Sunday, 31 July 2011

Bessler's wheel must have been driven by gravity alone.

Someone posted a link on the bessler forum, in support of their view saying "all forces in closed systems are conserved. It's widely available knowledge."  The implication seemed to be that because of this fact we were all wasting our time trying to duplicate Bessler's wheel.


The first line of the link says "In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves."

You can't argue with this - it is demonstrably true. However it doesn't apply to Bessler's wheel. Isolated systems are, as the definition suggests, closed sytems without any access to external sources of energy.

But in a gravitywheel such as I maintain, Bessler's was, if you take away the gravitational force the wheel will remain stationary, therefore it cannot possibly be described as an isolated system. Gravity is external to the wheel.

So although the law of Conservation is correct the particular ramifications alluded to, do not apply in this case.

It is frequently argued that Bessler did not state in precise language that his wheel depended entirely on gravity and therefore it must have required some additional force to operate. I don't think anyone has come up with a creditable alternative force and in my opinion there isn't one - there is only gravity and there is no physical reason why it should not do.

So Bessler may have only said that - "these weights are themselves the PM device, the essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the perpetual motion principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the cemntre of gravity." - but that is as close to saying it was driven by gravity as you can get without actually saying so!

I have argued this point since I first expressed it in my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?" in 1997 and I see no reason to change it.

JC

29 comments:

  1. If the law doesn't apply to B's wheels, then some property about them must change as the system evolves. What is it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. John,

    For whatever might be it's worth - I could not agree more with any suggestion to the effect that a Bessler wheel is but only 'nominally' closed to external perturbance.

    Indeed!

    In the void of space - here excepting for cosmic rays, solar radiation and space debris - any Wheel would be truly "isolated". (But, seemingly, this condition can never be one absolute except for edict come of Divine Will?)

    Doug cannily suggests that " . . . then some property about them must change as the system evolves. . . ?"

    Indeed it must and this key matter, as he ponders, might be stated as, being a device MADE ASYMMETRICALLY SENSITVE respecting our uniform field of gravitational attraction. (I.e. so that it's behavior would be AS IF it were within a field-of-force NOT conservative.)

    (I think I am publicly on-the-record now well enough, with this concept?)

    As for some possible, pleasant reaction coming from Established Physics World, upon observing such seeming anomylousness of mechanism newly operating, they very well might exclaim some thing as

    'Well, obviously, our laws hold true still excepting for SUCH A DEVICE-PECULIAR made-so. With this advent, then, we have no difficulty and so - along with a well deserved nod to that German man of original discovery, Herr Bessler of the Eighteenth Century - we now do append our NEW NOTE OF EXCEPTION-TO, & etc. - The Royal Society'

    Possibly, that simple and painless it will all prove, but, if not, then matters could well turn butt-ugly and great, GREAT FUN?!?

    Yes, surely the weights themselves ("pairs of pairs") do constitute the very thing itself but, also, do let us not forget ". . . a movement."?

    (Such specifics surely must NOT be obviated - "sniffed at" - as they are so few, and are very precious?)

    James

    ReplyDelete
  3. James, is English your second language?

    If the law doesn't apply to B's wheels because they weren't isolated or closed, but as you want to suppose, open systems to the environment because they can access gravity (which is a strange notion because gravity is internally accessible, not to mention that gravity isn't energy, and thus doesn't figure in the definition of thermodynamic systems - but I know you only want to consider half of the cycle gravity is part of to support your arguments), then by the definition of open systems they would then have to be able to exchange energy and matter with their environment. What then would be the exchange of matter in the wheels? The energy exchanged can be in the form of heat from the axle bearings for one thing. What is the matter that is exchanged, if it is truly an open thermodynamic system? The ocean exchanges matter in the form of water molecules (vapor) with its' environment. Nothing in the form of matter escapes from the wheel that I can see, so how can it be open, by that definition?

    ReplyDelete
  4. James has a way with words, Doug!

    I didn't mean that the law doesn't apply to B's wheels, just that the suggestion that they were isolated and therefore not possible, is wrong because they were not isolated from the effects of gravity.

