Friday, 12 September 2014

Breaking Out of the Box

It has often been said that we should think outside the box,  Excellent advice and we all probably know what is meant and we all think, yes that's what I must do!  But although we have the best of intentions, we continue on our way without really applying the advice, why?  Because we don't know how.  So I thought I'd post some suggestions culled from various sources on the internet.

This problem we have taken on, which requires us to either reproduce Bessler's wheel or find an alternative method of causing a wheel to spin continuously, is proving harder to solve than many of us thought, in our hearts.  We all dreamed of being the one who succeeded.  One of the problems which besets us is that we are all a prisoner of our own paradigm.  I mean that the belief structure within which we think and act is difficult, if not impossible to break out of.  We all know and are encouraged to think outside the box and though we all support this notion, how do we go about it?  Our current paradigms produce tunnel vision and affect our creativity; a paradigm shift would require us to change our belief structure and our perspective so we could see things differently and creatively.

The solution requires us to think about new ideas without assessing their worth and significance before we have both physically and mentally tested them.  It is very easy to consider a mechanical arrangement and 'know' how it will act, because our experience and prejudices tells us the answer.  Our assessment relies on our old ideas and knowledge - our current paradigms. To escape old ideas and prejudices, we must remain non-evaluative and allow bizarre new paradigms and ideas to survive so they can trigger quality ideas.

We have a profound knowledge of the problem which means that we have a lifetime's images in our mind that get in the way of new thinking. The best way to avoid these pictures is to work on the problem indirectly. Start with the 'essence' of the problem, the action verb that captures the main activity. We might for instance encapsulate the problem as looking for something which spins, turns revolves etc.  We might think of sycamore seeds spinning as they fall to earth, or the way water swirls down the drain hole.  These different aspects might lead to a new idea not directly connected with our search.

We often read about reverse engineering, well a similar thought involves turning the problem on its head looking for answers and subsequently turning it right side up produces a solution.  We could for instance study how to keep a wheel from turning despite any forces applied to it; or try to stop it from overbalancing; or get the weights to rise instead of falling.

Another method is to try see the problem from another pair of eyes; a child trying to spin a hoop, or a dog chasing its tail.

You could write down in a sentence exactly what the wheel should do, and then reverse or change the meaning of the verb.

Finally use the following words frequently during your brainstorming sessions -  

    Why?
    Who?
    What?
    Where?
    When?
    With whom?
    And again, why?

I don't know if this helps but give it a try, you never know, you might be the one!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

37 comments:

  1. I guess anybody trying to build a pm wheel is probably already well "outside the box" as far as modern science is concerned. The major problem I see with pm wheel research is that each individual inventor is usually unaware that the "outside the box" idea he is pursuing, no matter how unique it might appear, has probably already been tried zillions of times before by others similarly convinced that they were also thinking outside of the box and then their idea was eventually discarded as useless. As in science, all of those unique failed attempts are rarely ever documented so that the same mistakes can not be repeated. Maybe 99% of what all current pm wheel inventors are pursuing will fall into this unfortunate situation. Being truly unique in one's approach is very, very, very difficult. The basic design that Bessler used is certainly not unique because, based on my research, it was just a "simple" overbalanced type pm wheel. What was unique about it was the way he managed to use spring tension to make it work so that the center of mass of its weights would remain "floating" on a wheel's descending side as it rotated. Even so, that center would slowly sink below the axle as the wheel sped up and centrifugal forces began to exert their effect on the weights. I'm not even sure if his use of spring tension was really that unique. He simply eventually found an arrangement of springs that worked because he tried far more arrangements that his predecessors or contemporaries even did. In other words. he worked harder than them in his pursuit and he was rewarded with success for his outstanding effort (but not, sadly, with the money he wanted for his effort). Anybody who wants to duplicate his inventions today had better be ready to put in a similar amount of effort. I believe that I have already done most of that and that is why I feel very confident about the design I now have. But, I do not have unlimited energy for this pursuit. If my design works, I will publish it and then leave it to others to carry on with the actual physical duplication. I have no doubt that will also require an enormous effort to successfully complete. I am confident that I will see that end achieved in my lifetime. As a result Bessler will finally be vindicated and the a new era of self-motive devices will be encouraged and, hopefully, lead to far more powerful devices being produced. I can't wait!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right Ken in assuming that each of our 'unique' designs has probably been repeated ad infinitum by others, but somewhere there is that single unique design waiting to be rediscovered. I hope that you are successful Ken, and just as your confidence is achieving new heights, so too, is mine! I have no use for springs in the way you are suggesting they are needed and I am therefore content with my own 'unique' design, which will be available should your own fail. Good luck to each of us.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Yes, I often worry that my "unique" design might not be that unique after all! I know that pm wheels the like of MT 13, which is the essence of my current approach, are certainly not unique. What I do believe is truly unique in my approach is the system of interconnecting ropes between the levers and the way in which the counter balancing springs were used. And, of course, I also believe that what I am working on is actually the same exact approach Bessler used the details of which he very carefully hid among some of his illustrations. Well, time will tell as I continue the current round of partial testing I am doing with my table top model wheel.

