I've managed to find time to restart work on my own version of Bessler's wheel. I say my version, but if it works it will clearly be recognisable as having been derived from Bessler's clues, many of which I think you are all unaware of, as I haven't shared everything to date - unless some of you are working on the same clues in secret!
There are five mechanisms each consisting of two equal weights and some levers. There are no cords or springs, just levers and weights.
The design still relies on the concept of parametric oscillation and I cannot see any alternative if you accept that gravity alone drove Bessler's wheel. I specifically chose the Estonian sport of 'Kiiking' to demonstrate exactly how parametric oscillation works and it's really very simple.
A parameter is a quantity or mathematical variable that stays constant. So if you have an oscillator such as a swing with fixed lengths it will swing to and fro until it stops, because all the parameters such as length, weight and gravity remain constant. But if you alter the parameters at each swing stroke, as a child does on a swing by swinging its legs at the appropriate point, you continue the swinging motion.
To obtain a variable in the parameters of kiiking, theoretically the person swinging has to raise his weight at two points during each revolution - and the same goes for the gravitywheel. However in practice only one lift is required and the return of the person's mass to its former position in readiness for raising it again, can take place with the aid of gravity as long as it occurs in good time time for the subsequent lift.
There is an extra factor or concept which I discovered about 18 months ago, which overcomes the objections to a gravity-only wheel, but I don't want to share it yet. Suffice to say that it throws out the window all the arguments about the viability of such devices.
JC
John,
ReplyDeleteI'm sort of getting the concept you're talking about ...sounds similar to "decreased radius of arc" . I know about this from studying boxing a bit . The concept is to start the punch (hook) with the arm almost straight and draw the fist inward on the way to the target , this accelerates the velocity of the swing . Keep in mind that the shoulder and the elbow together is what allows this effect . If you were to try it with one or the other it will not work .
JC wrote "There is an extra factor or concept which I discovered about 18 months ago, which overcomes the objections to a gravity-only wheel, but I don't want to share it yet. Suffice to say that it throws out the window all the arguments about the viability of such devices."
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to that discussion John !
-fletcher
JC wrote:
ReplyDelete"To obtain a variable in the parameters of kiiking, theoretically the person swinging has to raise his weight at two points during each revolution - and the same goes for the gravitywheel."
And that raising of the weights at two points during each wheel rotation requires that the lifted weights be abundantly supplied with energy / mass by the design's descending weights.
The problem with about 99% of the various OB wheel designs proposed / built is that the descending weights do not output enough energy / mass to lift their ascending weights during ALL portions of a wheel's rotation. Such wheels will, at best, only rotate a few degrees until they hit a "sticking point" which is the wheel position at which the ascending weights begin to draw in energy / mass at a rate GREATER than can be supplied by the descending weights. When that point is reached, the CoM of the wheel's weights will simple oscillate back and forth about an equilibrium point Bessler referred to as the "punctum quietus" until air and bearing drag finally slow the wheel to a stop. These designs have no hope of working.
About 1% of the OB wheel designs proposed / built are such that ALL of the energy / mass outputted by their descending weights goes into lifting their ascending weights and the rate at which their descending weights output energy / mass to the wheel as a whole ALWAYS equals the rate at which their ascending weights take energy / mass from the wheel as a whole. These designs have no "sticking point" or "punctum quietus" and will be in balance no matter what the position in which the wheel is oriented. Unfortunately, since all of the energy / mass of their descending weights is always completely used to lift their ascending weights, none is left over to accelerate the wheel as a whole or perform outside work. These designs are useless as far as achieving PM is concerned.
Finally, there are those EXTREMELY rare designs, one of which was known to Johann Bessler, whose descending weights, regardless of the orientation of the rotating wheel, ALWAYS output MORE energy / mass than is used to lift their ascending weights. These designs DO have excess outputted energy / mass available that can be used to accelerate the wheel as a whole or perform outside work. ONLY this type of design can be a "runner".
IF "your" version of Bessler's wheel is of that rare third kind, then it WILL be a "runner" and it will be time to celebrate. This, however, does NOT necessarily mean that your version is the same as Bessler's (unless, of course, there is only ONE way of achieving ROTARY PM which, contrary to Besseler's opinion, I suspect might NOT be the case). Whether or not you are considered to have rediscovered BESSLER'S design will, ultimately, depend upon of HOW you interpreted the various "hidden" clues in the Bessler literature and whether or not those interpretations are accepted as valid by the majority of Bessler mobilists. Even if your design is a runner, expect to encounter ALOT of resistance to its acceptance by the PM "community".
It's great to see that you're back in workshop, John. And I'll tell you, I'm with Fletcher... I am very curious to know what the ace up your sleeve is. As much or more than how much I'd like to see the new version of your wheel. But it's cool, I fully understand that it's not the only thing going on in your life. Just keep in mind that Summer doesn't last forever. :)
ReplyDelete-Mark (from BW Forum)
Thanks for your interest, guys. I hope to finish this within a couple of weeks or so.
ReplyDeleteJC
allora ragazzi....sono l'italiano.....i pesi sono 8.....e lavorano 5 da un lato e 3 dall'altro....ora trovate il sistema di far succedere questo....5 attorno al cerchio a destra
ReplyDelete3 attorno all'asse a sinistra.......
;-) funziona.....
USING BING TRANSLATOR - then guys .... they are the Italian ..... the weights are 8 ... and work 5 on one side and 3 on the other hand .... now found the system to be this ....5 around the circle to the right
ReplyDelete3 about the axis to the left ....
