Monday, 30 July 2012

The Perpetual Motionists are not the same as we Bessler-wheelers.

An article in support of we perpetual motionists was brought to my attention by my good friend James, at an extremely apposite moment as I had already written this short piece for my next blog.  The article was entitled, "Why do They Ridicule Perpetual Motion and Hate the Perpetual Motionists?”

I enjoyed the article even if I did not completely accept his many arguments in support of us.  But his use of the word perpetual motioionists was what I objected to and which prompted me to write about the use of this term.

It has been a a matter of mild concern for me for a number of years, this habit of calling us perpetual motionists.  Such labels do us no favours in my opinion, because the very term, perpetual motion, suggests a degree of naivety in us, which is untrue; most of us are experienced and knowledgeable about the world of physics and in particular mechanics.  Perpetual motion means literally, continuous motion or activity, which of itself is quite accurate.  The problem lies in people's associations of the term Perpetual Motionists with Creationists,  Flat Earthers and other pseudosciences  which then attracts the unwelcome attention of the sceptics, the scornful and their derisory comments.  But there are reasons for their contempt for our work.

Perpetual motion implies self-perpetuating motion  which in its turn, suggests that the motion is derived from some inexaustable inner energy source, which is factually and theoretically impossible. The energy has to come from somewhere and since it's impossible to store unlimited energy within a confined space, it must come from outside.  But because so little was known about gravity (and still is) no-one could offer an explanation which would show how it might assist in this continuous motion.

Because continuous motion has to have an external supply of energy, such a term could also imply that combustion engines which require an external continuous supply of energy in the form of petroleum are also perpetual motion machines; and electric motors too, as long as they are supplied with electricity; and steam engines as long as they have steam.  They are all perpetual motion machines apparently, all moving continuously as long as they have the fuel necessary to their action.

We usually call engines by a name which includes their energy source, so we have steam engines, petrol engines, diesel engines, electric motors etc.  We could call Bessler's wheel a gravity engine or motor, or a gravity wheel, but then we come up against those who say that, unlike, petrol, diesel and electricity, gravity is not an energy source. In fact those so-called energy sources I mentioned, steam, petrol, diesel and electricity are not by themselves energy sources.  They each require a combination of effects to occur at the right moment to generate the power associated with them, and the same applies to gravity.  Without those other energy sources working together with other combinations they wouldn't provide energy either and without gravity, Bessler's wheel would not work.  We need gravity to enable the weights to fall, and it is then up to us to find a way to generate continuous rotation from that initial fall.

BUT.... there is one major difference between the ones I mentioned above and gravity.  They are each fed into their specific machine via pipe or cable; gravity, on the other hand, is present everywhere both inside and outside the gravity wheel. Why do I think it iks still possible to make use of gravity to drive a gravity wheel? The answer as always, lies in analogy.  I have from time to time likened the action of gravity to the force of the wind.  Wind is also everywhere about the windmill and it is the blades of the windmill which are moved by the wind and so it is with gravity, the weighst are moved by its force.   

So deride perpetual motionists if you wish but don't lump us Bessler-wheelers together with them.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

56 comments:

  1. If " Perpetual Mobilist " was good enough for Bessler it's good enough for me . Besides , if the wheel turns because of the principle right from the beginning then it is perpetual motion .
    Obviously there is something that Bessler knew that we don't so it doesn't really matter what you CALL us or it . " Ignorant " would be a fair term .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quote from above :
    " Perpetual motion implies self-perpetuating motion which in its turn, suggests that the motion is derived from some inexaustable inner energy source, which is factually and theoretically impossible. "

    Contradictory Quote from Bessler :
    "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."
    Thinking, you say! You're still comparing my wheel with yours? In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go round together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary on the axle. From your own words, describing my wheel, it follows that people must get used to calling it the true
    Mobile. Yes, it is PERPETUAL - and you can't take your own words back. Anyone looking into my wheel would see that the matter is already settled. Revealed to the world would be the
    artistry which Wagner himself calls the Mobile, and which is not his to reveal. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With all that said John , you see , it is not necessary to change the terms involved . Perpetual Motion will suffice to describe it . Given the device itself , of what consequence are mere words ? What others could not achieve , what they will ridicule , what they believe , what they DO NOT KNOW , does it matter ?

      Delete
    2. I guess you're right Chris, it was just that it is the term Perpetual Motionists that makes people deride our efforts and I was looking for some alternative but of course it does not make any difference what we call it as long as it works in the end.

