Monday, 3 October 2011

Pendulums again.

Still trying to find the time to make my latest mechanism, unfortunately another week in Spain looms close, so it looks as though I'll be delayed again! Who am I kidding, I love it there! This week has seen the hottest October since records began, with temperatures of 29 degrees Celsius( that's 84F deg in real money!) - I know that's not particularly hot but for October its just amazing. It's all going downhill again on Tuesday so it looks as though my trip is timed to perfection. I will be connected there so I can keep any eye on things and maybe even write a blog about the wine, beer and sangria!

I'm tangled up in thoughts about the second drawing in Das Tri at the moment, and trying to discern exactly what Bessler was trying to tell us with the double drawing. The large triangular pendulum is intriguing and the three different angles seem to point, in my opinion, to the thirty degrees at the bottom - maybe its critical? I have the thought that a weight about to fall through 90 degrees ( a quarter) would need to be leaning a little in order to begin its fall as soon as possible. Each number on the clock is seperated by thirty degrees, so one o'clock is thirty degrees from twelve o'clock. Should we start the fall at one o'clock to stop at three o'clock?

JC

154 comments:

  1. That's my thoughts exactly - that's one way he could have done it. Start the fall of the pendulum at 1 o'clock, stop it at 3 o'clock, (and collect the kinetic energy, transform it to torque); then reset the pendulum again to 1 o'clock, and so forth. In MT 51 he shows a ratchet mechanism for such a purpose, complete with pendulum. MT 55 is also interesting in that respect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JC wrote:

    "The large triangular pendulum is intriguing and the three different angles seem to point, in my opinion, to the thirty degrees at the bottom - maybe its critical? "

    Then again, maybe Bessler is just showing the giant pendulum with its football sized weight at the farthest angle of its swing.

    I've noticed that Bessler likes to work with angles that are simple multiples of 5°. Who knows, rather than some mystical / numerological / Biblical significance, this could be just be because the protractors he used were only accurate to and graduated in five degree increments. Or, maybe because of eyesight problems he could only read the larger 5° calibrations on his protractors when making drawings!

    Resetting internal pendulums on the wheels descending side? To do this using a secondary set of five weights guarantees that the design will not work. Why? Because any overbalance produced by your first set of five weights will, after a few degrees of rotation, be perfectly cancelled out by the counter imbalance of the secondary set of weights. I would recommend getting rid of the secondary set of weights and then trying to use a Connectedness Principle instead.

    Now I think I see why you occasionally mention five weights and then suddenly increase the number to ten weights without justifying the increase.

    Wish I could be more optimistic for you, John, but I remain firmly convinced that unless one is interconnecting his weights with cords, he is most definitely not heading in the right direction if he is attempting to duplicate Bessler's design.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The three angles on the large pendulum are 72 deg, 78 deg and 30 degrees, Techno guy (one of which is not a multiple of five). My thoughts are that the 72 deg being the fifth of 360 degrees in the centre of a pentagram, indicates the centre of the circle. The 78 is the result of having to include one of thirty degrees. So the thirty degree angle is the pivot point and the weighted lever falls 60 degrees from a position thirty degrees forward of the vertical.

    I have explained all this in great detail elsewhere and have also included everything about the second set of five weights.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good luck with your new approach, John. It sounds complicated.

    I once went over all of the Bessler drawings with a protractor and found enough angles there to, literally, make me dizzy! However, I do believe that somewhere in that jungle of geometric data there is information vital to solving the mystery of his wheels.

    But, finding it is another matter. Ultimately, each of our "pet" theories must be tested to see if it yields the desired results; that is, if it keeps the center of gravity of the wheel's weights on its descending side during wheel rotation so as to achieve PM.

    At least you are always building, an activity without which there really is no hope of ever finding a solution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. John, I assume you're referring to the drawing labelled "Secunda Figura..." showing the Weissenstein wheel. Last night I made a computer model of a pendulum according to that drawing, to see how well its natural period agreed with the rotational speed of the wheel.

    Observers said the Weissenstein wheel rotated at 25 to 26rpm, corresponding to a period of 2.3077 to 2.4 seconds per revolution. My model shows that the period of the pendulum by itself is just under 2.7 seconds, so the wheel would have been driving the pendulum somewhat above its natural resonant frequency.

    Further details:

    T-shaped frame: assumed to be hardwood, total mass 2.28kg.
    Top 2 masses: assumed to be brass spheres 4 inch dia, mass 4.67 kg each.
    Bottom mass: assumed to be 50% heavier than top mass; 7kg.
    Distance from pivot to either top mass: 19 inches.
    Distance from pivot to bottom mass: 61 inches.
    Total amplitude of swing (bearing in mind that the end of the crank is not shown at quite its lowest position in the drawing): ±45°.

    Halving the amplitude to only ±22.5° reduces the period from 2.6989 to 2.6272 seconds. Doubling or halving all masses makes little difference, (only in the third decimal place).

    ReplyDelete
  6. I made an error in the model described above: it was only half the size it should have been! The correct model has all linear dimensions multiplied by 2, and all masses multiplied by 2³ = 8.

    This gives an even longer period for the pendulum of 3.8203 seconds for ±45° and 3.709 seconds for ±22.5°.

    So the wheel must have been driving the pendulum quite a lot above its natural resonant frequency.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Andre.

    Nice work Arktos, it does look as though the pendulum was attempting to regulate the wheel's speed, but as you know I don't believe that the pendulum ever existed in fact, in which case its purpose on the drawings must have been either merely a decoration or to inform.

    Thanks for the encouragement Technoguy, in the end I think building is the only way forward, and trying to find inspiration from studying the drawings seems to help in my case at least.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  8. John, the quite large discrepancy between the periods of the wheel and the pendulum has now convinced me that you're right: the pendulum could not have existed and worked as drawn.

    ReplyDelete
  9. One very important clue, very well described by witnesses, was the fact that the wheel, under a *descending* load, did not speed up. In other words the same mechanism that enabled the wheel to accelerate from a complete stop to its nominal rotational speed within 2 or 3 revolutions also "worked against" it - prevented it from "overspeeding" and/or self-destructing. The secret, Bessler's secret, is in the governor, the system clock or synchronization - whatever one wants to call it, in my view.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good point Andre. That description has always puzzled me because I think that feature must be intrinsic to the basic design. By that I mean that I can't imagine that Bessler would have added it, as it isn't really something one would add.

    Having said that it has just ocurred to me that perhaps Bessler applied a brake to the wheel to stop it over-running when under its descending load?

    I know the witnesses didn't mention that he did that, but could they have missed it?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  11. When the load was descending, it wouldn't be a load, would it?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The wheel ran out, lowering the box of stones, at the same speed as when it was lifting and the assumption is that it had an inherent braking effect, when lowering, Doug.

    If it ran faster and faster under the unbraked load of the box of stones, or maintained its speed due to its inherent braking ability, there would be a lesser of greater load acting on the wheel.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  13. "there would be a lesser of greater load acting on the wheel"? I don't follow that.

    Like Andre said, once it reached 26 rpm after 2 or 3 revolutions, it wouldn't go any faster, or slower. It turned at 26 rpm with or without a load. (Or 20 rpm, if the water screw is included.)
    So the descending "load" wouldn't make it go faster and faster. It just served to start it in the other direction, rather than pushing it with two fingers, and getting the demonstration ready for the next lift.

    ReplyDelete
  14. John,..Do have any idea why I cannot post a comment on my computer using the cellphone.Every time I post,it deletes my comment.
    I am only managing this post because I am posting on my notebook using someones wireless network nearby.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Trevor: embedded formatting maybe? Maybe your phone sends "illegal" characters, or HTML, or some such. Also, size matters - too many characters, and it's rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm, sorry Trevor, I have no idea. Auick look on google produced this.

    "One of the relatively newest mobile Internet advances is a phenomenon known as “Moblogging,” or mobile blogging. The way this works depends on which blogging platform that you use, but generally it involves sending a text message or an email to a particular address, and that message is automatically routed to your blog as an instant update."

    If I can find that in one minute I sure you'll be able to discover exactly how to do it, but I'll try to look into it more tomorrow but I'll be away for a few days after that.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Arktos

    Since we don't know the masses of the weights on the Weissenstein wheel's compound pendulum precisely, any calculation of the distance from the pivot to the pendulum's center of mass based on assumed weight masses will only be quesswork. I prefer to use what little data we have that is accurate.

    At 26 rpm's, the Weissenstein wheel would have completed one revolution every 2.308 seconds. If the pendulum was synchronized with the wheel, then the pendulum would also have a period for one complete oscillation of 2.308 seconds.

    The forumula for the radius of gyration, L, of a compound pendulum (which is the distance from the pivot to the center of mass of the pendulum's weights AND their supporting structures) is:

    L = g (T/2 pi)²

    Substituting in the appropriate values, we have:

    L = (32.174 ft/sec²)( 2.308 sec / 6.284 )²

    Which makes L = 4.340 feet

    From just eyeballing the second Wiessenstein wheel drawing, it looks to me like the center of mass of the huge compound pendulum swung directly through the center point of the axle! This, obviously, is not accidental. The masses of the pendulum weights, their locations, as well as the location of the pendulum's pivot would have had to have been carefully selected to place the pendulum's center of mass at this unique location.

    As for the wheels maintaining a constant lowering rate for a load, this matter is also easily explained.

    Whenever a wheel was forced by a descending weight to accelerate beyond its "natural" maximum rotation rate, this action would force the center of gravity of the wheel weights involved to swing over to the ascending side of the wheel. This effect was caused by the excessive centrifugal forces acting on the wheel's weights.

    With the center of mass of tens of pounds of weight suddenly located an inch or so onto a wheel's ascending side, there would been plenty of torque available to neutralize the overdriving torque produced by the descending load's rope which was attached to the wheel's axle. At some point the load would only be able to descend at a constant rate as the wheel rotated at its normal maximum rate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. However it's explained, internal governor, system clock, synchronization, inherent braking, centrifugal (sic) force; since the lifting was " quite slow", then the lowering must have been equally slow. Slow enough to stop with one hand, probably. No problem.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Doug

    Not so. The Merseburg and Weissenstein wheels would have been turning at near their normal maximum rates as a load either ascended or descended.

    If a wheel was running freely and a rope suddenly attached to its axle for a lift, then, due to the flywheel effect of its weights, the load would be lifted rapidly, but would eventually bring the wheel to a stop if it had to be lifted hundreds of feet. The test conditions, however, never allowed this to happen.

    A descending wheel, as I stated in my last post, would accelerate the wheel until its weights' center of mass swung over to its ascending side and neutralized the overdriving torque of the descending load. When this happened, the load would dropping at an appreciably rate, D, which is given by the formula:

    D = (Wrot / 60 second) (2 pi Rax)

    Where D is the descent rate in inches / second, Wrot is the number of rotations of the wheel per MINUTE, and Rax is the axle radius in inches.

    For the Weissenstein Wheel we can now write:

    D = (26 rotations / 60 seconds) (6.282 x 4 inches)

    D = 10.89 inches per second


    I certainly would not want a 60 or 70 pound weight landing on my head at a speed of 10.89 inches per second!

    As far as the reference to the "slow" lifting of the Merseburg wheel is concerned, that test involved having the wheel lift a 60 pound weight from a standstill after being started with gentle push. In order to lift a weight like this, a block and tackle arrangement with a greater than 4:1 ratio had to be used. If a 5:1 ratio worked, then the Merseburg wheel's driving torque would have been around 12 in-lbs. That's not much for a wheel that size, but was huge compared to the ZERO in-lbs of torque everyone else's wheels were producing!

    I just noticed something that almost made my eyes pop out of my head and dangle by their optic nerves! The second Weissenstein wheel is NOT complete!

    There are supposed to be TWO pendulums attached to the wheel: the one shown and another behind the wheel's drum. If it was there, then there should be another football shaped weight visible on the lower right side of the drum and another crossbar ball weight near the upper right side of the drum. They are not there. Why?

