There are often comments, both here and on the besslerwheel forum which strive to cast doubt on various pieces of evidence in an attempt to explain away Bessler's achievement.
For instance sometimes it is an accusation that Karl the Landgrave, was somehow implicated in a plot to lend credit to Bessler's claim to have invented a perpetual motion machine, when all the time, it is said, he knew such devices were impossible. I have presented all the evidence in my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?", and I have no wish nor room to present it again here, suffice to say, read my book and you will see that Karl had no desire or intention to be involved in such a plot, he was an honourable man and recognised as such and he had too much to lose if he was found to have been taken in by a fraudster.
Another accusation suggests that either the witnesses to the wheel tests were a bunch of gullible fools, or else were participants in the same scam described above. Again, a read of my book will give details of all the most important and influential observers present at the examinations and it becomes obvious that they were astute and competent witnesses perfectly capable of making up their own minds about the validity of the tests. Many of them were determined to prove that Bessler was a fraud but ended up supporting his claim.
One suggestion is that Bessler fooled everyone over a period of more than ten years and none of the witnesses, including Karl, realised that they had been duped and that the whole thing was a fake. The thing people should ask is, how was that achieved? How did the wheel keep turning for 54 days and nights in a locked and guarded room, without any means found through which someone (who?) might turn the wheel from an adjoining room (they had all been searched prior to the long test) and leave no trace of their presence?
How did Bessler manage to hide any connection to another room, when he showed the wheel on two separate sets of open bearings mounted on separate pillars, changing positions as often as the examiners requested? There is much more but despite all the evidence in support of Bessler, I sense a certain desperation in these suggestions of fraud, based on no evidence whatsoever, other than that which we have been taught - that it is impossible.
Because people believe, without a trace of doubt, that a gravity-driven wheel is impossible, they search for another explanation - but there isn't one. Bessler said that the weights formed the perpetual motion itself and there was no connection to any other source of energy other than that inherent in the weights themselves - their weight. Even those who believe in Bessler still seek alternative energy sources because they simply cannot accept that gravity alone can be that source. In his book, Das Triumphirende Bessler spoke clearly about the source of the energy his wheel used and he gave his patron Karl, a copy of the book, and clearly he must have known that the Landgrave might read it and question anything which he found deceitful, fraudulent or inaccurate.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The truth is that gravity will prove to be the energy source and the sooner people realise that and accept it, the sooner the solution will be revealed.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
Okay, we eliminate the impossible which is that Bessler's wheels were hoaxes. Then, whatever remains must be the truth. The problem with this is that what remains is a near infinite number of possible mechanisms only a few of which might actually produce the much sought pm effect! I just wish that someone had paid Bessler that damn 100,000 thalers he wanted so that we would know today what the secret was whether it eventually proved to be commercially useful or not afterwards. Sorry, if I sound a bit negative, but I did some preliminary testing on the active mechanism in that Gravito-magnetic version of the Marquis' of Worcester pm wheel that I previously said I could not get out of my mind. It did not work any near as I had imagined it would and I'm now starting to doubt if the wheel design will work at all. Amazing how quickly one's opinion of an approach can change after a little bit of testing.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeletestill haven't started on my large scale wheel yet, one of the problems I find when people think of the wheels mechanism is they concentrate symmetry, i.e. the mechanism that pushes the weight out, pulls it back in mirror fashion.
My design doesn't do this, and the results I got from my small scale model leads me to believe that it's the way to go.
P.S. you missed the "S" off the end of Holmes.
I understand your frustration Ken, but I think the solution is closer. My own work proceeds one step forward and three back! Seriously I am making progress in building to his own design. No point in asking me how I know because I won't tell you until I know for sure.
ReplyDeleteStevo, keep at it, obviously I don't know what you've found but good luck. Thanks for the typo headsup.
JC
Yep, frustration is the name of the game in pm research. I still think I'm very close, but I just can't seem to get the spring tensions right to make that center of mass stay where it's supposed to stay: on the wheel's descending side. I've gone over my best clues dozens of times in the last few weeks and can "see" no different interpretations of them...yet! Sometimes one has to just "get away" from his research for a while and let his unconscious mind work on the problem while he distracts himself with other things. I've now given up on the magnetically activated Marquis of Worcester wheel. Magnets aren't the answer to making it work although I still think purely magnetic permanent magnet motors are a route to success (at least for Yildiz so far). If Santa Claus wants to bring me a nice gift this Christmas, the solution to the Bessler mystery would be perfect! If he can't manage that, I guess a new Rolex watch would be acceptable too! Lol
DeleteI think the type and amount of evidence we have it was not a fraud so outweighs anything contrary, that for me it rules out fraud 99%. The 'contrary' is only actually lots of unsupported negative criticism and one disproven (ham fisted) fraud accusation, no, he figured something novel out, thats just so much more likely the case.