      Yes, I hope you do have something workable because I am not convinced that there is only one way of building a pm wheel and that it is theoretically possible that Bessler had two or more approaches to achieving a pm wheel although this, imo, would be extremely unlikely. Perhaps your unique interpretation of the clues you've found will prove to be better than mine and lead you to success. Again, time will tell. I'm hoping that this "time" I keep referring to will, for me, be before the end of this year. If I have not found a solution by then, I will be very disappointed and might need to take a "vacation" from the pursuit for a while. :(

      Delete
    3. Good words Ken.

      Here's my thoughts. The wheel consists of two major components, each assisting the other. The first part does the heavy lifting, and needs to rotate to function. The other part (an MT13 like apparatus) with it's overbalance, turns the first part. Together they form a symbiotic mechanism that just keeps turning. Well that's how I see it.

      Delete
    4. @ Zoelra

      My current design, as you suggested, sort of uses two major "components". One component is a simple lever that stretches a spring as the lever passes the 6:00 position. The other component is another lever that triggers the process by which all of the upper drum levers begin shifting toward the descending side of the wheel. It is this action that keeps raising the center of mass of the weights as the drum rotates and tries to lower that center. The first component requires very careful adjustment of the spring tension involved whereas the second component is critically dependent upon the precise lengths and placements of the coordinating ropes acting between the levers. The both components must work together smoothly and automatically and, if everything is correct, the result will be a rotating wheel that always keeps the center of mass of its weights on the wheel's descending side.

      Centrifugal forces acting on the weights limit the top speed of this design. However, I'm wondering what would happen if the wheel was run in a frictionless environment. That is, suppose the wheel was placed into a chamber that held a perfect vacuum to eliminate aerodynamic drag and the wheel's axle was mounted on a frictionless magnetic bearings of some sort? Perhaps under these conditions the top speed of a wheel would increase until its weights were pinned against their stops on the drum's periphery and the center of mass of all weights was directly under the axle? This would not necessarily be fast enough to tear the wheel apart. Should make an interesting experiment once we have working duplicates of Bessler's wheels.

      Delete
    5. Just a quick correction to the above post. If all of the weights were pinned against their stops on the drum's periphery, then their center of mass would be located right in the center of the axle and there would be no torque. Of course, running freely in a perfectly frictionless environment the wheel would then just continue to spin without losing any velocity.

