## Thursday, 19 April 2012

### To enable a gravity-wheel to rotate.

First clue.

To make the gravity-wheel react to gravity you need to create an overbalanced situation.

You can do that on a clockwise rotating wheel, by placing each weight further outwards at some point between twelve o'clock and six o'clock, and closer in, between six o'clock and twelve o'clock.

To make the wheel continue to overbalance you need to bring the weight which is further out, back in again, at or close to six o'clock.  Then you have to make it move out again, between twelve o'clock and six 'clock. Elementary my dear Watson.

JC

1. This is that old fundamental truth. The right side mass must be heavier than the left side mass.
The construction is the secret key.
For instance http://keelynet.com/energy/kolo.gif
gives one construction example. But this Borut´s system doesn´t function - easy to calculate why not.
BR/Heikki from Finland

1. Sorry. Correction.
The right side momentum sum (mass "m" times its position "r") must be greater than the left side momentum sum.
BR/Heikki from Finland

2. The concept shown in that .gif can be taken to a more extreme level: the case where there is no moment [not "momentum"] from the ascending weights at all. This idea dates back to Conradus Schwiers (1790), simplified by Pierre Richard (1858):—

A number of weights are equally spaced on an endless chain, which is forced to follow a D shaped path. On the descending side, shortly after the 12 o'clock position, the weights are guided into slots in a wheel. Shortly before six o'clock they move out of the wheel, and ascend along the vertical centerline.

Of course, just as for the example you cite, this system, also with its permanently offset center of mass, and with more weights descending than ascending at any time, doesn't function.

2. John, that's not really a clue, I think everyone knows it already.

3. I want to stress my point of view that I don't think he used levers, pendulums etc.. May be the best clue is the other alleged invention of Bessler; "A fountain which leaps continuously from still waters". That sounds like an air pressure based system.

1. That's right. Another huge clue for me is after he stopped working on his wheels, he began work on a windmill; energy from the wind.

4. I think John was just affirming the basic foundation of the gravity wheel which cannot change.
The following clues should deal with how the weights were primed or lifted.

1. If my memory serves me well, Bessler mentioned he could achieve same motion without weights.

2. I'd like to see that posted without the loophole . Bessler said the Devil himself could not build a mobile from nothing . Even feathers weigh something .

3. I understand that what Bessler and you guys mean by weight is spherical or any other type of objects made out of metal.

5. Correct, thanks Trevor.

JC

6. This comment has been removed by the author.

7. JC wrote:

"To make the wheel continue to overbalance you need to bring the weight which is further out, back in again, at or close to six o'clock. Then you have to make it move out again, between twelve o'clock and six 'clock. Elementary my dear Watson."

I only WISH it really was that "elementary" my dear Collins. LOL!

When one REALLY studies the dynamics of these types of OB wheels, he quickly discovers that there are NO designs possible which will IMMEDIATELY extract enough energy / mass from the OTHER weights in the wheel in order to lift the two rising weights at the 6:00 and 12:00 positions. Such designs suffer from the problem of trying to achieve too much with too little by requiring that the CoM of their weights be positioned directly HORIZONTALLY away from their axles. True, this location will maximize torque IF the design worked, but such designs cause the amount of energy / mass needed to move the two weights to FAR exceed what the wheel's other weights can immediately provide during a single segment of rotation. They do NOT work and ALL are "wrong track" designs. PLEASE don't waste ANY of your precious time on them!

So then what DOES work? The ONE design that Bessler found, of course!

Bessler soon became aware that the 6:00 / 12:00 two rising weight designs or even the 12:00 ONE rising weight designs (such as that depicted in MT 13) are futile. In the active 8 weighted lever subwheels of his two-directional drums undergoing CW rotation, the weights near the rim gradually swing in toward the axle as their lever's pivots move from 6:00 to 9:00. That is a rotational increment of 90 degrees. But, as the lever pivots pass the 9:00 position, their weights suddenly change the direction they are swinging in from CCW to CW and then begin drawing closer to their rim stops. The weights then take from 9:00 to 3:00, a drum rotation increment of 180 degrees, before they finally make contact with their rim stops again. From 3:00 to 6:00, a lever's weight remains in contact with its rim stop. ALL of this motion is VERY precisely controlled and coordinated by the various interconnecting cords between the levers. It will NOT take place WITHOUT the cords. So, NO Connectedness Principle cords = NO PM!

This process results in a CoM of the eight weights which is BELOW a horizontal line passing through the axle and which is rotated, according to my measurements, CCW by about 20 degrees from a vertical line passing through the axle. No, it certainly does not produce as much torque as if the CoM was directly horizontally displaced away from the axle and onto the drum's descending side. BUT, this approach only requires that TWO weights move PART of the way back to their rim stops on the drum's ascending side while FOUR other weights are dropping with respect to their rim stops.

There is ALMOST enough energy / mass lost by these other weights during each 45 degree increment of drum rotation to make the two ascending side weights climb immediately and smoothly, but, unfortunately, not quite enough. To solve this annoying problem and finally achieve PM, Bessler had to supply those ascending side weights with a bit more energy / mass. Where did he get it from?