The last two sentences are extremely intriguing - looking forward to that, John!
ReplyDeleteI thought I'd slip that one by you two, Fletch and Andre, but your eyes are so sharp! It will be worth the wait I promise you.
ReplyDeleteJC
...DIMENTICAVO.......SU PIù LIVELLI.....
ReplyDeleteITL
...I FORGOT .... ...On Multiple Levels
DeleteYou've lost me! Could somebody talk plain English,and no abbreviations?
ReplyDeleteDucati ?
ReplyDeleteHarking back to the post earlier re: the double R and wheel logo Bessler used repeatedly. I think JC's idea its a 'path' clue is likely, it shows an 'opening' curve and a 'tightening' curve, in toward the axle, that would produce rotation if that action could be sustained. But have you missed another clue in that logo? ...... If you look closely at a better copy the 'R's are drawn in front and behind the wheel line, the lines break or are solid showing the 3d infront/behind effect. This 3d look gives it the appearance of a helical coil or section of spring.
ReplyDeleteJon
Do you seriously think you're going to find anything in those logos.
ReplyDeleteI have solved the wheel and the mechanical configuration is confirmed by the clues in the poem and his personal words,as I have been saying from the beginning.
At this stage how many times have you claimed to have solved it ?
DeleteThe only delay of the demonstration of the working wheel is caused by holdups in the manufacturing nothing more.
DeleteJust bear with me a little longer.
Would I risk putting my name and face on the blog if I wasn't confident in my efforts?
@ Trevor
DeleteI agree that there is little of value to be learned from the reversed R's logo aside from it indicating Bessler's artistic abilities and penchant for symmetry (note how the two f's on the right side become the A on the left side!). It's main purpose, I believe, was to identify him as the inventor of a genuine PM wheel.
Well, you do, indeed, sound VERY confident in your "working" wheel which is yet to be completed and it's certainly good that it is "clue based". BUT, can you be sure that you have ALL of the relevant clues in the Bessler literature and that, of the ones you did use, that you interpreted them correctly?
In any event I continue to look forward to seeing what both you and JC have cooked up and I wish you both the best of luck. I just hope that we will not merely be presented with a more obvious non-running designs and that there will then be no follow up on the interpretations of the clues that were incorporated into them.
Someone once said that "The devil is in the details" and this definitely applies to the various "hidden" clues in the Bessler literature (mostly in the illustrations). You can be absolutely sure that the FIRST interpretation you make of ANY clue will be completely wrong! This is EXACTLY what Bessler intended. That erroneous interpretation will then send you down a dead end "wrong track" that can waste days / weeks of your time and effort. You then back track and find that near that false clue there is another somewhat similar clue which you believe MUST be the correct one. You then follow that one with a different build or model only to discover that, no, that's yet another "wrong track" Bessler sent you down. Only after you are on the verge of calling it quits and taking up a more relaxing hobby like stamp collecting will the correct clue finally jump out at you and, after being confirmed with more building / modeling, advance you a SMALL amount of the way down the "right track".
Making REAL progress on the "right track" is a SLOW and PAINFUL process with each step requiring tens of hours of work AT A MINIMUM. Eventually, however, you will have the details of the "Connectedness Principle" and will then be ready to tackle the "Secret Principle". This final principle is all that will remain between you and success: a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel that uses the SAME design Bessler used. Expect to then encounter a stone wall of false clues that will require every ounce of logic and mental tenacity that you can muster in order to penetrate.
IF you are the 1 in 1000 mobilists that actually makes it that far, then you ALREADY have the innate abilities necessary to complete your journey IF you can continue to believe that it is possible and that YOU have what it takes. At this time you must do your best to keep from being side tracked by the pretty non-runner animations of the "wrong track" mobilists that fill the internet or the negative background "noise" of the "no tracker" skeptics who can only parrot the erroneous arguments they received along the way from the scientific orthodoxy.
Yes, Bessler wanted his discovery to eventually be rediscovered by someone in the future if he died without selling his invention. But, like Alexander the Great who from his death bed bequeathed his empire to the "strongest" of his generals, Bessler's legacy will only go to a "right track" mobilist of near Herculean fortitude.
I expect to see some BIG developments in the field of "free" energy in the coming year and practically all of that will involve Bessler's inventions!
The recipe, you have got, you only need the ratio of ingredients, from experimenting with, and I should also add a little more money.
ReplyDeleteK
Honorable TG,..Every failure only makes me more determined,knowing that the working configuration is there to be had.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a person that gives up and I have committed myself to solving this problem once and for all.
My present design only requires two weights to prove the concept.Later I will increase it to eight weights since that that is all that is needed to make the output smooth and continuous.
Excellent, Trevor...it sounds like you are made of the "right stuff" to achieve success. As every high school athletics coach says about once a day, "A quitter never wins and a winner never quits!". We all know what catagory Johann Bessler was in.
DeleteIF I understand you correctly, you are saying that your design will run with ONLY two weights?!
Indeed, this is the basic action taking place in the design I now have, but "mine" will not run with only two weights. It MUST have all 8 weighted levers in place and carefully coordinated with each other via the Connectedness Principle. Each diametrically opposed pair of weighted levers, in its turn, applies its offset CoM to drive the drum while the ongoing interactions between 6 of the 8 weighted levers serves to prepare the next arriving pair of diametrically opposed weighted levers to follow suit and maintain the imbalance.