      Delete
  2. Here's some out of the box thinking,
    or is it just out of my mind ?
    We've all seen the double cones APPARENTLY roll uphill, but once they reach the end of the ramp, they do carry on under their own momentum.
    Just like a wheel will roll downhill, and then half way up the next.
    So instead of having the cones end in a point, have an axle sticking out both sides.
    When the double cone reaches the end of the V ramp, the axles carry onto parallel rails that actually do go slightly uphill.
    If the parallel rails overlap the narrow end of another V, the sequence should start again.
    The only problem is, to fit a series of interlocking shallow ramps inside a wheel would mean having about 90 ramps !
    Another idea in a similar vein is, to have half a cone that rotates on an axle, the narrow end of the cone has a parallel axle at the end, like a tube, so the inner axle can pass through.
    The cone runs on a one rail spiral, sloped track, that widens as it rises. ( half a V )
    The axle end (tube) of the cone runs on at the end of the track, raises the cone, and it then drops it back onto the start of the spiral.
    The cone's axle is attached to an upright pole that it turns around, like a Maypole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If the parallel rails overlap the narrow end of another V, the sequence should start again."

      Unfortunately, that never happens!

      Delete
  3. Here's more,
    everyone has seen the so called magnetic motors, epic fail, right ?
    What if you incline two discs towards each other, a ring of north pole magnets on one disc, and a ring of south pole magnets on the opposite ?
    Link the two discs together with a rubber concertina, so the magnets stay facing each other.
    Would the magnets pushing against each other cause the discs to rotate, swash-plate style ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After seeing several demonstrations of the Yildiz permanent magnet motor, I am convinced that these types of devices will be the future of self-motive machinery. The repulsive force between like poles of the rare earth alloy magnets can be enormous. The problem with any device using this effect is to make it continuous by reducing the repulsions that always occur as an array of rotating magnets "resets" itself back into to some starting configuration. Apparently, Yildiz, a retired Turkish police officer, found a way to do this by using a unique geometric alignment between his motor's stator and rotor magnets. I don't think we've heard the last of him.

      Delete
  4. I beg to differ here...actually, no spring tension is reqd....no inter-connecting ropes too...

    The levers have a coordinated movement in their own compartments hence no question of anything getting entangled...ropes have no role due to this...gravity force can be used where ever spring force is reqd...Hence much importance to spring tension should not be given even though springs are used to speed up the swing...most of the weights in the wheel don't remain in the periphery...also, it is important to be understood that there is only one wheel design and that is bessler wheel design...and whoever, doesn't believes in all this is sure to face failure after failure....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bessler stated that his wheels used ropes that were arranged into "layers" inside of the drum. During rotation some of these ropes became "loose" while others became "tight". You seem to be advocating a design using individual levers in isolated compartments. But, what about the "Connectedness Principle" Bessler mentions in MT? To me that indicates that the levers must be connected to each other in order to achieve that "coordination" he mentioned in DT.

      Delete
    2. See friend, Bessler stated too many things....certain things were meant to mislead us so that the wheel mechanism is not easily understood by anyone...he didn't want to give away anything that easily...he took much care in this regard...this is clear from the amount of alertness he displayed during the demos...certain other things that Bessler told got misunderstood/misconceived down the line...we just can't take everything stated by him as Gospel's Truth...let us try to realize all this while we quote Bessler's explanation...Now coming to the connectedness principle...well, what exactly could this mean?...to you it means that levers are connected to one another...but to me it is actually something else...I feel it could mean about the weights being in contact with the lever/wheel structure...always...even when the swing is happening...and, to someone else, this could turn out be entirely different...what is actually happening here is that we get on to some belief system and thereby get into the wrong track...we don't even lend a ear to anyone offering suggestions....now, can you understand why the Bessler wheel is eluding us so much...

      Delete
    3. Suresh, I tend to take what little details about his wheels that Bessler gives us in his writing as the "Gospel Truth". Of course, I'm supposing that the translations John obtained are accurate and I think most of them are. Because of his religious values, I'm not convinced that Bessler would outright lie in his writings. He just tended to stay "delightfully general" when it came to describing the details of his wheels' inner mechanics. Obviously, he did not want to reveal too many precise details because he feared that others would then quickly duplicate his wheels, without doing a fraction of the work he did to find the design that worked, and sell the wheels for as much money as they could get as quickly as they could. Bessler's fears were not unfounded, imo. Even today there are people who will think nothing of ripping off someone else's idea if they think they can make a quick dollar off of it and they can get away with it. Even having a patent is no guarantee that this will not happen.