    Did Besser accidentally leave the other pendulum out of the illustration? I doubt it. He purposely only shows one compound pendulum in order to make the wheel look more powerful than it really was.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If the wheel used a 4:1 or 5:1 block and tackle,(why do you think that?) then you would have to include that in your calculation of the rate of lift and lower.. They increase the distance the load has to be moved, and thus the time, while decreasing the force necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ Doug

    My calculations do not need to be changed. They are for a load being lifted when a wheel was turning at its maximum rate and a rope connected to a load outside the window was suddenly attached to the wheel's axle. There were no block and tackles used for these types of lifts. A small loop at the end of the rope could be slipped over a peg inserted into the side of a wheel's rotating axle and the weight would have immediately taken off as its rope wrapped itself around the axle. This is a braking kind of test in which the wheel's kinetic energy is drained off to raise the weight. With a lift of only a few tens of feet, there is virtually no noticeable change in the rotation rate of the wheel.

    The OTHER kind of lift of a weight would be done for a load in the same room with a wheel and would use a block and tackle type device. The axle would have been connected to the load by a rope threaded through the block and tackle that would amplify the lifting force produced at the axle. In this case the lifting speed would only be about 1/5 of what I calculated or about 2 inches per second which could certainly be described as "slow".

    Here's a quote from a 1715 letter by Christian Wolff who observed such a lift by the Merseburg wheel:

    "At the moment it can lift a weight of sixty pounds, but to achieve this the pulley had to be reduced more than four times, making the lifting quite slow."

    "Reducing the pulley" occurs when more pulleys are used in the block and tackle so that one gets increased lifting force at the expense of lifting speed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There's nothing that says the Meresburg wheel used a block and tackle, or was in the same room.
    Likewise, there's nothing that says the rope was looped around the axle after it reached maximum rotation. You're changing the story to fit your theory.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Trevor, I've had a look at the problem and I think the best advice is here at:-

    http://www.google.com/support/blogger/bin/topic.py?hl=en&topic=12462

    It's too long to copy asnd paste but you should be able to make sense of it if you read through it. Sorry I can't be more helpful, good luck.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  24. Doug wrote:

    "You're changing the story to fit your theory."

    Admittedly, one must use a bit of deductive reasoning to see things as I do.

    For example, notice that in the Merseburg drawings that the rope is attached to the axle near the pivot. This is the strongest place on the axle to attach it if the rope is going to apply a sudden jerking force to the axle as it simultaneously tightens and quickly lifts the load outside the window upward. Also note that the first pulley that the rope from the axle encounters is located UNDER the axle. This is to make sure that the sudden application of force to the axle is downward and presses the pivots more tightly into the open bearings. That minimizes the chance of the sudden force on the axle actually pulling the nearby axle pivot off of its bearing plate and causing the entire wheel to dislocate or causing the nearby upright support to snap in two where the bearing plate is located.

    It's hard to see in the drawings how the rope is attached, but on the other side of the axle there are pegs inserted into the axle to lift the wooden stamps. I have no doubt that such a peg was also used for the rapid attachment of the rope to the axle when the wheel was moving at maximum speed.

    As for the business of the block and tackle, it would be far easier to keep it and its suspended weight inside of the room with the wheel than to have it hanging outside of the window. In that location it would have been more difficult to reach and pass the rope around more of its pulleys so as to increase its lifting force of the wheel. Also, since the Merseburg wheel could, with the use of the block and tackle, only lift a 60 lb. load at the rate of a few inches per second, there was no real need to have the load outside of the window and suspended by a rope tens of feet in length.

    So, you see I'm not actually "changing the story", but rather trying to clarity it as much as possible.

    One must always keep in mind that the data we have about the Bessler story is still very fragmentary and, unfortunately, may remain so. We must make the most of what we have.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thanks John,.. I think I fixed the problem.My cookie regection control was set too high.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes,I'm back!..Now Doug,to respondond to your remark about the sun's gravity.Yes you're right.The sun's gravity converts the straight line enertial motion of a planet into a circular orbit.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ technoguy 4 Oct 21:15,

    While I agree with most of what you say, the formula you give is for a "simple pendulum", oscillating at small amplitude. As well as its bottom mass, Bessler's pendulum had two large masses on either side, so it was a "physical pendulum" where the rotational inertia of those two masses is important.

    That said, I did find that the value of the masses could be varied, by a factor of four, with surprisingly little difference in the answer for the pendulum's natural period (which is of course a characteristic of a simple pendulum!)

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ Arktos

    Yes, I did use the formula for a simple pendulum, but it also works for a compound pendulum just so long as one realizes that the length being determined is the radius of gyration or the distance from the pivot to the "center of gyration" which is where the center of mass of the various weights and their rigid supporting structures is located.

    As for all pendulums, whether simple or compound, the formula I used is only valid as long as the amplitude does not get too big. If it does, then one needs to use a more complex equation to accurately determine the radius of gyration, L.

    Bessler, not being a "profound" mathematician, probably would have used the simple formulas (which are only accurate for small amplitudes) to design his pendulums and locate their radii of gyration at the centers of his wheels' axles.

    The question I am still wrestling with is WHY he would do this? That is, why even bother with using a compound pendulum? The only answer that makes sense to me is that if he had used a simple pendulum with a single bob weight, he would have had the weight swinging near the crank at the end of the axle if he wanted the pendulum's period to match the rotational period of the wheel. Maybe this would have complicated matters when it came to the location of the pendulum's pivot? Or, maybe he was nervous about the danger of a simple pendulum's massive bob weight smashing into and damaging the crank and possibly knocking an axle pivot off of its bearing plate with catastrophic results?

    What I also find most puzzling is why he only shows ONE compound pendulum in that second Weissenstein wheel drawing. I can't imagine him accidentally leaving out the visible portions of the rear pendulum from the drawing. No, he did this on purpose and, as I've previously speculated, to give the impression that his wheel was more powerful than it actually was (it's maximum power output was only about 25 watts!).

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ technoguy

    I also question how Bessler could have used the pendulum shown in that drawing. We both agree that at 26rpm the wheel's period is 2.308 seconds. I found in my computer model that for an amplitude of ±45° the pendulum's period is 3.8203 seconds, (and it is fairly insensitive to changes in mass).

    That gives a ratio of 1.655:1 for the periods. To me, that is too big a discrepancy -- it is well outside of the range where any forced oscillations/resonance situation could be occurring between the wheel and the pendulum.

    So I concluded that as drawn, and connected to a wheel turning at 26rpm, the pendulum could be only a bit of essentially useless mechanism, contributing only friction, and no useful regulatory function.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Arktos & Techno: Bessler was a clever old fox, and, as a typical German treat, "grundlich", in other words: very serious, meticulous. His drawings are extremely details, especially considering the period. Could it be that he *deliberately* made these "mistakes" or perhaps he wanted (needed!) to slow down the wheel to prevent it from self-destructing? Don't forget that good brake systems (other than a pony brake) did not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "extremely details" should be extremely detailed. Apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  32. On second thought: maybe the pendulum(s) were optimized to be "in-tune" with the wheel under (considerable) load, and *not* a free-running wheel?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Andre, to match the pendulum's natural period of 3.8203 seconds, the wheel would have to rotate at only about 15.7 rpm, quite a lot slower than reported.

    Your suggestion about deliberate mistakes could be right -- of course Bessler could have made pendulums to match his wheels (i.e. to regulate their speed) if he had wanted to. Maybe he really did, but just drew them out of scale?

    By the way, I used the drawing on p156 of JC's republication of "Das Triumphirende..." for my (corrected) model, assuming the wheel is 12ft diameter, using a scale of 1mm represents 2 inches.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Arktos, Bessler being German, I cannot imagine "bad engineering", or sloppy drawing (unless, indeed, deliberate). I mean, if there is one nation on the planet that has a reputation for excellent engineering and precise craftsmanship, it's the Germans. There must be more to it... but what? Maybe his coded clues have something to do with multiplication factors and some such. Dang... we need some professional codebreakers, like John suggested a while ago. Bletchley Park comes to mind. The cracked the Enigma code too :-)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Nice web site I found by serendipity.

    www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion.html

    This chap isn't afraid to experiment, and puts his results on screen. It knocked a few of my future ideas on the head.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Professional code breakers? They'd have to be German speaking as well!

    I'd give it a go if I spoke German, but my feelings remain the same, that the codes are there to confound the intellectuals he called his enemies, and relied on people making assumptions to confuse themselves. Repeating a misleading clue twice will make the clever man think he's onto a winner, but lead him down a blind alley. What is needed here is a cryptic crossword type person, one who ignores the obvious and looks for the deeper meanings.
    Some notable cryptic crosswords clues I remember have been:

    (1) Gesg. (9,4)
    (2) Gawdosy (3,5,2.10,4)

    Also remember that it was a group of crossword lovers who helped crack the enigma code.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Techno, have a look at the output calculations on the besslerwheel website:

    http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Wheel_Output

    I'd be interested to see how you arrived at your 25 watt number. There has been debate on that website whether or not the reduced pulley phrase by Wolff refers to a block and tackle or not. I think their numbers don't include it, so the output is much higher.

    Deductive reasoning is good, but it might give us a wrong answer. Wouldn't it be odd for bessler to leave out the block and tackle in the drawing if it had been used, but include the pendulums that obviously were not used?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Guys,.. You are more likely going to solve the wheel by putting all the clues together.It's a mechanical configuration that has five elementry parts for each set of weights.Each has specific job to do and with out one of them the wheel will not work.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It just occured to me that we have all been making a very big and possibly FALSE assumption!

    Everyone assumes that the Weissenstein wheel's MAXIMUM unloaded rotation rate was 26 rpm's. But what if it was actually much higher?

    The Merseburg wheel was described as free running at 40 or more rpm's. Well, since the Weissenstein wheel was about the same diameter, only a bit thicker, than the Merseburg wheel, maybe it's actual maximum free running (that is, with nothing connected to it) rotation rate was also 40+ rpm's!

    Maybe it was 52 rpm's and Bessler decided to add his compound pendulums to it to reduce its rate to only half of that or 26 rpm's. If so, then the question would be WHY? There could be several reasons for this.

    First, due to the increasing centrifugal forces acting on its active weights, their center of gravity would tend to swing below the axle with increasing wheel speed and this action would then greatly reduce a wheel's power output. Using pendulums to limit maximum wheel rotation rate is a very clever way to keep the wheel's power output elevated without having to worry about using some sort of constantly dragging brake material.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Techno, I was thinking something along the same lines. If we accept that the man and his machine was genuine (which I do) then I simply cannot imagine Bessler doing such things for decorative or show purposes. To the contrary, I think his drawings were as precise as possible. His clues were deliberately vague, yes, but I think we should take his drawings quite seriously. He did show things that he allowed to be seen for a reason.

    One other thing I noticed about him. He loved to go against the grain - do things exactly opposite of what one would expect, perhaps. Critics would say "such a wheel would need enormous energy input to overcome inertia". His wheel started with two fingers. Critics would say "the wheel would be hopelessly underpowered". Witnesses described that it took tremendous effort to stop it. Modern critics would say "such a wheel, if possible, would self-destruct". And, indeed, the fact that a reliable, adjustable, and non-abrasive braking mechanism is present (and depicted) should be seen as further proof that his wheel was genuine.

    I agree - the external pendulums were there down "throttle down" the wheel.

    @Trevor: great site with some interesting concepts. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  41. (Again) on second thought... isn't it a fact that in demonstrations where considerable power was required, the pendulums were not required. In fact Bessler himself stated that they were there to "modify" things (quite well said, actually, to describe "throttling down" - especially since the concept of throttling didn't exist!) but not (always) required.

    Obviously, under heavy load, the pendulums would have stopped the wheel. But under lighter loads, such as lifting a few mechanical hammers (stampers) pendulums were needed to prevent a run-away condition.