What "my" design does is actually very simple. HOW it does it is most definitely NOT simple. It is one of the most critically balanced designs I have ever worked on!
Yes, the coming year shall be a most interesting one in the field of PM research...
5 da un lato e 3 sull'altro.....
ReplyDeleteITL
5 on one side and 3 on the other.
DeleteNiente R solo "o".....!!!!
DeleteITL
Due "o"....;-)
DeleteMy design is meant to work without any "weights" ...
ReplyDeleteCan you say if your design includes a pendulum?
DeleteP.S. Nice farewell to BW !!!
If all you want to do is come here and tell us about your accomplishments and not really help us, then are you really any better than the lifers at BW? Come on, you are better than that, otherwise you wouldn't drive yourself the way you do. I am happy that you can come here and tell us you did it. It's a great accomplishment and you should be able to have bragging rights, but at the end of the day, its what you do with it that will be remembered. Based on the designs you have come up with, you really have talent. I have not said this before, but you are the reason I stayed with it after having a crushing blow when one of my designs did not work. Not many people proclaim they have found the solution, and when one does, I think we need to treat that person will all the respect they deserve. As I have said before, I want to figure it out for myself, but I don't mind directive advice along the way. What is wrong with that. We all went to school and everything we learned helped us to get where we are today. Are we to say that since we didn't teach ourselves math or science, then everything we accomplish is really due to our past teachers. I hope not. Please consider giving us guidance, not your design. That's all I have to say. R
DeleteI get a little ahead of myself sometimes when I have a revelation . I do a lot of general thinking to get the feel of what has to be going on inside a wheel for this to happen ... thinking of the actual qualities of Bessler's device from his and others descriptions . I had a great one (revelation )lately and I expressed it here . I am now sorting out the details of the principle ( as far as I understand it ) . I've got it down to basics now I think and feel that I understand how a pound can cause the raising of more than a pound ;) . I almost feel like Bessler left the mystery for those who seek P.M. so that someone ( or anyone ) could find what he found for themselves and experience all that comes with such an accomplishment . Note : I'm glad I inspire you . Now is a good time for you to pay attention to my posts and whatnot as I really feel like I'm on to something simple and functional .
DeleteBessler :
ReplyDelete"Once more I will humbly extol the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: "Now I understand!"
Technically yes , the design includes pendulums .
ReplyDeletegot ya ... R
DeleteUn solo pendolo per comandare tutto....
ReplyDeleteItl
A single pendulum for controlling all
DeleteDear JC: There was a two-way shuttle kerékenn as well? That started in the
ReplyDeletebessler wheel? The pendulum had megmozdÃtÃni hand?
At the risk of depressing the "weights only" OB PM gravity wheel enthusiasts out there in PMland, I must again repeat that wheels that ONLY use weights will NOT work. This is because they can ONLY work IF they can maintain the CoM of their weights on the descending sides of their axles and this, as bitter experience has repeatedly shown, does NOT and CAN NOT happen in "weights only" OB PM gravity wheels. So, how do you keep the CoM of your wheel's weights on the descending side of the axle during wheel rotation?
ReplyDeleteSimple. You will need something "extra" in your design and you will have to do what Bessler did!
You should first utilize his Connectedness Principle to "coordinate" the motions of the weighted levers inside of your design to assure that they will CONTINUOUSLY "reset" themselves during the time interval of each angular increment of their drum's rotation. This will guarantee that the weighted levers are PRECISELY in the same orientation at the end of the interval as they were at its beginning. Next, and this is CRITICALLY important, you must figure out some way to "stabilize" the OB configuration of your weighted levers using SPRING tension. This will assure that the CoM remains OB DESPITE the rotation of the wheel.
I have previously stated that an OB PM gravity wheel works (that is, continuously outputs EXCESS energy / mass which can be used to accelerate the wheel or perform useful "outside" work) because its descending side weights LOSE more energy / mass than is taken up by its ascending side weights. This statement is NOT entirely complete. Actually, that extra energy / mass coming out of the descending side weighted levers really comes from BOTH their attached weights AND the CONTRACTING SPRINGS attached to them! (Yes, contracting springs LOSE energy / mass while, obviously, stretching springs must be supplied with energy / mass.) This is why Bessler HAD to employ SPRINGS in his wheels IF he wanted them to work and so, too, will YOU IF you want YOUR wheels to work!
Conclusion: There is ZERO chance of ANY weight driven OB PM gravity wheel design working IF it does NOT also utilize SPRING tension (or a similar "conservative" force such as the electrostatic or magnetic force) to both "stabilize" the orientation of its OB configuration of weighted levers and also provide a significant portion of the energy / mass outputted by the design during each increment of rotation.
Sorry to be the "bearer of bad news" for many a mobilist out there in PMland.
It will only work with would up springs .
DeleteThe bessler wheel was a wound up clock and Johann Bessler was a con man .
DeleteIf you believe that, then why are you here?
DeleteHe's trying to help us stop wasting time . If Bessler was a con man I don't think Karl would have fostered him . The fact is that there was a wheel for sale . Even Bessler's enemy Wagner helped to distinguish his wheel as genuine .
DeleteJC AP pgs.346-347 :
* Wagner further says:-
"I have already experimented with various types of weights to see
which are the best to use in conjunction with the springs, but have
run up against the two following snags. Firstly, that their
heaviness causes overloading of the wheel's axle, secondly, that
the motion cannot be substantially prolonged because the
weights have little room to descend, further, that no other motive
power is at all suitable for the prolongation and strengthening of
the momentum."