      I was able to do some more testing on my current wheel design this morning. Consequently, I am now close to one hundred percent convinced that I do have the exact design Bessler used. But, to my amazement I've found that the levers in this design are in a state of "exquisite" balance against each other. Just the slightest variation in spring tension can cause them to fall over toward one side of the wheel or the other. One has to have the spring tensions acting on the levers very precisely adjusted so that the system stays stable. Now I realize what that adjustment period Bessler had to put each wheel through involved. Aside from making sure his levers' interconnecting ropes were the precise lengths, he must have spent a lot of time adjusting spring tensions. I'm thinking that he must have also equipped each spring with a miniature turnbuckle so that he could sort of fine tune the tension it applied to the lever although I have not yet found any evidence of these in the visual clues he left. Anyway, my partial testing continues as I slowly move closer to the final test that counts which will determine if the wheel if self starting and can keep the center of mass of its weights on the wheel's descending side. Ideally, I want to see the wheel at least complete an entire rotation while doing that.

      Delete
    4. Ken,

      Where did Bessler mention the layering of ropes within the drums? I would love to read more about this.

      Delete
    5. I think it's in AP. I have the quote in a collection, but it's file is not on the laptop I'm using now. If I can find it, I'll post. it. I remember part of it where he says "I build my wheels in layers such that..." and then there's something about some ropes are loose while others are tight. I have only seen reference made to this quote very rarely yet it's probably one of the most important things he ever wrote! Those that don't think he interconnected the levers in his wheels with ropes should check out MT. With a few exceptions like MT 13 practically every imbalanced wheel design he illustrates uses ropes to help position and maintain the location of the weights' center of mass.

      Delete
    6. Ken..

      Bessler's wheel depended solely on gravity...not springs...because springs wouldn't last so much as the wheel movement involved a lot of repeated heavy lifting and swinging...the springs would loose their tension no sooner and this would significantly affect the rotation...In your case, all the levers are balanced and this indicates that the basic design is not appropriate...how to create a see-saw effect?...do we require springs for this purpose?...in order to increase mass or weight on one side we need to think out of the box, actually...and this cannot be obtained by the use of spring and even if we happen to use springs here they would demand constant replacement or tension adjustments which would eventually fail in a two month sealed room test...in fact, the secret of Bessler wheel actually lies in ingenuous designing of lever-weight attachment !!!...and until then we just can't expect any success irrespective of any amount of testing that one would carryout...even in our entire lifetime for that matter...mark my words here...at the moment, no one seems to seriously give any thought to this...it is all a wild goose chase at this rate...

      Sorry to sound desperate...

      Delete
    7. @ Zoelra

      I found this in AP:

      "My invention-plant is exceedingly energy greedy or selfish (or you may say 'thrifty' if you prefer) in that it greedily draws energy to itself. It works in layered parts but it fights energy-loss-friction at all places possible, so as not to lose any of the precious energy which in greedy fashion it sips out of the energy-rich raging river of gravity."

      There are other translations which usually say something like "I build my machines in layers...". These "layers", imo, are separate levels within a drum each of which contains a certain kind of rope needed to keep the center of mass of a wheel on the descending side during rotation. Notice he says that this is necessary to "fight...friction at all points possible...". I've found that the ropes, if they were all put into the same layer, would cross each other and be constantly rubbing against each other during wheel rotation. The layering places a small distance between these ropes so that this does not happen. Aside from creating energy wasting friction, the rubbing would eventually cause the ropes to prematurely fail and need to be replaced.

      I'm still looking for the quote about some of the ropes being tight while others are slack.