      JC

      Delete
    3. What someone thinks is impossible , they will surely not discover .

      AP pg . 266:
      The Mobile would long since have been found if patient effort had not been such a vanishing rarity. Rarely does the doubter make discoveries, for
      he holds the Truth to be an impossibility. Just read the words of Mark:-

      "All things are possible to him who shall believe."

      Delete
    4. I only want to add one more thing to this line of discussion . If Bessler had sold his wheel then we would have had it 300 years ago . Knowing what I know I believe with all my heart ( and mind ) that Bessler was genuine and that his price for a one-of-a-kind-never-before-seen-and-not-seen-since item was more than fair . I am not happy with some of the folks on this blog or this or that forum who think this is all a joke .

      Delete
    5. Since no working wheel exists and there is no absolute proof one ever existed, the na sayers have the upper hand, like it or not. It is up to the mobilists to prove them wrong.

      Delete
    6. I have theoretical proof ( soon to be concrete proof ) backed by information that the " nay sayers " nor anyone else has .

      Delete
    7. I take that back . What I actually have is a ( digital ) model of said device which stand up to ( my own ) scrutiny and could be easily understood with a few moments of thought and reflection by someone with some common sense . My proposed device " fits the bill " and hopefully will bring a conclusion to all of this .

      Delete
    8. Well I hope it's simpler than your previous design, should you ever release the design for public consumption. Not that the previous design was not a runner, but due to it's complex movements (wheel and inertia), I found it very hard to follow. Great work though.

      Delete
    9. I appreciate the compliment . Yes, it is simple(r) . I am not going to release this one ... I am going to offer it for barter of a ton of gold .
      No , seriously , considering that solar energy is still ( more or less )in it's development phase and weights and such are not high tech at all this device could have great potential benefits .

      Delete
    10. Agreed. At 10% efficiency, you need a roof top (or more) of panels plus an array of batteries and other electrical components to produce enough electricity to power your house. Not to mention a wad of cash to get it started. Even if you had to gang 3 or 4 wheels together, I would still prefer the wheel.

      Delete
    11. I told a friend of mine when I first started doing this ," this is cave man stuff ...you know ...sticks and stone , I can figure it out ! "

      Delete
    12. You left out the babes!

      Delete
  3. That's right and as for me I'm just a plain old Perpetual Motion Researcher.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The ones saying energy has to come from somewhere don't know what energy is .
    They think energy is a thing that has to come from somewhere .
    Energy is in fact movement , energy is not electrons or photons or any particles , but it is a movement of something , anything .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An example you harness some energy from waves on the ocean , the movement of the ocean is caused the the moon , the moons motion is caused by the sun and other planets in the solar system , the movement of the solar system is caused by the movement of all the other stars in the galaxy , the movement movement of this galaxy is caused by all the other galaxies .
      Therefore you may as well say the energy harnessed from the oceans comes from the other side of the universe .

      Delete
  5. @ JC

    I was in "essential" agreement with your latest blog entry until I hit this line:

    "The energy has to come from somewhere and since it's impossible to store unlimited energy within a confined space, it must come from outside."

    Yes, energy / mass HAS to come from "somewhere" because it can not just be created out of nothingness. BUT, it does NOT have to come from anywhere outside of Bessler's wheels. IF it did, then one of his wheels could not run if it was placed aboard an isolated rotating wheel shaped space station located in "deep" space that used CF for "artificial" gravity. Also, I've never said that Bessler's wheels were TRULY perpetual in the absolute sense of the word. Since the energy / mass they outputted came from their weights and those weights only contained a FINITE amount of energy / mass, EVENTUALLY, one of Bessler's wheels, assuming it could run without mechanical failure occurring, would STOP, but it could, literally, take BILLIONS of years! I only use the term PM in referring to his wheels because that is the popular name for them although it is NOT accurate when used to describe Bessler's wheels.

    I, too, do not like the name "perpetual motionist". I prefer to be called a "Bessler MOBILIST" which can be used to distinquish me from, say an Asa Jackson mobilist (yes, they DO exist!). The term mobilist just means one who seeks to find a mechanical motion that is "self powered" even though it is not truly perpetual. Sadly, most of the mobilists out there in PM land are NOT Bessler mobilists because they are interested in achieving ANY type of self-sustaining motion even if it is not the same one that Bessler found. They can be collectively referrred to as "NON Bessler mobilists".

