Johann Fischer von Erlach, in his letter to Sir Isaac Newton's curator of experiments, Desaguliers, wrote of Karl, that "His Highness, who has a perfect understanding of mathematics, assured me that the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel, and that he would not risk his name in giving these attestations, if he did not have knowledge of the machine."
Now that is a misleading statement, in my opinion - it wasn't meant to be, but that is how it has turned out. The problem is that he uses the word 'understand', suggesting that a carpenter's boy could make it after having studied the inside. The implication being that it is simple and obvious, even to a young inexperienced apprentice. Apparently Karl declared that he understood it too, sufficiently to risk his good name in saying it was genuine. But if the machine was so easy to understand why has no one thought of the way to replicate what Bessler did, in the 300 years since he proved it was possible? I think the reason is because there is a principle involved which was overlooked by everyone including Karl.
I think that Karl understood the mechanism but did not appreciate the whole process it underwent in rotating the wheel continuously. This is difficult for me to explain, but I'll try. If I had been able to look at the mechanism in Bessler's wheel and I saw a weighted lever, for example, falling outwards or inwards and in doing so lifting another lever, I might well understand what I was seeing. I would make an assumption based on what I knew, but if there were restrictions on what could be achieved by the first lever because it might be insufficient to lift the second lever enough, then perhaps a spring attached to the lever being lifted, to assist in the initial lift might be required - but would I have seen the spring? If I hadn't then I might think the first lever easily lifted the second one; but if I did noticce it, would I make the right interpretation of its use? And yet without the spring the whole thing might fail.
Having said that I don't think that springs were used in that way in Bessler's wheel. But I do think that Karl's understanding of the wheel's mechanism was incomplete. I have good reason for reaching this opinion as I have found a number of intricate requirements and restrictions for the mechanism which are identified in Bessler's drawings but which are not easily recognised without actually building the assemblies - and this, by the way, is the main reason why I think that the efforts to achieve success through simulation alone are doomed to failure.
The second thing is that whatever each mechanisms did, it had to be reversed or reset in order to operate again, to continue the wheel's rotation, but did Karl actually see this other part of the action? Perhaps Bessler simply said that the action was reversed on the other side of the wheel, but perhaps there were actions which only ocurred on the resetting side of the wheel - in fact, as I have discovered, there were.
Finally, we don't know which wheel Bessler showed to Karl, but I can't really believe that Karl would have waited for six months to allow Bessler time to build the big wheel, before giving the device his blessing, so he must have seen a smaller portable version of the wheel, and this would most likely have been the one-way wheel - a more simple device.
So I think that Karl was not made aware of this unknown principle which permitted the wheel to work within the current laws of physics. He may have seen it in action but not understood the restrictions imposed on its actions. I know this principle but have not yet incorporated it within a wheel. I have designed and built a mechanism that performs according to the principle - it does what it's designed to do. I know people will say that there cannot be a secret principle which obeys the laws of physics and yet works a gravity-only wheel but there is. It doesn't conflict with any law and the fact that gravity is said to be conservative does not enter into the equation.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteWow, John! When you start using terms like "weighted lever", you're actually starting to sound like ME!
Let me briefly address some of the issues you have raised:
1.) I think that von Erlach WAS accurately relating the conversation that he had with Karl. By "understanding" he meant that the carpenter's boy would be able to understand the GENERAL principles employed by Bessler's OB PM gravity wheel design AND would understand HOW it was constructed so that he (the carpenter's boy) could also construct the wheel. But, he would only be able to do that IF he was supplied with a precise schematic to follow. By comparion, a beginning student of electronics might understand the general principle used by a radio and how to connect the various components of a radio together that allow it to work. But, he would not be able to build one from scratch and would have to be provided with a schematic to follow in order to successfully construct one.
The reason, IMO, no one has replicated Bessler's design in the last 300 years is simply because they mostly have NOT been pursuing the INTERCONNECTED weighted lever design that Bessler used. Or, if they did, then they did not stick with it long enough to work out all of the precise starting orientations of the levers involved and the correct cord / spring attachment points to them. The weighted levers must be shaped just right, the cords and springs attached to them just right, and the spring tensions just right. In other words only ONE COMBINATION of all of these factors will work and, by chance so far, no one has stumbled across that correct combination of factors (a situation which I hope to SOON remedy!).
It's entirely analogous to the situation where people play a lottery in which a unique combination of numbered balls is extracted from a rotating drum at some future date and people pick and bet on a certain combination before the official one is drawn. The vast majority of the players will win nothing, some will catch a certain minimum quantity of the numbered balls drawn in the combination they play and win something, and a few VERY lucky players will have all of the numbers correct in their combination and win the big jackpot. Johann Bessler and Asa Jackson were like two jackpot winners in a mechanistic lottery that has been played now for THOUSANDS of years!
PART II:
ReplyDelete2.) Since the Merseburg wheel had been destroyed and the Weissenstein wheel had not yet been constructed, Karl would have been allowed to view the small table top model wheel that Bessler originally discovered his working design with at the "House of Ricters". Bessler, under the cloak of darkness, probably hand carried this one-directional wheel to Karl's residence so the count could play with it for a while and get his 4,000 thalers' worth.