      @Suresh

      In my current design, the springs are needed to maintain the imbalance of the weights inside of the drum and they are critically necessary to achieve pm. They literally hold the levers and their weights in an unnatural configuration, yet allow that configuration to automatically and immediately adjust itself as the drum turns so that the configuration is constantly maintained. This is just not possible without the correct use of spring tension. I continue to work with the design I have and feel I'm very close to success. I should know in a few more days of partial testing.

      Delete
    8. I agree that Park's "translations" of Bessler's writings can really be described more as "interpretations", but, then again, the same can be said for much of anybody's attempts to translate a centuries old provincial German dialect into modern English. I had that quote in a large file of quotes from AP and was not sure exactly who the source was (the file was compiled years ago). Still, Park does translate one or more words from the original German as "layers" so I do not discount their existence especially since they are absolutely necessary in any kind of wheel that utilizes different sets of ropes to coordinate lever action.

      I still have not been able to find the quote about some of the ropes being "tight" while others are "loose". I know I've seen it several times and thought I had it in my file. Unfortunately, it is not there. However, I know from my models that, at any moment during rotation, only a certain number of the coordinating ropes are tight while the rest are slack and this condition prevails in most of the MT illustrations that Bessler made of wheels with ropes interconnecting their levers.

      Delete
    9. Ken,

      I hate to say this, but the passage you quoted is from Alden Park's interpretation of Bessler's Little Book, and the "layered parts" are part of what Alden calls the "layered pendulum". He also uses the terms "tight", "slack", and "rubbing" when referring to what he calls the "Orffyrean roller bearings".

      According to JC and many members on BW, this is a highly fictional document and is not a reliable source of factual information. Had Alden provided more details on his deciphering method, then maybe his work would have been taken more seriously.

      I searched JC's english translations of AP, DT, GB, and MT for terms "layer", "layers", "layering", and "layered" and I found no reference to any kind of layering of ropes. A few years ago, a BW member going by the name Rocky, compiled and posted hundreds of clues. I searched those as well and found no reference to layering.

      Delete
    10. Ken,

      I found this amongst Rocky’s clues and find it interesting.

      ******************************

      “They who inspected the Draschwitz wheel observed in the middle of the radius on one side, a hand-sized gap. Orffyreus said that this opening was left so that whenever something came undone inside the wheel, he could fix it without having to remove the entire casing. This just cannot be. If something breaks on the other side, which is several ells away and has no such service hole, how would Herr Orffyreus be able to fix it through this tiny opening?”

      FE Critique by Christian Wagner 1715 There are two possible explanations:
      1. The outside covering was not fixed to the inside mechanisms. There was a device to lock them together by the single access hole. He would unlock the cover framework and rotate it to put the access hole by the problem, then relock outside frame.
      2. There was an internal structure with free movement that would stay vertical and rotate on the axle. He could manually rotate the outside casing moving it over the problem area to fix the problem.

      ******************************

      If a single hole in the covering was there for repairs, at a radius where key components reside around the inner mechanism, then the first explanation makes more sense when you take into account Bessler’s statement that nothing hangs from the axle (or no weights hang from the axle). And if this is true, then it is even possible that the internal mechanism (or possibly other layers) turned at different speeds or even in different directions. The possibility of layers or disks turning at different speeds is reminiscent of the Keenie Wheel, which was reported to have levers and springs attached to the wheel.

      Delete
    11. Ken,

      I see you replied to my post as I was editing. Sorry I was in a rush to get it out and wasn't really ready. I agree that Alden's document is an interpretation, but the design he describes is all pendulum and roller bearing related. There are no ropes or weight levers (like MT9) in the design. Of course I am not telling you anything you don't already know.

      If you find any references to layering I would still be interested. Clearly MT indicates their existence as seen in designs like MT9.

      Delete
    12. I do discount most of Park's interpretation of Bessler's "Little Book", but I'm sure he did not just dream up the word he translated as "layers". He must of gotten that from the original German text and then applied it to his pendulum / roller bearing hypothesis which, of course, I would reject.

