Wednesday, 10 October 2012

Bessler's wheel was not just a toy.

I think it's time to question the apparently widespread assumption that Bessler's wheel, which, while it might make an interesting toy, could not generate  any useful electrical power because it would be too puny.

The Kassel wheel was just over eleven feet in diameter and eighteen inches thick and, with a rope wrapped around the eight inch axle, it could raise a box of stones weighing seventy pounds.  The Merseberg wheel, which was a similar diameter but only one foot thick could also raise the same weight of seventy pounds. Both wheels could turn in either direction but the Merseburg turned at 40-50 RPM whereas the Kassel one achieved a maximum of 26 RPM.  

Wolff describes how the Merseburg lifted the 70 pounds through a pulley which had to be reduced more than four times, making the lifting quite slow. Now on the face of it this would indicate that the wheel was barely able to lift the seventy pounds, however it may also indicate that Bessler wanted a slow lift to make more impact on his audience.  At 40 - 50 RPM the lift would be over too quickly and would require him to lower it and relift it too often or too soon.

If, as I have often suggested, in the two-way wheels, the driving mechanisms are mirrored within the wheel to provide rotation in each direction, logically the one-way wheels had more power than the two-way versions. This is because the redundant mechanisms in the latter, would have to be turned in the wrong direction and must therefore have added resistance to rotation.

The narrower Merseburg wheel was designed to spin faster than the larger Kassel wheel, and yet was capable of raising the same weight of seventy pounds, aided by the load-reducing pulleys - there was no record of the pulleys being used on the Kassel wheel.  .I suggest that Bessler deliberately designed the Kassel wheel to turn more slowly, and I have argued previously that this was done in order to allow it to complete the long endurance test with out fear of it stopping prematurely due to wear and tear. It seems reasonable to assume that the internal design of each machine differed in some way, and it will be recalled that Bessler mentioned in Apologia Poetica, "if I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but on the contrary, if I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolved muster faster." So perhaps the Kassel wheel had fewer cross-bars but then Bessler added more weight to compensate for the reduction in power.  These would be added in line sideways or horizontally, leading to the increased depth or thickness of the wheel.

The second wheel was nine feet in diameter and only six inches thick and yet it turned at 50 RPM too - as did the first one which was only four feet wide and four inches thick - it seems as though 50 RPM was the normal spin speed.

Bessler said that he could design his wheels to turn fast or slow with greater or lesser power.  We can believe him because he showed it with the four wheels he exhibited, and of course he hadn't sold one at the time of writing, so his integrity would have been called into question if he could not do as he claimed.

It's worth pointing out the limitations within which Bessler worked.  70 pounds was probably the most he would want to handle during his exhibitions. Also the rope used to lift the weight had to be thin enough for use in the pulleys and yet have sufficiently high breaking strain to lift 70 pounds, probably not a problem.  He repeated his lifting and translocation demonstrations many times and most likely tried to make it as easy for himself as possible, hence the extended slow lifts.

One more thing; any engine can be scaled up to produce more power and this applies to Bessler's wheel just as in other instances.  This being the case it stands to reason that there is much more potential power to be had from Bessler's wheel than anyone seems prepared to admit.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

56 comments:

  1. Forgive me John,but I do not believe there were two dedicated mechanisms in the wheel to make it uni-directional.There just would not be space.
    I really believe he had a symetrical configuration that used the same weights for both directions.
    It is very significant to note that when he woke up from his dream he put together a working wheel with materials he had on hand.
    This tells me that there was nothing especially different with the materials he used.
    Furthermore,when it did turn,it seemed as if it would hardly go at all.This tells me it was not complicated but was a subtle mechanism that needed fine adjustment before it would work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nothing to forgive, Trevor, we all have our ideas and I just put mine up for comment.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But,but John what do you think?..Is it not possible and plausable that this could be? Assessing his personal account could help with the accuracy of the mechanical insight.

      Delete
  3. Let me put it this way Trevor. If I was in Bessler's shoes and I was trying to get around the accusation that the wheel was driven by clockwork, I would seize upon the possibility of redesigning the mechanism so that it could drive the wheel in either direction. The first thing that would occur to me is to see what would happen if I put two wheels on the same axle but with each one designed to turn the wheel in opposite directions.