    Interesting. If the RPM's described by the witnesses are correct (which I now somewhat doubt) maybe the *size* of the wheel was much bigger than we assume.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Let me restate something I said. I stated (and still think) that "to the contrary, I think his drawings were as precise as possible.". Yes, precise in the sense to show detail, but not necessary to scale.

    In fact, that "not to scale" shows in the picture with the box. The whole setup barely fits in the drawing. And lets not forget, there where numerous witnesses on several occasions. Where would they go?

    Also, rooms in castles were probably mostly quite big, with very high ceilings.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The rpms' were measured with watches by the different witnesses. There isn't any controversy, unless we want to question other witness' statements?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Correction:

    A sentence in the second paragraph of my last reply to Doug should read:

    "BUT since the two attached pendulums were counter balanced against each other through the axle, they were probably NOT considered to be a load!"

    Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Techno , have you looked at the other website calculations?

    Also, the drawings show both the Meresburg and the Kassel wheels with the rope going through a window. There isn't anything either in the drawings or the witness descriptions to deduce that block and tackles were used with the weight in the same room.
    And to reiterate, why would he leave the block and tackle out if it was used and add the pendulum if it wasn't? Is bessler precise or not?
    Are the rpm's now suspicious as well?

    ReplyDelete
  46. @ Doug

    I'm sure that there are all kinds of power calculations for the Merseburg and Weissenstein wheels out there. They will vary depending upon the assumptions made about the weights being lifted, the speed of the lifting, and, possibly, what was the actual mass intended to be indicated by the word being translated as "pound". I am "comfortable" with the Kassel wheel's maxmimum CONTINUOUS power output being ABOUT 25 watts and the Merseburg wheel's being somewhat less, perhaps only (60 lb / 70 lb) x 25 watts or 21,4 watts,

    Why are the block and tackle used for measuring the CONSTANT lifting force of the wheel determined by indoor testing NOT shown in the drawings while the pendulums are?

    Simple. Bessler was always trying to depict his wheels as being more powerful than they actually were. Showing a block and tackle for the Merseburg wheel with five stretches of rope between its multiple pulleys would immediately have indicated that it could not constantly and DIRECTLY lift a 60 lb weight, but only one weighing about 12 lbs. Anyone seeing a 12 foot diameter wheel only lifting 12 lbs at 10+ inches per second would certainly not have been impressed by it or, most importantly to Bessler, willing to pay a king's ransom for the invention.

    But, swinging pendulum were shown because all of their motion IS impressive and one immediately thinks the wheel is easily lifting TWO heavy bob weights. Of course, this illusion quickly evaporates when one realizes that the two pendulums are counter balanced against each other. Bessler tried to perserve this illusion, IMO, by only showing ONE pendulum in the second Weissenstein wheel drawing.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bessler wrote Grundlicher Bericht 1715,Apologia 1716-1717,Das Triumphans 1719,in his prime year's. He had high hopes that he would eventually sell his PM.It would be foolish and dangerous for him to leave any clues in his writings.Example:Bessler successfully sold his secret,in the year1720 for the sum, of twenty thousand pounds.What would happen if two, or more, years later, someone decipher Bessle's clues, and from it build PM? Logical conclusion is that investor's would demand their money back or his head.Hi clearly stated that hi would sell his PM secret.Secret is secret.There are no keys.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Techno, why would bessler demo the wheel with a block and tackle, and then leave it out of the drawing to make the wheel look more powerful? Do you think anyone would be fooled into thinking it would be 5 times more powerful? I doubt it.
    The other inconsistency would be the big leap in power from the Meresburg to the Kassel wheel with only a small increase in size. If the M. wheel only lifted 12 lbs. with a block and tackle, how would the K. wheel lift 112 lbs. directly from the axle? Where is the extra energy coming from?

    ReplyDelete
  49. @ vincent

    I'm convinced that Bessler DID leave alot of clues about his wheels' internal mechanisms in his drawings, BUT they will only make sense to someone who actually has the wheel in front of him for comparison (or is actively building in an effort to duplicate a wheel). This was done to prove that Bessler was the original inventor (and thus had "priority") in the event that someone popped up when Bessler was between destroyed wheels with a rival wheel.


    @ Doug

    I don't think the block and tackle was used at Bessler's public demonstrations. It would only have been used during private testing when potential investors wanted to know what the maximum useful CONSTANT lifting force of a wheel was. Lifting 60 or 70 lbs seems impressive until one realizes it is only at a rate of inches per second.

    If the Weissenstein wheel lifted 112 lbs directly from the axle, you can be sure that it was not a "slow", inches per second, block and tackle assisted lift, but rather a sudden foot per second lift using the stored angular momentum of the wheel. Such a lift is impressive, but does not really indicate the true usefulness of a wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ok, Techno, you can't have it both ways.

    You said:

    Why are the block and tackle used for measuring the CONSTANT lifting force of the wheel determined by indoor testing NOT shown in the drawings while the pendulums are?
    Simple. Bessler was always trying to depict his wheels as being more powerful than they actually were. Showing a block and tackle for the Merseburg wheel with five stretches of rope between its multiple pulleys would immediately have indicated that it could not constantly and DIRECTLY lift a 60 lb weight, but only one weighing about 12 lbs. Anyone seeing a 12 foot diameter wheel only lifting 12 lbs at 10+ inches per second would certainly not have been impressed by it or, most importantly to Bessler, willing to pay a king's ransom for the invention.

    And then you said:

    I don't think the block and tackle was used at Bessler's public demonstrations. It would only have been used during private testing when potential investors wanted to know what the maximum useful CONSTANT lifting force of a wheel was. Lifting 60 or 70 lbs seems impressive until one realizes it is only at a rate of inches per second.

    So if they (the investors) saw the b. and t. in a private demonstration, they would be fooled? If he wanted to do that, why not use a 10:1 pulley and lift 120 lbs.? But if they saw it in a drawing they wouldn't be fooled? So he'd better leave it out of the drawing? It can't be both.
    The drawings show both wheel's ropes passing thru the window, so I still don't see where you get the Meresburg weight in the same room with a b. and t. from that, unless the drawings were deliberately misleading as you indicated. In that case, you're right. The drawings don't show the testing conditions accurately, they leave out parts, and they show extra parts!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Was Bessler, such a religious man, trying to deceive investors on purpose? Well, the answer is both "yes" and "no".

    He obviously slanted his presentations of the wheels to make them look more powerful than they were, yet, in his mind, he probably figured this deception was okay since he could always increase the constant power output of a wheel by using more massive weights, a larger diameter wheel, and even putting multiple wheels on the same axle.

    I find it interesting that a working steam engine was introduced in England in 1712 which is the year of Bessler's first public demonstration. That first steam engine was immediately put to work draining water out of flooded coal mines. The engineers who installed it knew exactly what it's constant power output was and how to determine it. This information would have been available to those who were hired to test Bessler's wheels. Good thing, too. Because of one block and tackle test we know that the wheels were not really that powerful. This indicates their internal "perpetual motion srructures" were only able to displace the center of gravity of their weights an inch or so from the centers of their axles.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Well I guess since I can't seem to get across the illogic of the block and tackle thing, I'll just drop it.
    But now you say the weights were only an inch or so from the axles being the reason for the weakness of the wheels. How do you figure that? You could only know that if you knew the way they worked.

    If he knew he could increase the power by using bigger weights, then he would have used bigger weights, and not worry about deceiving anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  53. When you use pendulum in wheel ther is only one speed wher the wheel can lightly run. Pendulum regulate the speed.

    I tested 1,3 m pendulmu in 1m wheel. It is difficult adjust wantedspeed.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I was inspired by something Trevor posted, with this link: http://www.nathancoppedge.com/Perpetual_Motion_SeeSaw.jpg

    I wouldn't be surprised if Bessler was more than smart enough to not even try to move heavy weights and/or shift entire beams in order to create overbalance, assuming that overbalancing was part of the operative mechanism(s).

    Assume that the wheel contained a (one, or likely even more than one) see-saw(s), a fulcrum basically, with -obviously- equal weights on both ends, so it's balanced. It's pivot-point is the wheel axle, such that it doesn't rotate with the wheel. It's just sitting there, balanced.

    The only thing needed to get the seesaw to tilt one way or the other is a small difference weight (hereafter: DW) that's normally resting in the middle, keeping the thing balanced. The DW could be running in a simple groove, or something resembling a railroad track and cart, anything that gives little friction.

    The only thing needed now is some simple mechanism that's powerful enough to keep the DW running along its track from left to right v.v. to keep the seesaw gyrating up and down. Lets assume he used some ropes and pulleys or gears for that, simply fixed on top of the seesaw beam, or implemented vertically with pulleys and ropes (some MT mechanisms resemble that). Surely a few pulleys can be driven to keep the DW going from left to right and vice versa. Not much movement and/or power is required to move the DW, and little movement already causes imbalance. And/or perhaps a 2-stage oscillator (also fixed to the axle) to run the DW, thereby acting as system clock/synchronization. A couple of simple boards acting as catapults, placed on either side of the gyrating seesaw beam could be used as well to this end.

    His connectedness principle, which I think would be a clutch, would transfer the torque of the gyrating seesaw at timed intervals (timed by the pendulum also driving the DW) to the wheel.

    This is simple, crude, and quite effective if it's heavy and large enough. And, very little effort is required to get it started and keep it going, which is important. No difficult mechanisms to move heavy weights. It largely conforms to many clues, and is simple to build. A clutch that momentarily transfers torque at timed intervals from the seesaw beam to the wheel is simple enough to figure out.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The DW, instead of a "cart" on top of the beam, could also be one of more simple inverted pendulums, of course, swinging from left to right and fulfilling the same role (and resembling a peacock's tail!) set and reset by the 2-stage oscillator, or ropes and pulleys. They don't have to complete a rotation anyway, only swing left and right, after all, to get the seesaw gyrating, which is the prime mover. But, like Bessler said, the inverted pendulum would act in pairs and would be the prime mover, the "first mover".

    ReplyDelete
  56. Andre,..Sorry which Trevor are you referring to? I am Trevor Dauncey and I never posted any link to Nathancoppedge.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I am sorry, Trevor, it wasn't you but Great Bear. Apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Okay,..From now on I will give my full name as Trevor Dauncey.We don't want any confusion when I make history!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Doug wrote:

    "Well I guess since I can't seem to get across the illogic of the block and tackle thing, I'll just drop it."


    I had a reponse to this, but it was in the first half of my last post that, for some reason, never got published.

    Basically, it was that we do not see the block and tackle in the drawings because they were probably provided by the engineers hired to test the wheels by interested investors and not by Bessler. I know if I was going to test the invention of someone that I was skeptical about, I would also insist on using my own equipment for the testing.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Andre, your see-saw / clutch idea sounds complicated and timing all that movement sounds even more complicated. I imagine it would suffer from the same problem most designs have; driving the weight on the see-saw back up against the pull of gravity.

    Techno, why would the engineer/witnesses provide a block and tackle? If they knew the wheel could only lift 12 lbs., what difference would it make to use a block and tackle to lift 60 lbs.? Either way, they would know the wheel was only capable of 12 lbs. directly from the axle.
    You're not making sense. It was either used by bessler to make the wheel appear more powerful, then left out of the drawing to also give that impression, or it was never used, and the wheel was able to lift the weight (70-80 lbs.) directly, at the stated 40 - 50 rpm. There just isn't any evidence to support your theory. If there is, I'd like to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @ Doug

    Bessler gave many demonstations, both public and private, showing his Merseburg wheel snatching up the 60 lb weight outside of the window and raising it from the ground to the height of the pulley near the window.

    That was certainly impressive and involved a weight most people would have trouble lifting. But, engineers of the time would immediately have suspected that the level of power output demonstrated was not the CONSTANT power output of the wheel. They would then have naturally wanted to see the SAME mass lifted by the wheel as it just started to turn from a hand push.