      As far as the hole near the axle of the Draschwitz wheel is concerned, it's obvious to me that it was strategically placed so that Bessler could peer into the wheel and view all of its eight levers to see which one was out of place due to a broken spring or rope. I wonder, however, just how he managed to illuminate the interior when he had his eye up against the hole and was blocking any outside light from entering the drum. Since the sides were covered with thin strips or slats of wood, then would not have let that much light into the drum's interior. Perhaps he had some sort of miniature oil lamp that he could put into the hole and lower down on a chain to provide the illumination. Then, to make a repair on the other side of the wheel, he would have had to have torn off the slats there and replace them after a repair was made. But, since that is a tedious process, it's possible that the slats were attached together into separate panels that were then attached to the radial supports of the drum by a few easily removed and replaced thumb screws. After he spotted which lever needed servicing, he would simply remove the entire panel, which might have covered a quarter of the side of the drum, made the repair, and then replaced the entire panel. He must have gotten tired of fabricating such large panels when he made the Merseberg and Kassel wheels and decided to just cover the sides of their drums with oiled linen which had been dyed a dark color to make them more opaque to any light trying to get through the drum.

      Delete
    13. Zoelra's explanation about layers makes some sense....the pendulums inside the wheel are set in layers...in this way the output energy can be increased as well as accommodating more in little space...like slices of bread....if the slices are scattered it would take up a lot of space...eight levers can be arranged in two layers...four on each side...two layers back to back...and if more energy output is reqd then these layers can be increased...

      Delete
    14. Actually, Suresh, in the models I am working with all of the levers are in the same plane. But, these levers are shaped like wide and open frames and it is the interior span between their side pieces that are divided up into "layers". Each layer contains only ropes of a particular type. At certain positions around the axle a lever's rope in one layer might be tight while the rope in the layer adjacent to that one might be loose. At other locations this can be reversed. Some of the ropes interconnect two levers while other ropes connect the lever to specific points inside of the drum. I'm still working out what the minimum number of layers in a one directional wheel was, but, I suspect it was only three for the smaller table top wheel Bessler originally worked on (and which he would demonstrated to Count Carl) while the larger wheels may had the span inside of a lever divided up into five or even seven layers. If the span inside of a lever from the Gera wheel was only about two inches wide and that span was divided into three layers, then each layer would only have been 2 in / 3 layers or 0.666 inches per layer. That's just enough to hold a single rope 0.25 inches in diameter and still leave enough space between adjacent ropes to prevent rubbing during wheel rotation.

      I got some more testing done this morning and after much frustration finally realized that I could probably eliminate half of the springs in my design and it would actually make its levers shift more smoothly! I hope I'm right because that change simplifies the design even further and, in a physical model, will reduce the total weight by the mass of all those unneeded springs.

      Delete
    15. We should always remember that the bessler wheel mechanism is extremely simple...simpler than what you have described above...but very hard to comprehend...we will be spending most of our lives testing and still not understand it....somewhere down the line we get into the wrong track...there is really some problem....it is something to do with our approach and attitude....an open mind is very important....

      Well, if it is that simple then why no one is able to invent the same?...one reason is we are too advanced and we don't regard small and trivial points/ideas...and even valuable advises, for that matter...another reason is we don't understand the right meaning of what bessler stated in his poem/hints....for example the term' a dog wags its tail, children playing among the pillars, etc.,...

      there is no genuine effort in understanding all this....and due to wrong belief system we are not able to achieve anything in this regard...

