Although I am unable to do any work on my wheel currently, I thought I'd update you on the situation as it is. I'm still working with five mechanisms for reasons I have explained on my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/
You will also see that I am committed to the parametric oscillation theory in which a weight passes downwards in an outer position, relative to the axle, and then at six o'clock flies upwards in just the same way that a 'kiiking ' rider straightens his legs at that point in order to raise his centre of gravity towards the axle.
I am currently striving to get the weights to operate in the way Bessler described, shooting upwards at that point. I completely understand why they must perform this part quickly and I can make each one ascend gently, but not actually shoot upwards and the result is that the lift is a too late.
The idea is that once the wheel has completed a fifth of a turn, the next mechanisms acts in the same way to continue the rotation, however without a quick lift, the next mechanism doesn't arrive at the position in which it has to rise! I believe I know how to improve the speed of the lift and make it shoot upwards and once I've constructed it and proved to myself that that part of the mechanism works, I should in theory be able to move on to the next bit which is constructing a fully working wheel.
The chief problem I have encountered over the last couple of years is getting the mechanism adjusted correctly. I know that is an excuse everyone uses, but in truth, copying a working wheel might have seemed easy to Karl, who suggested it was so simple a carpenter's boy could make one if he was allowed to st udy it for a short while, but trying to get it right from scratch with nothing to guide you except some misleading clues is another matter. In my case I have had to fall back on trial and error and it is a lengthy process but I remain confident that I shall get there eventually. As before, once I know imy work is not going to result in a working model, I will release all my designs for public consumption.
By the way, the delay in wheel work is due to members of my family moving in to our house for a few months, but hopefully once the move is completed in the next couple of weeks, I can get back to work on my wheel.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
"...and then at six o'clock flies upwards in just the same way that a 'kiiking ' rider straightens his legs at that point in order to raise his centre of gravity towards the axle."
ReplyDeleteYes, that is fine, but as your 6:00 weight "flies upwards", the OTHER weight that drives it must also fly downwards. In effect, EACH of your "pentagramatic" wheel's five independently operating "perpetual motion structures" will, after completing its particular FULL trip around the axle, have acted like TWO "kiiking" riders that perfectly opposed each other during the trip so that there is no net torque acting on your wheel during a complete rotation. Trying to overcome this problem by sequencing or even somewhat overlapping the instantaneous torques of several "pairs" of weights will, unfortunately, NOT solve the problem...if you can not achieve PM with a SINGLE pair of weights, then you also should not be able to achieve it with ANY number of symmetrically arranged pairs. I wish I could be more encouraging, but that pesky 3rd Law of Motion is always there messing up our wheels. It should be repealed immediately! LOL!
This is not, however, a problem with the design that I am currently working on as long as its weights' CoM continuously STAYS on the wheel's descending side during drum rotation. That, however, requires that the weights whose lever pivots pass the 9:00 position of a CW rotating drum "rise in a flash" during each 45 degree increment of drum rotation (thus moving them a bit closer to their rim stops). And that "minor" mechanical miracle requires that the levers be PRECISELY interconnected to each other with cords AND have two springs attached to each of them in a VERY special way.
Seeing how difficult it is to find the right combination of component parameters employing something as quick and easy to use as modeling / simulation software has given me a far greater respect for Bessler when I consider that he had to find the right combination while working on a 36 inch diameter physical prototype one-directional wheel using, most likely, only oil lamps to illuminate his work area at night while also having to earn a living during the day to support himself and a large family. His accomplishment is TRULY a testament to human ingenuity and perserverance in the face of overwhelming odds AGAINST success. Sort of like a man without arms and legs successfully managing to climb to the top of Mount Everest!
No need to make apologies about the delays in the adjustments to and testing of your wheel, John. Such disappointing delays tend to be the NORM in the PM field. I had intended to proudly announce that I had finally solved the Bessler wheel mystery LAST Wednesday, October 31st to celebrate the 297th anniversary of the successful "official examination" of the Mersebury wheel back in 1715. Yet, here I am almost a week later and have not yet completed the final Stage 2 verification testing of the design that MUST be successfully completed BEFORE any such announcement can be made. Of course, I did have a good excuse considering the local damage done by hurricane "Sandy" and my now nearly complete mental and physical exhaustion caused by the massive cleanup operation she left for me in her wake.
Hopefully, I'll make a start on the final verification testing THIS week. If what I have works, then fine, the mystery is solved. If it does not work, then it's time to return to those all important DT portrait clues and see if a few particular symbols in them can be reinterpreted in a way that will allow a new spring arrangement to be tried that might finally be THE one Bessler used.
John, from your third paragraph I assume you can get a weight to rise through the required distance, and so gain the required potential energy, but that it takes too long. Provided that energy is not being lost in some other way, such as an overall reduction in the weight's velocity, that problem should be solvable.
ReplyDeleteI'd suggest taking energy from a strong spring to accelerate the weight and raise it as quickly as required, then use another spring to decelerate it so that it ends up at the correct height. With the potential energy already gained as assumed above, the second spring should gain all the energy given up by the first, i.e. there should be no net loss of spring stored energy.
I just LOVE to see mobilists discussing the use of SPRINGS in a design!
Delete"might have seemed easy to Karl, who suggested it was so simple a carpenter's boy could make one if he was allowed to st udy it for a short while"
ReplyDeleteDid Karl actually say anything about studying it "for a short while"? I didn't read that in your quote in your book. I believe he just said that it was so simple that a carpenter's boy could build one after seeing it. No mention of 'a short while'. I think you're trying to make it sound like it must be more complicated than it really was, because you can't find the solution...
You're right anon, I was mistaken in including the words 'for a short while', but what an odd conclusion to reach! No such intention was in my mind and I have no desire to make it sound like it must be more complicated than it really was, because I can't find the solution.
DeleteJC
I'd like to make a comment or two on the last post.
ReplyDeleteHere we go.
http://ltcconline.net/greenl/courses/202/vectorIntegration/FTLI.htm
Is wind a conservative force?
"With this vector field, work is dependent on the path that is taken."