The count would immediately have seen that during each 45 degree increment of CW rotation of the small uncovered, open frame one-directional wheel, the 9:00 going to 10:30 weighted lever would rise smoothly as the 7:30 going to 9:00 weighted lever's weight reached its closest approach to the axle. As this was happening all of the other weighted levers moving between 10:30 and 3:00 would have been moving steadily closer to their rim stops. It was these actions that continuously kept the CoM of the model wheel's 8 weights on the descending side of the wheel. Karl would have seen that whenever he released the diminutive wheel, it would immediately begin accelerating and, indeed, this small model might have been able to achieve a rather high maximum terminal rotation rate...perhaps around 70 to 80 rpm's!
I can imagine that Karl would have been the only person, other than Bessler, who would have been able to personally view the various stages of construction of the Weissenstein wheel just so he would be satisfied that its construction matched that of the small table top model he had witnessed months earlier and that there were no hidden external or internal power supplies being attached to it.
Karl was an avid student of mathematics and the sciences of his day and possessed a large private collection of scientific instruments. I have NO doubt that he would have had a COMPLETE understanding of how Bessler's wheels worked otherwise he would not have said that he was SURPRISED that no one else had thought of the idea.
The 4:1 model of one of the Merseburg wheel's one-directional sub wheels that I am now working on is VERY simple, yet it is also VERY unusual in several respects. If I am successful with it and the design revealed, then I doubt if anybody will be puzzled by how it works. Yet, behind its facade of simplicity lies a VERY precise bit of mechanical engineering. Without the ALL IMPORTANT DT portrait clues, I would be nowhere near where I am with it now.
It has been a VERY long time since I read all that historical stuff about Bessler so it is likely that what I am about is say is all wrong (because of a faulty memory.)
ReplyDeleteWasn't JB looking for a big payday so he could start a school?
And did that school have something to do with teaching PM?
It would seem that if JB's machine was so simple as to be almost obvious,then a few drawings and a demonstration with a short lecture would be more appropriate than having people attend classes in a formal "school".
good point
DeleteIt was Bessler's dream, aside from greatly improving his social status, to use the money from the sale of his OB PM gravity wheel design to found a sort of religiously oriented school for craftsmen which he referred to as his "Fortress of Wisdom" or something like that. I wasn't just to be devoted to making PM wheels, but, rather, to teaching ALL of the crafts to students while instilling in them, I assume, the various principles of judeochristian ethics and morality. In other words, he actually wanted to start his own university of engineering!
DeleteI am also convinced that Karl did see the inside of the wheel and that he would have never risked his reputation on the promotion of Bessler and his wheel if he was not 100 percent sure.
ReplyDeleteMy feelings about the "carpenter boy" are much the same as voiced here by others: the construction was not fancy or difficult, the principle obvious - in other words, when told what to do, a carpenter boy would be able to do it. Doesn't mean he would understand the principle in such a way to be able to vary anything successfully. At some other point Bessler said that it was up to others to optimise and improve his wheel. For that, they would need to understand what was so different about Besslers wheel compared with all other historical failed wheels. This would have been what the school was about.
ReplyDeleteYou're partly right Bill. The so-called 'fortress of wisdom school' was intended to provide education in a number of subject of a practical nature to enable young apprentices to get work in established industries. I presume they were all the subjects that had interested Bessler, and which he listed in his Apologia Poetica.
ReplyDeleteHe was looking for a big pay day but as well as establishing the school, which was to be of mixed non-denominational religions, he needed the one-off payment because he knew that once the secret was sold it would be out in public view and there could be no more income to be had from it.
JC
John,.. I think a carpenter's apprentice could have easily built the wheel because all he had to do was copy it.
ReplyDeleteWhat he could not see was the hidden principle that enabled it to maintain itself.
I personally feel that the secret principle was nothing more than the law of the conservation of energy.
This means that in a balanced system,energy once gained,cannot be lost.
If one can cleverly use this principle to cause weights through proponderance to be predominant on one side of the wheel,then you will have a working wheel.
That's my twopence worth!
"This means that in a balanced system,energy once gained,cannot be lost."
DeleteIt sounds like you are suggesting that all of the energy / mass that Bessler's wheels outputted had to be previously supplied to them. If so, then you would be suggesting that his wheels were fradulent! If not so, then from whence do you think the outputted energy / mass of his wheels came?
No!..The energy came from the spontaneous force of gravity.Isn't this what we are all here for?..Isn't this what perpetual motion is all about.
DeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteI have often wondered what thoughts might have gone through Count Karl's mind on the night that Bessler brought his table top model over to him to "prove" to him that he (Bessler) had, indeed, discovered the "secret" of achieving PM.