* Wagner goes on to say still more:-
"The details of the application of the motive power are difficult to
fathom in this machine. Everything seems to be in motion, and
there is no "fixed point" such as one would necessarily expect to
exist where the power is applied. This ingenious arrangement
has obviously misled many people into thinking that Orffyreus'
wheel really is the true Perpetuum Mobile."
* Bessler:
"Not for nothing do I set out Wagner's exact words, for by doing so
I can easily get people to appreciate just what bilge the man
produces! A mere turnspit is what he's talking about, as you can
see! My Mobile is free of all such nonsense. Springs and weights
of the kind he describes are not to be found in my machine!
I thought this blog was for pro PM enthusiasts.
ReplyDelete@ Trevor
ReplyDeleteSadly, many have allowed themselves to be thoroughly brainwashed by our "educational" systems into believing that PM is impossible. Never, while attempts were being made to brainwash me with this "obvious truth", did I even once hear mention of Johann Bessler and his inventions. I wonder why? I had to discover him on my own and privately pursue the design he used.
It's always mentally easier to just dismiss something that we can't immediately understand as either non-existent or a hoax. These are the old, worn out "It can't be, therefore it isn't" and "It's gotta be a trick" type reactions that pass for critical thinking nowadays. Trying to actually rationalize unusual phenomena in terms of known or speculated physics requires in-depth, critical thinking that the vast majority of people are incapable of performing.
The official two month long Weissenstein test, assuming that it required the wheel to continuously output the 25 watts needed to run that Achimedean screw in the water filled trough, would have CONCLUSIVELY proven that Bessler did, in fact, have an "intrinsic" motion machine that was outputting FAR more energy / mass during the test period than would have been provided even if its ENTIRE insides were occupied by a giant tightly wound mainspring! I won't repeat it again, but everyone here knows exactly where I think that wheel's outputted energy / mass came from and it was not from anywhere outside of the wheel's drum!
Yes, Bessler had the "real thing": a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel. Unlike all other wheels that do not output enough energy / mass to reset their weighted levers after each interval of drum rotation and, thus, can not maintain the eccentricity of their weights' CoM, he managed to figure out a way to include spring tension into the design which then allowed the wheel to output MORE than enough energy / mass than was needed to reset its weighted levers after each interval of drum rotation and maintain the offset CoM of its weights. Enough excess energy / mass, in fact, to operate outside machinery. His design was revolutionary (literally!) and it's quite possible that, once the secret was fully known, it can be applied to other types of wheels and machines to endow them with the miracle of self-motion! Whenever I think about this "Secret Principle", my mind immediately comes back to this AP quote:
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain."
This is probably the single MOST important quote in all of the Bessler literature and one that the serious Bessler mobilist should spend much time pondering. To me it's obvious that he must be talking about counter balancing the "heavy weight" with spring tension so as to, effectively, reduce its weight so that it can then be "lightly" raised by a smaller and lighter weight. One has to ask himself how he would use this concept to maintain the OB of the CoM of the weights in his wheel. When he solves that problem, he will be well on the way down that "right track" toward the final destination: a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel.
@ American readers of this blog
Today is the 4th of July in which we celebrate our independence from Britain (sorry about that Britain) and the "birth" of our nation.
HURRAY and HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY to everyone in the USA!!!
...continuate il moto perpetuo esiste....ma deve essere preservato dal mondo attuale....non è ancora pronto a ricevere questo dono...
ReplyDeleteITL
Will teach this guy English!
ReplyDeleteOnce upon a midnight dreary
ReplyDeleteWhile I pondered weak and weary
Over many a quaint and curious
volume of forgotten lore
Parametric oscillation
Tapping at my chamber door
Only this, and nothing more
http://www.grinnell.edu/academic/physics/faculty/case/swing/
"In comparing the two the most readily observable difference is, when the swinger is most active? For the parametric oscillator the swinger raises himself as the swing passes through the lowest point of the arc of the swing's motion. For the driven oscillator the swinger's body is quiet as the swing passes through the lowest point. The swinger simply glides forward or backward through the lowest portion of the arc."
Been there done that.It's too slow for the wheel.
ReplyDeleteTechnoguy wrote
ReplyDelete"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain."
Bessler actually says (from AP part 1 chapter 43):
Der wird ein grosser Künstler heissen/
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kan schmeissen/
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt/
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. &c.
He will be called a great craftsman,
who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high,
and if one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c.
a quarter of the wheel? so if one pound falls a quarter of the wheel, 4 pound are lifted 4 quarters of the wheel (wich is the entire wheel). could you explain that please?
DeleteThe Portuguese
When 1 pound falls a quarter, 4 pounds are lifted 4 quarters.
DeleteDoes each pound lifted raise 1 quarter. If so, then the 4 pounds lifted are raised a total of 4 quarters. The ratio of weight falling to weight raised is 1:4. Also, no unit of height is specified.
In general, I think we can say when 1 unit of weight falls (some distance), 4 units of weight are lifted (the same distance).
Three more things:
Delete1) What Bessler didn't mention is what happens to the orignal weight. Does it fall and needs to be lifted, in which case, there is a net gain of 3, or does it reset back to the top as it lifts the other 4 weights. If the latter is the case, then there is a net gain of 5 weights lifted (the Bessler magic number).
