It's funny how we each believe from time to time that we have solved Bessler's wheel - or at least have taken a significant step along the path to success. Our path, to what seems like a valid conclusion at the time, is filled with moments of revelation interspersed subsequently with the inevitable realisation that we got it wrong. Often these 'discoveries' don't always appear to have been arrived at through a logical chain of reasoning, but are often regarded as instant revelations when the solution seems to jump out at us and we know that we have found the answer! The power of this personal conviction is of an intensity which is so powerful that the urge to share our good fortune is almost irresistible. Is this certainty a part of a psychological flaw in our make-up, or evidence of a talent for imaginative cognitive scientific research that finds ingenuity to be essential in human reasoning?
I have had a number of these so-called revelations which supply a surprising and previously unthought of piece of artistry in a particularly dramatic way. Many of these come in the middle of the night and lead to sleeplessness - until dawn sheds her harsh light of truth and reality and on the subject and what seemed like a momentous revelation turns out to be a momentary lapse of reason. Those that arrive while I'm at my workbench seem much more logical and worthy of exploration.
I completely understand why some people occasionally wax enthusiastic about the latest lightening bolt of inspiration that's hit them and make announcements which have no basis in fact - to everyone else it is nothing more than hearsay, a feature of the justice system which is not even generally admissable in court. I tend to empathise with those who make premature announcements - been there, done that - and abusing them for doing so does not help and neither does the growing trend on the besslerwheel forum for being disrespectful to others. It's commonly advised that you shouldn't write anything to or about anyone that you wouldn't have the guts to say to their face. But as well, the effect of the words may be softened in the presence of the recipent, by the body-language of the person uttering them. Unfortunately the body-language element is missing on the internet and therefore the words may appear more abrasive than they seemed to the author. Please think before you write, it may cause a slight. (definition of slight - a deliberate discourteous act usually as an expression of anger or disapproval)
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
Guilty, as charged ! :-D
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBessler's own, barely supressed, grandeur is only delusory if you don't believe his claim. The most regrettable barrier to our cause is communication failure - secrecy, whether for fear of losing face or fortune, is our biggest obstacle. After the religious zeal of pathosceptics, and possibly the conservation laws, anyway.
ReplyDeleteRespect our maniacs, and we might get there all the sooner...
It's an experience that's touched me personally quite recently. I was swatting up on patent law, even writing draughts, while ruminating on the weighty responsibilities of the revolution i was about to initiate, even before i'd completed a test rig.
Which, once completed, of course, didn't work.
Pop! Reality bites eh...
But if we allow that the same mania will likely accompany a truly productive insight, then the only criticism we can level at it is in its prematurity - and the only lesson to be learned is in keeping one's manic swings behind closed doors to preserve some dignity... Which i did anyway. Admittedly, i toyed with the idea of taking time off work, but didn't, and throughout, managed to remain relatively composed. Outwardly, anyway.
Better to encourage anyone on such a creative spurt to talk about it, rather than clam up. Maybe they're onto something... Maybe they're destined to fail. But maybe an idea that ultimately seems futile is just missing that last piece of inspiration / perspiration.
FWIW i'd been playing with lead weights (cylinders made by rolling lead flashing), which could freely slide along rails fashioned from coat-hanger wire. Basically linear sliders, like MT63 or MT70 etc.. I'd found that such strictly radial designs seemed intrinsically constrained in that the torque was always in the wrong direction, so i'd settled on off-radial, diagonal rails in a pattern very similar to MT02, consisting of eight rails all at 45° increments from one another, with each rail terminating just behind the radial center line - such that the 6 o'clock weight, when extended, sat at 5-to-6, and so on. The Big Idea though was in connecting them with threads, such that as the 3 o'clock weight fell out on its rail, it pulled a previously-fallen weight, now horizontal, back in, just before it began to climb the other side of the wheel.
http://s23.postimg.org/6zda1dq4r/solution3_23_large.jpg
Notwithstanding the design's miserable failure, it has lots of things going for it:
- weights fall out automatically
- they reset automatically
- they do so before needing to be re-lifted on the opposite side of the wheel (a big plus right there)
- it ticks lots of boxes in terms of reconciling various clues and circumstantial evidence (8 thumps per cycle, emits sounds of parts moving over poles, all rotates together, uses chords, pulleys and cylindrical weights, depends on a "connectedness principle", it's dead simple, cushioning springs would increase its efficiency, and so on...
