The truth is that I think we have all been on the right track at some stage but have not had the advantage I have recently had of being able to study Bessler's clues to the point where I now understand all of them including a lot that I don't think anyone else has noticed, (although I may be wrong about that, as I have no idea what others know or are working on!)
It has become clear to me as I have been building my latest construction, just how many clues there are which are overlooked simply because there are so many of them and they are therefore not suspected of being clues. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that Bessler's claim that 'no one else could have succeeded because no one else took so much trouble to try every possible variation', was nothing more than the simple plain unvarnished truth! As my latest construction progresses I notice small details in his papers which guide me and also cause me to make some corrections to what I'm doing, and to be honest without those clues I wouldn't have chance of succeeding. I probably won't anyway, but I like to think I will!
One detail I was working on, the design of which is revealed by Bessler, seemed to me to be wrong as it appeared to be counter-intuitive, but I thought I'd try it anyway as things weren't working out, and it turned out to be the solution to my problem. This has proved something to me - if and when a gravitywheel is succesfully made and is working, some people have questioned whether we will ever know if will be the same design as Bessler's - my answer is that if mine works I shall know and can prove that it is identical to Bessler's, apart perhaps from some possible minor variations in the sizes of the parts.
As I have now said several times, I shall publish all of this information whether the wheel works or not. I can do this because I know that the clues I've understood are real and apply to the wheel but it is also possible that I have neglected some detail that prevents success. Maybe someone else can complete the task, but first I want to have an attempt at a successful PoP.
JC
I must admit that I'm getting more and more curious, John, especially to the new clues and your decoding efforts of them. Very interesting stuff. All the best and may the (cruel) gods of gravity be with you :-)
ReplyDeleteYes,..Do you have a timeline for your latest prototype?
ReplyDeleteNo specific time in mind but 'asap' seems like a good thing to aim for. My 89 year old mother-in-law is in hospital and we spend time with her each day so it leaves me less time for other things, however it will be finished evemtually.
ReplyDeleteI'll try to updat on twitter as and when I can.
JC
john, does the AP translation end at the bible references ?
ReplyDeleteIs there a partII AP translation ?
P.47
John.
ReplyDeletejust noticed your egg avatar on twitter,
Damm, the shape is the course my wheel takes, it's not finished.
Have seen many clues a while ago, except has taken time to workout.
Still unsure if its a cam or a downhill run.
P.47.
Hi Anon. No it includes part ll and yes there is a full part ll translation. Why do you ask?
ReplyDeleteAnd the egg avatar is just there because I haven't added a photo yet.
JC
Hi john, replied twice, the message was posted, 5 mins later they were deleted.
ReplyDeleteThe AP i purchased ends at the bible references, the size of the downloaded AP file is 3944KB.
can not find the part II header, or similar references when running the germam AP text through a translater.
P.47
Sorry to hear that anon. It happens occasionally, I don't know why.
ReplyDeleteCan you email me your address and I'll send you another copy as an attachment.
JC
Hopefully I've sorted it for you.
ReplyDeleteJC
recieved it.
ReplyDeletethanks
P.47
Good, but what does P.47 mean?
ReplyDeleteJC
Euclid's proposition 47.
ReplyDeleteJohn you have me worried, hope you haven't found what i found, it's been a year, still unsure of its full principle.
Would you be using the hammer toy linkage ?
P.47
Like you, I cannot say, but I do have the principle. I'm going to reveal where the clues are soon, but first I mean to finish this wheel and maybe get it working!
ReplyDeleteJC
can only hope the clues are not the same.
ReplyDeleteP.47
The 'Toys' page holds some clues.
ReplyDeleteJC
John, heres a question you should be able to answer without giving much away.
ReplyDeleteis the axle in you're design 1 piece, from left to right, or many pieces ?
P.47
one piece.
ReplyDeleteJC
Perhaps you do have the principle or perhaps not? However you've pulled this stunt before, haven't you?
ReplyDeleteOuch, Oystein.