2) There is also no mention of how fast the weights were lifted. Was it almost immediate as in a pulse force, or did it take some time for the lifted weights to be raised, either due to the strenght of the force and/or the path the weights took.
3) The weights were raised a quarter. A quarter of what? A quarter of an inch, a quarter of the size of the wheel, ???
I think Bessler found a mechanism that can produce force in a 1:4 ratio with equal drop and raise heights. Was 1:4 the maximum ratio, and did he actually imploy that ratio in his wheels is a big question.
Another thing, if Bessler's wheel imployed weights on levers like in MT9-MT16, how long were the levers (how far out did the weights move out)? 6 inches, maybe 1 foot. I wonder how much thought was put into this aspect.
I'm not looking for any responses, just some ideas that I keep thinking about ...
Ok, one more thing. IMHO, Bessler's statement was more about knowing the mechanism (and what it can do) than the ratio he mentioned. There are an infinite number of ratios the mechanism can produce depending on drop height and the amount of force you want the mechanism to produce. 1:4 just corresponds to a specific drop height, and that could be another clue as to his design.
DeleteBreak it down.
DeleteFirst .. a great craftsman (note, not a mechanic, suggesting more or other than than engineering knowledge) can easily (without much effort) throw a heavy thing (note, not a weight specifically) high,
Second .. and if 1 lb (of weight) falls (looses Potential Energy) a quarter (note, no distance or unit specified, could be a quarter of a circumference),
it shoots (inference is quickly) 4 lbs 4 quarters (units not specified, could mean a circumference) high etc.
Taken literally the ratio is not 1:4 but 1:16.
What he is suggesting IMO, disguised in a play on words, is that a craftsman, but not a trained mechanic limited to his particular knowledge and skill set, can appear to break the 'Law of Levers' with a device, that every 'one dimensional' mechanic however knows is an uncrackable nut.
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain."
DeleteCould this be an indirect reference to the Prime Mover?
Lets assume that Bessler's wheel consisted of an OB wheel (such as MT13) and a Prime Mover that would lift the weights at 12 and 6. If the Prime Mover was built to a scale that the distance of the falling weight equaled the distance of the weights needed to be raised, then the falling weight only needs to lift two weights, a 1:2 ratio.
I took this more as velocity because as far as performing work a balanced weight (or flywheel) moving on a axis at a high rate of speed (torsion) can do some work and it is easier to overcome static balance than it is static (dead weight) imbalance . If you were going to reverse the movement also some of the energy could be stored in springs to assist in the reversal . Another clue that Bessler metioned is that an empty wheel will run longer than a wheel with a lot of weight in it (or the wrong configuration of weight(s) ). To me this indicates learning to use what weight you put in the wheel effectively (correctly ) or don't bother putting any weights in . LOL. I mean seriously that is what he seems to be saying .
ReplyDeleteBessler also said something like the weights are themselves the PM device.
DeleteMaybe Bessler's weights weren't weights, but rather removable weighted levers.
I hope you continue to move forward with your design. R
PART I:
ReplyDeleteTo me Bessler is saying that it's possible to use a 1 pound weight to lift 4 pounds through a distance that is four TIMES as great as that through which the 1 pound weight falls. This is, of course, physically impossible UNLESS one has carefully counter balanced the 4 pound weight so that it EFFECTIVELY weights LESS than 1/4th of the weight of the 1 pound weight or less than 4 ounces. In my comments to past blog entries, I've outlined how this can be done. There is NO mystery to it and it is easily done with an attached counter weight or carefully selected spring.
However, I think that one must avoid taking this Bessler quote too literally and assuming that it was used exactly as stated inside of his wheels. No, he was only describing the PRINCIPLE of counter balancing, IN GENERAL, in the quote and indicating that this general principle IS employed in his wheels. There were not two DIFFERENT types of weights in Bessler's wheels. ALL of the weights within a wheel, either one or two-directional, were identical and of the SAME mass.
There is consensus amongst the more experienced OB wheel builders that the "weights only" wheels can not maintain an OB CoM as they self rotate. I know this to be true from my MANY attempts to physically build wheels that would do just that over the decades. You MUST have something "extra" and that "something" is the proper application of SPRING TENSION to the weighted levers within your wheel. Those springs, upon contracting, will be releasing the energy / mass that they originally received when they were being stretched in such a way as to allow the wheel's dropping weights to rapidly lift its ascending side rising weights so as to maintain the location of the 8 weights' CoM on the descending side of the drum.
To finally solve the Bessler mystery, one must determine EXACTLY how Bessler employed the springs within the wheel. On the surface this might sound easy since, for a one-directional wheel, there were only 8 weighted levers and 8 springs (a two-directional wheel contained 16 weighted levers and 16 springs). The problem is knowing EXACTLY where to attach the springs between the levers and the drum of a wheel. Unfortunately, there are MANY possible pairs of connection points and only ONE is the correct one! But, before you even get around to determining any of that, you'd better ALREADY have the CORRECT shape of the "magic lever" AND the CORRECT "Connectedness Principle" Bessler used.
Good information technoguy. I agree that Bessler's statement should not be taken too literally, and has several possible interpretations.