    That's when they would have seen that the wheel could no longer lift the 60 lb mass. They would then use a block and tackle to see how many times its "pulley had to be reduced" in order to finally begin lifting the 60 lb weight. It took a reduction of "more than four times" (assume five times) in order for the torque at the wheel's axle to begin lifting the weight. Thus, they would know that the wheel, from a push start, would only be able to directly (that is, without the block and tackle) lift about 12 lbs.

    I'm sure Bessler was well aware of the low torque of his "models", but did not go out of his way to mention OR depict it by showing the block and tackle devices in his drawings. He did not want to scare away potential investors.

    Can his wheels be "scaled up" to deliver as much power as needed for any job? That's certainly the impression that most Bessler researchers have.
    This may be true IN THEORY, but NOT in practice.

    Bessler's patron, Count Carl, had a pet project which involved the construction of a "cascade" on the Weissenstein property. It would have required pumping water at the rate of gallons per second to a height of about 150 feet and letting it return to a supply pool via a series of majestic waterfalls.

    I suspect Carl was hoping Bessler's wheels would be able to do this, but eventually became disappointed when he realized that they just did not have the power output necessary to do so. Bessler certainly had the resources and skills needed to construct such a project IF it was practical, but it never took place. Why?

    Maybe the reason why was because it was soon realized that to construct such a gravity driven power supply would have required a wheel the size of a barn that was loaded with TONS of weights! It just was not a practical source of power for "big" jobs (that is, those requiring tens of thousands of watts of CONSTANT power).

    ReplyDelete
  62. Let's not forget, Techno, that Bessler's came up with his bidirectional wheel design as a response to critics claiming that he employed clockwork mechanisms. To refute that, he showed he new design. The older designs were not only smaller but unidirectional, and rotated at a much higher RPM. Since speed is power, it's reasonable to assume that the unidirectional designs were intrinsically more powerful.

    It's a shame it never came to what you describe: a number of large (unidirectional) wheels coupled on the same axle. That should have been rather powerful.

    In our present day that would be ideal for power generation applications.

    @Doug: it's actually quite simple, with only one active component. The track should be slightly sloped, only slightly crescent-shaped, somewhat like a banana to ease movement of the DW while the seesaw tilts one way or the other. And a full 45 degrees of tilt is not required. Moving a DW in a "cart" is easy: much easier than lifting a weight. I like the idea and do some calculations on it.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Andre,..I am encouraged by the fact that every time you double the wheels size it multiplies the power by eight times.
    People are not put off by the enormous size of these present day wind turbines.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I don't have access to my records at present - on holiday in Spain - but I have always thought that one possible reason for the use of a block and tackle was to prolong the demonstration. I can't remember the height of the roof above the castle yard but if it was 50 feet say, and the rope had been simply wound around a six inch axle, the at 26 RPM it would take no more then two minutes to lift the box of stones. Adding a block and tackle would extend the time considerably.

    I imagine how impressive the sight would be to the spectators seeing the steady raising of a heavy weight relentlessly.

    Just a thought and I may not respond to any comments soon as I am typing on a net-book and I can hardly read the text - its so small!!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  65. John,..Just you enjoy you're holiday,we'll try to behave till you get back!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Guys, can we get back on track. Subjects like the like the use of a block and tackle although interesting are actually irrelevant to the study of Bessler's wheel; if he wanted more power and a slower lift, all he needed to do was make the axle a little bit smaller, or cut a groove in it.

    Anyway, something more interesting that concerns gravity is Braess’s Paradox. Please look this up for yourselves, but I'll describe it here very briefly for you.
    If you take two pieces of elastic or springs and tie them together with a small piece of string, you get what is essentially a longer spring.
    Tie one end of this long spring to say, the ceiling, and attach a mass to the bottom end. The mass will oscillate briefly and then be suspended at some height x from the floor.

    Now loosely tie a string from the ceiling to the top of the bottom spring.

    Then loosely tie a string from the mass to the bottom of the spring from the ceiling.

    All this has no effect on the height of the mass from the floor as the latest two strings are slack and carry no weight.

    Cut the first piece of string, the one joining the two springs together.
    Be surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Interesting. It finds a new equilibrium, because when the rope connecting both springs is cut, the springs go from being in series to parallel, and so are stronger, and lift the weight.

    Are we seeing the "connectedness principle" here? Fascinating, as Spock would say.

    ReplyDelete
  68. @ JC

    Yes, for the Weissenstein wheel using the b & t outside the window would certainly prolong the lifting time.

    (50 feet) x (12 in /ft) / (2 in/sec) = 300 sec = 5 minutes

    However, although mechanically possible, I still reject the "B & T Outside the Window Slow Lift Theory" because prolonging a demonstration with a slow lift is not nearly as impressive as a rapid lift and Bessler was always seeking to impress potential investors. I think the slow lift b & t demos were reserved only for "serious" investors (those who convinced Bessler that they could actually come up with 100K thalers) and then were only allowed when they made such a test a condition of a potential purchase deal and threatened to "walk" if the test was not done.


    @ Trevor Dauncey

    Actually if one doubles ALL of the dimensions of a wheel INCLUDING those of its internal components, the mass of its weights increases by a factor of 8 AND the torque produced by those weights will also be increased by a factor of 2 since the center of gravity of the weights is then displaced twice as far from the wheel's axle. That means that, for example, doubling all of the dimensions of the Merseburg wheel's components will increase its constant power output by a factor of 8 x 2 = 16.

    If we assume that the Merseburg wheel put out a constant power of 21.4 watts, then doubling its component's sizes lets it output 343 watts. Double this 24 foot diameter wheel to 48 feet and you're cranking out 5486 watts...almost enough to power ONE small home.

    To do this, however, requires your 48 foot diameter wheel to contain a total of 64 x 8 wts x (4 lb / wt) = 2048 lbs of weight which is over a ton.

    There's just something about everyone's home having such a huge sized Bessler wheel generator next to it to provide electrical power that I have trouble imagining. We ALREADY have workable solar panel technology that can dramatically reduce one's electric bill, but I have yet to see anyone with these relatively small, light weight, and virtually maintenance free panels on their roofs in my area.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Okay,..This might hold true if you assume that the rpm.remains the same which makes the power output even better.
    I would not object to having a five meter square by one meter enclosed wheelhouse,it would be virtually noiseless.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @ Trevor

    You might not object to a "wheel house" next to your home, but probably 99% of your neighbors would. I can just imagine what I would have to go through if I wanted to construct something like this on my property. My neighbors would be saying it was blocking their views, unsightly, dangerous, made too much noise, etc., etc. My chances of obtaining a building permit for it would be next to zero.

    Just build it all underground one might say.

    Then there's the problem of excavaating a hole big enough, flooding from underground water when the huge wheel is stalled, and maintaining such a mechanism as in rotated 24/7. Imagine the repair costs if one of its weights weighing hundreds of lbs suddenly cut loose and damaged the wheel. Repairs could take days to a week during which time I would have no electrical power for lights, heat, air conditioning, refrigeration, entertainment, etc. So much for "free" energy.

    Find the solution to Bessler's wheels? Fine. It's a mystery long overdue for a solution. Just don't expect it to suddenly "revolutionize" the world. If and when the solution happens, I don't intend on selling any of my oil company stocks and I don't recommend anybody else sell either. We're going to mainly be using fossil fuels for decades more to come.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @ Great Bear,

    Your remark about Braess's paradox is intersting. I hadn't heard of that before.

    I found the Youtube video by bobbyprochnow which clearly shows how the springs are reconnected from series to parallel. That approach, I had thought of. But so far I cannot see how it can deliver any net energy (although I can see, in some models, how analysis using only simple moment-of-force methods would give an illusion of success).

    The basic problem remains -- ignoring friction, the total sum of gravitational potential energy, spring stored energy, and kinetic energy always remains the same, microsecond to microsecond.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @ Arktos

    Figure out a way for the ascending side weights to, on average, rise slower than the descending side weights, on average, drop and you will have a working gravity wheel.

    It certainly sounds easy enough, but it took Bessler a decade to find a design that did this and probably drove him very close to insanity in the process. From his writings he makes it clear that there is only ONE way to do it which was how he did it.

    So, we either duplicate Bessler's design exactly or we will NEVER have a working PM gravity wheel. What a depressing thought.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @ technoguy

    I think I see what you're saying, but surely the over-riding problem is that, however its speed varies, sooner or later an ascending weight has to rise through exactly the same distance as it previously fell (as a descending weight), in order for the wheel to maintain its "structure" and keep going. And so the weight has to lose all the energy it previously gained.

    Certainly, if there really is some way around that, we would have the answer!

    ReplyDelete
  74. I mentioned Braess’s Paradox not so much as a possible way of tuning the wheel, but as a sign that we don't know everything about physics and gravity. This simple experiment that defies the obvious and commonsense expectations shows that there are still surprises to be found where they are least expected.

    ---------------------------------

    "Figure out a way for the ascending side weights to, on average, rise slower than the descending side weights, on average, drop and you will have a working gravity wheel."

    This won't work at all! (Unless I've misunderstood what's being said).
    To have a working wheel, falling weights must be replaced at exactly the same rate as the falling ones descend. Else they'll all end up at the bottom of the wheel. This has been the big problem with wheel design - getting the lower weights up high enough, quickly enough, and efficiently enough to continue the motion.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I have the impression that we keep thinking that "the wheel" has to rotate. Surely, that holds true for the wheel, bit IMHO for the mechanism.

    I also think we should not think in ONE mechanism, but several, that basically should be able to work independently, but all work together to achieve the goal: make the (outer)wheel rotate.

    For example, we don't need two weights on either side of an axle. We only need one: one weighted lever that's constantly reset (to roughly 1 o'clock), is allowed to fall and transfer torque to the axle, and is then reset again to one o'clock by another mechanism. My (admittedly: subjective) preferred implementation for this is known. Surely there are more ways.

    We should think in subsystems. If only need a unidirectional wheel, so let's simplify it as much as we can. What do we need?

    1. Something - levers, weights - that produces a torque on the axle after free falling for a short while.
    2. One weighted lever is probably not enough, we need "a peacock's tail", a "forest" of levers, that are set and allowed to fail in sequenced (pairs?)
    3. Some kind of torque storage mechanism
    4. A clutch to transfer the torque to the wheel
    5. Some kind of governor/clock to sync all this and that also acts as a sequencer for setting and resetting as in (2)

    Electromechanically this is fairly easy to accomplish. Why not make a crude sketch of this and then "translate" it into a purely mechanical implementation?

    Personally, I was quite happy with my experiments last December. Not entirely mechanical, but quite effective.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Sorry, "bit IMHO for the" should be, of course, "but IMHO NOT for the mechanism".

    ReplyDelete
  77. BTW, for those that would like to see what already has been accomplished in terms of gravity assisted power, have a look at the so-called Feltenberger pendulum. A link is here: http://www.gravityassistedpower.com/

    A giant pendulum, once up to speed, reduces power consumption for electricity generation considerably. Nice video to look at too. Don't forget that pendulums are extremely effective once up to speed - (far) more so than rotary devices.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Believe me Technoguy,..You had better sell those oil share while the're still worth something.Don't look at all the negatives,the wheel is so reliable there won't be be any down time,certainly no where near what we have to endure from our electricity suppliers.
    A double blank wall on your house will not even be noticed,certainly more attractive than all electricity cables strung across the streets.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Andre said: "Don't forget that pendulums are extremely effective once up to speed - (far) more so than rotary devices. "

    Is there a citation for this please? I've had a quick rummage for this on the web but all I can find is various individuals with their own claims, and some rather questionable experiments.