No, it was not from any additional power source outside of the wheel. Rather, it was supplied at the critical time to the ascending side weights by SPRINGS which were attached to their levers (one end of a spring was attached by a cord to the lever and the other end of the spring to an anchor located between a nearby radial drum support). Springs are really VERY fascinating little things and can be used to STORE energy / mass during times when it is in excess and would only be wasted by conversion to heat or sound, and then to RELEASE that stored energy / mass when it is CRITICALLY needed to make an OB PM gravity wheel run.

So, are you serious ACTIVE mobilists yet using springs in EVERY one of your designs? NO? Then you are still NOT on the "right track"!

8. I did advise people not to come to any premature conclusions following each of my little clues, as the whole picture would not become clear until the end.

When I post the occasional clue to my own theory of how Bessler's wheel worked, I put things in which are a vital ingredient to the solution, no matter how elementary they may seem. So if I appear to be suggesting that the wheel includes an over-balancing aspect to its action then that is because it is a
necessary ingredient. Anything dependent on the presence of gravity will have an overbalancing ingredient.

I see that you continue to assume eight weights, techno, whereas I assume ten.

JC

1. John, ten weights working in pairs, (pairs seems to be one of bessler's requirements), satisfies that clue and includes the obsession he had with the number five. TG's 8-wieghted,multi-arm lever, spring loaded/timed, 48 cord hydra-headed wheel is missing those features.
Hurry up and post another little clue!

9. Yes, we all know the "pairs clue":

"a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, at its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time." - pg 295

The problem is that we don't all agree as to the locations of the weights that constitute a "pair".

For me, a "pair" consists of TWO weights that are DIAMETRICALLY opposed to each other inside of the drum. Thus, for an 8 weighted lever wheel, there would be FOUR pairs of weights. They would be the 6:00 / 12:00 pair, the 7:30 / 1:30 pair, the 9:00 / 3:00 pair, and, finally, the 10:30 / 4:30 pair.

In the "right track" internal configuration of Bessler's wheels that I have been promoting, an active sub wheel's weight that approaches the 9:00 position of a CW rotating drum will swing CCW around its lever's pivot and thereby move closer to the axle while its diametrically opposed "partner" approaches the 3:00 position and, swinging CW around its lever's pivot, moves closer to the rim. This is in complete agreement with the "pairs" clue. However, although this action occurs, it does not mean that the levers of these two weights are DIRECTLY connected to each other via interconnecting cords. No, the situation is a bit more complicated than that (even though interconnecting cords are critically necessary to the operation of the wheel). This configuration neatly explains the 8 "gentle" impact sounds heard on the wheel's descending side during each drum rotation. Each sound was that of a single one of the active sub wheel's eight weights coming to rest on its rim stop.

YOUR design, JC, that uses a total of ten weights has the wheel powered by FIVE "pairs" of weights with each member of a pair in relatively close proximity to each other, directly connected mechanically to each other (thus, no cords), and both on the SAME side of the wheel. Admittedly, as each pair shifts, one member will move a bit farther from the axle while the other moves a bit closer. However, I don't see how your approach can explain the EIGHT impact sounds that occured on the descending side of the Weissenstein wheel. Your approach would have five impacts sounds per drum rotation taking place almost simultaneously at both the 6:00 and 12:00 positions of the drum. This does not agree with the witness reports.

You did mention, however, in a previous blog that you had "moved beyond" this approach. I'm glad of that and hope that your current design looks closer to the one I promote. I guess we'll all find out soon enough.

10. The pairs you mention in your wheel can't be connected or the cords would run through the axle. They are connected to every other weight twice, however. A cord is a mechanical connection, too, last time I checked, LMAO!
In a "crazy train track" approach, having each weight connected twice to six other spring-loaded weights wouldn't allow for much swinging. Maybe seizing up, but not swinging, and gaining force. And I don't need a sim or a build to know that.

11. Doug wrote:

"The pairs you mention in your wheel can't be connected or the cords would run through the axle."

Quite true and NONE of the cords in ANY of Bessler's one-directional wheels or two-directional wheel's sub wheels went through the axle or even near to it.

"In a "crazy train track" approach, having each weight connected twice to six other spring-loaded weights wouldn't allow for much swinging."

Actually, in an 8 weighted lever wheel, each lever is connected to FIVE other levers AND a spring by a cord. 8 levers x 6 cords per lever = 48 cords. For a 3 weighted lever wheel (possibly used in the Gera and Drashwitz one-directional wheels), each lever is connected by a cord to 2 other levers and a spring. 3 levers x 3 cords per lever = 9 cords. For a 6 weighted lever wheel, each lever is connected by a cord to 4 other levers and a spring. 6 levers x 5 cords per lever = 30 cords.

As can be seen, the number of cords required for the "Connectedness Principle" rises exponentially as the number of weighted levers within a wheel rises. I shall leave it as an exercise for the serious Bessler PM mechanics students out there to compute how many cords would be needed in a 12 weighted lever wheel such as the Leupold Lever Wheel Bessler alludes to in MT 9. You will then realize why Bessler stayed with the 8 weighted lever sub wheels for both the Merseburg and Weissenstein wheels.

Also, the individual weighted levers do not really swing through too much of an arc as their pivots travel from a CW rotating drum's 6:00 position to its 3:00 position. Large arc swings are NOT necessary in order to maintain the CoM of the weights on the drum's descending side.

### If You Won Would You Be Willing to Share with Other Claimants?

I noted an observation on the Besslerwheel forum, which I thought worth commenting on.   Mr Tim, I think it was, suggested that “   I'm ...