    Obviously the wheel would not begin to turn spontaneously because each separate wheel was trying to turn spontaneously in its particular direction - result+balance. Give the wheel a slight push in one direction or the other and then the mechanism for that direction would take over and begin to rotate the wheel.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  4. But,but John,..If it was a symetrical mechanism it would topple both ways anyway,depending on which way you push it to begin with.
    This would avoid any uni-directional conflict of a dual mechanism.
    Bear in mind the heavy weights have not got their center of gravity offset until the pendulums start to oscillate.
    This only starts to happen when the wheel is first promted.
    There, I've given the game away!..There are heavey weights and there are also pendulums.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I too use heavy weights and pendulums, Trevor, but the rest is different.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's good to hear John,..At least one or two of us is on the right track.

      Delete
  6. Before you can scale up from a toy, you need a proto.
    Wouldn't you be happy with a one way, 4 foot, 60 rpm, proto?
    With any kind of mechanism; dual, symmetrical, magnetic, parametric, oscillating, compound-levered, corded, spring loaded, connected, swinging mechanisms?

    I imagine bessler was happy with his first one. Right? What did it lift, 4 lbs.?
    I bet he was happy when it just turned itself.
    Has anyone's proto managed to mechanically (not in a computer) turn itself for a few minutes? Any eureka moments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rotation? No. I never constructed a wheel. I did construct a (surprise!) crude electromechanical oscillator that gave me more watts out than in, electrically. All DC watts, so measurement errors are very unlikely. Like I said - if a hamfisted klutz like me can do it, anybody can do it.

      Doing it purely mechanically, as Bessler did, now that's really hard.

      Delete
  7. PART I:

    Well, this blog entry deals with issues that were extensively discussed months ago.

    Yes, Bessler's two-directional wheels were able to "rapidly" lift weights around 70 lbs ("rapid" being a rate of about 10 inches per second!), but they were NOT able to do this CONTINUOUSLY. These lifts using a load suspended from a pulley outside of a nearby window are certainly impressive, but they had to use the stored up rotational kinetic energy / mass in a wheel that may have taken up to a minute to accumulate. The real test of a wheel's power is measured by how quickly it would lift a 70 lb load CONTINOUSLY. That rate, by using a block and tackle arrangement, was only about 2 INCHES per second which is far less impressive.

    As far as the reduction in drum rotation rate with increasing wheel diameter is concerned, I am convinced that this effect is simply due to the increasing CF that acted on the MORE massive weights used in the larger wheels' drums. As I've suggested in the past, as CF increases, it begins to interfer with the shifting motion of the active weighted levers within a one-directional wheel or two-directional wheel's "sub wheel". That interference causes the CoM of all of the active weights to move closer to a position under the drum's axle and, consequently, reduces the axle torque so that it will only equal the various counter torques (due to air and bearing drag) acting on the drum at a LOWER rotation rate (these counter torques all increase with increasing drum rotation rate and require a higher axle torque to cancel them out at higher drum rotation rates).

    Yes, it's quite obvious to me that Bessler's two-directional wheels utilized TWO identical counter poised one-directional "sub wheels". But, once such a wheel began rotating in either of its two possible rotation directions, the sub wheel undergoing retrograde rotation would have all of its 8 weights automatically locked into position against their respective rim stops. Once that happened the CoM of the weights of that sub wheel would be located at the center of the drum's axle and would contribute no torque, either driving or impeding, to the axle.

    ReplyDelete
  8. PART II:

    JC wrote: "One more thing; any engine can be scaled up to produce more power and this applies to Bessler's wheel just as in other instances. This being the case it stands to reason that there is much more potential power to be had from Bessler's wheel than anyone seems prepared to admit."

    I have no doubt that Bessler's wheels could be "scaled up" to produce more power. But, who would want to have a cylindrical drum containing TONS of weight slowly turning away inside of a barn sized protective structure on his property to supply his ultra high efficiency electrical home with electrical power when he can do the SAME thing by just covering his roof with solar panels that require NO maintenance and, on cloudy days or at night, purchasing needed power from his local utility company? I know I wouldn't.

    During the day, if the solar panels produced more electrical power than the home requires, that extra power is fed into the power lines and is "sold" to the utility company and then shows up as a deduction on one's next monthly electric bill since it makes one's electric meter turn in reverse to lower the reading on it. With enough solar panels on one's property, he could actually MAKE a monthly profit selling his unused solar power to the electric company while getting all of his own electrical power needs met for free!

    I suspect that IF we ever find the design that Bessler used and begin to make working replicas of his original wheels, then we will quickly discover that all of the above issues will result in very little being done to try to turn them into a "commerically viable" source of power. Investors nowadays are VERY careful where they are making their investments and I don't think they would be too impressed once they knew ALL of the ACTUAL performance details of Bessler's wheels.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Before you can scale up from a toy, you need a proto.
    Wouldn't you be happy with a one way, 4 foot, 60 rpm, proto?
    With any kind of mechanism; dual, symmetrical, magnetic, parametric, oscillating, compound-levered, corded, spring loaded, connected, swinging mechanisms?