    "We usually call engines by a name which includes their energy source, so we have steam engines, petrol engines, diesel engines, electric motors etc. We could call Bessler's wheel a gravity engine or motor, or a gravity wheel, but then we come up against those who say that, unlike, petrol, diesel and electricity, gravity is not an energy source."

    IF we must find a new name for Bessler's wheels, aside from the one I regularly use, "OB PM gravity wheels", then how about simply calling them "weight powered motors"? It's short, simple, and accurately describes what is the source of a Bessler wheel's outputted energy / mass.

    "The article was entitled, "Why do They Ridicule Perpetual Motion and Hate the Perpetual Motionists?”"

    I don't think that the skeptics really "hate" us mobilists. They ACTUALLY believe that they are doing us a favor by trying to "reason" with us and talk us out of wasting even more of our time, effort, and money chasing something which they "know" is physically impossible. Yes, they do ridicule mobilists, but they feel justified in doing this because, so far, WE have NOT produced ANYTHING that WORKS despite who knows how many MILLIONS of man-hours of effort! They, of course, assume that any demonstrations given by Bessler were hoaxed in some way and dismiss as irrelevant the conviction and religiousity of the man that is evident in his writings.

    This situation CAN eventually change, BUT it will ONLY do so IF some mobilist FINALLY finds a design that WORKS. Nothing short of that will do. Anything else will just be dismissed as more USELESS prattle that only serves to fill up books and hard drives.

    We need to get to work on finding the solution to the Bessler wheel mystery and do so in the next year if possible!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was last week too soon?

      Delete
    2. IF you have found THE solution or ANY solution for that matter, then GREAT! I shall be eagerly looking forward to learning the details of it.

      Delete
    3. Well , any realistic individual knows that it has to be built to be proven .
      But short of that fact I believe I have the general idea of the principle .
      At this point I wish I could go back in time and verify ( or not ) my ideas with Bessler himself and thereby save myself some trouble . I'm sure that he would be proud of someone who reached the same level of understanding as he had without being told the specific details of the machine . At any rate , keeping with the subject of John's post here ; in as much as I understand it, it will not be necessary to distinguish Besslr's device from perpetual motion . That it is what he said it was , he was no idiot and so I for one will leave it " as is " and not be harmed by the words of those who don't understand it " yet " .

      Delete
  6. Personally I'm not trying to re-invent the work of someone else. I'm working on my own design but I have noticed some of Bessler's clues may apply. Could this because all working designs have these things in common? This is what I'am looking for - the principle that is required by all working wheels. I work off the assumption that a wheel is possible. I have several different designs that I currently developing. I suspect that my methods (trial and error, rejecting solutions that don't work, keeping things that do, ...) are similar to what TG refers to as his "right track" approach. I think we all do this in some manner, we just don't think or refer to it as such.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good luck with your efforts, Anonymous 23:38.

      Basically, ALL OB PM wheels must be able to MAINTAIN their imbalance DURING their rotation. If that can be done, then they WILL continuously output the energy / mass of their weights until their FINITE content is exhausted (so far, I only know of TWO individuals throughout all of history whose designs managed to do this!). If the imbalance can NOT be maintained, then the CoM of their weights will just rotate down until it comes to rest at the aptly named "punctum quietus" location below the axle. It's as simple as that.

      Just to clarify matters a bit, when I talk about the "right track" approach, I am being a "purist" who is SPECIFICALLY referring to pursuing the SAME design that BESSLER used as suggested by a CORRECT interpretation of the many clues he left us. However, when I talk about "wrong track" approaches I usually mean approaches that MIGHT work, but which would NOT be the SAME one that BESSLER used. Occasionally, though, when I say a design is "wrong track", I mean that it can NEVER lead to ANY kind of WORKING OB PM gravity wheel and I will usually state this.

      Naturally, I expect other mobilists to usually disagree with any determinations that I might make as to whether their particular design is "right" or "wrong track" with regards to Bessler's wheels and that is fine with me. My beliefs concerning Bessler's wheels are based upon MY particular interpretations of the clues and I accept that fact that others may have different interpretations of those clues. I, of course, also believe that my interpretations of the clues will prove to be more objective than subjective because, once revealed, the MAJORITY of BESSLER mobilists will agree with my interpretations as being the most accurate ones. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen.