Most certainly, the count would have been experiencing a LOT of logical difficulties on that particular night! One the one hand, he had probably been taught that PM was impossible and had seen many failed and fradulent attempts to achieve it during his lifetime. But, on the other hand, he had also read the numerous newspaper accounts of the public demonstrations of Bessler's early wheels and how no "hint" of fakery had ever been detected. Perhaps he had even corresponded with actual eyewitnesses that had been present during earlier "official" examinations of the wheels. The count's curiosity had certainly been aroused...aroused enough to pay 4,000 thalers (equal to several years salary for a university professor at the time!) for the "privilege" of having his curiosity satisfied.
Finally, Bessler would have arrived and been quickly ushered into a private room so that, AFTER the chests containing the 4,000 silver coins had been produced and his solemn word given, the count could finally be permitted to behold the secret. Perhaps he was expecting to see some intricate clockwork mechanism which could have easily concealed several tightly wound spiral springs hidden amongst its parts. Perhaps he would be presented with a wheel that
suddenly and inexplicably stopped working and then given a pile of excuses by Bessler as to why and, of course, profuse assurances that a
much larger version, funded by the count, of course, would surely work as did his past larger scale versions. Yes, the count was probably close to 100% certain that this is all that would happen on that particular night.
I can only imagine how truly astounded the count would have been when Bessler simply placed his 36 inch diameter model wheel on a cleared table
top, lifted off its eye proof cover, and then asked the count to approach and inspect the mechanism. The model would have been made from many thin strips of wood that had been carefully glued together. It would have contained only 8 small levers a few inches in length that each held a small 1 ounce cylinder of lead on its end nearest the wheel's periphery. And, of course, there were some dyed strings and small helical springs attached to various locations on the levers and the drum-like frame.
Then it was time for the "moment of truth" (how well we "squirrels" know it!) and Bessler then invited the count to carefully cut the short length of string that secured the periphery of the drum to one of its upright axle supports.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteThe count did so and to his utter amazement the yard wide drum slowly began to rotate about its axle. This initial slow rotation was because
the CoM of its eight 1 ounce weights was only located about 1/3 of an inch away, horizontally, from the center of its axle.
At first the periphery of the drum merely crept along and as it did so the count could see how the weighted levers on its ascending side would suddenly begin rotating about their pivots in the opposite direction as their pivots passed the 9:00 position of the drum. This action then caused their weights to draw steadily closer to the drum's outer rim until they finally made contact with tiny stops there by the time a lever's pivot reached the 3:00 position of the drum. Bessler would have explained that this was method that his wheels used to continuously keep their CoM's on a drum's descending side so that they would accelerate or perform useful
"outside" work. What was happening would have been completely understandable to the count and he would have wondered why no one prior to Bessler had been able to come up with such a simple method for constructing an OB PM gravity wheel!
As the count watched, the diminutive wheel might have reached a velocity of about 80 rpm's and would have then been putting out a considerable
breeze. At that rotation rate it leveled off and, after running for several minutes, Bessler would have used a leather gloved hand to apply
friction to its axle to quickly slow it to a stop.
After this little demonstration had been repeated several more times, perhaps applying his own gloved hand to the axle to stop the wheel's rotation, the count would have been "sold". Perhaps as the two sat before the now covered wheel (to prevent the count's servants from seeing what they should not see), they passed several pleasant hours sipping rare vintage wines from expensively hand blown glasses and laying their plans for the future.
The arrangement they finally agree upon was simple. The count would provide Bessler with employment, lodging for he and his family, and all of the resources needed to construct a larger and more impressive wheel that might attract the seroius attention of businessmen. Bessler would build the count a wheel that was at least TWICE as powerful as his widely publicized Merseburg wheel and, in the process, make Weissenstein castle a sort of Mecca that all of the intelligensia of Europe would flock to.
That night the two must have been like children who had wandered into a enchanted forest filled with incredible possibilities...
No!..The energy came from the spontaneous action of gravity.Isn't this what we are all here for?..Isn't this what perpetual motion is all about?
ReplyDeleteBut, since gravity does no work, it can not be the source of the energy / mass that Bessler's wheels outputted. If his wheels tapped no "environmental source" of energy / mass and did not carry any CONVENTIONAL "onboard" source of energy / mass, then, again I ask, from whence did the energy / mass come that Bessler's wheels outputted?
DeleteYou obviously don't really believe in perpetual motion.Right gravity is aninert force that has to be primed or load just like a spring before it can do work.
DeleteThe trick is to use gravity to prime itself.
Now I threw you some nuts but you cannot be a very hungry squirrel because you completely miss my point.
Maybe your'e thinking on a completely different plain to me.
@ Trevor
DeleteThere are basically two types of "perpetual motion" and I, being a VERY hungry squirrel, DO most certainly believe in BOTH types!
The first involves a system whose components simply keep moving repetitively for all of eternity WITHOUT outputting any energy / mass in the process. Examples would be the ground state electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus or a black hole slowly rotating in space.
The second involves a machine whose parts keep moving and, barring any critical component failure, continually outputs energy / mass. Examples would be Bessler's and Jackson's OB PM wheels.