ReplyDeleteJon
Believe me John, he was no fraud because I know how he did it.
ReplyDeleteKnowing how it was done is as vague as theories which is why patents can not be obtained with just a theory
ReplyDeleteTime will tell mate!
ReplyDeleteI did some work on my pm wheel designs yesterday and found another set of spring constant values to use with Bessler's wheels. So far everything looks good and there will another "acid test" of the modified design in a few days. I've learned the hard way that it's not enough just to have your weights and levers "coordinated" so that they repeat their starting orientations at the end of each 45 degree segment of drum rotation. Actually, that's fairly easy to achieve. But, what really counts is what's happening to the weights and levers between the beginning and end of a 45 degree segment of drum rotation. If they are not continuously shifting as just the right rates, then their center of mass will not stay fixed on the drum's descending side and pm will not be achievable. It's really as simple as that and it is this little detail which keeps all other attempts at building a working imbalanced pm wheel from working. Bessler found a way to do it and I'm convinced that he left definite clues about it in his writings, especially his illustrations. (Hint: don't waste time looking for this information in MT because it's not there). I should know in a few days if the new spring constants are the ones I need. Yes, they are indicated in the clues, but you really have to dig for them which is a "good" sign, I guess.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, my attempts to construct a magnetically assisted Marquis of Worcester wheel continue to fail. I tried about a half dozen approaches so far and none would keep the center of mass of the wheel's pendant weights on its descending side. Seems no arrangement of magnets works, but I'll keep trying for a while longer.
I'm also doing some other work with the permanent magnets (disc type) that I recently figured out how to make on wm2d. Mainly, I am now interested in seeing if I can duplicate the effect that Yildiz achieved with his permanent magnet motor. I'm using his patent as a guide. My goal is to construct a simple stator of permanent magnets that will "draw in" the magnets on a rotor so that they exit the other side of the stator magnets with more velocity than then had when they entered. Sounds impossible? Well, apparently, that is exactly what Yildiz did unless his demonstrated motor is a hoax which I'm not convinced it is at the moment.
The state-worshiping faith-hating secularists among us will surely froth at the mouth at any suggestion that, perhaps, some actual success might be attained by praying for answers (as Bessler himself did do) to great mysteries remaining so hidden so stubbornly, rather than, say, beating one's brains out 'till mortality's end (which fast approaches for rather too many here?) for some forced, disappointing false answer, as cooked up the "power" of Will alone.
ReplyDelete"Although irritating in extremus, ugly truths must sometimes be stated."
Seemingly, it is so that we humans rather often go big-headed, when it comes to our proposed ideas of our true importance to Existence but, fortunately do get knocked-down a few important pegs when facing some possibly real, ACTUAL END to our mortality's, such as serious sickness or some broken thing or whatnot. Such learning is of greatest utility, or should be-so as one might expect to the purpose of rational, needed benefit.
"Small IS as small DOES!"
Sadly as near history has thus far proved, any successes relative to any uncovering of Bessler's and his God's Secret to that Great Perpetuum Mobile (so eternally and cussedly elusive) have in fact been far greater of impressiveness (rather than merely small) because actually and spectacularly non-existing! (A tiny shaving of success would be in demonstrating one tiny, minute unit of energy as gained by unconventional, nay-sayed type means. Such would qualify as that . . . itself.)
Shall human Will and it's pathetic, arrogant worship triumph, where humility and supplication to that which is greater than small, universally insignificant Humanity (yet acrawling-still) has YET to be tried? (This query is not of the merely rhetorical; an actual answer being required)
Hopelessly actually, nevertheless we await news of any success as based upon that application of tiny Will Itself . . . alone.
"Do sayeth ye to me: Is it a thing to be . . . or no?"
James
"The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
As an agnostic atheist myself, my initial reaction to your diatribe, James, was somewhat negative, because I thought you were advocating that we should invoke the powers of a higher deity, to solve Bessler's wheel, but then I thought, what ever works for someone will suffice if it leads to a solution anyway and who among us doesn't want the problem solved? If I dismiss such methods as a waste of time that doesn't mean that I would dismiss a successful conclusion to such acts.