      Delete
    16. "Simple" is a very deceptive term when applied to Bessler's wheels. I have no doubt that Count Carl (I'm noticing everyone else here refers to him as Count "Karl", so maybe I should too?) was telling the truth when he said the interior mechanics of Bessler's wheel was "very simple". He would have viewed a table top model in operation and marveled at how smoothly the ascending side levers slowly swung their weights toward the axle and then immediately began to make them "climb" back toward the wheel's rim. I believe that this is only possible through the use of spring tension. What Karl would not have been aware of was the incredible precision in the placement of the parts that made up the model wheel's mechanics. The weights and levers had to have a certain mass. The ropes (or more likely strings with a small model!) had to be certain lengths and attached to the levers at specific points. And, of course, the springs had to have the correct tensions. It took Bessler years of effort to work out these details and he mentions that an enormous amount of mathematical calculations went into the final design that worked. I have no doubt about that based on my research. So, if Bessler's wheels had been both structurally as well as mathematically simple, then they would no doubt have been duplicated centuries ago. It is, I believe, their mathematical complexity which has prevented that rediscovery from taking place so far. I continue to work on understanding that mathematical complexity. My partial testing continues and is now a bit easier because I've been able to halve the total number of springs in my model wheel. I'm hoping that success will finally be achieved in this year. If not, then I would seriously consider quitting the pursuit of the secret of Bessler's wheels. I've found myself recently fascinated anew by the possibility of constructing a working permanent magnet motor. My renewed enthusiasm has been triggered by the various videos I'm seeing of the Yildiz motor. He seems to have figured out some way of extracting more energy-mass from his rotor / stator magnets as they are repelled out of their starting configuration then must be expended in resetting them to back into that configuration. He is basically doing with magnetic fields what Bessler did with gravity fields! I've studied Yildiz' patent for the device and still can not understand it or how it creates the torque on his rotor's axle. Anyway, I'm even starting to think about ways that could be used to produce the same effect so that the magnetic forces acting on the rotor during rotation would not be "conservative". I think this can and has been done.

      Delete
    17. @Zoelra

      Interesting points re. the implications of the inspection hole location.

      One conundrum that's constantly irked me is "one side full and heavy, the other empty and light, just as it should be".

      If the weights also "come in pairs", or even pairs of pairs, inner vs outer, then the implication would be that both of each pair are on the same "heavy, full" side at the same time.

      And yet everything must "go around together".

      So my point here is, perhaps the only way to reconcile these major clues is if the heavy and full 'sides' are in the axial plane - front & back - rather than bilateral as one might otherwise presume...

      Delete
    18. I think that translation of "one side is full and heavy, the other empty and light, just as it should be" simply refers to the location of the center of mass of a one directional wheel's weights. That center always stayed on a wheel's descending side so that side was "full and heavy". That center was not located on the wheel's ascending side so that side was empty and light.

      It's amazing to me how much misinterpretation there is about the "...come in pairs..." description of the weights. There is a simple solution: Bessler simply placed two weights at the end of each lever! For the Merseberg wheel that would amount to 2 one directional wheels in the same drum X 8 levers per one directional wheel X 2 four lb weights per lever = 32 four lb weights. 32 four lb weights weighs a total of 128 lbs which was a significant percentage of the total mass of the Merseberg wheel. Is it any wonder Bessler had to remove all of these weights to make the wheel lighter so that it could be more easily moved to a different set of vertical supports?

      Forget all of that "Z axis" stuff. All of the internal lever motions of Bessler's wheels took place in the plane of the drum.

      Delete
    19. The problem i have is that they also have to swap places, but also perform work on the wheel, rotating it.

      IOW the wheel can only turn if weights can get lower in the gravity field; but then i don't see how they can swap places and rise again.. In short, keeping all the weights (inner and outer) on one side despite rotation seems like conflicting requirements..

      Delete
    20. Another possible interpretation of the inspection hole's significance is that the main mechanism parts that Bessler was concerned about having to reset were 'crossbars' - ie. rigid beams crossing the wheel's diameter.

      As such they'd all intersect to some extent around the center, and the hole couldn't be directly over the axle for practical reasons, hence from this position he could grasp hold of any of the beams and reposition them, or whetever might need doing to them..