You, like others, seem to think that an OB PM gravity wheel would obtain the energy / mass it continually outputs from a planet's gravity field. This can not be because gravity has NO energy / mass of its own to give to the wheel for that purpose. Energy / mass can ONLY come from mass possessing OBJECTS such as the WEIGHTS within a gravity wheel. The purpose of an OB wheel is to trick the weights into yielding the energy / mass they ALREADY have contained within the subatomic particles from which their atoms are composed. In the past, I have referred to this as the "innate" energy / mass of the weights. Maintaining the OB of the CoM of the weights of a PM gravity wheel is one way to trick the weights into releasing their energy / mass to either accelerate the wheel or perform outside work.
No,no,there is nothing atomic or sub-atomic about this.Bessler assured us that the work output was entirely due to the offset of center of gravity which makes innert gravity the work horse.
DeleteIt's all plain down to earth mechanical physics.This is not a passive wheel,it's all in the lively movement and the timing.
The wheel moves due to the momentary offset proponderance of the CG of the weights.
But, Bessler's wheels would work equally well aboard a rotating space station by using CF. There would be no gravity field aboard such a station. The energy / mass his wheel's outputted was IN the weights, not in the Earth's gravity field.
DeleteHave posted this on Johns other site too. Amazing! http://www.wimp.com/buildsmachine/
ReplyDeleteenjoy.
Regards
Jon
That's a nice video of the Finsrud machine. I see he uses alnico permanent magnets.
DeleteAlthough it may be a bit off-topic for this blog, I have reason to believe that if permanent magnets are exploited correctly, (and not necessarily as Finsrud is doing) it will be possible to get net energy from them. My best effort so far (in computer models) is to get a ratio of about 1.6 for energy delivered to energy consumed.
si e la verità un apprendista falegname può replicare la ruota.
ReplyDeleteCould a carpenter’s apprentice really have understood how Bessler’s wheel worked?
ReplyDeleteYes
Could he have made one very quickly or easily? Probably no.
I have always thought of this clue, which is not one of Bessler’s clues, but an eyewitness statement; in fact THE eyewitness statement; from the only person so far as we know who’s eyes actually fell upon the inner workings of The Mechanism with his consent, to be a very very important clue, possibly The most important clue of all?
I have always assumed that Karl rather overestimated/overstated quite what a carpenter’s apprentice was actually capable of, but that he chose his words very carefully. I agree with so many others who have said that he would not want posterity to know him as one who had been ‘taken-in’ by a charlatan.
Karl’s “simplicity” observation and his “surprised no one had thought of it before” observation have always been key clue elements for me on my journey with this object.
To think that The Mechanism is in a place where everyone has always been looking!
That this really is a case of “can’t see the wood for the trees”.
Bessler’s Treasure hidden in plain sight
His Fact of Poetry and Images (or if you prefer his Factum Poetica)
How lovely!
JW
Part 0 :
ReplyDeleteYes to the question
Part 1 :
I'm a son of a son of a sailor and I understand it !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kaDSY46nkY
ReplyDeleteWe need to specify categorically that bessler's wheel was a perpetual motion device with power where friction is not an issue.
ReplyDeletePerpetual motion without power is not a problem because it already exists according the the laws of motion.
Please do not confuse the two.
Trevor wrote: "Please do not confuse the two."
ReplyDeleteI never do. And, when I think about it, it's possible to consider our entire universe as just one huge PM machine! Energy / mass is constantly being lost from the many "hot spots" within it and being taken up to power the motion of other "cooler" parts. Then, just when one thinks everything should eventually run down and die a quiet entropic death, somehow it all gets scooped up into a giant black hole (or maybe an infinite number of black holes!), compressed to unimaginably high densities, and then somehow there's another Big Bang explosion (or an infinite number of them!) that creates yet another universe so that the whole thing can start all over again. This would all have been going on from the infinite past to our present and will continue into the infinite future! Yes, PM is the NORM in our universe!
I also often wonder, if I am right about Bessler's wheels extracting and outputting the energy / mass content of their lead weights, then what happens to those lead weights over time after they have been drained of their energy / mass content in a wheel that might have been kept continously running for billions of years (this, of course, is a "thought experiment"!). At that point, having yielded their last picogram of energy / mass, do the weights then finally become totally massless and remain so? Would such a massless "weight" just float upwards in our atmosphere if it was removed from the wheel and then released? Is there some sort of limit below which no additional "innate" energy / mass can be extracted from an object's subatomic particles so that it could ever become massless? Or, is there some, as yet, unsuspected process by which the universe slowly replaces the energy / mass being extracted from the weights inside a running OB PM gravity wheel? Well, obviously, these will all be questions for future physicists to wrestle with AFTER we have duplicated Bessler's design.
Meanwhile, I have some "bad" news to report.
I did a LOT of testing with the "new" version of my previous "magic" lever design this morning and it's obvious from the results that the design is no good. While it certainly improves the axle torque of a wheel when the weighted levers are at their starting orientations at the beginning of a 45 degree interval of drum rotation, the new lever design is causing the interconnecting cords to be under unacceptably high strain. This, therefore, can not be the design Bessler used. I'm starting to think that the correct magic lever shape must be somewhere BETWEEN the two extremes of my "old" and my "new" designs. It's time to return to the DT portraits, make more measurements, and then see if a new modification of the lever is suggested. Ultimately, finding a design that manages to keep the CoM of a collection of weights on the descending side of a wheel during rotation is a matter of "optimizing" ALL of the parameters involved in the process. It's analogous to "tuning" a radio receiver so that a particular carrier wave frequency and its audio component get through the circuitry while all other carrier wave frequencies are excluded.