DeleteJC
I'm in the same "boat" as you, John. I would like there to be a beneficent God up there somewhere looking out for me and my fellow humans, but I've seen little evidence of his / her / its existence during my life. Just a lot of unprovable lip service devoted to the topic by a lot of deluded, though certainly well meaning and often nice people. While I appreciate such people, I'm not the type who "goes along to get along" if I don't see some evidence that is convincing. But, to tell you the truth, for the secret to Bessler's wheels, I'd gladly crawl on my hands and knees over broken glass and up to the altar of any church and then spend a week in prayer more fervent than any known by any cleric in the history of humanity!
DeleteI only have a little "new" to report today. I've given "acid tests" to several more variations of my current and "best" design for Bessler's wheels and all have failed. However, out of all of this failure a new approach did manage to emerge. I've added an additional spring per lever in the hope that it will speed up the shifting of my ascending side levers and their attached weights and thereby keep the design's center of mass on the descending side during drum rotation. This, however, requires me to carefully adjust the tensions of two sets of springs in an effort to achieve the pm effect...or, perhaps, we should call it the "Bessler Effect" after the man who finally did achieve it.
I've also been playing around with various permanent magnet stator designs to see if I can get a gross increase in rotor magnet velocity as they travel through the stator fields. So far no luck despite a dozen attempts. I've decided to go back to basics and see if I can build a device, actually a toy, that was popular in the free energy community years ago. It is called a "SMOT" which I think stood for "Simple Magnetically Overunity Toy" or something like that which was invented by an Australian named Greg Watson in 1985. Basically it was just a slanting array of permanent magnets that would accelerate a steel ball bearing up a small incline after which the ball would fly off of the end of the incline and could then begin another ascent on an additional incline (sort of the modern version of Bishop Wilkins' 1670 invention). It certainly was lifting the ball a small distance, but I never heard of anyone "closing the circle" or arranging matters so that the ball would come around along a track to the beginning of the first SMOT so that it could rise again and keep doing it to achieve pm. I'll have to see what I can do with this design using my wm2d "magnets".
Well said... Ken
Delete@Ken
ReplyDeleteForget about magnetic OU - especially using idealised magnets in a sim such as WM2D. The SMOT will only cause frustration and earn you derision.
However it CAN be made to work, as can any magnet motor such as the simple rotor / stator config. But to do so requires being able to measure tiny changes in induced magnetisation as a function of distance and, crucially, exposure time with respect to those two parameters.
Once you've established the rate of change of magnetisation for both increasing and decreasing values at the full range of working magnitudes and distances (increasing vs decreasing curves are different, and don't simply follow the same curve in reverse, or even a mirror image), you can then use basic trig to calculate an ideal rotor size and RPM to optimise the interaction speed.
Then it's just a simple case of accurately measuring the inbound vs outbound torques for both static and dynamic passes (for cross-referencing) for all possible angles of both rotor and stator magnets. Bish bash bosh, in no time at all you should start to see a disunity, somewhat counter-intuitively, when repulsing in and attracting back out - if you plot the FxD integrals you'll see the net area under the center bumps is greater than that for the combined inbound and outbound legs. You'll need micrometer heads holding the magnets for fine-tuning the angles and keeping them locked in place.
If OTOH you're planning a more 'hit and hope' approach, you'd be better off playing the lottery... the chances of stumbling across a lucky config are practically zero. Even if successful, you'd have no way of establishing why, or how to replicate. And if your magnets - real or simmed - don't have a non-linear response curve with respect to time, then there's simply no chance at all of any asymmetry arising.
The Bessler case is simply much, much more tractable for folks like us without full laboratories. Far fewer variables, lots of clues. EM OU is doable, but too demanding - not least considering that Steorn already have thes principles wrapped up. Moreover, a successful Bessler replication would make Steorn's tech obsolete overnight, obviating all the finicky variables - any old magnets would do, regardless of their response frequencies.
Honestly mate, don't waste your time. Your sterling efforts are far more valuably applied here..
Thanks for the advice, Vibrator; I appreciate it. Well, I've gone over my Bessler clues concerning the springs he used and I am now very firmly convinced that there were actually two different springs per lever. They had different spring constants and served different functions depending upon where a lever's pivot was located in the drum. I also have a new set of constants to use for these springs and will try to incorporate them into a modified version of my "basic" wheel before this weekend. I'm starting to feel a bit more optimistic now because it looks like the extra spring will considerably enhance the shifting speed of my ascending side weights and levers which I now know is critical to keeping the center of mass of all of the weights and their levers on the wheel's descending side. As I've stated before, there are about twenty different parameters that govern the smooth operation of the internal mechanics of one of Bessler's wheels. In order to replicate the design, one must have all of them to a fairly high degree of accuracy. I have about 16 of them at the moment and it's taken years to get this far. I'm hoping to have the remaining ones before the end of this year.