    I agree that it seems strange to say that gravity is an external source, but I mean that it is inside and outside and in gravityless space there is no means of making things fall. So it is not isolated from the effects of gravity on earth

    I'm very familiar with the argument that gravity is not a form of energy, it is a force, like wind is a force. We use wind to producde rotation in windmills and we can do the same with gravity.

    I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I "only want to consider half of the cycle gravity is part of to support your arguments".

    You say according to "the definition of open systems they would then have to be able to exchange energy and matter with their environment. What then would be the exchange of matter in the wheels?"

    The overbalancing weights cause rotation in the wheels which can drive other devices as well as overcome friction.

    I have worked out a simple explanation for this apparent impasse but I'm writing it up for consideration by a man for whom I have the greatest respect anbd if he says its workable then I shall publish it. If not I may still publish it with a suitable warning thatit is speculative. I can't say any more on the subject at this point, Doug.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  5. But wind isn't a force. Wind is an energy.
    That's what I mean: You want to ignore the sun's contribution to the energy cycle when you make the analogy between wind and gravity, or rain (river energy) and gravity. It's a false analogy, false logic, and it doesn't support your argument that we can do the same with gravity ALONE. The existence of the energy cycle in the Sun-Earth system refutes, actually, that we can do the same with gravity alone.

    quote "The overbalancing weights cause rotation in the wheels which can drive other devices as well as overcome friction."unquote
    How is this an exchange of matter?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Doug asked...

    James, is English your second language?"

    Now, responding here TO THE AETHER:

    No, it is not but, seemingly American English would be HIS first? (This seems a likely truth.)

    I write complimentarily (and that is exactly how it was meant and done) such a reasonable thing as

    "Doug cannily suggests that " . . . then some property about them must change as the system evolves. . . ?"

    respectfully taking-up his more than implied inquiry and, going forward with some attempt at answering same, but then this "Doug" responds by beginning (ostensibly) a relevant "conversation" by means of deliverance of a direct, INQUISITIONAL SLAP to this writer's face!

    Charming!

    Sans apologia, there will BE no conversation!

    (Perhaps it is that this "Doug" does not know the meaning of term 'canny'? Yes, perhaps that was it, the saddle burr itself.)

    This affrontrous person's invitation to starting-up A FLAME-WAR HERE - and thereby dirtying John's cultivated, civilized and erudite environment - IS HEREBY REFUSED by at least myself, the undersigned . . .

    CHEERS!

    James

    ReplyDelete
  7. James, the matter can't be the wheel itself; it has to be some part of the wheel that would interact with the external environment. Not as you seem to suggest, that the matter inside the wheel simply changes positions. That's not what the definition of an open system requires. I'm not sure what John is suggesting with his reply; about driving other devices.
    I know what canny means. Do you know what a joke is?

    ReplyDelete
  8. An open system such as Bessler's takes in resources from its surrounding environment, processes them in some way, and produces output i.e. work.

    Doug, I'm curious, are you just playing Devil's advocate or do actually believe Bessler was fraud?

    If the latter, then I see where you are coming from, if the former, then you must have some other theory to explain how his wheel worked?

    I wonder if you think it must have involved some mysterious additional force to accomplish what you believe gravity could not do alone?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  9. Doug, how can wind be an energy? Windforce is the result of a number of driving factors. The pressure gradient force is the primary force influencing the formation of wind from local to global scales. This force is determined by the spatial pattern of atmospheric pressure at any given moment in time. There is a relative relationship between pressure gradient and wind speed. This relationship is linear and positive. As a result, quadrupling the pressure gradient increases wind speed (force) by a factor of four. This is what we would expect according to Newton's second law of motion, assuming the mass of the wind is unchanged.

    So, given the fact that wind is the result of driving forces, how can it "become" or transform into an energy?

    ReplyDelete
  10. So are you saying his wheels took in gravity as a resource? That isn't part of the definition of an open system, unless you consider gravity is a form of energy.

    Wind a form of solar energy Andre. Hydro-energy is a form of solar energy. Fossil fuels (coal, oil) are a form of solar energy. Photovoltaic cells convert radiation directly into electricity. I've said this at least 3 times before; the sun is responsible for all of our energy, excluding geothermal. Geothermal has better potential to solve the world's heating and cooling needs without producing more carbon dioxide than an overbalanced wheel.