    ReplyDelete
  80. @Great Bear, here's a nice paper: http://www.pendulum-lever.com/docs/Veljko_Milkovic_Oscillations_More_Efficient_Than_Rotation.pdf

    @Technoguy: On October 6 something "impossible" that most likely will upset a lot of people and powers-that-be has been proven: reverse thermal entropy. Sometimes referred to, in LENR circles, as "heat after death". Mainstream is largely ignoring it still, like they ignore so many things, but that won't last when larger energy projects become available, based on the same technology. I have it on very good authority that both NASA and US Naval Research are already heavily involved. So keep Trevor's friendly advice in mind and a sharp eye on your stocks. I'm not kidding.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Great Bear: this one is nice to read as well and goes nicely with the link I posted earlier.
    http://beforeitsnews.com/story/417/011/Gravity_Pendulum_Assist_to_Utility_Power.html

    ReplyDelete
  82. Arktos wrote:

    "...however its speed varies, sooner or later an ascending weight has to rise through exactly the same distance as it previously fell (as a descending weight), in order for the wheel to maintain its "structure" and keep going. And so the weight has to lose all the energy it previously gained."

    I agree that ONE weight moving around a CLOSED path in a gravity field will always gain back as much gravitational potential energy (or mass) on its ascent as it loses on its descent. This is why the gravitational force is referred to as "conservative" in physics which just means requiring no change in the energy / mass of a single weight moving around a closed path in the gravity field creating the force.

    BUT, Bessler's wheels did not contain a SINGLE weight by itself, but rather 8 weights arranged into opposed pairs and this, apparently, makes a difference in what happens to them when they begin to move. The center of mass of those 8 constantly orbiting weights could only stay on a wheel's descending side during drum rotation if the ascending side weights were a little closer to the axle than the descending side weights were. This then automatically caused the ascending side weights to rise at a SLOWER rate than the descending side weights dropped.

    It was this small difference in the INSTANTANEOUS rates of VERTICAL motion of the weights on BOTH sides of an axle which allowed his wheel's weights to continously output energy (and lose the mass equivalent to that energy).

    In such a system one must NOT focus on individual weights to understand what is going on, but rather on opposed PAIRS of weights. Everytime an opposed pair of weights in one of Bessler's wheels rotated through 180°, ONE of the weights would not gain back quite as much energy (and its mass equivalent) on its ascent as the opposed weight lost on its descent even though EACH weight finally arrived at the SAME position formerly occupied by the other weight! This process was repeated twice for each opposed pair of weights (and there were four such pairs in Bessler's wheels) during every complete wheel rotation so that both weights in the opposed pair would lose the same amount of mass (and its energy equivalent) over time.

    I know that at first glance this seems paradoxical, yet it must be valid if it is possible to make an overbalanced PM gravity wheel that works. If it is not valid, then Bessler lied when he wrote that his wheels were simply overbalanced wheels which, through great effort, he had figured out how to make workable. It's just one small step from this to saying Bessler's wheels were fraudulent and that anybody working on an OB gravity wheel is wasting his time (that would cover about 95% of all mobilists!).

    I continue to believe that Bessler was NOT a fraud and that he really did find a way to make a simple overbalanced wheel work (like the weighted lever wheel proposed by Leupold).

    ReplyDelete
  83. technoguy, by saying that weights would lose mass, and its energy equivalent, over time, you imply that the wheel gains energy by some E = mc² approach!

    That would be completely "new physics" if it could be achieved. I have to say I'm very skeptical about that!

    ReplyDelete
  84. In physics, conservative doesn't refer to no change in energy of a single weight moving in a closed path. It's a broader definition, and yes, it includes 8 weights, opposed weights, weights next to the rim, weights next to the axle, moving weights, swinging weights, weights with sparkles, strobe lights, or any other special effects.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Well, if I knew how Bessler managed the feat of making a rotating pair of opposed weights release energy during each wheel rotation instead of "conserving" it, then I would have a working PM gravity wheel by now! Despite what Wagner and most others may have thought, this is exactly what Bessler did and, if one ever hopes to solve the mystery of Bessler's wheels, then he will have to also figure out how to do this.

    Bessler tells us that the center of gravity or mass of his wheels' weights always stayed on a wheel's descending side during wheel rotation and this condition was what he called his "Preponderance Principle". This asymetry, IF MAINTAINED, would allow the weights to continuously lose a bit of their mass with each wheel rotation which would then provide the energy to accelerate the wheel as a whole or could be drained off to do outside work. If one does not believe this, then he will not believe Bessler had overbalanced wheels or that such wheels can be made to work.

    Ultimately, the real problem that needs to be solved is HOW did Bessler manage to keep the center of mass of a wheels' weights on the descending side during wheel rotation?

    We only know that this involved "coordinating" the weights (which were attached to "movable arms" or levers) using the "Connectedness Principle" and that cords and springs were involved in the process.

    The solution will eventually be known, but it will require a tremendous amount of "hands on" type research. Trying to resolve the mystery online will not be effective, but may at least serve to define the nature of the solution needed.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Bessler didn't build overbalanced wheels. He admitted as much himself, that it was a hard lesson to learn and warned others who tried that they would also not succeed.
    And he was right.

    ReplyDelete
  87. @Techno: the only way I can imagine, is that the weight are constantly set and reset. In other words, allowed to freefall (to gain momentum) and then braked (torque storage) and immediately reset to their starting position. Much like the angles ("windows of activation/action"?) as indicated in the MT "and still you don't understand" drawing.

    @Doug: I think Bessler tried to say that overbalancing alone won't do the trick. He's hinting, IMHO, that more mechanisms are required.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to be that one has to learn through bitter experience." - pg 295-296

    In modern terms, overbalancing doesn't contribute any positive torque, Andre and Techno, and deep down, you know it. When a torque analysis is performed on an overbalancing design, it always adds up to zero.

    IMHO, everyone is looking in the wrong place for the energy. The energy could only come from the environment, if it was a genuine engine.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Doug,..It is an over balancing wheel,so what made the differance?
    Bessler said if you can find out how to raise one pound with four ounces then the motion will perpetuate itself.
    Therein lies the differance!
    I can't say more otherwise I'll give it away.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Of course overbalancing works. But not (easily) in rotary systems; because then all the known problems apply and we have no good solution for that yet - assuming there is any. What we need is oscillation and resonance, and utilize that mechanical advantage to the max, and, if we want to replicate a Bessler-ish wheel, transform it to rotation. Surely that's possible. The wheel should rotate, yes, but *not* the mechanisms, in my view. That's why we need that "connectedness principle"; the clutch.

    ReplyDelete
  91. But,but,..Andre surely overbalancing is about being a wheel.Just solve the problem of retoration and the rest will take care of itself.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I agree that a "simple" overbalanced wheel like the lever wheel Leupold proposed will not work. BUT, in MT (see the notes for MT 9) Bessler clearly tells us it CAN work via his "Connectedness Principle". That EXTRA component is what he discovered that made the conventional weighted lever "non-runner" into a "runner".

    For those who still may think Bessler did NOT use an overbalanced wheel, the quote below shows he did although in other places (see Doug's posted quote above) he suggests that simple overbalancing is insufficient by itself.


    "All the wise ones were looking for the same principle (of 'excess weight') that I have described, and they sought it in things that were already familiar to them.

    They sought to bring a wheel into a state of motion, such that, without the need for winding, its innate virtue would keep it revolving as long as its materials might last.

    ...by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it."


    In the last line Bessler essentially states that his wheels were overbalanced types.

    He attributed his eventual success to the fact that he put FAR more effort into achieving success that others had. This is why I continue to say that a successful replication of Bessler's design today is going to require a tremendous amount of work. For the one who finally succeeds, it will have to be something he concentrates on 24/7 and he will need to "Build, Baby, Build" until his fingers are worn down to their bones!

    Sadly, in this case success will require sacrifice...a tremendous amount of sacrifice. And, a great deal of luck, too!

    ReplyDelete
  93. bessler's statement "have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it." does NOT mean it's an overbalanced wheel. My interpretation of that is he found a solution in nature; gravity being a part of that, he could make that statement but not specifically be alluding to gravity.


    The connectedness principle, the extra component, the oscillation, the resonance, the preponderance, cords, springs, maintained asymmetry, clutches: all these have to occur INSIDE.
    Any motion that occurs inside a system like this, a wheel/axle mounted on bearings, is subject to conservation of angular momentum. Going from a small radius to a large radius, the weight would lose speed when you would want it to gain speed. Whatever work the weight does on the wheel/axle is equal to the work the wheel/axle does on the weight.
    Whatever work gravity does on the weight is equal to the work the weight does against gravity. The energy they initially have was given to them when the builder positioned the weights in their original overbalanced positions.

    The energy came from the environment.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Sorry,..I can't agree.One set of opposing weights is enough to turn a wheel.Four sets will turn it much faster.This is what he meant by connectedness.By proponderance they help, adding to the torque over 360 degrees.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Another AP quote:


    "It runs according to 'preponderance', and turns everything else along with it; as long as its materials shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord." - pg 363


    Certainly sounds like an overbalanced wheel to me.

    "Preponderance" means that the center of mass of a wheel's weights was on its descending side and would remain there as the wheel rotated. All non-Bessler overbalanced wheels fail because they allow their weights' center of mass to rotate along with the wheel until it passes directly under the axle and then, briefly, begins to climb up on the wheel's ascending side. Sooner or later, the non-Bessler overbalanced wheel will become a balanced wheel and will then remain motionless as its weights' center of mass comes to a stop directly below the axle at the "punctum quietus".

    I don't see any way for Bessler's wheels to have tapped an external supply of energy unless one is prepared to hypothesize that he also invented the battery and electromagnet more than a century ahead of the official date and fed electrical current into a wheel through its axle bearings so as to cause its weights to shift around!

    No, a wheel maintained the displacement of its weights' center of mass through the carefully "coordinated" shifting (or swinging about) of its weighted levers. This shifting was automatic and facilitated via the "Connectedness Principle". This is the only approach that makes any sense and is in harmony with Bessler's writings.

    Again, I suggest those seeking a solution look at Leupold's lever wheel and then try to figure out some way of interconnecting the levers with cords so that the center of mass of its weights will remain on the wheel's descending side as the wheel rotates.

    However, don't expect to find a quick solution. It took Bessler a full DECADE to do it!

    ReplyDelete
  96. Assuming that we accept Bessler and his invention was genuine (as I do), I do not see how any external energy source could have been involved. Several rigorous in situ investigations by top scientists of the day also exclude that possibility.

    If we accept also that somehow he used overbalancing as the "first mover", or primary energy source, then he had to use, like techno stated, something, some mechanism to set and reset the weighted levers. Or perhaps the whole set of levers in one go.

    If we look at MT 51, it's very obvious that Bessler was well aware of ratchet mechanisms and how to use them to set and reset weights. MT 51 clearly shows a workable example of this. MT 52 actually implements it in a example. MT 54 toys with ratchets (and triggers thereof) too.

    Now look at MT 55. This shows something interesting. Again, we see a mechanism with a flywheel (E) connected by 2 gears, driving three ratcheted pendulums (A) which seems to be set/reset by the lower gear by some catch and slots in the lower axle B.

    From all this it is very clear that Bessler was working with mechanisms to set and reset pendulum and/or weighted levers.

    ReplyDelete
  97. What i find interesting too, looking at the MT drawings, that if one discards all the obvious unworkable stuff, sketches and toys, there remains something that one can almost see as a chronology of developments and ideas. Lab notes, one could almost say. The sequence of ideas and embodiments is in places remarkably logical and methodical, as can be expected from a meticulous and very dedicated researcher.

    Quite clever and way beyond simple ropes and pulleys, I would say. The more I look at some of these concepts and drawings, the more I am convinced that we are underestimating the complexity of the final design, as well as the abilities of the craftsmen of his time.

    I wouldn't be surprised if in the end, when and if the secret is found, it turns out to be some very smart series of mechanical devices, some of them quite sophisticated. Look at MT 60 and MT 61, for example. Quite clever ways to cram in more weights at one end of the wheel than the other, using strings, weights, and something that resembles folding segments.

    This man was much more clever than most give him credit for.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "using strings," should be "using springs", of course.

    ReplyDelete
  99. technoguy wrote

    "All non-Bessler overbalanced wheels fail because they allow their weights' center of mass to rotate along with the wheel until it passes directly under the axle and then, briefly, begins to climb up on the wheel's ascending side"

    there is a way to keep all the weights on 1 side of the wheel when ascending, this is why 1 weight descending is able to lift 4 weights.