DeletePART II:
ReplyDeleteWhy Bessler was so afraid that someone would, via external observations only, figure out how his wheels worked is beyond me because, just working off of the literature clues, it has taken me several decades and I'm STILL not 100% of the way to being able to duplicate his design yet! To quickly steal his secret, OTOH, someone would just have had to have had UNrestricted access to an uncloaked wheel and then have made some VERY precise sketches of all of its components with an emphasis on the weighted lever shape and the arrangement of interconnecting cords between the levers (or, alternatively, to have just physically absconded with his small, portable tabletop prototype!). At a minimum I estimate that such sketching would have taken at least an hour to accomplish. This is, perhaps, why Bessler got became furious with Professor Willem Jacob 'sGravesande and then took an ax to the Weissenstein wheel in order to destroy it. The professor briefly and without Bessler's permission had obtained that access and, if he had been dishonest enough, could have stolen the secret of Bessler's wheels if he had so desired.
As always, I remain convinced that the "essential" details of the design Bessler used ARE extractable from the clues Bessler left us, particularly the MANY clues in the DT portraits. However, the proper interpretation of these clues requires a veritable "quantum leap" in the level of the analysis used. One MUST be building CONTINUOUSLY as he studies the clues and then create a sort of "feedback loop" between his builds / models and his study of the clues. When he is on the "right track", the clues will make more and more sense to him and when he is going off onto a "wrong track" they will make less and less sense to him. It is a very delicate approach to the science of "Besslerology" and requires analytical skills that will not be developed before MUCH effort has been made. This is EXACTLY as Bessler intended it to be. Figure at least a YEAR of DAILY effort before you even BEGIN to make SERIOUS progress!
Technoguy wrote.
ReplyDelete"Why Bessler was so afraid that someone would, via external observations only, figure out how his wheels worked is beyond me ..."
He wasn't. He let various tests be conducted which of course meant observations of the externals. The only proviso was that the wheels were not to be oversped.
He did say that it was found in nature & that ONE WORD could give it away, so he was guarded with his word choice & descriptions, so that he never intentionally uttered that word or gave context to it.
He also never called it a gravity wheel though many infer it to be so.
You wrote:
Delete"He wasn't" [that is, afraid that someone would, via external observations only, figure out how his wheels worked]
I think that we have to define TWO types of "external observations" when it comes to Bessler's wheels. As far as external observations of PERFORMANCE are concerned, you would certainly be correct since Bessler knew that they were only of very limited value in figuring out the internal mechanics necessary to produce them. He would have had few reservations about these types of external observations being made, especially if they might secure a buyer for his invention. But, I am referring mainly to external observations that would give information about what was going on INSIDE of his wheels' drums.
For example, during "official" examinations, those present were never allowed to see the side of the drum from which Bessler removed and reinstalled weights after a translocation of the drum and its axle lest they catch a glimpse of the structure of one of the levers and its cord attachments as he removed and reinstalled the weight on its end. When handling a weight, the examiners were prohibited from touching the ends of the weights or even seeing them so that they could not figure out how they were attached to the levers. For his public demonstrations, I'm convinced that the various machines attached to and driven by a wheel's axle were there mainly to distract any reverse engineering fellow mobilists in the crowds from counting drum rotations or straining to determine the locations within the drum from whence the sounds emanated since this information would tell them where the weights were landing on their rim stops inside of the drum.
As for the motion being "found in nature" and "one word" giving it away are concerned, these are open to many possible interpretations.
Bessler used the model globe in the second DT portrait to represent a one-directional wheel, so, maybe, the motion found in nature that he referred to is simply the natural rotation of the Earth itself. At the beginning of the 18th century that motion would certainly have been considered to be perpetual.
I don't think any ONE word would have actually given away Bessler's secret, the exact details of the mechanism were just too complicated for that. He was probably just trying to emphasize how cautious he had to be about giving away too much detailed information about the internal mechanics of his wheels.
He may have said the word ... but without knowing what is was,hard to tell . I tried to decode it not long ago .... I came up with Judas=Peephole . Don't ask me how but that's what I came up with for the one word .
ReplyDeleteTens of thousands of different designs have been built and tested .
ReplyDeleteNone of them work .
Johann Bessler was a fraud and a con man .
A TRILLION different failed designs could have been build and tested and that proves absolutely NOTHING as far as determining the veracity of Bessler and the genuineness of HIS wheel design is concerned. However, it certainly DOES prove that achieving PM is a VERY hard thing to do when one has no finer theory of how such devices work and can only rely upon the "shotgun approach" of trial and error experimenting in order to produce one. There is a whole lot more to the matter than just whipping up STATIC designs that happen to have the CoM of their weights on one side of a wheel's axle!
DeleteOnce we have finally found THE design that Bessler used, this situation will change for the better. It will be analyzed by some very capable physicists and engineers and the operative principles precisely determined. We may find then that it is possible to greatly improve the power output of the wheels and even to make other types of machinery "self motive".
technoguy wrote - "Once we have finally found THE design that Bessler used ..."
DeleteNote: The Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise because it worked on quite different principles. - pg 352 Apologia Poetica
The Drashwitz wheel was one-directional and not two-directional like the Merseburg wheel. One-directional wheels do not need to incorporate the additional 16 gravity latches required in order to inactivate whichever sub wheel was undergoing retrograde rotation in a rotating two-directional wheel. Thus, without the "clatter" of those 16 gravity latches taking place during every drum rotation, a one-directional wheel would always be much quieter than a two directional wheel.
DeleteAlthough the one-directional wheel is structurally less complicated than the two-directional wheel, there is no real difference between the BASIC mechanisms employed in BOTH wheels. I question the accuracy of the translation "...it worked on quite different principles" with regard to Bessler's description of the Drashwitz wheel.