      Your trial and error approach to finding an OB PM gravity wheel design is certainly a valid one and, undoubtedly, the same one Bessler used. It's also VERY helpful for the mobilist to be able to keep track of the exact location of the CoM of his design's weights during wheel rotation. I have found that the use of sim programs lets one do this quite nicely and that is yet another reason I recommend these to aid one in his "quest".

      Delete
    2. I'm glad you clarified your definition of 'wrong track'. Makes sense that wrong track just means in a direction other than that taken by Bessler. It's also less insulting (maybe that's too harsh) but you get the idea.

      So you don't include the Keenie wheel in your list of working wheels. Can you explain your thoughts on why. Thanks in advance.

      Delete
    3. IF I have inadvertently insulted any of my fellow mobilists with my talk of "right" and "wrong track" designs, then I do, of course, apologize. Knowing the effort and fervor that goes into being an ACTIVE mobilist, I respect those who are searching for answers even if they are not on what I happen to presently define as the "right track". I also always wish them the best of luck because, quite frankly, luck DOES play a MAJOR role in finding success considering how very few (only TWO!) have so far. IF Bessler had been able to meet Asa Jackson, the former would probably have told the latter that he would NOT be able to achieve PM with his approach. Of course, the available information indicates Jackson did just that!

      I'm not convinced that the Keenie Wheel is a workable design and that is why I do not discuss it (aside from it NOT being, IMO, the design Bessler used).

      The Keenie Wheel attempts to keep a certain number of weights on a wheel's OUTER ring which is descending while keeping the SAME number of weights on an INNER ring which is ascending on the other side of the axle. When the outer ring weights reach the 6:00 position, they are quickly transfered to the inner ring that places them closer to the axle and carries them up to the 12:00 position where they are then lifted back to the outer ring again. The original design reminds me of other somewhat similar designs that I've seen which did NOT work. In the past I have personally modeled similar designs and from that experience, KNOW that they are unworkable.

      In rotation, the weights on this wheel WILL, as in Bessler's wheels, continuous output energy / mass as they move along their rings. BUT, NONE of that energy / mass will be available to accelerate the wheel or do external work! The problem is that the excess outputted energy / mass is COMPLETELY used up in the process of lifting the weights at the 6:00 and 12:00 positions.

      One tends to be misled by the fact that the CoM of the weights in the Keenie wheel is ALWAYS horizontally displaced away from the axle and that can convince one that this design MUST work. Not so! Just because a design, while motionless, keeps the CoM of its weights on one side of the axle does not necessarily mean it will run. One has to also ask exactly HOW that displaced CoM is being held in place. In the case of the Keenie wheel, as the offset CoM attempts to rotate the entire wheel, there will be two weights at the 6:00 and 12:00 positions that will be rising and producing a less obvious COUNTER torque on the wheel that will EXACTLY equal and CANCEL out the driving torque produced by the offset CoM of the weights in the rings. The design is effectively always in balance no matter what orientation it is placed in even though the "obvious" CoM remains on one side of the axle.

      One important indication that this wheel is a "non-runner" is the fact that, unlike Bessler's one-directional wheels, it is NOT self-starting. If push started, it inevitably slows to a stop due to friction and air drag on its components. A TRUE ONE-directional OB PM gravity wheel will ALWAYS be self-starting. Come to think of it, even Asa Jackson's wheel met this criterion despite its radical departure from Bessler's design.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the analysis. Were you aware that the "Pop Keenie" as they called him, was a decendent of Bessler, and there are reports that he may have had in his posession, Bessler's complete MT? Not that his adds proof to the wheel working, but if this is true, you would think that the wheel would be based on Bessler's secret principle.

      Delete
    5. Forgot to say ...

      Many of the parts are missing, the critical parts for sure - some type of spider shaped "spring" mechanism that attached to the side of the wheel and had something to do with the movement of the weights, a pendulum/hammer device, and stand with jack-shaft.

      Delete
    6. So I've been reading the stories I have saved over the years of reports of running wheels. Of course none of the wheels or inventors can be found. All but a few of the articles directly attribute the running due to the use of springs. Because of this I have been looking at the Bessler portraits and I still don't see any imagery of springs. I guess I'm just not getting it.

      Delete
    7. "Were you aware that the "Pop Keenie" as they called him, was a decendent of Bessler, and there are reports that he may have had in his posession, Bessler's complete MT?"