    Fraud is such a harsh word. I prefer illusionist. Bessler didn't think of himself as a fraud because of the ambiguity of the language of physics at the time. (Although, Newton didn't become involved regardless. He read the reports from his representative and realized he was a fraud.) So you could say I'm a little of both. How did he accomplish the illusion of an overbalanced wheel? The maid's story offers the best answer. I know that the charges were dropped against him, but there is usually a grain of truth in everything. Why would she want to call him out as a fraud after all that time? What motive could she have had? And just because it seems impossible that someone could turn a 12 foot wheel from another location doesn't mean it is. That's what illusions do; make impossible things look possible. How did Copperfield make the statue of liberty disappear? (I looked it up.) Karl could have been fooled when he looked in the wheel because that was part of the illusion; Bessler probably set it up in advance. Everything Bessler did at the demonstrations should be questioned as being part of the illusion.
    There isn't a mysterious force that could do it. There are only four fundamental interactive forces in the universe.
    If it really wasn't the maid and others, then how did he do it?
    A discerning mind can find it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm relieved that you are a non-believer Doug. It explains your stance concerning my attempts to explain Bessler's wheel.

    You have reached your conclusions based on what you have been taught, and learned and the evidence you are aware of gathered, presumably, from my books. Your suggestion that the maid offers an explanation is not unreasonable however you do not know the whole story about her.

    I have rewritten my book detailing events concerning her actions, recorded in historical documents, but you should be aware that she is an extremely discredited witness.

    Before she even met Bessler, she was charged with aiding and abetting an infanticide,(for witchcraft purposes,)for malicious gossip - and released to Bessler' care as part of a marriage contract, a condition being that she never returned to Annanberg - an agreement he came to bitterly regret in later years.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As for the story of the maid - indeed, she was not a credible witness. And I simply cannot imagine that many wise and experienced men, who could inspect the machine in every possible way (with the exception of seeing the inner mechanisms) were fooled during several demonstrations. Some critics very creatively came up with theories of (even bidirectional) clockworks - even when the wheel was placed under heavy loads. Must have been one hell of a spring. But all of them, as far as I know, were critics that never saw the actual machine in operation - i.e. the well-known armchair (pathological) skeptics. But all the (learned) witnesses, scholars and dignitaries that saw the machine in operation, were convinced.

    I think that's worth far more than the rantings of a unreliable maid. Especially considering the fact that Bessler even offered his head if any sign of fraud could be detected!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Of course, the Sun, together with cosmic radiation, are the main drivers of our global weather patterns is well known and not under dispute. But your (opening) statement was that wind, in itself, is a form of energy.

    That's simply not accurate (nor complete). Wind is the result of forces, driven by the Sun's radiated energy, and other important forces such as Coriolis and centripetal acceleration as well as frictional deceleration. None of these have anything to do with the Sun, but they sure have major influence.

    So although the Sun is the main driver of our weather, that still doesn't make the wind a form of energy in itself. And as far as I understood your statement, that was your point.

    Some speculate that even gravity itself is some form of spin-induced resonance phenomenon, with also the Sun as the major driver here. There are some interesting theories and experiments about that very phenomenon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well let's see.
    Energy can be divided into basically, two kinds. Potential energy and kinetic energy.
    So then the mass of air molecules that moves as wind is manifested as kinetic energy. If the wind isn't blowing, then the mass of air has potential energy. If there was no Coriolis force, or centripetal acceleration, or frictional deceleration, the wind would still blow, just in different patterns. These forces are so small they mostly only change the direction of the wind, not the magnitude. The pressure gradient is mostly provided by the difference in temperatures over land vs. water, which is determined by the sun's radiation.
    So, yes, the wind's potential is solar energy manifested thru the motion of molecules of air.

    Gravity isn't an energy resource like the sun no matter how you slice it. There has never been any instance of anything in nature (or manmade) that has been shown to run on gravity alone, period. You can't hold up Bessler's wheels as an example. There is nothing more than hearsay, really, that says they ran on gravity. None of the documentation proves beyond all doubt they did. Now, if he had left a wheel, or a drawing... but no, only codes that may not be codes at all. Destroying all the evidence of his wheels was what finally makes it tip over into illusion.