I'm surprised that a man as fastidious as yourself would not bother to personally check the accuracy of the translation of a statement made by Bessler that contradicts your single-design theory.
DeleteI also wonder if when you get to the end of your quest to claim success over everyone else, if you will step forward and have the courage to admit "I was WRONG!" after you realize that your spring-wheel will never work.
A better interpretation, IMO, would be "...it worked using a somewhat different type of construction."
DeleteI'm not afraid to admit when I make a mistake because I've learned the "hard way" that the longer I wait to do that, the longer it takes me to obtain whatever is my goal. Right now, the "right track" approach to solving the Bessler mystery is quite advanced and I have only discussed about 25% of it on this blog. Suffice it to say that Bessler's wheels only contained a few components: lead weights, wooden levers, steel pivots and brass bearings, cords, and SPRINGS. The springs were there because, without them, his wheels would just be more "non-runners" to add to the growing collection of such devices produced by generations of frustrated mobilists. The "secret" was / is in the UNIQUE way in which he applied spring tension to a wheel's weighted levers. He who finds that method WILL solve the Bessler wheel mystery! I'm determined to make sure that "me" is ME! LOL!
A little bit harsh statement, anon.
ReplyDeleteYea!,..Another one who will have egg on his face.
ReplyDeleteTG.,do you really think a physicist would be qualified to analyse the working wheel when they could not even predict that it was possible in the first place?
You need an hands-on engineer that can think out the box.
To date,these so called theorists have they doomed the airplane before it got of the ground and they still have got the theory of flight hopelessly wrong.
Academics are the worst people to consult about practical things.
I bet you think the world is round ...
DeleteNah,..It's egg shaped more like yours!
Delete@ Trevor
DeleteLOL! The skeptical "no trackers" will continue to emit their negative "background noise" right up to the point when an UNdeniably working OB PM gravity wheel is finally demonstrated. At that time, most will just quietly disappear from the scene although a few rare ones might actually step forward and have the courage to admit "I was WRONG! I will know better in the future to keep a more open mind when it comes to the various mysteries of history and nature."
You asked:
"TG, do you really think a physicist would be qualified to analyse the working wheel when they could not even predict that it was possible in the first place?"
Oh, yes! They ARE most definitely qualified (at least the ones I've known), mainly in terms of their training in mathematics. The engineers and physicists of the world will, once the issue of a hoax has been COMPLETELY eliminated (because they wouldn't want to risk their professional reputations by being fooled by a hoax), flock in hordes to study the first UNdeniably genuine WORKING OB PM gravity wheels. They will want to understand all of the intricacies of them and reduce them to a nice, neat little set of equations from which they can derive all of the performance characteristics of these devices. It will then be possible to feed those equations into some sort of CAD program and have it take ANY mechanism and quickly modify it so that it can become self-moving!
The major obstacle I see in this rosy picture is that, so far, these wheels seem to rely solely on gravity which is not the most powerful force in nature. What good would it be to have your CAD program spit out the design for, say, a farm tractor which, in order to have the same power output as those used now, would have to be ten TIMES as large and even more times as massive!
But, I don't see any reason why we must just limit ourselves to using gravity as did Bessler. Perhaps one could make a smaller Bessler type wheel that used rare earth magnetic alloys to create magnetic forces hundreds of times stronger than the gravitational forces acting on lead weights and which could be put into a machine the size of a stove that would then output tens of THOUSANDS of watts of power REGARDLESS of the orientation of the device in the Earth's gravity field. With something like that JC's home sited electrical power generator, fuelless automobiles, etc. can become a REALITY!
Well, it's nice to speculate about all of this, but, FIRST, let's determine, as accurately as possible using the available clues, just how BESSLER did it.
The last time I looked at a map, the world was flat.
DeleteTed on BW was just starting to drop some clues when he p'd everyone off and either quit or got banned. Too bad. He seemed confident he had a working concept and was willing to share specifics. Ted if you are out there, please join us here. We are stronger with you. I'm glad Chris is back.
DeleteYou guys should get an account so we know who you are .
DeleteIt's nice not getting kicked or spit on.
DeleteTechnoguy wrote:
Delete"Yes, it definitely sounds doable. But, would people stand to look out of their windows and see those 100 ft diameter wheels slowly turning day and night?!"
Unlike alpha-atmosphere windmills, gamma-atmosphere windmills can be buried underground. People looking out of their windows wouldn't see them.
ReplyDelete
TG. I would rather use powdered Tungsten which is non toxic and 1.7 times the weight of lead.This should improve the compactness.
ReplyDeleteUsing Magnets would require a whole new approach because unlike gravity,which is a force in one direction,magnetism is like a black hole,it attracts in all directions.
I don't really care what the power to weight ratio of the Bessler wheel is,just accomplishing it is dynamic enough.
Yes, tungsten is a good choice if one does not want to deal with the toxicity issues of either lead or mercury.
DeleteMagnets have their problems due, as you note, to the omni-directional nature of the forces they apply. This was a constant problem in the various magnetic motors I tried to construct in the past.
Another interesting approach I suggested in past blog entry comments is using simple SPRING TENSION in place of the gravitational force. Such a wheel could be compact and would be fairly lightweight due to the use of springs rather than weights. No problem with omni-directionality with springs. The only problem is that, over time, constantly stetched and relaxed springs can succumb to metal fatigue and fail. I'm sure this was a major headache for Bessler with the helical coil springs he used in his wheels.