In the plane-wind system, the plane can fly A - B - A and the wind will have done more than zero work on the plane. In the opposite direction, less than zero work. In the same path on both legs, zero work (dependent on the path; nonconservative).
In the plane example, the wind has opposite vectors inside the system, and can be converted to mechanical energy (and nonzero work in a cycle) by the plane.
Nonconservative forces
"Can only arise in classical physics due to neglected degrees of freedom."
Degrees of freedom
"In physics, a degree of freedom of a system is a formal description of a parameter that contributes to the state of a physical system."
Nonconservative Forces
"For instance, friction may be treated without resorting to the use of nonconservative forces by considering the motion of individual molecules;"
So if we observe a system without neglecting degrees of freedom, the nonconservative forces we resorted to before are shown to be contributing to the system. Their force is conserved as another form of energy and escapes the observed system after the contribution, it isn't conserved within the system we observed. In other words, we call it negative (less than zero) work. This is the logic behind the conservation of energy law.
CoE defines what happens for any number of weights mounted on a wheel, not just one weight. CoE proves one weight can't drive a wheel, yes; it also proves many weights can't drive a wheel once you account for nonconservative forces and their contribution. The whole argument against gravitywheels is *not* based on the calculation of one weight operating the wheel and not several. If we had to pin the argument against gravitywheels to a single factor, it is that gravity is a conservative force. Gravitywheels wouldn't do positive work even in the absence of nonconservative forces. If you built an OB gravity wheel in a vacuum with frictionless parts, it would turn from the initial OB until it eventually balanced, because gravity isn't making a net positive contribution even in the absence of friction.
An overshot water wheel *would* work with one bucket. The water would have to start from a higher point than normal. The inertia gained carries it from 6 - 12. Heavy on one side, lighter on the other. It just wouldn't do as much work as a normal water wheel, it would be less efficient.
Is water a conservative force?
ReplyDeleteIn the water cycle, the water has opposite vectors inside the system. One vector opposes gravity because the water undergoes a phase change to a vapor. Water doesn't have to boil to become a vapor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor
The phase change to a vapor makes water (the weights in the cycle) lighter than air; causing it to rise inside the system. It cools and condenses into rain and its energy can be captured and converted to mechanical energy (nonzero work in the water cycle) by wheels and dams.
Is gravity a conservative force?
Gravity only has a one directional vector. In the water example, something has to oppose gravity's vector so there will be an antigravity vector. The kinetic energy of light is that magic lever.
In the plane example, the plane is thrusting through a ramp of air. Through the *magic* of aerodynamic force, another topic, the lift component is more than the drag component, and the plane rises against its own weight. To relate this to the water example, a solar powered plane could fly *perpetually* (in a geosynchronous orbit)as long as it stayed above the cloud cover; with a bank of batteries it could also fly under the clouds at times.
John: "Gravity-enabled wheels use position-changes of their weights to interact with gravity for a mechanical advantage."
Changing positions only gives a mechanical advantage *one* time. The other argument against gravitywheels is the leverage law.
BOTH water flow and wind can be considered to provide EITHER conservative OR NON-conservative force fields DEPENDING upon the geometric properties of the objects to which they are transferring some of their moving microscopic particles' kinetic energy / mass. For example, if one were to construct a windmill with blades whose pitch could be altered with respect to the incoming wind, then it would be possible, by varying the pitch angle of the blades, to make the blades spin in EITHER direction or NOT to spin at all! The same holds true for water flow. This, however, does NOT apply to gravity because the force it exerts on objects is independent of their shapes or orientations.
DeleteYou wrote (or was it an anonymous Wiki author?!): "Changing positions [presumerably of the weights inside of an OB PM gravity wheel) only gives a mechanical advantage *one* time."
The whole purpose of an OB wheel is to CONTINUOUSLY provide a "mechanical advantage" so that the wheel will stay in motion as it keeps the CoM of its weights constantly fixed on the wheels descending side.
Thanks Doug, for your detailed explanation, all of which I am fully cognisant of. I promised myself that I wouldn't respond to anything that required me to explain my theory which will give a more than one time mechanical advantage and how to accommodate the leverage law. So I accept your argument but reserve my defence!
ReplyDeleteJC
You're welcome.
DeleteIf you are cognizant of wind and water not being conservative forces, why do you keep saying : "Secondly, we've been taught that gravity is a conservative force and therefore it cannot be used as a source of energy. I have repeatedly pointed out that the forces of wind and water are also conservative forces and they provide excellent sources of energy. You can't have it both ways; either a conservative force cannot be used as an energy source.... or it can! " ?
It can't. Gravity can't be used as a source of energy. Wind and water, yes, for the reasons I've shown.
Your theory which would give a more than one time mechanical advantage while accommodating the leverage law is not a theory, it's a working hypothesis based on flawed logic. Theories are propositions based on observation, that have been tested and then become principles or laws.
Parametric oscillation requires external energy. It has no defense!
Just to be clear, I'm trying to help.
ReplyDeleteThe mystery won't be solved unless the solution passes the basics.
Agreed. IF OB PM gravity wheels are real, then they MUST obey all known laws of mechanics and physics. Since, while rotating, they are continuously outputting energy / mass to overcome various drags and operate outside devices, then that energy / mass MUST come from a source. IF the source is not external, then it MUST be internal.
DeleteIF the wheel outputs energy / mass at a high enough rate for a long enough time, then it can not be using a "conventional" power source such as changes in ambient air pressure or temperature, tanks of compressed air, wound mainsprings, or falling drive weights. That being the case, one must look elsewhere and, specifically, at the lead weights used inside of the wheel to maintain the OB of the weights' CoM.
Those weights contain an ENORMOUS quantity of what I call "innate" energy / mass (and which, in relativity theory, might be referred to as "rest mass"). I am quite convinced that the "key" to tapping that innate energy / mass lies SOLELY in just MAINTAINING the OB of the weights' CoM during wheel rotation (something all OB wheel mobilists seem to instinctively "know", but can not verbalize). That highly unusual situation apparently will continuously extract the innate energy / mass of the wheel's weights and make it available to both accelerate the wheel and perform outside work. Explaining EXACTLY how this can happen, however, I have found to be a bit difficult because it inevitably gets one involved in discussing HOW the weights within such an OB wheel would have to shift about as it rotated so as to maintain the OB of their CoM.