      Yes, I've heard that rumor. If, indeed, he had the "complete" MT, then he would have the diagrams it was originally supposed to contain of the Merseburg wheel's interior. If he had that, then why the UNworkable "Keenie wheel" and not a replication of the Merseburg wheel? As is known, Bessler destroyed all sketches and the wood cuts for the Merseburg wheel by burning and burying them. They do not exist and Keenie, therefore, could not have a "complete" MT.

      "Many of the parts are missing, the critical parts for sure - some type of spider shaped "spring" mechanism that attached to the side of the wheel and had something to do with the movement of the weights, a pendulum/hammer device, and stand with jack-shaft."

      The Keenie wheel is just a variation of two of Bessler's designs: MT 21 and MT 23 which were also UNworkable.

      "Because of this I have been looking at the Bessler portraits and I still don't see any imagery of springs. I guess I'm just not getting it."

      You need to look closer! In the first portrait, every single curl in Bessler's wig represents a coil spring! In the second portrait there would be nice coil springs inside of the hanging shot gun's hammer mechanism on the left side and in the lower portion of the screw barrel microscope on the right side of the work bench. Below the second portrait every letter "W" and "m" in the text represents a spring (eight of these can be found, but one is "hidden")! MUCH further analysis can be done with these symbols than I can discuss at the moment. Suffice it to say that Bessler's two DT portraits are LOADED with SPRING symbols because of their CRITICAL importance to the operation of his wheels. To put it bluntly, IF one does NOT have springs in his design, then HE is NOT working on the SAME design Bessler used!

      Delete
    8. I agree with you that springs are likely needed. And I did notice the curly hair but it seems like all the men in portraits of the time had curly hair wigs. Let me look further. Kind of rushed here at work for the moment.

      Delete
    9. In the DT portraits, Bessler uses a EXTREMELY difficult to interpret combination of symbols, angles, intersection points, lines and ratios to reveal the details of his secret wheel mechanism. However, NOTHING is overtly stated. Rather, the reverse engineering Bessler mobilist must start with a basic weighted wheel design, say MT 9, and then continuously modify it, through careful building or modeling, according to his constantly "evolving" interpretations of the DT portrait clues (as well as the many descriptive clues in the Bessler literature). And, to make matters a bit more difficult, many of the clues in the portraits are FALSE ones or what I call "decoy clues" which were deliberately inserted to trip up those looking for a quick solution. Don't even think that you will get it all figured out in a week or two or that you even have all of the clues at any point in time! You won't and you don't!

      Yes, many portraits of people from the early 18th century show them wearing wigs and indicate they were well to do. Nice wigs cost "serious" money back then and most poor people wouldn't be wearing them. But, in the 1st DT portrait, the curls in Bessler's wig serve another purpose other than showing that he considered himself to be just as good as members of the nobility or royalty. The centers of the end loops of each curl are points and every pair of those points can have a straight line passed through it. Try that with all of the loop center points you can find and then see what portions of Bessler's face those various lines intersect at. From THOSE intersection points on Bessler's face, try dropping vertical lines down to the objects on the table before Bessler. MANY interesting things will emerge from this process.

      These are just a few little hints to get you and others started. If one is unfamiliar with the DT portraits, then he is like a man who, having to complete a 1,000 mile trek, is about to take his first STEP!

      He will need, LITERALLY, to study the two portraits EVERY day until he can actually "see" the details of them when he closes his eyes! He must be thinking about what is in those portraits and, most importantly, how he can use what he THINKS he sees to modify his basic wheel design. And, of course, he must be building / modeling CONTINUOUSLY. There is NO other way!

      I can personally assure you that it is no easy task, but this is EXACTLY how Bessler wanted to play the game with any future mobilists trying to replicate this design. He set the rules and we must abide by them IF we ever want to learn exactly how he built his wheels. That is why I can CONFIDENTLY say that only 1 in 1000 mobilists has what it takes, mentally and physically, to successfully and ACCURATELY "decode" the many DT portrait clues so that a Bessler type WORKING OB PM gravity wheel can be built. And, even then, he had also better be a VERY lucky person!

      I hope that my "tell it like it is" comment here is not depressing too many newbie Bessler mobilists out there. My goal is simply to let them know EXACTLY what they are getting themselves into before they get too involved.

      Delete
  7. I have no problem with the term "perpetual motion," and personally I wouldn't want to use other terms for it.