    I imagine bessler was happy with his first one. Right? What did it lift, 4 lbs.?
    I bet he was happy when it just turned itself.
    Has anyone's proto managed to mechanically (not in a computer) turn itself for a few minutes? Any eureka moments?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In AP, Bessler writes:

      "For I put together the very first device which could spontaneously revolve a little. I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile." (pg. 271)

      "So it was at the house of Richters in the year 1712 I achieved the discovery of the wondrous device that has amazed the world so much. My industry was spared the curses which accompanied the earlier efforts. The machine stood 3 feet high...On unfastening a bolt, the wheel immediately began to revolve." (pg. 273)

      Yes, Bessler was VERY happy to FINALLY, after a decade of struggling, find an OB PM gravity wheel design that actually WORKED! Any dedicated mobilist would be.

      His first 36 inch diameter wheel was one-directional and its CoM was only displaced about 0.25 inches from a vertical line dropped through the center of its axle. The torque would have been miniscule since he probably only used eight 1 ounce weights, but it would have been enough to accelerate the wheel to a rotation rate that could have been 80 or more rpm's. He was probably so excited that he did not sleep that night!

      I don't think you'll find anybody here whose physical prototype managed, from a standstill, to accelerate and thereby turn "of itself" for a few minutes. IF someone did manage to do that, you'd probably be seeing it discussed on tv shows like "Nova" and "60 Minutes" or on cable news shows on CNN.

      While I have not had THAT type of "eureka moment" (yet!), I have had a few GENUINE "mini"-eureka moments of my own. These occurred when I discovered a VALID clue in one of the two DT portraits and realized that it was Bessler's way of letting me know that my designs were moving in the right direction. These are real discoveries, but, unfortunately, only small STEPS along the way to the BIG ONE which, of course, will be THE design that Bessler found and used.

      Delete
  10. Yes , i agree. Until I see it on Nova, I guess it will be an imaginary toy.
    Doug

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't care what Nova or CNN or for all I care the Pope says and/or thinks. These are the same guys that have been proven right many times, but equally proven wrong at least as many times. (Real) science is the seeking (pursuit) of truth - in fact that is the literal meaning of the Greek word.

      Since most of us accept -on good, factual grounds- that Bessler spoke the truth and that his devices were the genuine thing, he must have found a way to achieve what he claimed and what all these (extremely well-educated and experienced) witnesses have attested to. Whether its genuinely perpetual motion is immaterial. He did something very clever in new and unexpected ways, and he did it purely mechanically.

      There *are* novel mechanical devices -such as my "beloved" 2-stage parametric oscillators- that gives us beneficial effects. The problem is how to apply it.

      Delete
    2. I like your viewpoint Andre,I concur with what you said.

      Delete
  11. Like Bessler, I also "finally made the right choice", and my physical wheel will now spontaneously rotate, but not a full turn, let alone minutes. Even with the simulations, I have not achieved full continuous rotation. I don't think anyone else has cracked it with simulations (I saw on a forum that someone had a running simulation, but it turned out that there some unrealistic parameter settings which are not possible in a real world).
    So... we are all still searching.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take heart Mimi,you're not alone.
      We've all been there.

      Delete
  12. The secret lies, I think, with mechanical advantage through parametric oscillation. That is (possibly several stages of) mechanical advantage, under the influence of gravitational acceleration. The (by now, patented) Feltenberger pump is a nice example.

    A simple pendulum with a crank. Swinging it results in reciprocal linear movement, which is amplified further, driving on both the upstroke and the downstroke a small but high-pressure hydraulic pump capable of displacing nearly 1 liter of fluid per second.

    Driving that hydraulic pump by hand (using a crank) is extremely difficult for even a strong adult. Swinging the pendulum (and thereby driving the pump) is so easy a small child can do it for hours. This way, that device produces 4000 liters of clean (reverse-osmosis) drinking water for 4000 people in 3 hours. Has been used extensively and successfully in disaster areas.

    Mechanical advantage and gravitational acceleration. Very powerful and effective.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, I've reached another point in my ongoing DT portrait clue analysis where Bessler seems to be offering me TWO distinct paths to follow and PURPOSELY inserts clues that seem to support BOTH approaches! I now have to choose one of these paths to pursue which means that I have a 50% chance of initially going down the wrong one!