If I may jump in here Doug,..The mystery has been solved.You can used gravity against itself to accomplish perpetual motion.
ReplyDeleteNow I know I keep promising to show you a working wheel but putting it into mechanical form is taking a bit longer than I thought because,although the secret principle is deep but simple,the configuration is complcated and intricate,I have to design as I go.
Be sure I definitely have the mystery solved,I am hoping ,one more week.
Doug, I meant that I am familiar with your argument - and despite your continued determination to correct my apparently basic errors I will continue to maintain that Bessler's wheel derived its energy from falling weights which were reacting to the force of gravity.
ReplyDeleteI reread your comments above and I feel as though you are missing the point I'm trying to make. You appear to be presenting proof that I'm wrong rather than trying to understand the points I'm making. To me it is clear that Bessler drew his energy ultimately from the force of gravity and therefore I'm trying to find a way to show how that might be possible.
You are rehashing the same old arguments and not seeing the whole picture. I understand why you are taking that stance, it is good for bringing us back to earth, but I see the mystery as something to be solved by some lateral thinking rather than simply relying on the basics which are set in stone but might be circumvented without chipping at them trying to alter them in some way.
I am certain that all that you say is true and yet I am equally certain that, for instance, that the so-called leverage law can be used to our advantage, and I do know how!
JC
John, you're starting to sound more like me by the day! I'm overjoyed to read such things as:
Delete"I will continue to maintain that Bessler's wheel derived its energy from falling weights which were reacting to the force of gravity."
So much nicer and more accurate than your previous discussions about "gravity wind" and such. I guess the mounting objections you received to that approach have finally reformed your opinion! Now if I can only get you to start using the more accurate term "energy / mass" instead of just energy, then it will be obvious to you that the energy outputted by Bessler's wheels could only have come from ONE source: the energy / mass content of their lead weights. Also, from the "tone" of your last few blog entries, you seem to now be more firmly embracing the OB approach to how Bessler's wheels worked. That is, IMO, the best approach to take IF one hopes to ever get results.
Doug, I am not sure I am getting your point about the difference between wind/water and gravity as conservative forces. I would phrase it this way: there are local fluctuations in wind/water that can be used to our advantage, although the overall picture (over the whole earth? the whole universe?) would cancel out all forces. It is questionable whether the earth and even the universe are closed systems... isn't it? As for gravity: we don't know whether it is a closed system. We don't know for sure whether there is only one direction for gravity to work - obviously gravity originating from other heavenly bodies works on us from other directions (think of the moon and the tides). Also, there is a founded suspicion of many experimentors such as Laithewaite and De Palma that rotating bodies on earth seem to have unexpected properties. I think rotation is not fully explained/exploited to date.
ReplyDelete"It is questionable whether the earth and even the universe are closed systems... isn't it?"
DeleteI guess this depends upon one's definition of a "closed" system. After the beginning of the 20th century, a closed system became one which energy / mass could neither enter nor escape from. In other words, a region of space where the quantity of energy / mass remained constant.
IF the universe is infinite in spatial extent and the amount of energy / mass it contains is also infinite as seems to be the case, then, ON AVERAGE, the quantity of energy / mass contained in ANY large cubical volume of it (a cube that would have edges 1 BILLION light years long!) will be the same regardless of where in this infinite universe one decides to make a measurement. Even though energy / mass will constantly be entering and leaving that volume of space (in the form of electromagnetic and particle radiations as well as flying debris) which would require it to be described as an "open" system, the TOTAL quantity of energy / mass that volume of space contains always stays close to the "universal" average, so that, by that property, the volume of space can be also considered to be "closed". Thus, the entirety of our infinite universe can be considered to be made up of an infinite number of cubical volumes of space each of which can be considered to be BOTH "open" AND "closed"!
Infinity has a way of forcing us to fuse together completely opposite concepts!
I also think that our current understanding of physics, even of quite simple mechanical systems involving inertia, rotation etc, is far from complete. Personally I favour Relational Mechanics, which is really a development of Newton's ideas as opposed to Einstein's. See e.g. Prof Andre Assis' book at http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/relationalmechanics.htm and books by Peter and Neal Graneau.
DeleteHowever, I think that any true follower of Relational Mechanics will have to accept the concept of instantaneous action at a distance, which seems to be too much for most orthodox physicists at present.
Springs springs springs ;)
ReplyDeleteJon
I hate to break the news to you guys but all the required learning and consideration of the mechanics of Bessler's wheel has occurred . I now know the secret of both types of wheel . I encourage you all to go ahead and take that " next step " in your designs which will either validate or invalidate them . Recently , starting from the simplest of concepts , encouraged by my nephew to pursue a particular idea which he " liked ", I FORCED myself to conceive the details of the device . Which type of wheel shall I produce first ? It turns out that the difference ( between the two types of wheel ) is a simple modification taking several second to complete at the most .
ReplyDeleteyawn ...........................
DeleteI have over a dozen different Bessler wheels that actually work , i will build them all someday when i have time .
ReplyDeleteI'd be overjoyed to just have ONE that worked!
Delete
DeleteI will give you one , what is your address ! and i will send it to you .
Your options are wheel A , B , C , D , E , F , G , H , I, J , K , L , M or N .
DeleteChoose one and i will send it to you if you want .
What would you rather I say ? The usual springs and five mechanisms ?
ReplyDeleteIf I had a wheel that revolves of it's own accord rest assured I would not publicize the design . If you want something for nothing you will have to think of it yourself ...and when you've done that be sure and not tell anyone about it .
DeleteUnfortunately, unless the design is eventually revealed, then, for all practical purposes, it's as though it never existed and the inventor can establish no priority to the design.
DeleteLet's hear the silence of you not saying that you are 90+/-% finished with the right track wheel . If you can't hold back , which I know you can't then you get the point .