    The "cold fusion" proponents have invented new terms like LENR (low energy nuclear reactions) and CANR (chemically assisted nuclear reactions), to replace the term "cold fusion." They only did that because they also came under attack for the "impossibility" etc of their research. It hasn't worked — people still use the old term "cold fusion" and the newer terms only create complication and confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have a post on my blog about the bessler wheel if anyone is interested .

    ReplyDelete
  9. Its like you read my mind! You seem to know a lot about this,
    like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that
    you could do with a few pics to drive the message home a little bit, but
    instead of that, this is fantastic blog.
    A great read. I will definitely be back. Check out my website
    to get more info about forex, if you like.
    My blog ; resources

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not seeing any article. Is your blog http://ealadha.blogspot.com/ ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is zhe link :
      http://ealadhawheel.blogspot.com/2012/07/i-time-traveled-from-18th-century.html

      Delete
  11. It does not come up on a search engine either . its probably suppression , MIB people .

    ReplyDelete
  12. They do that on utube as well , they check it out before they allow it onto a search engine , if someone had something for real , what chance would they have !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about posting the information here?

      Come on ... spill the beans. Give us the clue we need to get our wheels spinning.

      Delete
    2. The "Ealadha Wheel" will go down in history.

      Delete
    3. Even if the MIB split you open, roll you up in your own entrails, weigh you down with rocks and dump you off the pier, will tell your story. That has to make you feel better.

      Delete
  13. A crossbeam on the wheel , it goes into a spin when it gets to around 6 oclock .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And zhat is vwhen zhe vagic happens , vwhen zhe crossbeam goes into zhe spin.

      Delete
    2. Nine yu ideot ... not a crossbeam ... a krausbeam.

      Delete
  14. Zhe verry go vround , zhe verry go vround , zhe verry zhe verry zhe verry go vround .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see where you are going with this.

      All around the Mulberry Bush,
      The monkey chased the weasel.
      The monkey stopped to pull up his sock
      Pop! goes the weasel.

      I quite agree.

      Delete
    2. chuckle ...

      Delete
  15. Appreciation to my father who informed me about this website,
    this weblog is genuinely awesome. Check out my website to get more info about forex, if you
    like.
    Feel free to surf my blog ; Bonuses

    ReplyDelete
  16. Come on guys,stop messing about!
    My first test of my wheel was a damp squib.
    I am still left with a second option which is very much more promising,so hold thumbs.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well said, Trevor, and thanks for your honesty and good luck with your next version!

    My own efforts are limping along at present due to the difficulty of getting the springs perfected

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes John,..I believe Bessler also had problems with adjustment to his bi-directional wheel.
      It seems that the working wheel has to be just right before it will reveal it's life.

      Delete
    2. Nice to read, John, that you are putting some springs into your design. But, of course, if you don't then it would immediately be dismissed as NOT being the one Bessler used!

      As you are no doubt discovering, using springs can be a REAL headache. Right now I am wrestling with the final details of the "Secret Principle" and, so far, have tried almost a dozen different approaches all of which failed. But, that's okay because that's one dozen LESS UNworkable approaches standing between me and THE one that Bessler used and which WILL work.

      I know that Bessler used spring tension to both stablize the configuration of his 8 weighted levers and to also help lift a one-directional wheel's ascending side weights back toward their rim stops. The major problem is that those springs have to initially be stretched as they pass the 6:00 position of a CW rotating drum and the tension they acquire there tends to then interfer with the lifting that the ascending side levers will do later.

      Apparently, the springs must only initially acquire a certain maximum amount of tension so that this will not happen, yet must still have enough tension in them by the time they reach the descending side of the drum so as to be able to stabilize the OB CoM of all of the 8 weighted levers. It's a VERY delicate balance that must be achieved and it must have taken Bessler months to find it. Another annoying problem is that, while the clues are plentiful concerning the "Secret Principle" which covers the placement of the springs, MOST of them are deliberately FALSE!

      Bessler knew that this was the final obstacle that a reverse engineering mobilist would have to overcome in order to achieve success and he made this obstacle as difficult to overcome as possible. Of course, he did not anticipate that we would eventually have sim programs to help us and that, to a degree, makes matters a bit easier. BUT, it's still a LOT of work even with computer modeling / simulation helping one move along at "warp speed" with his constructions and tests.


      TD wrote:

      "My first test of my wheel was a damp squib."