I know from past experience that one should be HIGHLY suspicious of the first SEVERAL interpretations he makes of ANY clue. These initial interpretations are usually the easiest ones to make and will later prove to be "decoy" clues that Bessler PURPOSELY inserted into the portraits to discourage all but the most persistant of reverse engineers from trying to duplicate his design. He NEVER gives anything away and one must ALWAYS struggle for EVERY small increase in understanding that he achieves.
TG,..you seem to have a strange fixation about mass to energy conversion.There is absolutely no effect from the atomic level.
ReplyDeleteThe mass will always be constant because we are not using any form of atomic energy.
I will give you a clue...The engine of the perpetual motion wheel is the heavy weight itself.
There is no need to "convert" mass to energy because mass is ALREADY energy! From this it follows that whenever an object loses some of its energy it MUST also lose some of its mass. If the object gains some energy, then it will also gain some mass. NO nuclear type reactions are involved in this process.
DeleteA spring that is compressed will gains BOTH energy AND mass although the mass part will only be in the fraction of a picogram range. That increase in mass will be evenly distributed amongst all of the mass possessing subatomic particles which compose the metal atoms of the spring. The amount of energy, in terms of ergs, contained within the lead weights that powered Bessler's wheels was enormous and sufficient to keep an UNloaded wheel turning for billions of years! As that energy / mass was lost by the wheel's weights gradually over the millenia, there would have been NO fission or fusion type reactions involved. The weights would, over time, simply become LESS massive as EACH mass possessing subatomic particle within their lead atoms became less massive.
"So I think that Karl was not made aware of this unknown principle which permitted the wheel to work within the current laws of physics."
ReplyDeleteThat's what I've been saying for months.
" But if the machine was so easy to understand why has no one thought of the way to replicate what Bessler did, in the 300 years since he proved it was possible? I think the reason is because there is a principle involved which was overlooked by everyone including Karl."
Yes, thermodynamics. Which hadn't been discovered yet. Easily overlooked.
Parametric oscillation (through 360) requires mechanical input. It can't be done with GA. If you can't see that input in the kiiking sport you need to regroup.
"I know this principle but have not yet incorporated it within a wheel.I have designed and built a mechanism that performs according to the principle... "
Sooo, what is the problem?
Time Doug, just time. I have one of my son-in-laws and daugher moving back in with us temporarily and there is so much stuff to cram into what I always thought was a reasonably spacious house! My workshop has been cut down in size to a small work bench and I'm busy helping them move into here. Once they're in I hope to get back to work. I can only snatch the odd moment for wheeling, but things will get better.
ReplyDeleteJC
I'm still firmly convinced that we will be seeing your latest (and supposedly final) "pentagrammatic" wheel design BEFORE THIS Christmas! Of course, I also believed that we would see it before the coming of the 300th anniversary of Bessler's first public demonstration way back there in early June of this year! However, if Christmas 2012 comes and goes with nothing being produced, then I guess the next logical deadline would be the 301st anniversary of Bessler's first public demo NEXT June! But, then again, you might be taking another vacation in Spain around that time!
DeleteSadly, it's always VERY risky to make ANY sort of prediction about when one's work will be completed when it comes to PM research. I was convinced that I would have this whole mystery solved DECADES ago, but here I am STILL working on it! But, I WILL be making a VERY intense effort to get something SOLID to reveal by THIS Christmas and am making this prediction because of how VERY close I currently SEEM to be. Hopefully, this prediction will not fall through as so many others have. This subject DESPERATELY needs to make some REAL progress for a change!
I can't argue with that TG, although I thought I said I wanted someone, anyone, to succeed by the 300th anniverary, hopefully me. I won't give out any predictions, just hopes. What I can say is that when this model is tested to my satisfaction then I'll release the design concept, working or not working.
DeleteJC
We must have some extra energy to overcome the friction of the wheel.... or else a common flywheel would keep going on forever. In fact, just take your wheel and give it a spin and see how long it turns without anything on it It will amaze you my 5 ft wheel goes 80 - 90
ReplyDeleteSo, we are left with the fact, in a closed system, that to GAIN some extra energy to achieve a Continuous Motion ( CM ) we must accelerate a mass and then capture the energy Gained from the accelerated mass into something. 1. Compression Spring 2. Tension Spring 3. clock Spring 4. Lever ? Once stored the energy must be applied to the Rotational mass of the Fly Wheel Accelerated Mass Captured and Released. We know that we can get increased force from the accelerated mass but the timing of the input back into the system is the critical key.
I can accept that there could be some "unknown" principle (except to Bessler). I can even accept that it could be something very unlikely to be found by computer modelling, unless it was already suspected.
ReplyDeleteAs an example, consider the already-discovered Wilberforce pendulum. There are some examples on YouTube.