It just doesn't overbalance. The reason is that the extended weights open a circumferential gap, which cancels the overbalance with an equal and opposite underbalance.
But is it really a dead end? Is this underbalance intrinsic, or can it be attenuated, perhaps by tuning the geometry? Is it a flawed design principle, or one cul de sac off a grand avenue?
How are we to know if we're on the Champs Élysée or the Paris Orbital without some kind of guiding vision of ultimate triumph? These are things WORTH getting slightly psychotic about, after all. Precisely because its NOT pure whimsy. Or might not be. Or at least, it'd be way cool if it wasn't. Just imagine the riches, the adoring crowds, more poon than you could poke with a scissorjack.. you'd be beating 'em off with a schnellwage.
Hearsay or impassioned ingenuity? Maybe anything mad enough just, might, work...
Yes, it is really a dead end. Experience teaches us that any design based as your http://s23.postimg.org/6zda1dq4r/solution3_23_large.jpg on the repeating of identical elements arranged symmetrically around an axle is doomed to failure. Such creations only ever prove again why Sir Isaac was and still is right.
DeleteI don’t know why we are all so keen to cling to symmetry when clearly the answer must lie in an asymmetry of forms.
@ Vibrator,
Deletedoing the same thing myself, bending wire, using fishing weights etc.
Trying to make a little rocking cradle that moves its pivot point, rather than the weight itself. No luck yet, but now I've finished the V.A.T. returns, I'll have more time.
A device that only adds and does not subtract ... hmmm ... verdy intharesting . Sir Isaac was not blessed with such a vivid imagination as was our Bessler . The device ( according only to me ) was indeed both symmetrical and asymmetrical depending of course on how you look at it . Yes , Bessler himself said it was in danger of being knocked off balance and therefore given that it was indeed balanced . So keep scratching your head " for you will find , you splendid mechanics that this is a nut you can't crack ! "
ReplyDeleteNo Chris, not only according to you, but to me too. An ultimately asymmetrical design could still have symmetrical elements within it.
DeleteBessler's one-way wheels had to be restrained from self starting.
Asymmetry is therefore fundamental and constant in the successful design.
"Bessler's one-way wheels had to be restrained from self starting."
DeleteAnyone know of any accounts from eye witnesses that held on to the one-way wheels as they turned? What I am wondering is if the one-way wheels were able to maintain their force of rotation while turning slowly, and thru an extended time.
The other day JIM_MICH on BW made a comment about the one-way wheels storing or building up overbalance as they turned. I can only guess by the lifting of a weight or winding of a spring. If Jim is right, then a slow turning wheel would soon us up the stored energy (overbalance) and possibly stop.
If there was another concept , another provable force other than the overbalance which you all almost exclusively ( as far as I have noticed ), cling to and discuss almost as if it is REAL ... if someone could explain something else , and a much more believable idea would you stop using the WORD to try and seem like you know something of perpetual motion ?
DeleteJust answer the question ...
DeleteChris, when you have something REAL, then you can use all the WORDS you care to use. In the meantime, I've got a couple of words for you! ;-)
DeleteYou dont follow directions well...
DeleteJust saying overbalance inasmuch as it has been discussed,rehashed,touted and mistakenly attributed to Bessler has been revealed to be a useless concept and yet some continually speak in praise of it as a provable thing .
DeleteBy follow directions you mean not answer rhetorical questions? Yeah, I've been known to do that.
DeleteI'll leave the teacher who rehashes, touts and mistakenly attributes "provable" things to ask some more "questions".
To Chris ...
DeleteI have built enough overbalanced wheels to feel safe in saying they are at best break even (excluding friction and air resistance). Something else has to be present to add energy to the wheel or lift the weights into the overbalanced position. I'll call that "something else" the prime mover. The prime mover would be responsible for lifting the weights (say at 12 and 6) to maintain the overbalanced condition, and that overbalanced condition would continually drive the wheel. If you've discovered a prime mover that can lift weights in this type of scenario, but can't be used in any other way, then an overbalanced wheel is your only alternative.