    Mainly, I'm presented with a design path that requires TWO springs be attached to each of the 8 weighted levers inside one of his one-directional wheels or a design path which only uses a SINGLE spring per weighted lever. The clues suggesting the two spring approach are more numerous than the ones suggesting a single spring, but that was probably done on purpose to confuse a future reverse engineering mobilist. My gut is telling me to try the single spring approach first and exhaustively test that to see if it works. I've made it a habit of late to always start with the simplest designs first and only if they fail to move onto more complex ones.

    What makes testing potential "right track" designs for Bessler's wheels particularly daunting is that one can never test anything in isolation! Because of his "Connectedness Principle" one is obliged to always work with a one-directional model wheel containing all 8 weighted levers although, thankfully, one does not have to use all of the interconnecting cords and springs that would be attached to these weighted levers in a real physical model wheel (only the cords that are taut and the springs that are being stretched or relaxed during any 45 degree increment of drum rotation need be used).

    I've now set up a sort of "standard" test wheel for the various possible designs, whether one or two spring per lever, that should immediately tell me if I'm moving in the right direction or not. I won't consider any designs which go beyond a two spring per weighted lever limit because that, IMO, would definitely NOT be "simple". Right now, it's starting to look like the springs used in the Merseburg wheel had k values somewhere in the range of 5 to 10 lbs per inch and the springs themselves were definitely not more than 6 inches in length when UNstretched. Again, this seems to agree with my theory that Bessler was NOT making his own springs, but, rather, simply purchased standard ones that were available to him.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Andre
    Thanks for the reference to the Feltenberger pump, I hadn't heard of it before - although I am familiar with Milkovic. Your electrical device sounds intrigueing - do you have any description of it anywhere?
    Mimi

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mimi, I described that experiment in 2011. I found that post in the archives. You already know the Milkovic device, so just assume that standard "overbalanced" setup he uses where most of the weight of the reaction beam is on the left and the pendulum on the right.

      This is what I wrote to describe the experiment:

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

      Constructive collaboration indeed. Great work Arktos, and thanks also for the excellent details! This more or less confirms my simulation. However, the build is more promising than the simulation, I found, when one or two small modifications are made. I assume you had the simulation pendulum run from start to end until the oscillations dampened out to measure it?

      My observations were also that especially immediately after start - when the beam is gyrating up and down most forcefully - the effect is most pronounced. This requires a full swing. The effect can be varied a bit by modifying the pendulum bob's weight. It is important that the swing continues forcefully. Obviously a heavier bob has more potential and kinetic energy, and requires more to get started in the first place.

      Therefore the second modification I tested was a moving pendulum pivot. Only very small horizontal, abrupt movements are required when the bob swings backward, away from the output end of the beam. This can be achieved in several ways, both mechanically as well as electromechanically. I found the latter way much easier to implement and control, and also more precise. I used a springloaded solenoid to move the pivot, which wasn't very efficient, but nevertheless did the job very well. Pulsing the solenoid at the right moment using a simple photobridge it was easy to keep the pendulum going at full swing, maximizing the initial effect on the output beam.

      The solenoid required short, sharp pulses consuming 6 watts DC input (4 amps at 1,5 volts) from a standard regulated laboratory supply. With power supply losses taken into account this amounted to around 10 watts. I did not collect back-emf. Power consumption can be reduced to a fraction of that using a bifilar toroid coil placed at the attracting end of a spring-loaded permanent magnet attached to the pivot sliding mechanism. Unpowered the permanent magnet keeps the pivot stationary easily, however when the toroid is briefly pulsed it causes a temporary magnetic monopole, causing the magnet-spring combination temporarily to shift under the load of the spring. The pulses have to be very short and sharp, and not powerful at all so as not to saturate the core of the toroid. The back-emf of the collapsing magnet field after switching off the power can be harvested too, improving overall efficiency.

      To the output beam was attached, through pusher-rods, a 2-kilo flywheel with a 1:3 geared DC motor used as a generator or dynamo, with a heavy-duty resistive load. This setup wasn't able to rotate the flywheel completely so it merely yanked back and forth (also mechanically very inefficient) but yet it was able to generate 5 amps at 9.8 volts, about 49 watts. So, still, even with this crude and inefficient setup a COP of nearly 5 was obtained.

      Obviously, this entire setup is crude and very inefficient. The key here of course is to optimize the movements of the beam and maximize conversion of the mechanical movements into rotation, preferably high-speed rotation of a considerable mass. I expect that the IMS(*1) will do just that.