DeleteI'm still not convinced that overunity can not be achieved with permanent magnets. I can't get those Yildiz videos out of my mind. If he is a hoaxer, then he is truly one of the best that ever lived! I've constructed a simple SMOT and am experimenting with it. When I only use a single disc magnet on the rotor, it never manages to travel farther out of the SMOT stator than it traveled as it was drawn into the stator. However, I'm now experimenting with using multiple rotor magnets that are carefully spaced apart and starting to get some results that are impressive. My goal is to have the rotor magnets virtually motionless when they begin to be drawn into the stator array and then exit and have some large velocity when they are the same distance from the stator as they were before they were drawn in. I should know in a few more days if I'm heading in the right direction. From his patent drawings, it looks to me like Yildiz' motor is just basically a sort of cylindrical / helical SMOT device! If I can achieve success with my current linear SMOT, then the next step will be to see what happens when I make a circular rotor whose magnets enter a series of stator magnets placed around the rim of the rotor disc. The problem I'm encountering is that there are so many interactions taking place between all of the magnets that calculating each frame of a sim is beginning to exceed the meager 750 mb memory I have available for wm2d. This can even be a problem when trying to run a sim of a Bessler wheel model in which all 8 levers are in motion during a full 360 degree drum rotation. I'm starting to think I might need to expand the memory available with some sort of peripheral device like a flash memory. I'll have to look into this in the future if it begins to prove to be an obstacle to my research.
Always intriguing to read your progress updates - there's various ideas with springs i've wondered about but have yet to investigate properly - one is the spring-assisted stiletto knife mechanism, where a linear switch sliding a small distance on the handle causes the blade to pop in or out linearly a much greater distance. The other concerns moving the fulcrum or apex of a bent leaf spring between loading and unloading at alternate ends - which sounds somewhat reminiscent of your moving-fulcrum sprung lever (but is probably nothing like it LOL - without a diagram one can only imagine what you're describing)..
DeleteRe. the SMOT, i'm sure you'll have seen Roobert33's motor (admitted to be a hoax), but here it is anyway:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLek_3Hpwus
...basically it's a compact inverted SMOT. However it also has a little-appreciated connection to Steorn's K-toy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jze97j7M1xo
This is also a re-arranged SMOT in that it features a short track of magnets (set in the black epoxy block) with the smaller magnet travelling through the field in one direction, then exiting in an orthogonal direction (what Sean McCarthy described as "L-shaped" (also, "not necessarily circular") trajectories.
In short, what the K-toy demonstrated (and got Thieu Knapen there so excited) was a magnetic interaction having two different potential energies depending upon the plane it was measured in: one for sideways (the long axis), and another, lower value for up and down (short axis).
So you can now see the connection to Roobert33's machine - despite his claiming it to be a joke, its apparent principal of operation is nonetheless following the same trajectory shape that we clearly see working successfully (entering and exiting the stator field cleanly) in the K-toy.
What Steorn later distilled from these experiments was that the real cause wasn't simply direction-dependence (remember, Maxwell and Newton advise us that closed loop trajectories are path-independent, so direction of travel through the field should have no effect on the balance of inbound vs outbound FxD integrals) - rather, it was the relative duration of these alternate strokes that was leveraging the sluggish response frequencies of the stator magnets.
This raises the tantalising possibility that Roobert33's video may not have been a hoax, and was simply demonstrating exactly the same principle as the K-toy, yet, unable to understand why, and hoping to discover later, he claimed his own success a hoax in order to cover his tracks.. Similarly, if anyone ever had a working SMOT, this is likely to have been why, and also why no one else was able to reliably replicate either the theory or experiment..
Hopefully you can see now why it's so important to be able to measure these response frequencies accurately, and the difficulties in doing so - without decent lab kit you can't see what's going on inside the magnets. Rutherford built his own apparatus for this (see his first paper from 1886 on magnetic viscosity), so modern oscilloscopes and torque sensors etc. aren't strictly necessary, but still, this isn't something for the faint-hearted or average garage tinkerer.