      A squib is a type of firework container filled with chemicals which explodes to produce bright lights and loud noises and which, if it becomes wet, will not explode. I did not realize that your latest wheel relied upon CHEMICAL explosions for its operation! But, then again, so does my new lawn mower.

      LOL! Just kidding. Referring to your wheel as a "damp squib" is merely a metaphor or "idiom" which indicates that its initial testing failed to produce the desired results. In America we would just say that it was a "dud". I've been there more times than I care to remember! Hopefully, the next test you try will be successful or, with modification, can be made so.

      Now you know why I promote the use of sim programs so much. They can let one quickly eliminate all of those future "damp squibs" so that he can get to a working design as soon as possible. Life is just too short to waste playing games with "damp squib builds", especially now that one no longer has to do so.

      Delete
  18. Perhaps a simple tensioning adjuster on each spring? (cannot suggest how as the design aim isnt known to me, maybe threaded bar with penny washers? bolt and lock nut?, nylon fishing line? etc.)can be removed later.
    Also I would imagine spring(s) manufacture in Besslers day would have been less accurate and consistant than those available today, so if the set up requires a fine balance/tuning then it would have been even trickier with the variability.
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect that one end of a spring was attached to a particular point on a lever via a piece of cord and the other end of the spring was then attached directly to some point inside of the drum, most likely between the radial drum supports (I am now in the process of trying to determine just where that was!). But, there are many questions that remain to be answered. For example, were the levers under CONSTANT spring tension even when their weights were in contact with their rim stops or was there no tension in this orientation. Did Bessler use some quick visual check to adjust his springs' applied tensions? If so, what was it? I previously estimated that the Merseburg wheel's springs were 5 inches in length and 1.5 inches in diameter and had a spring constant of 3 to 5 lbs per inch. I am now starting to think that this may have been too low a value for their spring constant.

      Most likely, Bessler could use springs with an approximate spring constant value and then just adjust as necessary the tension they
      applied to the weighted levers of his wheels by merely shortening
      the lengths of the cord that connected them to the levers. If so, then Bessler need only have obtained or manufactured 8 springs of approximately the same dimensions and spring constants and then made 8 spring connecting cords of the same length.

      When finally finishing a two-directional wheel, he would have first installed the springs in the drum for one of the wheel's two one-directional sub wheels and then attached their cords to the 8 levers. This would have immediately pulled all of the levers against some internal stop (not a rim stop, but rather a stop attached to the lever's radial drum support member) so that the each lever would be in alignment with its particular radial drum support. Next, he would have attached the sub wheel's remaining 16 cords between its 8 levers in order to fulfill the requirements of his "Connectedness Principle". This procedure would then be repeated for the drum's other sub wheel. (Note that recently I found that I could reduce the number of cords required by the Connectedness Principle from 48 to 24 for a design that would still work yet be "very simple".)

      Once this was done, it would have been time to cover the open sides of the two-directional wheel's drum with 6 ft wide sheets of dyed and oiled cloth and then securely tack them to the drum's rim and the radial support members. Inspection holes would then be cut into these layers of cloth at strategic locations. Using two layers of dyed and oiled cloth over each side of the drum would make it impossible for anybody to see even the vaguest outline of his "perpetual motion structures" should sunlight happen to be shining directly on the side of the drum opposite them. Two cloth layers would also make it easier to install various flaps of cloth over the inspection holes that could then be pinned into place. And, of course, the final step in making a wheel operational would be, through the inspection holes, to install its weights onto the ends of the levers. (For Bessler's first two ONE-directional wheels, however, the final step would always have been attaching the thin wooden slats to the sides of the drums.)

      The springs of Bessler's day could have been VERY accurate despite their lack of fancy modern day steel alloys. However, I'm putting a maximum limit on a spring not being allowed to have a stretched length that exceeds about 50% of its unstretched length so that there will be no risk of the spring being stretched beyond its elastic limit and thereby being damaged on a molecular lever (which would prevent it from returning to its unstretched length again).

      Delete
  19. Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla. Same crap as ever John. You never change. You'll forever be recycling the same discussions on a wheel you'll never invent.

    ReplyDelete
  20. WOW just what I was looking for. Came here by
    searching for football betting grid print

    Also visit my web page: z code system

    ReplyDelete

The Legend of Bessler’s Wheel and the Orffyreus Code

My apologies to all, I accidentally deleted my post about my progress on reconstructing Bessler’s wheel!  I lost all the comments too, and...