    The maid may have been a pathological liar. She couldn't help lying. Maybe she had a grudge against him from some past slight. But, charges of witchcraft were fairly common in those days, to point the finger of blame at innocent women to help explain tragic circumstances. Then they would be hung. Now we know better, thank God. So I'm not sure the maid can be discredited for that.

    And John, haven't you've reached your conclusions by denying what you've been taught; denying the evidence you can see before you, every day in nature, that proves what you've been taught? And also by your own research of Bessler? Don't you feel from your research that, rather, the missing piece of the puzzle isn't in the codes or the drawings or the books, but in the man himself? I'd like to be a believer in free energy. It would solve a lot of problems. But it takes an alternate view of reality - of energy, particles of matter, and forces - to believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hmmm. Interesting postulation, but there's more forms of energy, of course, 9 actually in all. You mentioned mechanical (kinetic and potential) forms of energy, but there's more, like thermal, electrical, chemical, electrochemical, electromagnetic, sound, and nuclear (which comes in weak and strong forces) energy. NASA, for example, uses gravity to slingshot (mind you: accelerate!) robotic or manned spacecraft in space - hundreds or thousands or even millions or kilometers or miles from Earth.

    The entire solar system, nay, entire galaxies are influenced and even existing by the grace of gravity alone. Yet we insist that that nothing runs on gravity, that's it's only hearsay that all this and more runs on gravity.

    We insist that perpetual motion is impossible yet we witness it almost routinely in space. But also on Earth, in the form of every-moving atoms and nuclei of matter. Gravity is incredibly powerful (although people refer to it as a "weak" force). Several planets in our solar system (Saturn, for example) has exhibited over the past 15 years extremely erratic behavior. It's angular momentum has considerably changed. Astronomers are stunned: it's still neatly in it's orbit, luckily for us btw. But it shouldn't happen that way. The forces required must be colossal, almost unimaginable.

    How can this be? The answer is, of course, that matter itself is a form of energy. This concept involves one of the most famous formula's in physics - the formula, E=mc2. The energy intrinsically stored in a piece of matter at rest equals its mass times the speed of light squared. Therefore, everything we can see and detect is energy. We literally live in a universe made out of... energy.

    Several astronomers have reported that gravity effects can be highly anomalous and act faster than light, which should be also "impossible". Of course that's highly debated but nobody can refute the observed and measurable facts, and "thus" most of us ignore it.

    The fact of the matter is, we don't really know what gravity is. It's the *effect* of the "gravity well", on "objects", yes. We say that the "Earth-object system" is what really possesses this potential energy, and that this energy is converted into kinetic energy as the object falls. In fact all objects are constantly "falling" into the gravity well.

    It's therefore likely that gravity is, somehow, a property of energy. The basic properties of energy are actually responsible for "constraining" many aspects of our world: Everything from the branching structures of trees to the way that our bodies and the planets move are all strongly constrained by the properties of energy.

    So I speculate: what makes up, ultimately, all matter and it's energies? Spin, rotation. Sometimes I think everything is spin, spin is all there is. kinetic energy is the energy an object possesses by virtue of its motion. After all, anything that is moving or rotating possesses kinetic energy. The faster an object moves or rotates, the greater its kinetic energy.

    I think the "key" to "decoding" gravity is spin. How to utilize it? By finding a difference, a gradient, on Newton's third law, for example. Not a "gravity shield", but something that basically does the same: something that violates "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

    A parametric oscillator, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh, btw: I said "we witness it ["it" being PM] almost routinely in space". I know that's not 100% correct. I realize that eventually some external force, such as solar wind or microscopic particles, no matter how small, will eventually change things. But consider a object, a body, in a eccentric orbit passing through our solar system. We're talking timecales in the eons, even billions of years, and even more.

    That's perpetual enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Your definition of wind as energy is exactly the same as the definition of gravity Doug, i.e. potential when not falling and kinetic energy when doing so.

    As I've said many times the origin of wind, water or gravity is not the issue; the way it works locally is what matters - in other word how each form of energy interfaces with the object which is to be moved.