      Although the entire setup with IMS in no way resembles Bessler's invention, it should do the job. I'm excited about that, especially since the timing issues are much easier to control. Get the IMS up to speed, collect maximum power, decouple, and repeat. Efficiency and power generated should be much higher.

      (*1) Inertial Mass Swing system: a sungear with planetary gears. Small movements of the sungear drive the planetary gear sets (3 or more of them) up to very high speeds.

      Delete
    2. Some more I wrote about the IMS:

      The IMS (inertial mass swing) system is a simple but smart mechanical device converting centrifugal force into rotation. It's an expired German patent, but it's quite nifty with some smart tricks. Once up to speed, only remarkably small movements from the axle connected to the sungear are required to keep the entire planetary gear assembly rotating at remarkably high speeds. This should be able to drive a standard generator in pulsed mode or generate electricity directly by passing permanent magnets over a set of coils.

      Delete
    3. I have also been looking at parametric oscillation for a wheel with a pair of weights, one at each end of a single rod which can move radially. There is a spring between each weight and the central axle.

      This system needs to be started with a 90 degree phase shift, i.e. a clockwise-turning wheel is started with the 9 o'clock weight at its nearest point to the rim, (so the 3 o'clock weight is then nearest to the axle). The wheel speed is tuned to get one complete radial mass-spring oscillation of the weights per wheel revolution.

      Under these conditions, the amplitude, and therefore the energy contained in the oscillations, increases rapidly with each successive revolution. I suppose this counts as an example of parametric oscillation, although it is the force exerted by gravity, rather than β (damping) or ω² (frequency squared) that is being varied. (It is being varied twice per cycle, which is a key feature of parametric oscillation. See under "The mathematics" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_oscillator ).

      What interests me about this approach is that it is an example of gravity *always* acting in the desired direction, i.e. of always increasing the oscillation energy.

      As could be expected for such a simple system, there is no net energy gain. The orthodox explanation would be that energy must always be taken from the wheel to compensate for the oscillation energy gain. But I'm not (yet) entirely sure that that has to be so under all circumstances.

      Delete
    4. No net gain - if one takes into account the effort required to get the system going? That, AFAIC, doesn't count in the sense that once it is going gravity keeps increasing oscillation energy. And that's indeed the interesting part and the "amplifier" effect we're after. Sounds very useful to me.

      In my experiment with the (electromechanical) Milkovic variety one could (validly) postulate "no net gain" since the energy required to get the pendulum going (up to full swing) is roughly equal to the output harvested on the output beam. If we subsequently switch off the input and let the oscillations dampen out, there's no net gain. Sure. But is that relevant? I say, no.

      What motivates me is that once the system is up to speed, the output greatly exceeds the input (COP>=5). From there on it's basically a matter of engineering, no matter how much energy was expended to get it going in the first place. Over time that effect is far more useful.

      I'd say you have something interesting there!

      Delete
    5. I agree that getting the system going is one of the issues that can and should be separated out and tackled later on. Another one would be how to get the ever-increasing oscillation energy to drive the wheel. Both are solvable problems; not as difficult or important as getting a net energy gain.

      I just start my models with a rotational-speed macro to immediately force a constant wheel speed, tuned to the oscillation frequency. I then record graphs of mass KE, spring length (to get spring stored energy) and also wheel torque versus wheel angle (to get energy being taken from or delivered to the wheel. I have to record that graph as a text file, plot points in a CAD program, and then integrate it, i.e. find its area, to get ∫τ.dθ).

      The problem is that so far, in my constant-speed wheel, everything balances out. Yes, mass KE continually increases (at minimum-amplitude) as does spring energy (at maximum-amplitude), but energy is also being taken from the wheel, in just the amount that any skepic would predict!

      It's a pity that gravity cannot act radially outwards below a horizontal centerline, and radially inwards above it. I'm pretty sure that would work!

      Delete
    6. Arktos wrote: "It's a pity that gravity cannot act radially outwards below a horizontal centerline, and radially inwards above it. I'm pretty sure that would work!"

      You can't do that with gravity fields, but it can be done with magnetic fields. I spent several years trying to make an OB wheel in which the magnet weights arriving at the 6:00 position would repelled upward and toward the wheel's center while those that arrived at 12:00 were lifted up and away from the center. It certainly looked like it would work on paper, but the actual models NEVER worked! It turned out that the magnetic repulsions before the anticipated 6:00 lift and the attractions after the 12:00 lift ALWAYS produced enough counter torque to COMPLETELY cancel out any driving torque to the axle that was caused by the OB of the magnetic weights.

      Shortly after than disappointment, I never touched magnets again...