    P47

    ReplyDelete
  100. If the energy gain didn't come from the environment, where did it come from?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Mechanical advantage, or whatever one wants to call it, Doug. The fact that companies are investing millions (and showing results such as 50% reduction in energy costs) in pendulum-based devices is clear evidence that gravity *can* be utilized to do work.

    The energy budget (and especially it's limitations) are well known. The way we use it to create mechanical advantage (I call it "the mechanical amplifier" as you know) is the key. The conventional way it obviously fails on the iron laws, especially in rotary systems. Hence, we need tot think out of the box, use devices that create an advantage, so we can do more with the same amount of energy.

    That's why I like systems such as the 2-stage oscillator. It's simple, it's powerful and amplifies force, doesn't need to rotate, is perpendicular to the horizontal system axis, and isn't particularly influenced by it's output being loaded or not. An ideal regulator and/or driver as it requires minimal input to keep going.

    I am sure the secret lies in oscillation and/or resonance, or something similar.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anon, care to elaborate on that statement? Share a clue, at least?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Mechanical advantage, or amplification as you call it, needs an energy input to be utilized. MA isn't energy. Machines are incapable of movement without energy input. Even your 2 stage oscillator requires an occasional push to keep it oscillating.
    Where is the wheel's energy?

    ReplyDelete
  104. @ Doug

    As I"ve posted before, the energy Bessler's wheels outputted (notice that I did not write "created") came from the mass of the weights themselves. With each wheel rotation, each weight would lose a fraction of a picogram of mass that would then be converted into the kinetic energy that accelerated the wheel or drove outside equipment.

    Apparently, when one has four weights on a wheel's descending side dropping faster, on average, than the four weights on its ascending side rise, on average (due to maintained displacement of their center of mass onto the descending side), this condition allows the weights to continously lose a bit of mass with each wheel rotation.

    Yes, I am well aware that there is not supposed to be any net change in the mass of weights moving around a closed vertical path in a gravity field, but apparently this does not apply to the weights in Bessler's wheels.

    Again, the key to this whole business is finding a design that truly does maintain the center of mass of its weights on a wheel's descending side during wheel rotation.

    As a disclaimer, I should mention that I have seen several designs in the past that DID manage to keep their centers of mass on one side of a wheel's axle as the wheel rotated, yet they did NOT work! They were perfectly balanced no matter what position the wheel was initially placed in.

    These failed to self move because, upon analysis, it was seen that they used ALL of their outputted energy to reset their weights. None was then left over to accelerate the wheel or perform outside work. However, Bessler's wheels, via his revolutionary "Connectedness Principle" managed to overcome this problem. That is, using this principle, his wheels outputted MORE energy than was needed to reset their weights.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Doug,..I think you've met your match!

    ReplyDelete
  106. Trevor, I'm not worried.

    Techno, even though mass CAN'T be converted to energy, for the sake of argument, let's say a fraction of a picogram of each lead weight could be converted to kinetic energy as you're suggesting. What converts the bits of lead to energy? And how does this process happen?

    ReplyDelete
  107. @ Doug

    Mass can't be converted to energy??? It this wasn't possible, then the Sun wouldn't shine! LOL!

    Remember that it was Einstein's great revelation that mass and energy were actually the SAME thing! Wherever one has mass, he has energy and wherever he has energy he has mass. When an object gains energy, it will also gain mass. And, when an object loses energy, it will also lose mass.

    When an astronaut on the moon throws a rock upward it will rise, but decelerate until, for an instant, it becomes motionless. But, its kinetic energy does not disappear, but rather causes a slight increase in the mass of the rock (again in the fraction of a picogram range). Meanwhile, the chemical elements in the astronaut's arm that imparted the kinetic energy to the rock have lost a corresponding tiny amount of mass.

    Weights on the descending side of a symmetrical wheel in motion will lose mass whose kinetic energy equivalent is immediately added to the wheel and would accelerate it if this was all that happened. But, as weights on the opposite side of the wheel rise, they simultaneously remove the same amount of kinetic energy from the wheel and that energy is stored in the weights as a tiny increase in mass. As a result, the wheel experiences no increase in kinetic energy and mass is, at the speed of light, just transferred from descending to ascending side weights so that there is no net change in the mass of a weight after it has completed a rotation around the wheel's axle.

    In a Bessler type overbalanced PM gravity wheel, however, this transfer of mass from descending to ascending side weights is disrupted due to the sustained asymmetry of the center of mass of the weights which causes ascending side weights to regain mass as a lower rate than descending side weights lose mass. The excess mass lost by the descending side weights then becomes available to increase the kinetic energy of the entire wheel (including its weights) and even can be used to perform useful work in the wheel's environment.

    An ascending side weight eventually returns to the top of the wheel being a bit less massive to begin the cycle again.

    How is mass "transformed" into energy? That is something Einstein never really answered. Actually, since mass and energy are the SAME thing, it is not really necessaary to use the word "transformation". Rather, we need only say that whenever a SYSTEM loses mass, it will always experience an increase in energy to compensate for the lost mass. And, conversely, whenever a SYSTEM loses energy, it will always experience an increase in mass to compensate for the
    lost energy. Thus, we see that "mass / energy" must obey the principle of conservation.

    These concepts can seem strange to one who only views the world with pre-20th century physics, but, WHEN we finally have replicated Bessler's wheels, these concepts will exactly be the ones that "orthodox" physicists will be using in order to explain their performance.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Techno wrote: "These failed to self move because, upon analysis, it was seen that they used ALL of their outputted energy to reset their weights."

    My thoughts exactly. The energy budget (as I call it) is simply not sufficient if we think conventionally. That's why we need some mechanism(s) that is (are) only "loosely or temporarily connected" i.e. more or less "independent" of the main wheel driving mechanism(s). Perhaps that's also what Bessler meant by his (very apt) term "connectedness principle".

    Now what (powerful) devices exist that can function largely independent from (rotating or not) other mechanism(s) in the wheel? No doubt you guys already know what I'm hinting at. I know, I'm perhaps sounding like a broken record. But look at it objectively: it's swing is not impeded by rotation (as it is not rotating), it produces far more force or mechanical advantage (or whatever we call it) than is required to get it going, and once going, it needs very little (and only occasional) input to keep it going. A wheel, once put into motion by a person and up to speed can easily keep it going. Literally ideal for our purpose: powerful enough for quickly setting and resetting weighted levers or similar devices while being *loosely connected* i.e. only temporarily connected, when needed, to the rest of the system.

    Add that to the fact that Bessler in his Maschinen Tractate (MT51, MT52, MT54, MT55 (sic!)) clearly is experimenting and constructing ratcheted levers and showing mechanisms to set and reset those levers.

    I'm getting more and more convinced that oscillation is the key.

    ReplyDelete
  109. @Techno 00:50. You are talking special relativity, right? Equivalence of mass and energy, in other words E = mc2. The energy content of an object at rest with mass m equals mc2. Conservation of energy dictates that in any reaction a decrease of the sum of the masses of particles must be accompanied by an increase in kinetic energies of the particles after the reaction. Similarly, the mass of an object can be increased by taking in kinetic energies.

    I can't find any fault in your reasoning, but I'm certainly not Albert ;-)

    Now how do we sustain asymmetry of the center of mass of the weights? There are ways for that, as you point out, it has been done before, but required too much energy.

    Hence, all we need now is some mechanism to sustain (reset) the weights such that it maintains asymmetry.

    ReplyDelete
  110. This is from the mass-energy equivalence wiki page:

    where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The formula is dimensionally consistent and does not depend on any specific system of measurement units. For example, in many systems of natural units, the speed (scalar) of light is set equal to 1, and the formula becomes the identity E = m; hence the term "mass–energy equivalence".[2] The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits relativistic mass in whatever form the energy takes.[3] Additionally, in systems which have no momentum (or are viewed in their center of momentum frame), then the equation E = mc2 also continues to be correct. Mass–energy equivalence in either of these conditions means that mass conservation becomes a restatement, or requirement, of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics. Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, and indeed implies the opposite. Modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. Mass and energy are both conserved separately in special relativity, and neither may be created nor destroyed. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter, a more poorly defined idea in the physical sciences. Matter, when seen as certain types of particles, can be created and destroyed (as in particle annihilation or creation), but the precursors and products of such reactions retain both the original mass and energy, each of which remains unchanged (conserved) throughout the process. Letting the m in E = mc2 stand for a quantity of "matter" (rather than mass) may lead to incorrect results, depending on which of several varying definitions of "matter" are chosen.
    E=mc2 has sometimes been used as an explanation for the origin of energy in nuclear processes, but mass–energy equivalence does not explain the origin of such energies. Instead, this relationship merely indicates that the large amounts of energy released in such reactions may exhibit enough mass that the mass-loss may be measured, when the released energy (and its mass) have been removed from the system.

    So you see, techno, even in nuclear reactions, mass is conserved, as well as energy.

    I wonder how bessler figured out how to disrupt those femtograms of lead from moving at the speed of light at just the right moment from one side of the wheel to the other side, and to release their energy to the wheel before they made the trip. That sounds hard.

    ReplyDelete
  111. In this context, it is perhaps nice to look at a 2009 Boeing R&D study (they called it a macroscopic overview). The summary of the resulting presentation of their "study of gravity" by their engineers was as follows:

    "The gravitational system of earth is composed of an accelerating force generated by long (low frequency) standing waves which do far more than just make the 32ft/sec2 surface acceleration commonly called gravity. These waves extend out some 60,000miles (2
    wavelengths) into space generating the complete Magnetosphere, a stable GeoSynchronous orbit and both
    the inner and outer Van Allen radiation belts. This waveshape is composed of four frequencies: a
    fundamental and three higher harmonics. The numbers being 7.07Hz for the fundamental, 14.14Hz for the
    second harmonic, 21.21Hz for the third harmonic and 28.28 for the fourth harmonic. Looking the other way, towards the center of the earth the fundamental frequency determines the outer edge of the ionosphere
    while the three higher harmonics reside in the planets outer core region.

    This wave mixing causes the internal heat, pressure, forces and rotation of the planet. These waves are sourced or concentrated at dipole feedpoints located on the Y-axis centered about the origin (0, 0); dipole distance being λ/8 at the fundamental frequency. The dual feedpoints cause a number of modifications to the system. First, it changes the core type from hollow (thick crust) to solid. Solid meaning not a hollow structure could be liquid or a combination of liquid and solids. Second, it causes a flattening of the polar region changing a round sphere to egg shaped or an ellipsis. Third, it generates the crescent shaped inner and outer radiation belts.

    The first three harmonics primarily determine the planets structure, GeoSync orbit and the magnetosphere while the fourth harmonic contributes the two radiation belts.

    In doing the data reduction and number crunching two other facts were uncovered that are not directly related to the gravity study but need to be documented as well.

    First, it appears that frequency determines the size or scale factor of a structure. If this is true then atoms would have a similar type structure only much smaller in size (very high frequency – GHz).

    Second, the waves of accelerating force seem to be of electromagnetic origin. They track or correlate with the earth’s electromagnetic waves discovered by Tesla and Schumann in both frequency and amplitude much too close not to be connected to them."

    ReplyDelete
  112. Doug, of course Bessler wasn't concerned with femtograms and/or the speed of light. What Techno describes is just the consequence of the mechanism Bessler found and implemented. The fact that our 18th century friend was smart with mechanical contraptions doesn't make him a nuclear physicist.

    The fact that the laws of conservation of energy dictate that in any reaction (system) a decrease of the sum of the masses of particles must be accompanied by an increase in kinetic energies of the particles after the reaction, and, similarly, that the mass of an object can be increased by taking in kinetic energies can be found on Wikipedia too.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Andre, the relevant sentences:
    Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, and indeed implies the opposite. Modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed.