ReplyDeleteYou're right of course, but I wouldn't call it a stunt. You speak pejoratively and I understand that but from my perspective I only say what I believe to be true and I know I should rein in my enthusiasm but I can't, in the face of such utter certainty.
ReplyDeleteBehind this certainty is a huge accumulation of the results of trial and error which builds knowledge and reduces the chances that I'm deluding myself. But to take the seemingly boastful flavour out of my postings, I throw in the occasional self-deprecatory remark so you will know that it is only my subjective opinion and I could be wrong.
JC
We have to have confidence in our current attempts at solving the wheel,otherwise how are we ever going to find the motivation to see them through to completion.
ReplyDeleteBut John ,..It is a perpetual motion gravity wheel which ever way you look at it!
ReplyDeleteHhhhmmmm - I'm not sure I agree with you there Trevor. PM machines are defined as having no external source of energy - that's why they're impossible. Gravity wheels do have that external energy source - gravity. Still - perhaps I'm being too pedantic.
ReplyDeleteJC
Yes John,..but gravity is not an energy,it is just an inert force.It can be used to produce energy but you first have to use a falling mass to do the work.
ReplyDeleteBessler found out how to raise this mass against gravity so that it could be used in falling.You can get the same result with a spring or pump storage scheme.In each case you first have to load the system.
The PM machine you are referring to is like a wheel in space.In the category of Newtons law of motion,of course it will turn for ever but the minute you try to extract work from it,it will stop and therefore becomes usless.
Bessler's wheel was perpetual motion with power which is what the world is only interested in.I really think you ought to call a spade a spade.
Nothing personal!
Actually, gravity is better understood as a field right? A distortion in space-time determined by the mass of the object in question. Falling particles follow the field lines of the distortion created by the mass.
ReplyDeleteAnd perpetual motion is impossible because of resistance, even if you had an external source of energy, force, gravity, whatever.
Wrong!..Actually gravity is instantaneous.It is not subject to time as we comprehend it.And time itself,..well it only exists in the mind of man.It is an ellusion.
ReplyDeletePerpetual motion or the velocity of a body in a straight line or in an orbit is verified by Newtons law of motion.
And as for resistance,..thats the same as doing work which requires power.Bessler's wheel is capable of producing power to do work and that includes resistance.
Time doesn't exist? That's strange. Perhaps a philosophy buff can settle that.
ReplyDeletePerpetual motion wasn't verified by Newton; it was proven impossible by him. Why do you think he never went to see Bessler's wheel?
Resistance is part of the work equation, I think that's what you're saying. And, since it is part of the work equation, it guarantees that a perfect machine is impossible.
Man invented time so that he could measure the relative velocities of bodies or events.
ReplyDeletePerpetual motion refers to the motion of mass in a straight line and it will remain so only until it is forced to stop.
There is a clearcut differance between perpetual motion and perpetual energy.A machine is only one the can do work.
Newton would not look at the Bessler wheel because he maintained that you cannot get something for nothing.
His own law backs up perpetual motion but he could not understand why the Bessler wheel could do work as well.
What Newton failed to take into account was the principle of entropy.
Man invented time? Or we invented ways of measuring time, do you mean? Sundials and so on. So it's not an illusion, then: we exist in 4 dimensions. Gravity may be instantaneous in a sense, but we measure it by distance over time, because we live in that time, not separate from it.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Newton thought Bessler was a fraud. He didn't want to have his name associated with his.
His law doesn't back up perpetual motion, it shows it's impossible on Earth.
Entropy also shows perpetual motion systems are impossible, it's just a short way of referring to the second law of thermodynamics.
The fact remains that Newtons 1st law enforces Perpetual motion.If you spin a mass in a perfect vacuum say,in space,it will go for ever.
ReplyDeleteWe all know this serves no purpose if we want to extract work.
Of course PM is impossible on earth but atomically it is necessary for the integrity of the atomic structure.
Outer space isn't a perfect vacuum.