I've recently decided that the simplest and quickest way to have replaced broken cords and springs within Bessler's wheels was to equip each one of them with a special little metal hook at both of its ends. These hooks would have an extra springy straight piece of metal inside of them that closed their openings and would prevent them from slipping off of straight metal pins inserted into the levers which served as the attachment points for the cords and pins (they were similar to the "lobster claw" clasps used in jewelry). Such latching hooks can be easily made from a single strip of steel that is heated and then properly shaped. They are also nice because, being metal against metal pins, they can be lubricated, will be long wearing, and will not tend to snag or wrap up their attached cords around a lever's attachment point pin.
Attaching the end of a cord to a lever's particular pin was simply a matter of pressing the hook at the cord's end against the pin until the pin was inside the curve of the hook at which time the springy straight metal portion of the hook snapped back into position and thereafter prevented the hook from coming off of the pin. If a cord or spring should break later as a wheel was running, then all that Bessler had to do to remove its two pieces (after the wheel was stopped, of course) was to reach in to the affected levers through at least two inspection holes in the cloth side of a drum. He would then remove the two hooks of the broken pieces by using his thumb to press in on their spring straight metal portions to remove them. The hooks at the ends of the fresh replacement cord or spring would then be snapped into place right after each of the hooks of the damaged pieces of cord or spring were removed. Thus, the entire replacement could be accomplished in a matter of minutes! Amazingly, such a repair could be performed with only one hand!
I'm now working on the best way to securely attach the cylindrical lead weights to the ends of the levers and have come up with some VERY interesting techniques that Bessler might have used which would have allowed for VERY rapid removal / installation of a weight which could, again, have been done using only one hand. Once I'm reasonably certain of which one Bessler would have used (which means I can find some clues supporting it), I'll post the details in a future comment. The fact that Bessler would not let anyone see or touch the ENDS of these cylindrical weights is a MAJOR clue by itself.
It sounds all very complicated and too much like hard work.
DeleteI prefer to keep it simple as I am reminded of Bessler's comment about the carpenter's boy.
I think the design technique should be such that it should run for years without maintenance otherwise its going to be too costly and inconvenient.
PART I:
DeleteConstructionwise, Bessler's wheels were simple enough that, AFTER being provided with some detailed schematics, I don't doubt that a "carpenter's boy" or even a "poor workman" could have replicated one of them. They used much of the same construction techniques found in the organs of Bessler's day.
The somewhat complex part is the system of interconnecting cords and tensioning springs and their "packaging" into the various parallel layers within the drum's internal space which are needed in order to coordinate the 8 weighted levers during drum rotation so as to always keep their weights' CoM on the descending side of the drum. EACH of Bessler's one-directional wheels contained a total of 48 cords. That's the MINIMUM needed with only 8 weighted levers in a ONE-directional (a total of 96 are needed for a two-directional wheel!). If more than 8 weighted levers are used in a one-directional wheel, then the number of cords will increase even further. Increasing the number of weighted levers beyond 8 has the advantage of increasing axle torque (for example, a 24 weighted lever wheel will have triple the torque of an 8 weighted lever wheel of the same proportions having the same mass weights in it), but this approach is really only suitable for wheels that begin to exceed 12 ft in diameter.
Bessler achieved success because, unlike all of the previous simplistic designs that had been produced that only used "isolated" weighted levers or "perpetual motion structures", his levers were carefully INTERCONNECTED with each other so that they could constantly exchange energy / mass between themselves as the wheel's drum rotated. I am VERY convinced that this type of system is the ONLY kind that can overcome the problem of "sticking points" found in most "non-runner" OB PM wheels and produce a constant torque rotary motion. (Asa Jackson's wheel, however, did not use this approach and, indeed, did not even require interconnecting cords! But, his wheel's oscillating central structure could only produce pulses of torque to operate outside machinery such as butter churns, etc.)
PART II:
ReplyDeleteI find that the more I work with this "right track" design Bessler used, the less intimidating it becomes. Rather than start with a 12 ft diameter, Merseburg type, two-directional wheel, I've opted to start with a more conservative 1:4 scale, 3 ft diameter, one-directional tabletop model which would have been very close to the one Bessler made his big discovery with at the House of Richters. It uses helical tension springs that are only 1.25 inches in length UNstretched instead of the larger 5 inch ones used in the Merseburg wheel.
I am astounded at the ingenuity of Bessler in using springs to temporarily store energy / mass during portions of drum rotation where it would, if uncaptured, normally be wasted as heat and noise and to then release it later when it was CRITICALLY necessary to help the wheel maintain the location of its offset CoM and thereby eliminate any sticking points. It's obvious to me that Bessler was a VERY gifted craftsman and far ahead of even the professionally trained mechanologists of his time. The mechanisms found in MT certainly hint at this, but the tricks he used in his wheels go way beyond anything in MT!
I do not know if any of Bessler's wheels could have run for YEARS without maintenance. That is asking alot of them. However, if modern materials are used to replicate his design, then even this requirement might not be out of the question. The weakest component in his wheels was, obviously, the cords. Even if one carefully arranges them into layers so that they can not rub against each other and fray during drum rotation, they would eventually, like any biodegradable material, just deteriorate and break from exposure to air and being repeatedly tightened and slackened. Maybe if thin, light weight, woven, nylon belts were substituted for the cords, the running time of a wheel could be greatly increased.
Sadly, a PM wheel is really just a theoretical abstraction and will probably never exist in actual practice.