      Delete
    7. TG, Your idea seems a bit like Kozeka's, see http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Kedron:Eden_Project:Permanent_Magnet_Energy_Gain (or just search "Kozeka").

      Kozeka's approach isn't promising, but I certainly wouldn't rule out extracting energy from permanent magnets.

      Delete
  15. Hey JC, how his life is in danger, that he is producing a gravity wheel?
    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get the **** out of here you fear mongering troll .

      Delete
    2. There is enough radio active waste at fukishima nuclear power plant to kill all life on earth , if there were to be another earthquake and it got released into the athmosphere .
      All LIFE ON EARTH IS IN DANGER .
      I AM TRYING TO SAVE THE ENTIRE WORLD BY ATTEMPTING TO SOLVE THE BESSLER WHEEL .
      PLEASE HELP ME TO SAVE THE WORLD .

      Delete
    3. If one random meteor big enough hits one of the nuclear power stations in the world , that is all it would take and all life on earth would be ended , every plant animal and human gone forever .

      Delete
    4. Do you understand how nuclear power stations work?

      Delete
  16. Oh, jeez.
    Start a new topic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None of those negative vibes, Doug. It's a good topic.

      Delete
    2. Referring to the discussion, of course, not the nuclear-fear mongering.

      Delete
  17. Now that they know that JC can't block IP addresses, this blog could become a super conducting magnet for every troll on the web! Start a new topic??? Maybe it's time to start a new BLOG...on ANOTHER site where IP addresses CAN be blocked! Meanwhile, I don't know what's going on, but the pages here are downloading slower than ever for me. Also seems like they're attempting to put more "add-ons" and other parasitic scripts onto my hard drive than ever before. I'm now using the Advanced setting from my Internet Options page to automatically delete my Temporary Internet Folders when I close the browser so as to try to keep as much of this crap from winding up on my hard drive as possible.


    Well, I have some VERY "good" news to report.

    With the completion of today's computer modeling session, I managed, for the first time since I began working with my "right track" design approach to Bessler's wheels several years ago, to finally get my 9:00 going to 10:30 drum position weighted levers to nearly immediately reverse their swing direction as their pivots passed the 9:00 position so that their weights would rise CONTINUOUSLY toward their rim stops throughout the remainder of the 45 degree interval of drum rotation. This then agrees with Bessler's VERY important AP clue about his wheels' "which hang below" rising "in a flash". This is a major advance for me and, more importantly, it was done by only using a SINGLE k = 5 lb per inch spring attached to the levers! This proves to me that Bessler only used ONE spring on each of his wheel's weighted levers and that, as I suspected, the two springs per lever clues in the two DT portraits are only misleading "decoy" clues designed to prompt future reverse engineering mobilists into overly complicating their designs.

    Unfortunately, while that portion of my model wheel is working just fine, I now have another annoying problem that I am wrestling with. Mainly, the method I used to achieve that "miracle" motion for the weighted levers passing the 9:00 position of the drum has caused me to lose the verticality of my 7:30 weighted lever and that, consequently, is pulling my model's weights' CoM right under the axle where I definitely do NOT want it to reside. I must continue working with my present wheel and magic lever design to see if I can remedy this undesirable situation. IF so, then I could finally have THE solution well ahead of THIS Christmas!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction:

      That sentence in the 3rd paragraph above, "This then agrees with Bessler's VERY important AP clue about his wheels' "which hang below" rising "in a flash".", should have been "This then agrees with Bessler's VERY important AP clue about his wheels' WEIGHTS "which hang below" rising "in a flash"."

      My bad...sorry.

      Delete
    2. No offense TG but I often have trouble envisioning what exactly you are describing. I'm thick, I know, but is it correct if I assume this is based on Leopold's wheel - using the interconnected cords and the springs to reset levers selectively? A drawing or simulation would be extremely helpful.

      Delete
    3. PART I:

      @ Andre

      Sorry if you are a bit confused by my verbal descriptions. Such is the problem of a blog that limits us to text only. In time, IF I reach the end of that "right track" approach I repeatedly refer to, then I will be posting drawings and simulations on another host site to finally reveal the "secret" of Bessler's wheels.

      You are basically correct. Bessler's one-directional wheels and two-directional wheels' one-directional "sub wheels" were the same as Leupold's Lever Wheel with the exception that Bessler used 8 weighted levers instead of 12 like Leupold did.