    You say that none of the documentation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the wheels ran on gravity, and I agree with you, but surely if there is a shadow of a doubt and there certainly is, then the whole issue is worth investigating in the current parlous state of energy supplies.

    I understand your scepticism and I shared it for many years but I still sought a common-place explanation and I was unable to find one.

    The maid's previous employer, was sought by the King's men for infanticide, witchcraft and other crimes of intimidation and bribery. The infanticide was well-recorded and involved a trial lasting thirteen years. The maid was required to 'disappear' as a witness and accessory to murder. You ignore her previous two terms of imprisonment and think she was released and subsequently became an honest woman, but she became a continual thorn in Bessler's side, with threats of blackmail, false accusations and theft.

    However I can see that your mind is made up and I envy your certainty Doug, but for the rest of us, we have no such luxury and so we continue to delve into this fascinating conundrum, satisfied that Bessler's wheel was genuine and able to accept that there must be a way around what you believe to be impossible.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with you on the "interface" (which is a good term in this context, IMHO), John. Wind is not energy, it's merely a force, which we can transform into tangible energy by interfacing properly with it; i.e. placing a sail in it's path or blades of a turbine.

    If we find a interface to gravity. by interfacing properly with it, not by (still) illusive "gravity shields" but by temporarily canceling its effect, we're on the right path. A swinging pendulum does exactly that: twice within the period of the pendulum, as far as the pendulums pivot point is concerned, the effect of gravity is less if not canceled, depending on amplitude.

    Yes, I know, getting the pendulum to swing initially will actually cost energy, and keeping it swinging will cost energy too. But if we maximize leverage as well, the net energy budget is positive - as evidenced by the Milkovic oscillator. When I got more watts out than in, using a crude setup, that's good enough for me.

    There must be a purely mechanical way to do this.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Andre, the other types of energy you mentioned are kinetic. The motion of atoms in chemical reactions creates heat. Or violent explosions when the motion is fast enough. Thermal energy is kinetic from the motion of the molecules in the object either from simple friction across the surface or heat transfer from surface contact. Electrical energy is kinetic energy of electrons. Sound energy is kinetic motion of air molecules, similar to wind. Nuclear energy is kinetic energy at again, the atomic level. Electromagnetism is one of the forces.
    The gravitational slingshot doesn't produce energy for the object. It speeds up the object as expected, then when the object begins to leave the pull of gravity of the planet or moon it circled, it begins to slow down, as expected, due to the the same gravity that caused it to speed up in the first place. Over the long run of the object's motion, the net result is it only changed direction.

    The universe doesn't run on gravity alone. Gravity works in conjunction with the other three forces you mentioned, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. All four of them must be present, in the corresponding proportions, for our universe to exist at all, much less operate. If one force lost or gained strength, the universe would most likely annihilate. On a universal scale, gravity helps to maintain orbits. But we're really only concerned with what it does here on the surface of the earth.
    Segue to gravity interfacing.

    The definition of wind is not the same as for gravity, John. That's wrong. And you can deny the half of the cycle that creates that kinetic energy if you want, but it doesn't help your argument. What you're saying is that somehow theoretical particles of gravity (the gravitons) can interface with solid objects like the particles of atmosphere interface with windmills or plane wings. Or like particles of water interface with turbines. Well, because gravitons are only a theory, they might not exist at all. Based on the fact that gravity effects are instantaneous, gravitons would have to travel at near infinite speed. How do you detect something moving possibly 100 or more times faster than light, assuming it's there at all to detect? That might not be how gravity works.
    Anyway, the point is, it takes particles of matter, that have a measurable amount of mass, to interface with solid objects to produce kinetic energy. Gravity does not have this property. It has no particles, no mass we can detect. And it didn't have this property 300 years ago.
    The kinetic and potential energy you are talking about in this situation John, aren't in gravity. They are in the masses of the weights. Gravity is only a force that allows us to change the two different forms of that energy from one to the other, with no gain in energy. This misunderstanding all stems from the fact that you think gravity is a form of energy.
    Energy = mass x c^2
    Gravity is not in that equation.

    So the maid's employer was the one charged? She was required to appear as a witness and accessory? That , to me sounds like she was a convenient scapegoat for the employer.