ReplyDeleteBut to get back to the original debate, were the wheels perpetual motion machines or gravity wheels, it depends on how one thinks of perpetual motion. If you think Bessler really did discover the secret of perpetual motion, then you could call the wheels perpetual motion machines until, like Bessler said, the parts wore out. Then the wheels would stop until you replaced the worn out parts. From that standpoint, technically, the wheels weren't perpetual. The parts would eventually stop the wheels. So in theory, they were perpetual motion, but not in defining practice. Gravity wheels is a more correct term in that sense. But that leaves out the principle of perpetual motion they claim to have. So to be entirely correct, we would have to refer to the wheels as both. Perpetual gravity wheels, perhaps.
You could argue that a petrol engine is like a perpetual motion machine for as long as the parts last ... and for as long as it is fed petrol. The same applies to a gravitywheel, it will last by the same criteria - a continuous external energy source. But a perpetual motion machine has no access to external energy and can only access what ever energy is already within itself ... like a battery or clockwork.
ReplyDeleteTrevor you wrote "Yes John,..but gravity is not an energy,it is just an inert force.It can be used to produce energy but you first have to use a falling mass to do the work."
I am absolutely familiar with the fact that gravity is not energy in itself but I was shorthanding, assuming that people would understand my point.
PM machines are isolated systems, gravity wheels are not. Its really very simple.
JC
Yeah thats right!,..Perpetual gravity wheels,..at last we agree on that.
ReplyDeleteVarious parts of space may differ in terms of cosmic dust but what about inner space,thats definitely free.
As far as parts wearing out,I don't think we should bother with that argument because the main priority is that we have a wheel that will provide free power for 10 or 20 years therefore down time is negligable.
Inner space? Where is that? And how could it be a perfect vacuum? Do you mean the space between electrons and nuclei? We can't access that, so it's not relevant.
ReplyDeleteJohn, is your definition of pmm's relying on internal energy your own definition? I think most people consider pmm's defined as machines with access to external energy. That is, if you consider gravity as an external source of energy. Couldn't one argue that the force of gravity is external but also internal to the wheels? If the weights in the wheels weren't there, interacting with the gravity field, or, if they are improperly positioned in the field, then there is no motion. But, either way, internal or external, simply calling them gravity wheels, to me, is like a marketing ploy.
Can you, or we, have it both ways? You want the wheels to be known as gravity-externally-powered-wheels, but you don't want to recognize the fact that their energy source is inexhaustible. Yes?
A quick look produces the following suggestion "a perpetual motion machine is a machine that perpetually puts out more energy than it takes in," from
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm -this suggests that it must have some form internal energy, thus it is isolated.
It also suggests that it is "any device that continues its motion forever, without any speed reduction. This is a literal interpretation of the words." I think this is similar to your own interpretation.
Thirdly he suggest, "any device whose operation would violate established laws of physics, or would depend upon purely speculative laws unknown to physics. This is the colloqual usage."
This last is unacceptable unless you believe it to be possible and I reject it as a realistic definition as does the author.
I prefere to call Bessler's wheel a gravitywheel because it's more accurate, because other theoretical designs such as frictionless spinners that are incapable of doing work are also called perpetual motion machines and they cannot fall under the same umbrella term.
So it's gravitywheel for me because it runs (indirectly Trevor) on gravity, just as diesel engines run on diesel and electric motors run on electricity, steam engines on steam... etc etc.
JC
Good website. I've read it before; most of it is devoted to explaining why Bessler's wheels aren't possible.
ReplyDeleteBessler's wheels either violated the laws of physics, or depended on speculation, so in most people's eyes, they would fit that definition of perpetual motion machines. If they didn't violate the laws, they would be "gravitywheels" by your definition (non-isolated). But only if they were not fraudulent! Unless you or someone builds a genuine wheel, they will always remain, by definition, PM machines, with an undiscovered (and isolated) internal source of energy.
I think the literal interpretation would be the one most people would come up with if you asked them what perpetual motion was. That definition implies a perfect machine, load or not. We all know such a machine is impossible, because, parts wear out. The question of whether it's energy is internal or external, that the machine is isolated or not, doesn't matter in this case. It can be either, and still fit the definition.