      Delete
    21. Yes, the wheel can only do work as the center of mass of its weights drops in a gravity field. But, that center will remain stationary if it is being raised at the same rate that it is falling. In Bessler's wheels this amazing behavior is only possible through the use of precisely shaped levers whose motions are coordinated with others via a system of ropes. And, of course, spring tension is critically important to the process.

      In AP we have two quotes regarding the hole:

      "If something went wrong with my machine, I'd mend it by poking around through a tiny hole, to prevent anyone seeing inside." - pg 292

      "I'll tell you with great pride that my timbers are all solid. There's also no trickery going on behind that hole - it's just for inspection purposes." - pg 292

      One quote suggests that Bessler could physically reach into the hole and make repairs. If the hole was small, then he would have to use one hand. I suspect this applied to the Gera wheel which, because of its small diameter, this might be possible. He could, literally, reach inside through a single well placed hole and replace broken ropes, springs, or free a lever if it got tangled up with one of the ropes.

      The second quote seems to emphasize that the hole was used only for visual inspection. This would have been the cases with the Draschwitz and Merseberg wheels. Their diameters were too large to allow one to just reach in perform repairs with one hand. In these cases, Bessler would just use the hole to locate the problem and then have to go to the wheel's periphery to make a repair. For the Draschwitz wheel he would have had to remove a panel made of attached slats and for the Merseberg wheel he would have removed a patch on the cloth side of the drum that would expose a hole that he could work through.

      Delete
    22. I've experimented with trying to raise a weight as it falls, without success (willing to share WM2D models if you're interested) - i concluded that actual descent is a pre-requisite for work to be done.

      Regarding the hole, in Zoelra's AP quote from Rocky, Bessler is claiming the hole's for actually fixing something that's come undone. In light of the conclusions Wagner's drawn from this, another possibility also springs to mind; that of a "connecting belt or chain" running around the periphery of the wheel. If its action depends on the precise location of slack vs taut sections, and there's a possibility of this losing alignment, then he might simply reach inside and reposition the belt / chain or whatever to align to a given angle of the wheel, thus re-priming the mechanism... this would seem consistent with Wagner's objections..

      Delete
    23. "... i concluded that actual descent is a pre-requisite for work to be done."

      Imagine a hollow drum that is vertically mounted on an axle that must turn with it. The drum is 12 ft in diameter and its sides are open. It's lower rim is only a few inches above a floor. Further imagine that the axle has a sprocket gear on it that attaches it, via a chain, to another sprocket gear on an electrical generator which is, in turn, connected to some load. Now, a person steps into the drum and begins trying to walk up one of its outer wall's inner surfaces. As he does this, the drum begins to rotate and the generator is turned and powers the load it is attached to. The person carefully matches his walking motion so that, as the drum rotates, the center of mass of his body remains, more or less, stationary in space inside of the drum. The drum is now an imbalanced wheel and the center of mass of the person continues to perform external work even though it does not drop. This, I believe, is exactly how Bessler's wheels worked. No, there was no living creature inside of the drums as some erroneously assumed. The energy needed to continuously raise the center of mass of a wheel's weights was provided by springs that had earlier been stretched as the levers they were attached to swung away from their stops on the ascending side of the wheel.

      Delete
  5. John,
    I am finding myself increasingly disgruntled with the way things are going at the moment, so rather than waste any more time on replies, I think my time will be better spent on building the wheel design I see in the Merseburg drawing.
    I'll let you know how I get on, maybe.
    'bye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Stevo, sorry you're going, I hope it wasn't something to do with me. Keep in touch and let us know how it goes- and good luck.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I would highly recommend you get a good computer model / simulation program to help you in your search for a working pm wheel. There are several good ones that can be gotten as free downloads off of the web. I use Working Model 2D because I found it the easiest to use. It has a few idiosyncrasies, but they are easily compensated for. They'll let you know if whatever idea you have is moving you in the right direction and they can even give you ideas for new approaches to try. Good luck with you efforts.

      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...