    (The shadow of a doubt that you agree is there, creates doubt that it was genuine. Not the other way around. The documentation, etc., would have to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt to make it worth investigating. To me, and most.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Interesting discussion and observations, Doug. Although I do not completely agree (especially re: electrical energy and nuclear) it goes too far in this context to discuss it completely.

    I do however have to disagree about your idea of the gravitational slingshot. Of course it slows down again, and you would be correct if it were not for one thing: the object (planet) our craft slingshots around is not stationary. The planets motion is a key factor here. We're talking a planet (object) with, likely, enormous angular momentum as it revolves around the Sun. Yes, the trajectory changes as well, as our spacecraft acquires a Sun-relative vector, or a significant portion of it, during its interaction with the planetary body.

    The resulting spacecraft's velocity, relative to the Sun, takes a good boost from the planet. The rotation of the vector i.e. the bending of the spacecraft's path by the planet's gravity helps also increase the result. This trajectory bending is the other key.

    The spacecraft is a physical mass, so it has its own gravitation. That's how the spacecraft can tug on the planetary body and actually decrease the planet's orbital momentum by a tiny amount. In the exchange, the spacecraft acquires momentum from the planet — a significant amount, compared to the momentum the spacecraft already had.

    If our craft is following the planet around whilst it is captured it will leave the planet at the same relative speed as it approached and ends up going at its original speed before capture PLUS the planets speed, minus some deceleration from the gravity well, depending on vectors. As mentioned, the planet of course slows down a bit (immeasurably). But the net result is free momentum, if you like.

    This is how a recent mission to Pluto gained 9000kph. The famous Voyager missions used this mechanism extensively - that why they are now interstellar craft. The technique has even been employed at least once to rescue an Earth-orbiting communications satellite whose launch vehicle failed to place it in its intended geosynchronous orbit. Simply put, the "gravity assist" flyby technique can add or subtract momentum to increase or decrease the energy of a spacecraft's orbit. Generally it has been used in solar orbit, to increase a spacecraft's velocity and propel it outward in the solar system, much farther away from the Sun than its launch vehicle would have been capable of doing.

    Oh yes, gravity can "run" these things.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Doug , you said, "you're saying is that somehow theoretical particles of gravity (the gravitons) can interface with solid objects like the particles of atmosphere interface with windmills or plane wings."

    I don't expect that process at all, what I see is that the weights are the particles moved by gravity.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  23. John, I think NASA indeed proves every day that gravity does interface with objects *and* is able to add energy (momentum) to the object it is interfacing with. The reality of, currently, at least two interstellar spacecraft proves it. The Titan III Centaur boosters they were launched with would never, ever, have been able to propel them into interstellar space.

    They were propelled there by gravity-assist. Quod est demonstrandum.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks Andre. I do have a complete theory but I'm unwilling to share it yet. I need to have it all written down in logical steps so that no one shoot it down.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  25. I see what you're saying about the craft gaining the speed of the planet; but it's relative to our observation of the craft and planet. And the momentum is conserved because whatever the craft gains the planet loses, that's right. So no "free" momentum.
    Let's just say we're both right and end it there; can we agree then, that this gravity-assist doesn't apply near the surface of a planet's mass? In other words, it only applies to objects in space that approach, then leave, a gravitational force. This doesn't happen in a wheel near the surface of the earth. So it can't be a premise to further an argument that gravity can "assist" objects this way inside a wheel. Agreed?

    John, what do you see after the weights moved by gravity reach the ground, or the bottom of a wheel? They "collide", right? Some of the kinetic energy is lost to air friction. Some of it is lost to the collision between the weight and the rim of the wheel; the weight deforms and the wheel rim deforms. The axle is the most glaring source of friction. But, the fact that gravity only has one "charge" or one direction, is the giant hurdle for a gravity wheel. I don't know how anyone can get past that. Any assist gravity gives, it takes in equal amount, interface or not. Particles of water and air return to potential states, until the sun gives up it's energy to them, and they transform that solar kinetic energy to mechanical kinetic energy that we can exploit. Weights in a wheel don't get their mechanical kinetic energy from gravity. They get a transformation in their two possible states from gravity. If the sun could lift the weights in a wheel somehow, that would be a proper analogy.