"A machine that puts out more energy than it takes in" - why does that definition suggest an internal form of energy? And how do we know Bessler's wheels didn't put out more energy than they took in? They seemed to, from the evidence - lifting weights, stampers, and pumping water running only on the power of gravity! Which (banging head on wall) is a zero net force!
So it's perpetual gravitywheel for me, until someone builds one. Then I'll drop the "perpetual" modifier.
I agree with John,gravity wheel is more suitable,
ReplyDeleteTry to position Bessler's wheel horizontally.
An isolated perpetual wheel is just and that is all it is.A gravity wheel or Perpetual power wheel is a machine.A machine is a device that accomplishes a job of work.
ReplyDeleteNewton established the law of perpetual motion but refused to believe in perpetual power.
Vincent,..It is quite easily possible to make a horizontal Bessler wheel but just let us get the vertical one working first.
ReplyDeleteNewton's first law doesn't establish perpetual motion, Trevor. It establishes the conditions necessary to achieve it. Those conditions can never be met under any circumstances. The law actually establishes the impossibility of perpetual motion. So why in the world would Newton believe in "perpetual power"?
ReplyDeleteNone of the definitions that John provided for perpetual motion machines had any references to the energy source being external or internal to the machine. He said the first one, "a machine that puts out more energy than it takes in", suggests an internal source, but it doesn't rule out an external source! It could have both. Besides that, the definition doesn't say that a perpetual motion machine MUST have an internal energy source to be considered a PMM. So John's definition is his own, as far as I can tell, so he can call Bessler's wheel a gravitywheel instead of a perpetual motion machine. Which is what Bessler himself called it, by the way.
Finally, this definition also suggests a machine that could create energy. Energy can't be created, only transformed.
Okay,okay,..Newton did not establish perpetual motion,it always existed.He just defined it.
ReplyDeleteWhat did not exist was perpetual motion with power and he would not accept it.
I also called it a gravity wheel because I like to call it what it is!
I will not be just another university stereotype that cannot think out the box.
As a matter of fact guys, (from my book, "Perpetual Motion an Ancient Mystery Solved?") "Newton himself, does not seem to have ruled out the possibility of a perpetual motion machine. It is a little known fact that in his early notebooks under the heading 'Quaestiones'[sic] Newton speculates that gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down. 'Whither ye rays of gravity may bee stopped by reflecting or refracting ye, if so a perpetual motion may bee made one of these two ways.' Adjacent to these words, Newton added two sketches of perpetual motion powered by the 'flux of the gravitational stream'".
ReplyDeleteInteresting!
JC
Yes that is interesting John! He was more open minded than I thought.
ReplyDeleteJohn,..Why have you erased my last post? I thought it was perfectly legit.
ReplyDeleteThe blogger service erased them; on every blog; some sort of maintenance issue.
ReplyDeleteI remembered one of my last comments:
ReplyDeleteNewton's first law doesn't establish perpetual motion, Trevor. It establishes the conditions necessary to achieve it. Those conditions can never be met under any circumstances. The law actually establishes the impossibility of perpetual motion. So why in the world would Newton believe in "perpetual power"?
None of the definitions that John provided for perpetual motion machines had any references to the energy source being external or internal to the machine. He said the first one, "a machine that puts out more energy than it takes in", suggests an internal source. First, I would say it suggests the opposite: it "takes in" energy, implying an external source. Second, it could have both. Besides that, the definition doesn't say that a perpetual motion machine MUST have an internal energy source to be considered a PMM. So John's definition is his own, as far as I can tell, so he can call Bessler's wheel a gravitywheel instead of a perpetual motion machine, I'm thinking to avoid the negative connotation associated with the term perpetual motion. Which is what Bessler himself called it, by the way. "Perpetuum Mobile".
Finally, this definition also suggests a machine that could create energy. Energy can't be created, only transformed. In other words, PMM's under this definition are simply not possible.