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you this :
DeleteRegardless of whether I'm right or wrong about my design I have put a mountain of thought into this .I would bet good money that I've put more into it than anyone else you've ever heard of . I have a very good feeling that I am right about this ... and if I am then it opens up a lot of possibilities . I don't need some joker who won't even identify himself trying to burst my bubble . Everyone makes claims here or there in one way or another , whether it's claiming to know that details or just being on the "right track " . For those seriously anticipating the eventual production of a wheel of this kind I would say to you that many of us are trying , some harder than others and you may receive your satisfaction soon enough . I know this is John's blog and his ideas are being publicized here ... but I am not a blind follower of anyone and I don't respect anyone's opinion about the mechanics or principles involved . Obviously there was something we didn't understand about Bessler's device and he tried to tell us what it was without spoiling it for us . I have accepted the challenge and eventually it will be known whether I have done a good job of it . So hold your tongue if you can otherwise you may find your foot in your mouth .
" I don't need some joker who won't even identify himself trying to burst my bubble "
DeleteIf you really had the solution, how could anybody "burst your bubble"?
You can't , but you are trying to .
DeleteI have VERY depressing news to report...
ReplyDeleteEarlier today I completed the Stage 2 verification testing of my current "right track" design and...it FAILED to pass this critical testing!
With the spring tensions of my "right track" 4:1 scale model of a Merseburg wheel's one-directional sub wheel set to a value of k = 0.31250 lb/in (4 lb/in for the full sized Merseburg wheel's springs), the 7:30 going to 9:00 wheel position weighted lever was NOT able to gradually and smoothly lift ALL of the weights moving between 9:00 and 3:00 closer to their rim stops during a 45 degree increment of wheel rotation as would have been happening in Bessler's actual 36 in. diameter tabletop prototype...the same one that Karl would have paid Bessler the 4,000 thalers to examine.
I could, however, get the lifting action to take place IF I boosted the k values of the springs up to 1.00000 lb/in (16 lb/in for the full sized Merseburg wheel!), but this was an UNacceptably high value and it actually prevented the 6:00 going to 7:30 weighted lever's weight from stretching the two spring attached to it; that is, this k value was so high that it actually kept the weight at the end of this lever pinned against its rim stop so that, when its pivot reached the 7:30 wheel position, the lever was NOT vertically oriented which is a condition that is CRITICAL to projecting the CoM of the design's 8 weights as far out onto the wheel's descending side as possible. Also, I noticed that this high k value would only cause the shifting of the four weighted levers moving between 9:00 and 3:00 LATE in the 45 degree increment of wheel rotation. This is unacceptable because the delay allows the CoM of the design's 8 weights to swing over to the wheel's ascending side before the shifting action occurs (even assuming that the 7:30 lever is vertical at that position).
Well, that's the "bad" news. It's obvious that, until these problems are resolved, I will be remaining at 99.5% of the way down the "right track" toward success for the present time. Consequently, I can not now legitimately announce that the Bessler wheel mystery has been solved which I wanted to do as a tribute to the successful October 31st, 1715 "official" examination of Bessler's Merseburg wheel.
Now it's time for me to do a full "post mortem" of the design to see what might be done to make it work. Even before this, however, it's obvious that, although the 9:00 to 3:00 weighted levers and their attached springs are counter balanced enough for them to hold their positions during wheel startup, they are NOT reducing the effective weights of the 9:00 moving to 12:00 weights enough so as to allow the SINGLE weighted lever moving from 7:30 to 9:00 to lift these weights closer to their rim stops gradually and continuously throughout the entire 45 degree interval of wheel rotation.
At this point, I am still committed to using two springs per weighted lever because the DT portrait clues are quite emphatic about this detail, but there must be some other arrangement of the springs that is required. I will soon be returning to the two DT portraits to see if, possibly, there is some clue there regarding the spring arrangement that I previously misinterpreted or if there is a clue there that I did not "see" due to the still insufficient resolving power of those eyeglasses Bessler offered me in the second portrait. But, I have NO doubt that the answer IS in those portraits, otherwise Bessler would not have been able to use them to establish priority to the VERY unique mechanism he found and used to achieve rotary PM.
Although, sadly, I can not now proudly announce that the mystery has been solved, I am hopeful that this might still happen before Christmas of this year. What a very nice Christmas present THAT would be!
what is this sound ? > ( ) ....
DeleteAnswer : me with nothing good to say .
" Consequently, I can not now legitimately announce that the Bessler wheel mystery has been solved which I wanted to do as a tribute to the successful October 31st, "
DeleteWhy are none of us surprised?
Happily, not all is lost.
DeleteWhile I AM closer than I've ever been, the fact is that success requires one to have traveled 100% of the way down the "right track" and not just 99.5% of the way or even 99.9% of the way.
I ALREADY have several alternative design options to explore AND, after this morning's analysis of the DT portraits, a NEW clue to ponder...one which I'd never noticed before! In fact, I will be shortly setting up another model wheel which will incorporate this clue so that I can see what its potential looks like.
At this point, I am 100% confident that each of the weighted levers inside of Bessler's wheels had TWO springs attached to it. But, it's possible that they did not both have the same k values! Also, there are several different points inside of the drums that these springs can be attached to (fortunately, there is only ONE point on each lever for them to be attached to). Finding THE design Bessler used is a slow and tedious process. Unfortunately, the "right track" is not a straight path to success. If it was, then this historical mystery would have been solved CENTURIES ago. The solution WILL come, but ONLY if one pursues a design that is "sanctioned" by a CORRECT interpretation of the MANY DT portrait clues. Those that are unaware of these clues or actually believe that they do not really exist are working with a TREMENDOUS disadvantage as they struggle to find a working design. I know because I was ONCE one of them...but no more!
John,
ReplyDeleteBTW , " reconstruction " implies reproducing of an original construction . In that case don't you mean
" interpreted construction " ? Claims without proof only leads to one thing ... lack of credibility . Seems to me you are straight up guilty ( but in a much more subtle fashion ) of making claims to knowledge that you can't prove or have failed to do up to this point ... no less than I . Why is it that you can make claims so subtly without Justdumbone or whoever he is jumping down your throat ?