    The point is, the theory that bessler stumbled upon a mechanism that could shift weight back and forth in a wheel by somehow transferring electrons or whatever, and is the explanation for where the wheels got their kinetic energy, is more than unbelievable, it's impossible.
    And the conservation of angular momentum would dictate that when a particle switched sides, the tiny torque it produced would be canceled by a negative torque from the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  114. As far as I am concerned an accelerated particle gains mass,besides the up and the down weights would neutralise anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Doug, we're not talking about transforming or destroying mass and/or energy - what Techno was saying, and me too (as does special relativity) is that mass and energy are one and the same thing. Mass equals energy.

    Of course Bessler wasn't transferring electrons... one doesn't need SRT to construct a mechanical wheel. What he did was that he invented a mechanical mechanism, whatever it was, and if I understand Techno and SRT correctly, the inevitable consequence of that mechanism was that in reality mass (energy) is transferred within the system. Nothing is destroyed. That's what Techno postulates. According to SRT, he's right IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Andre wrote
    "the inevitable consequence of that mechanism was that in reality mass (energy) is transferred within the system."

    Like I said, anything that happens inside the wheel is conserved, unchanged, constant. If mass, or energy, is transferred from one part of the wheel to another, the mass/energy transfer is balanced by a negative torque from the wheel.
    The three conservation laws are exact. Here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

    ReplyDelete
  117. Those laws are well known, yes, but that's not the point.

    You have the read it in the context of Techno's initial post, Doug. He's talking about a system (wheel) in which (by whatever means) continuous overbalancing is achieved, and the effect that this will have on the weights as dictated by SRT.

    ReplyDelete
  118. If we accept that mass and energy are the same thing, then we must try to avoid using terms like "converted" or "transformed" when talking about them. Rather we must accept that BOTH are always present, conserved, and that, depending upon HOW we make our measurements, one or the other will seem to dominate. They are like the two sides of a coin which we can only see one side of at a time.

    For example, I read an article that stated that every second our Sun "converted" something like 50 thousand TONS of mass, via its core's fusion reactions, into the electromagentic energy it radiated off into space.

    Actually, all of that energy existed with the mass BEFORE the fusion reactants were formed and, AFTER the fusion took place and gamma ray photons were released, the mass was still present in the photons although it's not obvious that it is there.

    But, photons are supposed to be massless, right?

    Not exactly, there is an effect called "Compton Scattering" in which individual photons strike electrons and literally bounce off of them. The photons fly away in one direction (with a reduced freqency) and the electrons in another direction (with increased kinetic energy).

    These collisions behave exactly like those that would take place between two billard balls and it is possible to calculate a mass for the photon involved in a collision!

    Anyway, these concepts would have been unknown to Bessler and unnecessary for the construction of a wheel. He would have been concerned, as previously noted, with just keeping the center of mass of his revolving weights on a wheel's descending side during wheel rotation. No easy feat that and probably on a par with the work Einstein had to do to hammer out his Special AND General Theories of Relativity!

    ReplyDelete
  119. SR or GR doesn't allow for violation of the conservation of momentum. On the contrary, that is exactly the point. Relativity extends Newton physics.

    ReplyDelete
  120. On par with Einstein, eh... no.

    And now these concepts are unnecessary.

    Good, I agree. I was beginning to worry about you.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Actually, Bessler put MUCH more physical work into perfecting his wheels than Einstein did with producing the STR and GTR. As far as the math was concerned, however, Bessler had only to focus on angles and torques and not four dimensional space-time so he got a break in that department, at least.

    But, in AP Bessler admits that he did have to do a "tremendous" amount of calculating before he had it "all figured out". This implies that the weights within the wheel were VERY carefully balanced against each other and precisely "coordinated".

    WHEN the secret is known, I think we will find that on one level the design is, as Carl said "very simple", but on another level it will employ some very intricate mechanics. It is this intricacy which has, no doubt, prevented rediscovery during the last 300 years.

    ReplyDelete
  122. I'll agree bessler's physical labor was greater.

    However, this quote:

    "design has, in fact, progressed to the point where there is nothing supercritical about the exact disposition of the weights - an ounce more or less, here or there, makes not a scrap of difference to the Wheel",

    implies it wasn't that precise.

    And you're wrong about the intricate mechanics. It's the insistence on intricacy that is the wrong path. Less is definitely more in this case.

    At the end of this quote:

    "He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result would be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty!"

    This implies light, spare, minimal. Simple. Nearly empty.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Well, consider two diametrically opposed weights in the Merseburg wheel. One weighs 4 lbs and the other weighs 4 lbs and 1 oz. That extra ounce only makes the heavier weight 100 % x (4.0625 oz - 4 oz) / 4 oz = 1.5625 % heavier. Yes, I would say that there wasn't that much "supercritical" about the discrepancy. A random variation of weight mass of +/- 1.5625 % for all 8 weights in a wheel would only result in a neglible affect on the final location of the center of mass of the weights within the drum.

    Bessler's remark about the futility of adding more and more weights to a wheel is understandable. That is the desperate effort of someone who does not yet have the correct design as he tries to maintain the descending side displacement of the center of mass of the wheel's weights during rotation.

    Simple design?!

    If it truly was that simple, then surely one of the tens of thousands of active mobilists in the last 300 years would have found it by now. Yet, what do we have to show for all of that effort? ZILCH!

    I think that those viewing the MT drawings allow themselves to get lulled into Believing that Bessler's final WORKING design is as simple as those depicted. I think that is a BIG mistake to make. If his wheels were truly as simple as those in MT, then they certainly would not require months to construct if one was working on one full time even if it was a one man job.

    I believe that once Bessler installed the unloaded "magic" levers in his wheels, he then had to go through a complex adjustment process to get them all shifting together harmoniously. Only then were the weights and springs added.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Right, it's not that precise, or very carefully balanced.

    The more intricate a mechanism becomes, the more inefficient it becomes. It has to translate movement through more parts and more changes of direction. The more moving parts it has, the more opportunities for friction to remove kinetic energy.
    It makes sense that the reason bessler's relatively weak wheels might have genuinely worked at all was because of these mechanical facts.

    But my question from 12 Oct. 18:46 remains: Where is the wheel's energy? The answer, to me, also answers why tens of thousands of active mobilists have zilch to show for their efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I also believe the wheels had a minimum of moving parts: only eight per one directional wheel! What was "intricate" about them was their shape and the way they were linked together. That was the secret that Bessler, after an unimaginable amount of labor, had discovered and jealously guarded until and unless he received what he considered to be a "just compensation". The person would finds those details will finally solve the mystery.

    As far as the source of the energy that the wheels outputted is concerned, that is a far easier matter to explain. Once again, due to the sustained eccentricity of the their center of mass, descending side weights would always lose gravitational potential energy (and thus mass) at a faster rate than would be regained by ascending side weights. It was this sustained rate discrepancy which allowed energy to be continuously extracted from the weights.

    With each drum rotation, all of the wheel's weights would become slightly less massive (on the order of a fraction of a picogram) and the energy equivalent of that mass would increase the rotational kinetic energy of the wheel as a whole. Some of that kinetic energy could also then be transferred to attached equipment to increase its kinetic energy (and mass).

    It's interesting to note that whenever a wheel was made to run an outside piece of equipment, the wheel would immediately slow down to a lower terminal velocity. This indicates that an attached load would cause the center of mass of a wheel's weights to move to a location farther from the axle so as to increase the torque of the wheel although the price of this was a decrease in rotation rate.

    ReplyDelete
  126. 1. gravity can't provide energy.

    2. Kinetic energy, potential energy, gravity, and mass don't have the relationship, in the real world, you're describing.

    ReplyDelete
  127. @ Doug

    1.) I never said that gravity provided the energy that Bessler's wheels outputted. The energy was ALREADY in his wheels and represented by the mass of their weights.

    Gravity did, however, with each wheel rotation help extract a bit of the energy associated with each wheel weight's mass and make it available to accelerate the wheel or to perform outside work.

    2.) There's no relationship between energy and mass in the 'real" world?! I guess Einstein must have made a serious math mistake when E = mc^2 emerged from his original relativity theory. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  128. Gravity extracts energy from the weights?
    In the form of... what?

    The relationship that YOU are describing doesn't exist.
    Quote:
    descending side weights would always lose gravitational potential energy (and thus mass) at a faster rate than would be regained by ascending side weights.
    And:
    all of the wheel's weights would become slightly less massive (on the order of a fraction of a picogram) and the energy equivalent of that mass would increase the rotational kinetic energy of the wheel as a whole.

    This is your fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  129. I tend to agree Doug,..The force of gravity is only the means to extract potential energy from the set weights in the first place.
    The solution of the priciple of the wheel is something that can be explained logically,..so logically in fact that no scientist or physicist will be able to refute it.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Please excuse the typo,..'princple'.

    ReplyDelete
  131. It's a bit early for me,..Again,..'principle'.

    ReplyDelete
  132. @ Doug

    The energy / mass that gravity "extracts" from the weights in a Bessler type overbalanced wheel shows up as an increase in the kinetic and gravitational potential energies / masses of all of the wheel's moving structures. The gravity field does not provide this energy / mass, it only facilitates the redistribution of it.

    No, I don't think E=mc^2 is a "fantasy". It is one of the fundamental equations of modern physics. It helps us explain what happens to the initial kinetic energy of a rock thrown upward on the Moon or any airless planetary sized mass. When the rock becomes motionless at the top of its rise, its kinetic energy does not just disappear, but, rather, is stored as an increase in the mass of the rock which is described by E = mc^2. Definitely not a fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Unfortunately, gravity only facilitates the redistribution of the mass in one direction. The increase in potential and kinetic energy in a gravity field is always accompanied by a corresponding decrease. The net work gravity performs is always zero. Zilch.

    And you have a misunderstanding of energy mass equivalence. The mass side of the equation only represents how much energy it could have if ALL of the mass were converted to energy. This doesn't happen.
    And the kinetic energy is not "stored" in objects as an increase in mass. You are wrong.
    Objects don't lose mass and gain mass just because they are rising or falling in a gravity field. You are mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  134. @ Doug

    In a Bessler type OB wheel, the weights on the descending side transfer more energy / mass to the whole wheel (and any attached equipment) than the ascending side weights retrieve from the whole wheel (and any attached equipment). If this did not happen, then the wheel would not work!

    I agree that, ordinarily, this is not what would happen if the center of mass of a wheel's weights remained at the center of its axle. But, the whole point of a working OB wheel is that the center of mass of its weights does NOT stay at the center of its axle. It always dwells on the descending side of the wheel. It is this sustained eccentricity that alters the expected redistribution of energy / mass among the wheel's weights.

    Note that I have never said that ALL of the mass of an object gets "redistributed" when that object moves through a gravity field. I only talk about changes in mass in the picogram range, not in the pound range. If ALL of the energy / mass of the weights inside of one Bessler's wheels had been remmoved from them at once, the resulting explosion would probably have wiped at half of Germany!

    If one mistakenly believes that objects do not lose energy / mass as they fall in a gravity field, then one can not explain were the energy released upon impact comes from when, for example, a meteor strikes the Earth's atmosphere and surface.

    As the meteor plunges toward the Earth, it experiences a continous increase in kinetic energy as it accelerates. As this energy is then transfered to the surrounding air it must be replaced by a continous decrease in the energy / mass of the meteor.

    Finally, the meteor strikes the Earth and its last bit of kinetic energy causes pieces of soil and rocks to fly away from the impact crater. At this point the meteor almost stops losing any more of its initial energy / mass. However, it will continue to lose a bit more as it cools and transfers thermal energy to the surrounding air.

    If one could precisely weigh the meteor when it was out in space and then later weight the piece that struck the Earth, one would find that the two weights would not be equal. The piece that struck the Earth would be less massive and the difference in masses would have an energy equivalent (obtained by using E = mc^2) that exactly equaled all of the energy that the Earth's atmosphere and ground received from the incoming meteor.