      Imagine the hollow drum of one of Bessler's one-directional wheels rotating CW and its various positions corresponding to CERTAIN of the times on a clock dial. There would then be 8 positions which, starting at 6:00, would be 6:00, 7:30, 9:00, 10:30, 12:00, 1:30, 3:00, and, finally, 4:30. As the drum rotates CW, EACH of its weighted levers' pivots will momentarily pass through each of these FIXED drum positions. It's important to realize that the drum and its attached (through their pivots) weighted levers rotate around the axle while we can imagine the drum positions as sort of floating stationary in space and used only for positional reference purposes.

      Each of the weighted levers also has it own rim stop which is attached to the inside surface of the hollow drum. When a weighted lever's weight (a cylindrical piece of lead that is held lengthwise between the tines of a fork at the end of the levers) is in contact its rim stop, the lever for that weight will be perfectly aligned with the radial drum support member that contains the brass bearing pieces that hold the lever's pivot which is formed from a thin rod of steel (and well lubricated).

      Imagine that we could look inside of the drum of one of Bessler's one-directional wheels as it rotated CW and follow the shifting / swinging motion of ONE of its 8 weighted levers. Let's start with the weighted lever at the 6:00 position.

      We note that, when it is at 6:00, the lever's weight is hanging straight down and barely touching its rim stop. As the lever's pivot moves on to the 7:30 position of the drum, the weighted lever swings CCW about its pivot and remains pointing straight down. This is the "verticality" that I sometimes refer to and maintaining it is VERY important to keeping the CoM of ALL of the 8 weights within a one-directional wheel projected as far onto the descending side as possible (which produces maximum driving torque to the axle).

      Between 7:30 and 9:00, the weighted lever we are following continues to rotate CCW about its pivot and reaches a maximum angle away from its rim stop by the time its pivot finally reaches 9:00. This angle is less than 90 degrees and the weighted lever is NO longer vertically oriented.

      As the weighted lever passes the 9:00 position of the drum, it will almost immediately change the direction it swings in and begin rotating CW about its pivot and will continue to do so until the pivot reaches the 3:00 position. The lever's weight will then either make contact before the pivot reaches 3:00 or shortly thereafter (I'm still working out the details of this).

      Delete
    4. PART II:

      Inside of the one-directional wheel there are basically THREE types of actions taking placed. As weighted levers move from 6:00 to 7:30, they stretch springs that are attached between them and a certain location within the drum (again, I'm still working out the precise details of this). As a weighted lever moves between 7:30 and 9:00, it literally lifts ALL of the other weighted levers which are moving between 9:00 and either 3:00 or 4:30 (still working out the details of this). This lifting action is only possible for the one weighted lever to do because all of the other weighed levers leading it have, through a system of interconnecting cords and contracting springs, been so carefully counter balanced that they are virtually WEIGHTLESS!

      Incredibly, if one could travel back in time and reach inside of the Merseburg wheel and then touch the weighted lever located at the 9:00 drum position of its active sub wheel, he would notice that he could actually lift the 4 lb weight at the end of the lever there with ONE finger because it would feel like it only weighted a few ounces!

      There you have the basics of the "right track" approach that I use in my Bessler research. It is ALL based on the various clues in the Bessler literature with a HEAVY emphasis on the clues in the two DT portraits which, INCREDIBLY, most Bessler mobilists either don't believe exist or, if they do, of which they are nearly COMPLETELY unaware! After many years of failed attempts, this is the ONLY approach that I've ever used which IS showing continuous progress for me and I do not hesitate to recommend it to anybody else who wants to FINALLY start getting REAL results.

      Of course, it's a bit more complicated than the general description I've given here. One must still determine the EXACT shape of the "magic" levers Bessler used and then one must still find the correct starting orientations for all of the 8 weighted levers at the beginning of a 45 degree increment of CW drum rotation. Finally, one must determine the pattern of interconnecting cords that he refers to as his "Connectedness Principle" AND the correct k values of the springs he used. If one can successfully determine all of this, then he will finally reach the end of the "right track" that Bessler found and be rewarded with his own "House of Richters" experience...a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel that continuously maintains the OB of its weights' CoM despite the continous rotation of their carrier drum.

      It's a LOT of work and will take even a VERY dedicated mobilist YEARS to complete. He must study the DT portrait clues and build / computer model DAILY if he is to have ANY hope of finally successfully reverse engineering Bessler's wheels. Even with all of this going for him (or her), a GREAT deal of luck will also be required. Right now, I figure only a few in a 1000 mobilists would have what it takes. I'm hoping (and praying!) that I might be one of those VERY rare individuals so that this mystery can finally be solved. 300 years is way TOO long to wait!