You have made numerous claims with no proof. You have zero credibility. Period.
DeleteMy point being so has John and most everyone else . To someone who possesses the true principle which Bessler referred to credibility means nothing , especially from the the opinions of the Anonymi .
DeleteYou have NO credibility and NO working principle.
DeleteThe way I seriously feel about it is this :
ReplyDeleteAll of you have had sufficient time to figure this one out . Your time is up . It's time , like Bessler said , for some of you ( mainly the hecklers and non-moblists " talkers " ) to go off to your beds now because wiser folks have awoken .
There can be only one . ( saying from Highlander )
You have nothing. Time for you to go.
DeleteActually I did think about the wording but chose to omit 'interpretation' and other similar words because the way it is, it just fits on one line.
ReplyDeleteJC
@ JC
ReplyDeleteJohn, I’ve been doing some more detailed work on Bessler’s Visual Clue MT40, and in so doing have discovered an anomaly, an omission.
In the image there are three clear letter B’s and in Bessler’s accompanying notes one very bold and clear letter B. However in the translation on page 62 there is no mention of B!
What happened to B?
Were you aware of this? I am assuming this is an error that occurred at the printing stage and is not a translator’s error? What do you think?
Can you let me know what Bessler’s description of MT40 B is?
JW
Hi John.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies, I think the original translation said, "No. 40 This is a somewhat different stork' s-bill invention. The weight-levers A pull up figures B –which have the joining point at C- and also pull up the weights D by means of the poles E. The figures correspond in the center at F; thus it becomes light at G and heavy above at the superior weight. Whoever thinks it proper can construct these figures on an axle."
There may be a later improved translation but I shall have to look for it - but it looked as if I omitted it by mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.
JC
John:
ReplyDelete"You appear to be presenting proof that I'm wrong rather than trying to understand the points I'm making. To me it is clear that Bessler drew his energy ultimately from the force of gravity and therefore I'm trying to find a way to show how that might be possible."
I understand all that. But you'll have to find a different way to show how it might be possible, because the "gravity is like wind and water" analogy *IS* wrong.
If you're trying to find an example of gravity enabled power in nature to show how it might be possible, you'll be looking in perpetuity (heh heh).
Anyway, good luck circumventing the leverage law.
TG:
"water flow and wind can be considered to provide EITHER conservative OR NON-conservative force fields DEPENDING upon the geometric properties of the objects..."
No, the geometry of the objects doesn't determine force fields. The path taken in a cycle, or, the total work done by the field is what distinguishes force fields.
TG:
"...I have found to be a bit difficult because it inevitably gets one involved in discussing HOW the weights within such an OB wheel would have to shift about..."
Good!
Trevor:
"If I may jump in here Doug,..The mystery has been solved."
Ok. Jump!
Mimi:
"Doug, I am not sure I am getting your point about the difference between wind/water and gravity as conservative forces."
The local fluctuations in wind and water that we use to our advantage are the product of a source of kinetic energy, the sun, and a conservative force, gravity. What don't you get? The overall picture would cancel out all forces? You'll have to explain what you mean by that. In the absence of force, there are no accelerations. Do you mean everything in the universe is motionless?
" As for gravity: we don't know whether it is a closed system. We don't know for sure whether there is only one direction for gravity to work - obviously gravity originating from other heavenly bodies works on us from other directions (think of the moon and the tides)."
Gravity isn't a thermodynamic system that can be closed or open.
It works in one direction: towards center of mass, yes, we know that for sure. Don't be confused by tides.
I won't be doing the jumping but many academics might feel like jumping when they see the wheel turning and their sacred law of thermodynamics turned on it's head.
DeleteWhat app are you using for your simulations?
DeleteI don't use simulations because there is no way they could possibly foresee what I have discovered.
Delete@ Doug
ReplyDelete“No, the geometry of the objects doesn't determine force fields. The path taken in a cycle, or, the total work done by the field is what distinguishes force fields”
Fascinating!
Your excellent retort to TG regarding one of his many misguided concepts coincides exactly with the next issue regarding Bessler’s Clues in MT that I was going to raise with JC.
Perhaps you are the man to talk to instead?
In the text accompanying MT39 Bessler says,
“ This is a very special style of the stork’s bill invention. Side A is heavy. The following field C, is lifted up to E, via the pulleys at B, but the figure is drawn together at D, which is lighter side”
You seem to be very confident in your knowledge of fields, so can you tell me what Bessler meant by “The following field C”?
JW
Doug's "excellent retort" to my comment of:
Delete"...water flow and wind can be considered to provide EITHER conservative OR NON-conservative force fields DEPENDING upon the geometric properties of the objects..."
was:
"No, the geometry of the objects doesn't determine force fields. The path taken in a cycle, or, the total work done by the field is what distinguishes force fields."
I am WELL aware that the GEOMETRY of objects has NO effect on the properties of a TRUE force field and I stated that this was the case for gravity. I was trying to show that, since both water and wind flows CAN in certain situations, DEPENDING upon the GEOMETRY of the surfaces that their particles impact, BEHAVE as though they were EITHER conservative or non-conservative force fields, this variability indicated that they were NOT true force fields which is the erroneous concept that I though JC was trying to promote. A TRUE force field will ALWAYS be conservative.
Also, I would not waste my time with ANY kind of design that has "stork's bills" inside of it. Bessler wheels did NOT use stork's bills.
Justsomeome said: Yes they did!
Delete"Justsomeome said: Yes they did!"
DeleteAssuming he is referring to the use of stork's bills inside of Bessler's wheels, my response is to ask what clues led him to that conclusion. I base practically all of my research into Bessler's secret wheel mechanics on the many clues embedded in the two DT portraits and I can find NO clues there that suggest stork's bills or any type of scissor like mechanisms were used.
Justsomeone says: That's because you are looking in the wrong place. Bessler said he assures the reader that there is something special about the scissor jacks.
DeleteI don't think it means field like a force field. It means the next set of stork bills; they " go over " the pulleys and are supposed to extend at that point to make that side heavier than the other side that somehow has retracted stork bills.