For anyone who hasn't encountered it yet, consider a weight suspended on an extension spring whose upper end is fixed. The weight is displaced vertically, then released. Can it ever do anything but just oscillate vertically?
Look at the Youtube videos to find out. Personally I would not have predicted such regular and complete exchange of energy between the different modes.
Arktos, thanks for the reference to the Wilberforce pendulum, very interesting, indeed! And thanks everybody for the good physics discussions. I have been doing a lot of modeling lately with my 3-symmetry wheel. I have various different construction principles that all seem to be acting in the same fashion: I can get the first segment (120 degrees) to work such that the second segment arrives in the same starting position as I had started off with the first one. Only difference is that we now have an initial speed which we didn't in the beginning. Now we should happily go on turning faster and faster? No such luck. My tests/logic lead me to believe that the slowing down is due to the weight rolling outward, which - due to conservation of angular momentum - happens to the inverse square of the travelled distance. I am now working on a model where the weight rolling outward is connected to the weight being pushed inward in such a way that the angular speed stays almost constant. This looks promising ("connectedness principle"!). Of course, I could make the wheel stop completely after the first turn of 120 degrees and start over. This would be a jerky wheel with no work done. If I could use the braking energy somehow (springs?) then I could both do work and have the wheel turn. So, if cleverly done, it would maybe be less jerky. However, I would prefer a build without storing/braking, but with a clever synchronisation instead. That's what I am working on for now. Where does the energy come from? Is it taken away from somewhere else? E.g. will the rotation of the earth slow down, or the air around the wheel get colder? Who knows... I am hoping that there are no negativ side effects. Maybe we are just tapping into a flow of energy, such as we do with wind mills or photo cells. In those 2 examples the energy keeps getting replenished by the sun, in other words this is the general mystery of "why is everything in motion, why is the sun hot", which science today explains with a huge initial delivery of energy, the big bang.
ReplyDelete"Where does the energy come from? Is it taken away from somewhere else?"
DeleteIn a genuine, working OB PM gravity wheel, the energy / mass that is outputted can only come from ONE source: the weights within it whose OB CoM drives the wheel.
When the heavier end of a seesaw drops and, consequently, raises the lighter end, the heavier end LOSES more energy / mass than is taken from the seesaw by the rising lighter end. After the heavier end strikes the ground, the EXTRA UNUSED amount of energy / mass that was released from the heavier end is transferred to the ground at the impact site and slightly raises the temperature of the soil particles there as their energy / mass content is also increased a bit.
What happens in the seesaw begins and ends after its board rotates through so many degrees. In an OB PM gravity wheel, OTOH, the process NEVER ends. The OB CoM acts like a seesaw whose heavier end is continually dropping and releasing a small UNUSED amount of energy / mass with each wheel rotation. That energy / mass will accumulate over time and can be used to either continuously accelerate ALL of the structures of the wheel, perform "outside" work, OR do BOTH!
Mimi, is there any way you could design your wheel so that the active range of each mechanism overlaps a little, the one in front? It looks as if that might take the wheel round to the next action.
ReplyDeleteJC
Wheels that have isolated mechanisms whose "active ranges" overlap can be very deceptive if one only tests ONE of the mechanisms on the wheel and merely substitutes STATIC mechanisms or weights to represent the other supposedly INactive mechanisms on the wheel.
DeleteAt first glance such designs look like they MUST work, but that is only until one realizes that in the FULLY operational wheel for every mechanism that is "active" there are one or more others that are being reset on the other side of the wheel. That resetting process ALWAYS drains energy / mass from the wheel which was intended to drive it through a large enough angle of rotation for the next mechanism in the series to take over and continue driving the wheel.
One must be wary of any results that are obtained from "partial" wheels because what works with only a single mechanism may not work when ALL of the mechanisms are in play. Even with the computer model wheels I work with, I ALWAYS use all of the weighted levers within a wheel and all that can move are allowed to do so.
It seems you guys are all thinking in terms of frictionless devices.
ReplyDeleteCan you not visualise a machine that outputs power where friction inconsequential.
After all The combustion engine has massive friction but it still manages to output work.
Stop clutching at straws and get down and design the machine that has power,..It's out there some where!
The computer model wheels I work on ARE intended to overcome friction and do "outside" work. IF my software can handle it, I plan to have my "right track" design wheel operating a small stamping mill and even an Archimedean screw to lift water! Of course, I will have to make the 2D equivalent of an Archimedean screw which will just be a line of gear connected cog wheels that will force a "stream" of tiny blue-green circles, representing water, up a shoot from the top of which they will emerge and then "pour" back down into a reservoir filled with similar tiny circles at the bottom of the shoot. I can then adjust the masses of the stamps and the water circles and see how much I can increase them before the wheel stops running. That will give me an idea of the constant power output of the wheel.
DeleteHi Trevor,
ReplyDeletenot sure what you mean - my design is not frictionless. The simulation software uses built in standard friction, which you can change, but I didn't. Also I have been making physical builds - certainly not frictionless either.