    I feel it's only fair to warn you about your theory, John. Even if you have it in logical order, be prepared to have it shot down. And I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one looking for flaws! ; )

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's OK Doug, no one has more experience than I of being shot down in flames ;-)

    I do have a solution to propose, but not here and not yet. As is often the case with such things, the answer is absurdly simple and I need to write and rewqrite until I'm a hundred per cent satisfied that it is as good as its going to get.

    Just in case you think I'm talking from a position of complete ignorance, I am a qualified enginer. I spent several years in the air force as an engine fitter (aircraft engines) before taking a job as production engineer with a job description which required me to improve production processes by simplifying them and/or speeding them to reduce costs. This has given me good background in seeking solutionsto problems and this has to be the hardest solution I've ever sought!

    However it has also given me enough skill with the necessary intuition to know that Besler's wheel could not have been a fake - and doubtless you will dismiss this as subjective and not a valid viewpoint, but that is my choice and I will not give up on this path unless someone can prove to me that it was a fake - not 'must have been one' but 'was one'.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  27. I've never thought you were unqualified to talk about these things. Actually , you're probably more qualified than I am. My background is 3 years of computer science at a technological university; the physics courses really hurt my GPA. I switched to music and liberal arts and have my bachelor's in that. I've always been better than average at problem solving, I think. But (you knew there was going to be a but, didn't you - I looked up the most frequently used word on the besslerwheel forum; it won't surprise you that it's but) to me, it isn't really a problem in need of a solution, I would say it's an anomaly, an exception, in need of an explanation.
    If you saw a magician do the same thing today, and you could examine the wheel the exact same way, would you change your mind? Just wondering what kind of proof you would require before you would say it was a fake.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Doug, I used the term "free" momentum loosely because the effects on the exchange on the planetary body are immeasurably small. Of course there's no free lunch. I agree we can't replicate forces of the same colossal magnitude and scale on Earth, but I don't see why not use similar effect(s), on a much smaller scale, in a wheel. Bessler was an experienced clockmaker - one can think of mechanisms ("connectedness" principle anyone?) that do roughly the same: slingshotting a weight, or pendulum bob, with temporary assist from a great mass. Not so much by gravity but by "connectedness" (a clutch, slip rings, latches, something alike). And gravity can be temporarily influenced ("shielded") by mechanical means, i.e. as in a oscillator, from the viewpoint of the pivot. It's not that we're completely helpless here at the bottom of the gravity well. It sure isn't easy; that's something else.

    I wonder if John's proposed solution has anything to do with spin, rotation of a mass or masses and, perhaps, some kind of clutch. Care to say anything about that, John?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Doug you asked, 'Just wondering what kind of proof you would require before you would say it was a fake.'

    It wasn't a case of proving that it was a fake but rather it was being suspicious of the maid's comment about the whole thing being turned by a lever applying its force through the three-quarter inch bearings supporting a twelve foot wheel. I knew that it was impossible and I set out to explore the documentary evidence.

    I spent a long long time checking Karl's credentials as an honest man, as he was the only other person to see the interior of the wheel and I came to the conclusion that he told the truth.

    But more importantly I set out to try to design a wheel that could conform to the exact same requirements as reported by witnesses, and at the same time complete the tests as described by the official examiners - it wasn't possible.

    The only way it might have been possible was to have some kind of internal engine turning it, but I couldn't come up with anything which could a) get it to hit full speed within three turns, b) hit 26 turns a minute and c) run for longer than a few minutes and forget getting it to drive anything else!

    The sheer weight of a twelve foot wheel has a tremendous inertia to over come with a straight forward clockwork mechanism, and anything else is quite frankly too fanciful to consider - I refer to ambient temperature changes, hydraulics and pneumatic bellows or electrostatic charge.

    Andre it has nothing to do with any of those suggestions you have made, sorry to be mysterious but I must be sure before I discuss it in public.

    Any way I am going away for a couple of weeks so I'll have to stop access to comments while I'm away as I won't be able to apply any editorial control and I'd hate to come back and find the blog had been taken over by some weirdos!! By the way, I have only ever deleted two comments so far and they were for the language used rather than the content.

    I'll leave it open 'til tomorrow.

    JC

    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...