ReplyDeleteDoug
In a comment I made yesterday I mentioned a NEW clue that I had found in the DT portraits that has inspired me to try a somewhat different approach to my Bessler research.
ReplyDeleteBasically, this new clue indicates that, contrary to what I had previously believed, the weights on the descending side of Bessler's wheels were NOT landing on their rim stops BEFORE their lever's pivots reached the 3:00 position of a CW rotating drum, but, rather, were landing on their rim stops AFTER their pivots passed the 3:00 drum position and somewhat BEFORE they reached the drum's 4:30 position.
On the surface this might seem like a trivial detail, but I've concluded that it most certainly is NOT. A descending side weighted lever can only participate in the shifting of a wheel's ascending side weighted levers IF the lever's weight is NOT in contact with its rim stop! Once contact occurs, the weighted lever can rotate CW about its pivot no farther, its attached springs can contract no more, and it can therefore transfer no additional energy / mass to the levers which lag it which would help to raise their weights back toward their rim stops. At that point it, essentially, becomes removed from the shifting actions of the other weighted levers whose weights are still not in contact with their rim stops. If one designs his wheel so that the weights do not make contact until AFTER their lever's pivots pass the drum's 3:00 position, then that actually ADDS the weight and the spring tension of ANOTHER weighted lever (the one whose pivots is passing the drum's 3:00 position) into the shifting action that is occurring. This, if would seem, can also only further help to counter balance all of the weighted levers whose pivots are moving between 9:00 and 4:30 so as to make it easier for the single 7:30 going to 9:00 weighted lever to shift them.
Well, I'm a bit excited by this new development, but, from past bitter experiences, I know that this new clue I've found might just be a "decoy" clue Bessler has included in the DT portraits to send me off on a dead end siding from the "right track" that I MUST remain on to finally achieve success. To guard against that possibility, I've decided to try something that I've never considered doing before.
I've decided to SPLIT my ongoing research into TWO parallel branches. One will work with my previous design that has the descending side weights contacting their rim stops BEFORE their lever pivots reach the 3:00 position. The other will work with the identical design only it will be arranged so that its weights contact their rims stops AFTER their lever pivots pass the 3:00 position. I will actually work on BOTH designs simultaneously and continuously compare what progress I am making on each until I can finally decide which of the two approaches is the best one to use. That design, no doubt, WILL be THE one that the Master also used.
@Doug on 8 November 2012 00:05, advised as follows:
ReplyDelete* * * * *
". . . Gravity can't be used as a source of energy. Wind and water, yes, for the reasons I've shown.
Your theory which would give a more than one time mechanical advantage while accommodating the leverage law is not a theory, it's a working hypothesis based on flawed logic. Theories are propositions based on observation, that have been tested and then become principles or laws."
* * * * *
Over at BWF, on my thread entitled "IS it, or is it NOT?, respondent Fletcher offered-up a fine repast of food for thought, regarding our most contentious, matter-instant here.
In the second part, following "What conditions would provide for the possibility of an IMM & secondly a true PPM [using gravity] ?" are there stated FOUR possible conditions under which it might, the fourth featuring a part 'A' and 'B'.
A more careful-than-not look, or review, might be in order. Obviously, more than ordinary thought, care and consideration were taken, with what he has most kindly proffered.
Also, he indicates within that yet more may be forthcoming as a ". . . MAD-VD theory . . ." (formal or informal?).
For my money he has offered us an excellent, provisional summing-up on this KEY question.
For any that may interested, here would be the link: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5485
Ta-ta!
James
Thank you James, for redrawing my attention to Fletch's post, I did not read it as fully as I should have done, and now I see confirmation of my own theory which spurs me on to seek proof. Much obliged.
ReplyDeleteJC
@ JC
ReplyDeleteAfter rereading your blog entry, I noticed these lines:
"You will also see that I am committed to the parametric oscillation theory in which a weight passes downwards in an outer position, relative to the axle, and then at six o'clock flies upwards in just the same way that a 'kiiking ' rider straightens his legs at that point in order to raise his centre of gravity towards the axle.
I am currently striving to get the weights to operate in the way Bessler described, shooting upwards at that point."
Interesting that your design requires a rapid rise of the weights at the 6:00 position which I guess must be a consequence of each of its five "perpetual motion structures" containing two counter balancing weights and the alignment of the weights that their orientation with respect to each other has at that wheel position.
In my "right track" design, the weights do not even begin to "fly upwards" until AFTER their lever pivots pass the 9:00 position of a CW rotating drum. From that point on they continue to draw gradually closer to their rim stops to make final contact EITHER shortly BEFORE their lever pivots reach the 3:00 drum position or shortly AFTER their lever pivots pass the 3:00 position. I can find some justification for BOTH approaches in the DT portraits, but only ONE will be correct.
I've just completed the construction of the two "parallel" wheels which differ only at the locations on the drum's descending side at which the weights make final contact with their rim stops and will begin to experiment with these two designs in the coming week.
John, those of us that are actually building wheels understand completely the frequency of untimely interruptions. That when I say I have to go save the world it seems to fall on deaf ears and I receive and the old DEEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS LOOK. We are all just happy that you continue to share your journey with us. It helps to inspire us to keep on trying. I am confident that you have the right action in mind. The quick rising of the weight at the 6 o'clock area has to be.... and the weight that is at the 12 o'clock area must rise as well...... How far do the weights actually have to move to achieve our desired outcome..... 2 inches 3 inches 2 ft etc The farther they would move the more power the machine would have. On my wheel the weight of a single washer on one side of a perfectly balanced wheel is all it takes to begin motion. The weight of a single washer
ReplyDeleteThis "shooting up at 6:00 (& 12:00)" kinda reminded me of this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPuKv9Z-XE
If you google on Mondrasek you can find videos from other people
experimenting on the same stuff.
BA here.
ReplyDelete@Bill_Mothershead
Nice video, the concept is dead-on, but I have no idea how to achieve this 'YET'.