It is a safe bet that the same is true for TG, JC and John Worton (anybody doing physical builds is not in the frictionless league).
The only source of friction in my models is air resistance which I leave on the default "low velocity" setting provided. The pin joints which serve as pivots on my levers and wheel are frictionless and, in a real world model, well lubricated bearings would also be close to frictionless.
DeleteIn order to maximize my wheel's acceleration and more accurately locate the CoM of just its weights, I make all components, other than the weights, have masses that are very low like 0.001 lbs. When I finally obtain THE "right track" design that Bessler found, I can then increase the masses of the non-weight components to more realistic values. However, I don't have that option with the cords and springs. They are always massless and even in a real world model, the masses of these components should be small enough to not significantly affect the location of the OB CoM.
Unfortunately, computer models, even with the best of software, are only APPROXIMATIONS of reality. With effort, the modeler can make that approximation VERY close to reality, close enough to be confident that a real world model based on the computer model WILL work.
I can't see the point of trying to build something that can't even overcome its own friction, Trevor. Overecoming friction means it has to do work, which is what we all want it to do.
ReplyDeleteJC
No offense intended,..I'm just looking to interact with someone one who is experiencing the same purely mechanical hands on problems.
ReplyDeleteMy problem is I am so close to a solution I was hoping someone else is there also.
Then I could compare my experiences.
None taken, Trevor. Well I think I'm a gnat's whisker away from success, but then I've been here before!
ReplyDeleteJC
LOL! Absolutely amazing how a distance equal to the diameter of a gnat's whisker (I didn't know they had whiskers!) can suddenly turn into a distance equal to the diameter of a galaxy (about 100,000 light-years) in the blink of an eye...like the instant AFTER a "moment of truth" test fails!
DeleteAh, wise words TG, and so true!
ReplyDeleteJC
Why doesn't anybody take me seriously?
ReplyDeleteIt's funny to see you all scurrying like confused cockroaches all the time, and asking questions like the above , imagining that no one could possibly know the answers . Ignoring me as usual and making no comments to my comments... you are all so smart , and yet ignorant . There is really only one thing
ReplyDeletethat someone needs to know to realize this device of Bessler's and possibly all of you have shown evidence and suggestion that you still do not understand it ... yet you keep going forward like rats in a labyrinth .
You all are starving for technical details , and devoid of what you hunger for ... yet , you have abandoned the very essence of the device as per Bessler . You seek instead to promote your own ( and millions previous have published ) empty concepts of " overbalance " and weights being " magically " lifted on the long trip ascent . These magical weights must have had " wings " ! Oh , how they stand still , like many starlings feeding on the crumbs of a quiet mill wheel ! Keep trying !
ReplyDeleteI take you seriously Trevor, but you wish to compare your experience with someone else's, but what would that entail? If you were thinking of sharing your ideas I think you will meet a stone wall of silence in reciprocation, because everyone (including myself) is determindly working to find the solution by their own efforts.
ReplyDeleteI have tried the group approach many years ago with a number of people, some of whom are BW forum members, but it all came to naught.
Chris, I assume you have the solution?
JC
Ok John,point taken,but then what are we here for if we can't compare notes?
DeleteIt is often someone's spontaneous observation that can jog a whole new train of thought.
Yes John I am quite sure of the principle and less sure of the exact construction . I could use the help of some knowing eyes but having tread that path before ...well , you know all about it . You or anyone , seeing this particular design might be reminded of an excerpt quote from Bessler , " before one is mistaken the manufacture of the work has occurred " .
DeleteHere's an example,..My observation that if we anylize the Apologia poem carefully we should be able to work out how the Bessler wheel works.
ReplyDeleteIt is the source of the greatest clues to the characteristic working of the wheel.
Unfortunately, the clues in the AP poem, if there really are any, are so vague and "poetic" in nature that I don't believe anyone will ever make much of them. To start designing wheels one needs ANGLES, NUMBERS, AND RATIOS and there are PLENTY of them in the two DT portraits. That is why I now focus my research almost exclusively on those portraits. Focusing for YEARS on the rest of the Bessler literature led me NOWHERE and I ain't gettin' any younger!
DeleteAs far as comparing notes is concerned, the best that can be achieved is if people voluntarily publish at least a quick sketch of what they are working on. However, that usually only happens the day AFTER a mobilist finally realizes his "pet" design will NEVER work. BEFORE that day, he will jealously guard the design and, at best, only describe it in very vague terms lest some other mobilist will steal the idea and then proclaim that it is his.
Trevor, you are absolutely right.
DeleteThe AP poem V55 “is the source of the greatest clues to the characteristic working of the wheel” That is EXACTLY what I have been working on for the past six years.
TG you might not “believe anyone will ever make much of them” but you could be wrong?
JW
TG, certainly the clues are “poetic”, after all it is a poem!
Delete“Vague” the clues certainly are not.
Perhaps it depends upon what kind of mind you have?
Bessler says of APV55 “should anyone wish to speculate about the truth, let him ponder on the rich pageantry of words which I now cause to shower down upon him!”
He makes no such claim for the DT portraits.
JW
John, you forgot to end your question to Chris with " again ".