      Delete
    5. Thanks TG. I shall read and re-read it several times, and have it sink in. I think I already have a more clear mental picture of what you're describing. I'm always open to ideas, and I must say that I found it sometimes hard to follow but I do find it very interesting. Thanks for your explanation. Indeed, 300 years is too long and we need that breakthrough!

      Delete
  18. Thanks for sharing your build ideas, Andre, Arktos and TG. Thanks for the link on parametric oscillation, Arktos - I have bookmarked it, it seems very important to me.
    I have long suspected that the Bessler wheel uses mechanical constraints to get the wheel to reach a naturally resonant state.
    In my own build (purely mechanical, 3-symmetry based on Besslers drawing in AP) I am now looking into coupling the movements of the weight moving outwards with the weight moving inwards, because otherwise the wheel slows down too much when one weight moves out to the rim and the other one stays stationary (conservation of angular momentum). I have had a lot going on at work and also in my private life, so that progress has been slow lately. But am going to my holiday house alone for a week and hope to get some modeling/building done then. Will let you know how I progress.
    I have also noticed BTW, that writing to this blog is painfully slow, seems to lock and freeze at times. I now write my comment in an editing program and copy/paste to the blog. Otherwise I would lose my marbles...

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have been recommnding the study of parametric oscillation for several years and have a website explaining my theory at http://www.besslerswheel.com/

    My apologies for those who are finding their posts slow to load, I do not know what I can do about that, but I'll look into it to see if there is anything I can do.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's working fine here, and I'm -literally- half a planet away. I suspect that its a temporary internet thing - its not exactly the most reliable network ever invented ;-)

      Delete
    2. Thank goodnes it's ok somewhere! Thanks Andre.

      JC

      Delete
    3. My connection is fine in South Africa.

      Delete
  20. Excellent, so, Philippines, Andre? South Africa, Trevor, me UK. Who else is from where?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, Philippines at the moment. Last week I was in (South!)Korea and it was very good there too, but then again these guys have the best technical infrastructure anywhere. Same goes for Hong Kong, always fast. But I have to admit that its not always the case; not always optimal. But right now its fine.

      Delete
    2. "But I have to admit that its not always the case; not always optimal" should be "But I have to admit that its not always the case; not always optimal in Asia". Apologies.

      Delete
    3. Your blog loads fine from "down under". (I'm in New Zealand currently, although sometimes in Australia; occasionally Malaysia).

      Delete
    4. Tennessee. Comcast isp is 2nd banana to internet speed in Aisa; and it's expensive speed.
      My browser has been loading web pages blank at random times; or with a long pause it didn't used to have. I need to get in there and clean it up.

      Delete
  21. So many evil people, and it is a board on which a just cause should unite! TG perhaps poorly translated in google, but no right to insult anyone,! Because it is very boring shit what you wear are usually not even read.
    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There has always been trouble over the bessler wheel , ever since 1712 and nothing has changed to this day .

      Delete
    2. I think your translation is wrong. He didn't insult anyone or discuss his attire.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for defending me, Doug.

      Here's the latest status of my Bessler research.

      I reported last time that I had finally, after years of effort, managed to get my 9:00 going to 10:30 drum position weights to rise smoothly and continuously after their lever's pivot passed the 9:00 position of a CW rotating drum. The problem that popped up when this "miracle" motion was achieved was that the particular spring aggrangement that allowed it to take place was also destroying the verticality of my 7:30 position weighted lever and, consequently, ruining the OB of my 8 weighted lever wheel. The final OB of the wheel's CoM is VERY sensitive to the verticality of this single weighted lever and EVERY effort MUST be made to keep the lever as vertically oriented as possible if one wants to maximize the driving torque the wheel will develop as well as the maximum terminal rotation rate that the wheel will attain when running freely.

      After today's computer modeling session, however, I found a really BIZARRE, yet still simple, way of eliminating this annoying problem and it IS suggested in one of the DT portraits! I had been looking at it for years, but did not realize the true significance of the clue. Now, I'm getting ready to modify my previous model to see if this mechanical gimmick works. I suspect that it will and it even looks like a trick that an organmaker might use.

      Currently, my "right track" design Bessler one-directional wheel has 8 weighted levers, 24 interconnecting cords between the levers, and 8 cords that connect the levers to helical springs whose other ends are "anchored" to critical points within the drum. It should be possible to arrange all of these 32 cords into just 3 parallel "layers" within the wheel so that no two cords will rub together and fray during continuous drum rotation. I don't think I can make the design any simpler than this and, indeed, it is VERY simple, yet also VERY novel in certain ways.

      Delete

The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...