will state my case more convincingly.

    I understand your points and I will try to answer them at length.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't believe we should categorise gravity with any kind of label. If you think about it man can conserve any kind of force available to him for use later on using a storage mechanism, mechanical or otherwise.
    If you really want to solve the wheel mystery we must get down to grass roots hands on thinking on a practical level. After all every discoverey had to be verified with actual experimental methods.
    This is how I solved the true principle of wing lift, contrary to the trash you read on the net today. I am now writng a book on it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It was mid-December 2004 and Besslers design was stearing me right in the eye.

    Since then I'm working on a replica machine but it turns out to be a true bitch to rebuild.

    Knowing the physics behind the machine I recently tried a conceptual version of the machine(a shortcut if you like)...it did not work!

    However, I still believe in Bessler. Something in my conceptual version must be wrong!

    ReplyDelete
  30. John C got a drunken mail some years ago in 2005.
    He decided to disregard it.

    Otherwise he would have been a perfectly wise man today!

    ReplyDelete
  31. One other thing: It seems there is a belief in these comments that centrifugal force can help fling weights in a gravity wheel. If you think about it, you'll realize that isn't the case.
    Centrifugal force in uniform circular motion (a wheel)is a vector from the axle of the circle towards the perimeter. So when you talk about moving a weight closer to the axle after the weight passes the six o'clock position, not only does the force moving the weight have to overcome the force of gravity, it has to overcome the centrifugal force pushing it against the rim or perimeter of the wheel! The centrifugal force becomes increasingly stronger to overcome the faster the wheel spins. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the amusement park ride (here in the states one version is called a Tilt-a-Whirl) that pins the riders against the side of the ride because it spins so fast. It's very difficult to even raise your arm to scratch your nose. The astronauts train in a similar device to subject themselves to higher "G-forces" to prepare for a rocket launch.
    So no, the centrifugal force can't be tapped to move the weights closer to the axle. If the weights are next to the center to begin with, at start-up, then the centrifugal force does help move them to the perimeter. But once the weights are there, centrifugal force resists any attempt to move the weight back to the center.
    I hope this explanation is sufficient and helps with your designs.
    Doug

    ReplyDelete
  32. agree with your statements Doug,

    trevor,
    My believe is that the wheel uses a type of cam action, in which the design of the mechanical principle, uses a clever geometrical trick.
    the design follows many of besslers descriptions.

    noticed the name (spinner) is used by a member in the besslerwheel forum, changed this to (5-5-47) to avoid the same confusion as Trevor had previously.

    5-5-47. (formerly known as spinner)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Doug...You are right again in one sense..What you don't seem to realize is that this is applicable only when the weights follow a normal path in a normal situation...but, as Trevor has stated..there is a trick involved here...and CF could be helping the weights in this case...Gravity actually is being used to create a lift for the weights for climb-up...and they don't follow the normal path while ascending...

    Doug...your comments are useful...pls keep up the good work...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Guys,what Doug says is true, but if you take all the other factors into account, its a whole different senario.
    If you have pendulums on springs, every revolution causes a reverse of gravity polarity. This inturn causes an oscilatory build up of the pendulums which now gives rise to a violent intermittant centrifugal effect that can be used to place the weights at an opportune moment and position to over-balance the wheel.
    Remember the flail in the poem.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Trevor..We should not totally rely on the poem...there are many crucial things that bessler didn't elaborate on...the pendulums need not be on spring....and flail has got a different meaning altogether....it doesn't matters if CF helps or not...this wheel can work on gravity alone and everything depends on how we can think of utilizing gravity...

    ReplyDelete
  36. The poem is very apt and exact.Even describing how the oscilation build up is bought through the use of gravity reversal,and all this comes free,which is important so that you don't need to use a cam,which would rob from the wheel workwise.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I agree with you...but though it comes free it also hinders our creativity....in my opinion, Bessler wheel can only be achieved through natural intense thinking processes....the poem comes handy for comparison...

    There are certain things Bessler didn't expose for fear of leaking...and this is what is most critical...If the poem was all that clear then it shouldn't have taken 300 years....

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sorry,I was not saying the poem comes free,but I meant that the violent action of the pendulums that equates into work comes free.
    This is what is important because in order for the wheel to yield work output we must sow something into it.
    I say free because this action does not slow up the turning of the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Remember I am still giving the credit to gravity because it is this gravity reversal that causes the build up of the pendulum oscillation due to the resonant configuration of weight versus spring.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I am not sure what bessler meant by referring to the word 'Sow'....maybe its planting of the weights inside the wheel...for without the weights there cannot be swinging....

    ReplyDelete
  41. By sowing I meant you must put a force into the wheel in order to get something out.
    This is why he said the wheel principle does not contravene the law of thermodynamics which implies you cannot get something for nothing.
    I only used the word 'sow' because I can relate to the principle of sowing and reaping.

    ReplyDelete
  42. John,I hope I am not the cause of confusion with my input.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm no more confused than usual Trevor ;-)

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  44. Quality articles is the crucial to attract the viewers to go to see the web site, that's what this web site is providing.
    Also visit my blog - Dora the Explorer Desk

    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...