@Gravittea
The quick rise from 6:00 to 12:00 O'clock is limited by geometry. The best ratio I have found is a 70:30 radii arrangement. I used the area of a sector to calculate, the third dimension can be stretchered as need be.
bye for now
BA
I just finished another tiring afternoon of Sandy debris removal and am in dire need of some sack time, but wanted to briefly report some of the preliminary results that are emerging from my "dual" research using the two identical one-directional Merseburg sub wheel models that differ only in the locations where their descending side weights make final contact with their rim stops mounted on the inside of their drum's periphery wall. Those two locations being either just before the 3:00 drum position or just after the 3:00 position.
ReplyDeleteIt's starting to look like, indeed, it is the design in which the weights make contact AFTER 3:00 which is the one that is the most stable and not the pre-3:00 drum position one as I had previously exclusively been working with. The reasons for this, as I earlier surmised, have to do with the extra energy / mass provided by the weighted lever and its still contracting spring whose pivot is at 3:00, but whose weight is NOT yet resting on its rim stop. This allows me to use a lower k value on my springs to achieve the counter balancing of the weighted levers whose pivots are located between the 10:30 and 3:00 drum positions. This lower k value then allows the weighted lever whose pivot moves from 6:00 to 7:30 to completely stretch the spring attached to it so that the lever is vertical when its pivot reaches 7:30, a VERY important condition that MUST be achieved.
When I made some preliminary tests with the wheel in which the weights make contact before the 3:00 drum position so that, when their levers' pivots finally reach 3:00, they are ALREADY resting on the rim stops, I discovered that I could NOT achieve the counter balancing of the weighted levers whose pivots were located between the 10:30 and 1:30 drum positions UNLESS I used k values that were about 30% HIGHER than those used in the contact after 3:00 model. When these higher k values were used, their excessive tension prevented the 6:00 going to 7:30 weighted lever from achieving verticality when its pivot reached 7:30. This, of course, is unacceptable.
So, the bottom line of this preliminary research with the dual wheel designs is that the newly discovered DT portrait clue I mentioned previously upon which it is based IS valid and NOT one of Bessler's "decoy" clues: the weights in Bessler's wheels DID finally make contact with their rim stops on the descending side of a one-directional wheel's drum AFTER their levers' pivots PASSED the drum's 3:00 position. I suspect that I will only be working with designs of this type from now on.
I'm now in the process of determining what the idea k value for the weighted levers in my 4:1 scale model one-directional wheel (which uses 1 ounce lead weights at the end of its 8 levers) should be. After that is determined, then it will be time to determine WHERE inside the drum the second spring attached to each lever is attached and what its ideal k value should be.
I think I'm getting closer to finally reaching the end of the "right track" approach to solving the Bessler wheel mystery, but the progress is painfully slow. For now, however, I need to rest...
Collecting a few comments: "I think rotation is not fully explained/exploited to date." (Mimi)
ReplyDelete"I don't use simulations because there is no way they could possibly foresee what I have discovered." (Trevor)
"...in short, Newton's laws didn't cover every empirical situation..." (Fletcher's comment in James's link)
All of these comments touch on a very important question: could devices be built that would operate outside of Newton's laws?
As a computer modeller, I realize and accept that no current modelling program could be useful in discovering or modelling such a device.
I still wonder whether we might already have an example, in the Laithwaite gyro-lifting video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPC7a_AcQo
IF Bessler's wheels were, in fact, operating "outside of Newton's Laws", that is, following OTHER laws not covered by those of Newton, then, obviously, NO modeling / simulation software based SOLELY on Newton's laws would allow one to discover the design that Bessler found and used.
DeleteHowever, considering the simple materials and construction techniques available to Bessler, I would consider it HIGHLY improbably that he discovered mechanical and physical laws that were and STILL are unknown. I have faith that our present modeling / simulation software will be able to find the design he used. I can see from my own work how his wheels would have had to have operated and there really isn't that much complicated about HOW they worked although the PRECISE details are hell to find. They simply maintained the CoM of their active weights on a wheel's descending side during rotation and nothing more. I continue to recommend the use of modeling / simulation software to mobilists who want to GREATLY speed up their rate of progress in finding a solution to the Bessler wheel mystery or ANY solution for that matter.
Notice how everyone has their excuse all worked out . So yours is " lacking precise detail " .
DeleteMy latest version of the wheel,which seems to me to be the only way it can be done incorperates all these properties;Angular momentum(positive and negative to gravity),gravity itself,spring reaction,and the loading of one weight with a weight.
ReplyDeleteAll this activity avails a situation at a particular moment in time,for a weight to be moved sideways,affecting balance.
Right at the outset I maintained that centrifugasl force was used,whereupon I was quickly shouted down by certain academics.
I think Bessler referred to it as the force from within,and that can only mean angular momentum.
Now I might have given the game away,but can you see why all this mechanical activity could never be fathomed by simulation on a computer.
Excuse me but I find myself wearied by posters making unproven unpractical irrelavant comments.
The problem with CF is, its great to have it when you need to move weights outward, but its not so good when you need to move weights inward. However, I continue to research the possibilities as well. Best of luck to you.
DeleteArktos, thanks for the link to Prof. Laithewaite's experiment. Impressive, isn't it? And I agree totally with you concerning the warning about simulation software. I myself enjoy using simulation to explore some principles, but it must always be looked at carefully and not trusted unreservedly. I am using 2 softwares: one is Physion (download at physion.net for free), the other is Working Model 2d. Physion is a nice wrapper for box2d_javascript, which is for game-designers to incorporate a Physics engine. Obviously a gamer wouldn't mind that much if strange effects appear, whereas an engineer would frown on it. So, not unexpectedly, I have been able to create a runner in Physion, but the exact same parameters are commented on in WM2d as "some constraints have been violated, continue anyway?". If you answer "no" then it just doesn't run, if you answer "yes" it runs half-heartedly (wheel does not do a full turn, but peters out). WM2d does not let you know what constraints it finds upsetting. My design is embarassingly simple, it is very difficult to do anything wrong, as you can imagine, I have done a lot of checking. I suspect that professional software tends to exert censorship on situations which appear to violate "laws" of physics. I am now studying the formulas and trying to figure out the maths, so as to see who is right: Physion or WM2d. And then of course start building. I am using a design with parametric oscillation.
ReplyDeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteI should have mentioned in my 10 November 2012 23:36 comment above that I've also discovered something else that is very interesting from my preliminary research with the "contact after 3:00" wheel design that I am now focusing on.
Because one must not raise his springs' k values too high so as to prevent lever verticality for the weighted levers whose pivots are arriving at the 7:30 drum position, that puts an upper limit on how high the k values can be that help maintain the counter balancing of the weighted levers whose pivots are located from 10:30 to 3:00. However, one WANTS to make the k values of those weighted levers' springs as high as possible since that then makes it easier for the 7:30 moving to 9:00 weighted lever to shift ALL of the weighted levers leading it (up to the lever whose pivot is at 3:00, but whose weight is not yet touching its rim stop) and thereby move each of their weights closer to its rim stop.
Because of these two mutually exclusive conditions, there is a fairly narrow RANGE of k values that one can use on ALL of the levers' return springs. This acceptable range of k values for ONE of the two springs attached to each weighted lever then imposes a fairly low maximum acceleration LIMIT for Bessler's wheels which, IF it is exceeded, will move the drum faster than the weights it carries can respond due to their inertia and then cause the 10:30 to 3:00 weighted levers to all suddenly rotate CCW about their pivots so that they flop over in a direction AWAY from that in which the drum was accelerated. This action will then temporarily imbalance the wheel and, in fact, completely disable it until the weighted levers are manually placed back in their starting orientations.
I'm starting to now realize the significance of Bessler's quote:
"...there's always the danger that a surreptitious shove would knock it out of balance and bring it grinding to a halt." (AP, pg. 297)
PART II:
ReplyDeleteIf one was standing near a lower quadrant periphery of one of Bessler's TWO-directional wheels so that the 3:00 drum position was about a foot over his head, then he would most likely start the wheel turning CW by reaching up, grabbing the outer circular framing of its drum, and then giving it a "gentle" pull DOWN and then push AWAY from himself. IF, however, while Bessler's back was turned, a person performed these same acts by "shoving" the wheel, then that action could cause the drum to EXCEED its acceleration limit and the result would be that most of the weighted in the top half of the drum in the sub wheel that was to become active would tend to remain stationary while the drum moved suddenly relative to them and this would make them all rotate CCW about their lever's pivots which is the OPPOSITE direction that they would have to rotate when shifting properly.
This action would then imbalance the top half weighted levers of the sub wheel that had been selected to become active and bring everything "grinding to a halt". I have often wonder how Bessler reacted when one of the people he allowed to handle his two-directional wheels did something like this. Trying not to offend the person and thereby ruin a potential sale, he was probably polite and diplomatic about the incident. But, INSIDE, he was probably on the verge of EXPLODING with anger. He must have been a rather healthy person overall to be able to endure the sudden escalations of blood pressure caused by such incidents!
Anyway, there IS a simple way to prevent these unexpected imbalances from happening and they are, in fact, hinted at in the DT portrait clues. The method is to install a LATCH for each of a one-directional wheel's or two-directional wheel's active sub wheel's 8 weighted levers that will drop down into position as a lever's pivot reaches the 12:00 position and thereby prevent its weighted lever from "back rotating" in the event of a "surreptitious shove". Of course, this then complicates the construction of a wheel and I think that Bessler probably only used this approach on the Weissentein wheel because he wanted to make sure that no embarrassing "imbalances" took place in the wheel that Karl had sponsored. The Merseburg wheel had no such protection. The latches are not really necessary as long as a one-directional wheel is allowed to naturally self-accelerate or a two-directional wheel is not too violently pushed to start it turning.
TG, day after day after day after day after day after day you go on and on and on and on and on about 1 spring or 2 springs etc. on a design that we can't see. Nobody cares!!! John asked you to please shorten your posts yet you continue with the diarrhea of the mouth. All your posts about your design are all the same! Enough already! I don't mind your other posts but BORED OUT OF MY MIND WITH YOUR WHEEL POSTS. Anyone else?
ReplyDelete"Nobody cares!!!"
DeleteWhat you REALLY mean to say is that YOU do not care. IF you were ACTUALLY a SERIOUS Bessler mobilist (and OBVIOUSLY you are NOT!), I think you would be VERY interested in what my research is indicating.
In the comment I made above I mentioned that this matter of the use of springs within Bessler's wheels to achieve counter balancing puts a maximum safe LIMIT upon how rapidly they can be accelerated in their "preferred" directions before there is risk of them being knocked out of balance which was a situation that Bessler commented on as being "ever present". SERIOUS Bessler researchers ARE interested in such matters.
I can't be overly concerned with a few bored arm chair philosophers who really aren't SERIOUS about finding THE solution to the Bessler wheel mystery because, quite sadly, they are a dime a gross on the web and only here for entertainment purposes. I'm NOT here to entertain them, but to provide the SERIOUS BESSLER mobilists here with some hope and ACCURATE information that will finally allow them to make it onto the "right track".
Yes I think I made my own position pretty clear, I agree with you anon.
ReplyDeleteJC
John, as soon as YOU tell me that I and my ongoing research results are NOT welcome on this blog, I will be gone IMMEDIATELY. I will not spend one second contributing content to ANY website where I do not feel welcome by the site owner.
DeleteQuite fortunately, my ongoing research does not in any way depend upon my making comments here and will continue regardless until I finally obtain the ACTUAL OB PM gravity wheel design that Bessler found and used. I have VERY good reason to believe that I am VERY close to achieving that at this time. It would be nice if I could announce this rediscovery on your blog, but, if that is not meant to be, then so be it.
TG, I welcome yours and everyone else's input, all I asked was that you try to reduce the length of your comments if possible because my eyes begin to glaze over about half way through the part 2's of your comments. Obviously you can't always say what you want to say, briefly, but you seem to always have a long two parter to impart, and I'm sure you could say it less stridently too. I mean by that your frequent use of capitals or upper case letters which I have always understood is the equivalent of shouting on the internet.
ReplyDeleteJC