    ReplyDelete
  135. @ Technoguy

    Quote:
    In a Bessler type OB wheel, the weights on the descending side transfer more energy / mass to the whole wheel (and any attached equipment) than the ascending side weights retrieve from the whole wheel (and any attached equipment). If this did not happen, then the wheel would not work!

    A picogram is 1 trillionth of a gram.
    This is not how the wheel might have worked, transferring a trillionth of a gram around, even if such a transfer was possible and happened.

    But if you can build a working picogram wheel, you should do it.
    Oh, wait. You don't have the "magic" levers, springs, or connectedness principle.

    ReplyDelete
  136. @ Doug

    Admittedly, a picogram is a VERY minute amount of mass and difficult to measure accurately, but it represents a significant amount of energy due to the huge value of the velocity of light. Consider the energy associated with one picogram:

    E = mc^2

    E = (1x10^-12 gm)(3x10^10 cm/sec)^2

    E = (1x10^-12 gm)(9x10^20 cm^2/sec^2)

    E = 9 x 10^8 erg

    E = (9x10^8 erg)(10^-7 joule/erg)

    E = 90 joules

    So, one picorgram of mass is equivalent to 90 joules of energy. That's equivalent to the kinetic energy possessed by a one kilogram mass moving at a velocity of 90 meters per second. I wouldn't want to be hit by a weight moving that fast! LOL!

    This is why I only talk about changes of mass on the order of FRACTIONS of a picogram taking place amoungst the weights inside of Bessler's wheels.

    Here's a problem for the ambitious reader to solve:

    Assume the constant power output of the Weissenstein wheel was 25 watts and its rotation rate at this power level was 20 rpm's. How many picograms of mass would its weights have to lose per wheel rotation in order to maintain this level of energy expenditure?

    As an extra credit question, assume that the giant wheel is driven in one direction by 8 weights with an inital total mass of 60 lbs (or 27.3 kilograms). How many years can the wheel run before its weights expend all of their mass?

    ReplyDelete
  137. You are so confused.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Interesting! I feel the exact SAME way about YOU! LOL!

    True, I don't have all the details about how Bessler managed to make his wheels' descending side weights lose more energy / mass than they regained on a wheel's ascending side, but I have no doubt that this is exactly how his wheels worked.

    Now, if you have a better explanation as to where his wheels' outputted energy came from, then I would certainly like to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Yes!,..It's hard enough to get Deuteruim to lose mass in fusion when changing to Helium,never mind iron weights,which is the most stable of all the elements.
    No,..The correct answer is,.which may have escaped your observation,..A swinging pendulum differs from a standing pendulum in this respect.At the bottom of its swing it is momentarily heavier than itself,but at the top of its swing it is momentarily lighter than itself,all due to enertia.
    This is the window of oportunity that must be taken advantage of,..When you see the wheel turn the truth of what I am saying will suddenly dawn on you.

    ReplyDelete
  140. The process of loss / gain of energy / mass that I write of is not the same as what happens during fusion. Hydrogen nuclei fusion is difficult to produce in a lab because positively electrically charged nuclei repel each other with exponentially increasing force as they are pushed closer and closer together. As a consequence of this, in order to fuse them requires that an enormous pressure be provided.

    The changes in the energy / mass of weights that I refer to occurs naturally everyday and affects ALL of the subatomic particles within a piece of matter and not just a small percentage of colliding nuclei.

    Yes, a swinging pendulum weight will experience an increase in downward force (weight plus centrifugal force) at the bottom most point of its swing and many attempts have been made to use this principle to create a net torque on a wheel.

    The problem with the designs I have seen is that they don't resolve the problem of keeping the center of mass of the weights involved on the wheel's descending side during rotation.

    The CoM of their weights eventually rides over to the ascending side of the wheel and then any torque pulses produced by the descending side swinging pendulum weights will no longer be able to overcome the counter torque produced by the weights on the wheel's ascending side.

    It sounds good in priciple, but has yet to work in practice. These types of wheels also suffer from another annoying problem. As the pendulum weights on the descending side begin to swing, they can momentarily apply NO torque to that side of the wheel. At this time, the entire wheel can actually begin to rotate COUNTER to its intended direction of rotation!

    ReplyDelete
  141. Trevor,

    Have you applied for a patent, if so how long before it's safe to publish the wheel ?

    P47

    ReplyDelete
  142. Here is an exellant experiment you can do to demonstrate how the pendulums can turn a wheel very positively.This is not how Bessler's wheel worked,because he used a different configuration.

    Arrange two free swinging pendulums balanced on a beam that can revolve 360 degrees.Now swing one of the pendulums and you will see you get chaos,it does not know which way to turn.

    Now for the magic.Install on the center of the beam,a one way bearing...Now swing one of the pendulums.Immediately the beam will revolve very positively utilising the bob force on both sides.

    On the up side the down bob of the pendulum is cancelled out and on the down side the up bob of the pendulum is cancelled out.While the pendulums are swinging the wheel will revolve.
    The problem now is how to keep the pendulums swinging.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Techno says:
    "The process of loss / gain of energy / mass that I write of is not the same as what happens during fusion. The changes in the energy / mass of weights that I refer to occurs naturally everyday and affects ALL of the subatomic particles within a piece of matter and not just a small percentage of colliding nuclei."

    Are you going to just leave us hanging, Technoguy? No name for the mysterious process? No examples of everyday, naturally occurring changes?

    ReplyDelete
  144. @ Doug

    The so-called "mysterious" process is simply the "conservation of energy / mass" which rationalizes what happens when objects rise and fall in a gravity fiield. This process has been understood for almost a century now. I have already given numerous examples of its ability to rationalize what happens when a rock is thrown skyward on the moon, when a meteor impacts the Earth, and, of course, when weights rise and fall within a Bessler type OB wheel.

    Meanwhile, we are all STILL waiting to hear YOUR explanation of where the energy Bessler's wheels outputted came from.

    ReplyDelete
  145. That isn't how the conservation of energy works. In your rock example, the person's arm is what undergoes a change in mass, not the rock. The kinetic energy of the arm isn't completely transferred to the rock. Some of the work the arm does is lost as heat.
    When the rock leaves the hand, its kinetic energy is at maximum, potential at minimum. As it rises, the kinetic decreases to zero at the top of the throw and the potential is maximum. Then when it lands the energies are reversed. But the rock never loses or gains mass.

    His wheels either were different kinds of tricks, or they extracted energy from their surroundings. One of the consequences of the conservation of energy is no machine can perpetually deliver energy to its surroundings.

    ReplyDelete
  146. The concept of "gravitational potential energy" is a PRE-20th century one that still considers mass and energy to be separate entities. I assure you that they are not.

    When the rock reaches it's maximum height, its kinetic energy does not just disappear to become some vague form of "potential" energy. Rather, its mass equivalent (in the range of a fraction of a picogram is added to the mass that the rock had before it was thrown skyward. This process is reversed as the rock returns to the surface of the moon.

    Now you say Bessler's wheels were "tricks" or they were somehow extracting energy from their environvironment?! All rather vague hypotheses, IMO, and actually far less probable than what I propose.

    I also do not believe a machine can output energy perpetually and I've never suggested Bessler's wheels had that capability. But, with an energy / mass loss in the range of a picogram per wheel rotation, they would certainly run for a long time (assuming no critical part failure). My calculations show it would take BILLIONS of years to finally exhaust all of the energy / mass of their weights!

    So, I do not need to hypothesize that his wheels were hoaxes or tapped some sort of environmental energy. I know what their power supply was. It was located INSIDE the wheels and contained in their weights.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Yes, Technoguy. You're right. I'm wrong.

    Now where did I put those magic levers...

    ReplyDelete
  148. I'm sorry,..Thats the biggest lot of rubbish I've yet heard!..Don't you know that in space there is no up or down.In anycase it has nothing to do with Bessler's wheel.
    If you lift a weight it does not take on energy ,it just represents a state of potential energy by virtue of the the distance it has to fall.
    Bessler's wheel did not involve in depth neuclear physics nor unproved theories about space time.He just used the law of gravity and enertia.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Poor JC. It looks like there are no new comments accumulating in his more recent posts, while this post continues to swell in size! I guess it just goes to show that the main interest people have in Bessler is in the actual mechanics of his wheels and not his biography or times (which, IMO, would make a VERY intersting story even if he was a "montebank without peer".

    I don't think anyone would disagree that the rock thrown upward (away from the surace) on the moon starts with a certain initial amount of kinetic energy and that at the top of its rise, when it is motionless, it no longer has that kinetic energy.

    If the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is valid, then that energy AND the mass associated with it can not just have disappeared. It went somewhere.

    Now one can either believe this energy / mass was added to that of the rock as I propose or one can believe that it is somehow "held" in the gravity field in a way similar to the way a stretched spring stores energy and the mass associated with that energy (yes, according to 20th century physics, a stretched spring also undergoes a fractional picogram range increase in its mass!).

    The problem with depositing the initially added energy / mass of the moon rock into the gravity field is that one then has an invisible field possessing mass! This seems counter intuitive since mass is something we normally associate with physical objects. But, then again, as Compton scattering demonstrates, it is possible for normally massless "packets" of energy (that is, photons) to have a mass and momentum associated with them.

    The safest way to rationalize all of this seems to be to just say that, as the rock rises in the moon's gravity field, the (kinetic) energy / mass initially imparted to it is only gradually added to the initial energy / mass of the rock. And, of course, the process is reversed as the rock falls back to the moon's surface. Perhaps while it is waiting to be completely added to the initial energy / mass of the rock, the imparted energy / mass is temporarily stored in the rock / moon gravitational interaction.

    The testing conditions imposed on Bessler's wheels were specifically designed to eliminate the possibility that the wheels were powered by an external source and I agree that they were suffcient. Over the years I have heard of many exotic means by which his wheels could have been externally powered. None of them, IMO, would have been able to deliver the 25 watt output displayed by the Weissenstein wheel.

    The only REALLY weird hypothesis that I can not completely dismiss is that Bessler had psychokinetic powers and he was able to mentally make the wheels rotate that way! This would explain why they only worked when he was nearby and not necessarily in the same room. Where did his strange power come from? Well, like some Hindu yogi, he would have unknowingly trained his brain to produce psychokinetic forces on remote objects after a decade of mentally straining to make a wheel turn!

    LOL! Personally, I'll stick with the weights, levers, ropes, and springs and continue to search for the "magic" lever and the "Connectedness Principle". Those make sense to me.

    Perhaps the ultimate question one must ask is "Is it physically possible to build a wheel whose weights AUTOMATICALLY shift themselves about during wheel rotation so as to keep their CoM always on the wheel's descending side AND to also not have ALL of this wheel's outputted energy used to reset its ascending side weights".

    If the answer is "yes", then it is only a matter of time before someone, that lucky "lone wolf" researcher, finds it. If the answer is "no", then we might as well end the search right now and dismiss Bessler as a charlatan or at best an honest person who did not even realize that his wheels were tapping some "environmental" source of power (including psychokinetic power!).

    ReplyDelete
  150. keep the main wheel balanced, while it overcomes resistance by using opposing force of pendulums.
    they work in pairs, they provide more energy or force than the secondary device driving the wheel.
    since the first opposing pendulums system stays in balance, even when overcoming the resistance caused by the secondary drive system, the drive system does not need to provide the same energy or force to drive the wheel.
    the opposed pendulums can provide more leverage easily lifting another lighter pendulum on an axle, which is connected to the opposed pendulums when being lifted, and disconnect from the opposed pendulums when falling and connect to the main wheel, driving the wheel.
    it is the drive system that transfers its weight to unbalance the wheel if using a gravity system to turn the wheel.
    120 degree spacing also helps.

    P47.

    ReplyDelete
  151. any diagrams?looking into counterweighted spring assisted pendulum dynamics with applied human
    force as augmentation

    ReplyDelete
  152. can we covert any of this into wattage/time?

    ReplyDelete

Was Johann Bessler an Undiscovered Genius?

A recent casual comment about Johann Bessler got me thinking; was Bessler a genius?  My first thought was to dismiss the idea because there...