I am convinced that there has been a lot of important clues lost in translation of the Bessler german text to english.
ReplyDeleteI came across a German's version of the poem and it throws a whole new light on things.
Just as well you did not see my reply because you might have thought I was upset.It seems that everything I stated you contradicted.
ReplyDeleteI know Newton did not invent perpetual motion,he just defined it with his first law of motion.I said that he could not accept the idea of perpetual motion with power.
In John's last post which has been lost he now tells me that Newton was starting to come round to the idea if as he said we could cancel gravity.
I think it's a pretty poor show if the blogger loses our posts we could have said something vitally important.
ReplyDeleteSorry guys - nothing to do with me. The posts just disappeared and as far as I can tell they have now returned.
ReplyDeleteI never delete anything unless its offensive - if I had to delete something for some other reason I'd say so and explain why.
If you're about at 1pm (CST)tomorrow Saturday I'm doing a live interview with Royce Holleman on Paranormal Palace Radio.
JC
I have to contradict your statements which are either misleading or misinformed, Trevor. I think one of your comments said something about not being a university stereotype, incapable of thinking outside the box. I replied being a university stereotype isn't all bad; if you can't think inside the box first, then trying to think outside the box is like feeling around in the dark to find something.
ReplyDeleteOne more time: Newton's law defines the impossibility of perpetual motion, for the purposes of our discussions. Space isn't relevant to discussing a wheel that might be powered by gravity.
It's interesting Newton's earliest thoughts on gravity included the perpetual motion theme; apparently he didn't pursue that line of reasoning very long when he later formulated the law of gravitation and laws of motion.
No,no,no,Doug,..Newtons first law defined the factual basic characteristic of mass,and it is on this basis that all calculations are made.
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to bring in other factors like friction,and air resistance,then that is a whole new argument.
My point is that Newton showed that matter intrinsically posesses the property of being in a state of rest or a straight line motion permenantly.That is perpetual motion whether you like it or not and has a most important role to play in the atomic structure of matter.
Lets put this to bed and move on the more useful goal of perpetual power.
No, Trevor, the law is:
ReplyDeleteEvery object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion "unless an external force is applied to it".
The quotation marks are mine.
Non-conservative forces like friction are not a whole new argument, they are the external forces the law accounts for to explain why objects in motion slow down and stop, eventually.
What would be a new argument: yes, electrons. But quantum mechanics is outside the realm of this argument about classical mechanics.
I give up!..your'e not reading me right.You've just said exactly the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI'm reading what you're saying correctly, Trevor. You're misinterpreting Newton's law. I've already tried to explain the conditions that the law outlines that are necessary for perpetual motion can't be met. Objects in motion can't achieve perpetual motion; external forces are constantly being applied to them.
ReplyDeleteDoug!!!..but that goes for anything.Even a petrol engine will stop if some external force interferes with it.
ReplyDeleteI'm saying this is the natural property in ideal conditions in the vacuum of space.Why can't you believe this?
Again, Space isn't a perfect vacuum, Trevor, sorry. Look it up.
ReplyDeleteI don't have to look it up! Okay, how do you think Newton established his first law of motion. He could see and calculate that even taking into account adverse conditions,perpetual motion is an established property of mass.
ReplyDeleteOrbits of the stars and planets is a case in point.
I've said that about planets in an earlier comment; on the "No to more nuclear power" post. Orbits are the closest thing to perpetual motion.
ReplyDeleteBut if it was possible and we tried to harness the near-perpetual, orbital energy from a planet, what do you think would happen to that planet? Rapid orbital decay. Even things as massive as planets obey the laws of physics.
Oh yes it will certainly tend to slow it down hence collapsing its orbit.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry I've toyed with the idea of using a vertical giro on earth which will harness the earth's revolution of one rev every 24 hours which could be geared up perhaps by 100 or 1000 times.
I don't think everyone on earth would be too pleased if the days started getting longer.
I think in the mean time we'll have to settle for wind,solar and thermo-electricity.
You're right about settling for wind and solar.
ReplyDelete