ReplyDeleteI try to offer observations Trevor, which I hope may trigger ideas. See my next blog.
ReplyDeleteLol, anon
...for what greater triumph is granted a man than to laugh in the face of his enemies because of certain blessings that he has received , in understanding and knowledge and presence of mind ? What will become of the mockers who do nothing but laugh and hang on the curtails of those who expend great effort for a good cause and yet are ridicules for their effort from time to time ? I tell you the last and greatest " laugh " of all will be mine .
ReplyDeleteTo Anon ,
ReplyDeleteWhoever and wherever you are my efforts are not for your benefit or your eyes and ears . That of the heckling critic is such a low position . I pity you . Get a life . Get a clue .
"Yes John I am quite sure of the principle and less sure of the exact construction ."
ReplyDeleteSo you're "starving for technical details" too.
Poetic justice!
I will work out the details without help . The fact is I have something and most of you don't have anything resembling a clue .
DeleteConsider Bessler , once in possession of the secret , still having individuals like Anon and Doug to contend with and inhibiting his ability to promote himself and his machine . There is nothing at all special about you mouth-ers . You serve no purpose . You have not done the necessary work involved nor do you care to actually identify yourselves . You are the voice of descent ... forever mocking those who muster great effort simply because you have been given no gifts for your have sought none .
Delete" you are all so smart , and yet ignorant ."
Delete"you keep going forward like rats in a labyrinth ."
"There is nothing at all special about you mouth-ers . You serve no purpose . You have not done the necessary work involved nor do you care to actually identify yourselves . You are the voice of descent ... forever mocking those who muster great effort simply because you have been given no gifts for your have sought none "
"That of the heckling critic is such a low position . I pity you ."
Spoken like a true hypocrite!
Chris, you are NO Bessler!
ReplyDeleteNope Bessler = dead . I'm still alive . Who are you by the way ? Anonysissy big mouth ?
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse! LOL !
DeleteSee how you're helping ? Keep up the good work .
ReplyDeleteThanks for the inspiration by the way ! I've just worked out the final detail of the mechanism .
ReplyDeleteAgain????
ReplyDeleteNo , finally Anonysissy .
ReplyDeleteMost people involved here and there have sworn in one way or another that they have specific details in one form or another of the workings inside of the wheel yet they are hardly ever made to produce any evidence because we are supposed to wait in patience FOREVER and are given clues which are supposed to contain this specific knowledge ... and yet are again FOREVER OPEN to interpretation . Let us now forgive ourselves and each other these transgressions because after all Bessler's wheel DID NOT contain magical weights .
ReplyDeleteNo, his weights were only of common lead. However, I've chosen to dub the levers those weights were mounted on as "magic", not because they violated the laws of mechanical cause and effect, but, rather, because when they are shaped just right, they suddenly turn a "NON-runner" into a "runner". The clues to the shape of that "magic" lever is in the DT portraits, but they are camouflaged amongst a LOT of bogus clues to protect them from being easily found. One must carefully pick his way through the tangle of decoy clues one at a time and test each one to see what is its worth. It's a slow and tedious process, but with continued effort, one draws closer and closer to THE final design that will work.
DeleteSee what I mean ? ... specific details are made claim to as a habit ... again and again and again .
DeleteOh dear Chris!
DeleteThe effects of your self-administered ‘chill pill’ didn't last long!
More bland reassurances that you really have ‘done it’ (but you are not actually building it in order to save money?)
Then there’s TG’s great long essays proclaiming he his 99.5% of the way to having ‘done it’
But from neither of you or anyone else any EVIDENCE. No photographs, no drawings, no objects to look at; NOTHING, just so many fine words.
The reality of this thing is that no one gives ‘a flying hoot’ (to borrow a phrase from my friend Andre La Pierre) about anything except “have you got one going around?”: if you haven’t then shut the F… Up! I don’t like that reality personally, but that’s how it is.
JC’s Blogg is about The Orffyreus Code: Bessler’s Clues. Until someone has ‘one going around’ lets stick to that subject, it will be more interesting for all of us.
Meanwhile I am offering One-Half of The Mechanism, lots of photos, drawings and other material on my website.
Is anyone giving more than me?
JW
Levers provide mechanical advantage, but no matter what the design, energy in equals energy out. Since we already know this to be true with lifting weights and stretching springs, the real magic is the still missing ingredient.
ReplyDeleteIf the CoM of a wheel's weights can be continuously maintained on the descending side of the wheel WITHOUT using ALL of the wheel's outputted energy / mass to do this, then the wheel should CONTINUOUSLY output energy / mass as it rotates. Yes, over time all of that energy / mass "out" will equal the energy / mass "in". That is, the outputted energy / mass will exactly equal whatever amount was originally contained in the weights used in the wheel. I've calculated that there was enough energy / mass contained within the 16 4 lb. weights of the Merseburg wheel to have kept it running freely for BILLIONS of years! Of course, to achieve that kind of an extreme run time would require there to be periodic replacements of parts, other than the lead weights, as they wore out and failed over the years of contant motion.
ReplyDelete