Now if that prime mover was say an inertial thruster, capable of lifting weights as previously mentioned, but also with the ability propel itself and anything in its path, then you could strap pairs of them to the periphery of a wheel and drive that wheel round and round. This would yield the greatest power potential since 100% of it's energy (or thrust) would be applied to rotation.
So do I believe in overbalanced wheels, you bet, with the right prime mover. But, if you truly have the "right" prime mover, why waste it on an overbalanced design.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTo Chris ...
DeleteBessler’s one-way wheels were self-starters. Assuming you believe the eye witness accounts, if not overbalance (more weight or leverage on the descending side), how would you explain this behavior?
Bessler said something akin to this " though it may lack some ounce here and have and extra ounce there the imbalance will not matter and the work hold it's course and not pay much attention to it " ... and the translation says " the exact disposition of the weights will not matter " ... now considering the idea of overbalance and applying it to this ( first ) statement in such a way as you would expect things to go ...he is saying that the thing is balanced more or less ( and less on the heavy side if at all ) .
DeleteAny way you look at it Bessler found a way to lift his weights easily ... so it does not matter where the weights are at any particular instance . There is something else ( and it's not overbalance ) . Bessler mentioned it in so many words . I have not been able to go to my work area since last Friday but the first of the week I will be at it again . The concept should be easily provable .
DeleteFor a wheel to begin rotating on it's own (with no connection to the axle) it has to be overbalanced either in weight or leverage. There is no other possibility, period.
DeleteOk then build it .
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf you know of some other principle that can make a wheel start on it's own, please say. Again, not saying indefinitely, just what it would take to start the wheel turning. So far not one person has given any other option except overbalance.
DeleteIt’s all very well doodling at the bench in the workshop.
ReplyDeleteThings always look great on websites and surely do work.
Get the job, done and...
Observe what ACTUALLY happens!
Let the essence of deeds shine out through faith.
Gravity has the potential to lift us up but, alas, continues to hold us down.
Someday twanging announcements will cease.
We will dis ambiguation and...
Then we may finally put to rest, egoism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI’m not sure that your ‘taking-the-piss’ out of my work is in any way a valuable contribution?
DeleteI am not sure that in so doing you are not also guilty of an act of egotism?
However you sound confident and certain.
Perhaps you know best?
Perhaps you are the very personification of Bessler’s “Discerning Mind”.
But I doubt it!
You really shouldn't worry your little head over the egotism, or other types of obsession that naturally go with this territory.
The really scary thing is the genuine madness.
Whew! And here I thought nobody would get it.
DeleteTaking the mick out of people who publicly try to claim credit before success is always a valuable contribution.
Yes, I'm guilty...but not of hypocritical egotism.
Oh, I'm afraid my deflector shield will be quite operational when your mad friends arrive. ;-)
Good old ED,..are you still at it?
ReplyDeleteIt really does not matter what claims are made, it all makes for interesting, even inpirational reading.
Hey! Who you calling old Trevor? :-)
DeleteGood old TREVOR,..where's me parts? Oh yes, only days away! They'll get there..someday...
@John - sorry for the delay just back from hols... I was considering permanent asymmetry just the other day - reading MT on the beach, the thought occurred that maybe the reason the weights in MT39 and 40 aren't connected to the rest of the mechanism is because they're not actually supposed to move, but rather remain permanently out of balance. The weights that are connected then, in MT39 at least, would act to periodically counter-balance the static weights.
ReplyDeleteIts not an interpretation i'd put much stock in though. You may be right about a symmetrical mechanism, however i've been unable to exclude all possible examples, even though i've tried. Formal proofs that could eliminate whole classes of exploits would be handy, but it always seems possible to add some additional detail that places a design beyond the scope of a given theory or theorem. 'sGravesande i think had the same reservation.
Besides, any cyclically overbalancing mechanism is asymmetric anyway, at least half the time - the asymmetry lies in the overbalancing action. However the thermodynamic asymmetry is the one that really matters, and that's between the input and output force/distance integrals.
I think this may be one reason why everything has to go around together - there can be nothing hanging stationary on the axle precisely because such "direct drive" mechanisms deprive us of an input force/distance integral, which can only be provided by dropping a weight.
Hence the weight lever principle in MT40 is warm, but the "small side wheels" in MT41 & 42 are cold. Direct drive mechanisms are not an alternative to shift weights, which we must have. I think. For now...