DeleteThe factors determining magnetic viscosity (AKA entropy viscosity, abrev. "Sv") include remanance, coercivity, induced and applied field densities (B & H in Maxwell's terms), permeability, in conjunction with the granular consistency or quality of the magnetic materials - again, none of these are outwardly visible, and only careful experimentation can yield useful data for any given sample. Even magnets from the same batch will vary considerably.
Compared to gravitational systems, where all one needs is scales, Mecanno and a geometry set.. you can see why i advise sticking with the Bessler case. However we can still migrate the lessons of Orbo to here - the fundamental point is that the essence of Newton and Maxwell's conservation laws are expressed in Noether's theorem, the ultimate summary of which is that unity is dependent upon temporal invariance of the forces involved; ie., that they only vary with distance, but not time. In any situation where the force is a function of time, and where we don't pay for that variation - it just varies in time automatically, for free - we can leverage a disunity, obtaining asymmetric input vs output force / distance integrals by mechanically outpacing the ambient natural force variation on one or other stroke.
So in summary; gravity interactions occur at lightspeed, there's no obvious analogs of permeability, coercivity, remanance or Sv etc., yet, somehow, Bessler's design MUST have been circumventing Noether's symmetries by exploiting a time-dependent force variation. This is simply axiomatic. It may be that, upon discovery, it's not immediately obvious how the mechanism qualifies as a time-dependent one - it may appear spatially-dependent, as per Steorn's initial working hypothesis of L-shaped trajectories. However, as in their case, upon further analysis the temporal variance factor will become apparent. In other words, trying to think of a temporal exploit off the bat might not yield useful inspiration, anymore so that it would've been likely to have inspired Steorn to look for a path-dependent asymmetry, even though in retrospect that was what was happening. Either way though, something determining the force magnitudes has to vary, for free, between input and output strokes, for gains (or thermodynamic losses!) to be manifested.
So, if you can glean anything at all useful from that lot, thank Steorn.. and good luck with it!
If you want to really get into interactions between permanent magnets, or between permanent magnets and electromagnets, you'll need a decent 3D modelling program. I've been using Ansoft Maxwell 2D/3D v11 for years. It's dated now, but still does all I want.
DeleteThanks for the link to Roobert33's permanent magnet motor, Vibrator.
DeleteYes, I've seen it and several replicas of it before. The problem, of course, is that during the reset process when it is necessary to momentarily lift the stator magnet, all of the kinetic energy of the rotor is used up and none is left over to continue to accelerate the wheel. It will run just fine as long as one does not expect it to complete more than a single rotation!
In examining the Yildiz patent, however, his device works continuously and there is no need for shielding or stator motion. It just runs and those who have examined his motor claim that when they grasp the portion of its rotor shaft that projects out of the housing, they can feel a constant torque on it! Apparently, unlike Bessler's wheels, Yildiz' device will keep accelerating to dangerously high rotation rates and he always attaches a fan to the rotor shaft so that increasing aerodynamic drag will prevent this.
I've acid tested two more variations of my design for Bessler's wheels and both failed. The problem is the damn lever that moves from the 6:00 to 7:30 positions of the drum. It must rapidly swing counterclockwise to a certain orientation with respect to the vertical and this will not happen if the spring attached to that lever has too high a spring constant. However, when one lowers the spring constant in order to remedy this problem, then all of the levers in the upper half of the drum will become unstable and not hold their orientations. I'm now trying to use the lowest possible spring constant for the levers that will aid the rapid shifting of the 6:00 to 7:30 lever will also stabilizing the upper drum levers. Now I'm hoping that the extra spring I added to each lever that has a different constant can be adjusted to help all of this work. Bessler clues take me so far and then I have to grope around like a man in a pitch dark room looking for a hole in a wall to crawl through and into an adjacent room that, hopefully, will be well lit.
I continue to experiment with the SMOT design and did find one that would, literally, make a steel ball take off like a rocket! The problem is that only works when the simulation is run with the ball already in the "launch" position. If you try to let gravity gently roll the ball into the launch position, then it just jumps up and slowly rolls to the end of the ramp of magnets. Once there it stops moving. I was hoping to make a device that would allow a ball to be sequentially raised one ramp at a time until I got it to a significant height after which it would be allowed to roll down an external unmagnetized ramp and back to the launch position at the bottom of the zig zagging vertical array of ramps so as to achieve pm. No way this will work...very disappointing.
@arktos1001
DeleteYes I think Maxwell 3D can model Orbo interactions, with some prodding - teh only requirement is that it includes the time-dependence factor.
If you consider the standard "S" shape of the full-cycle hysteresis curve, above the knee on the increasing curve the rate of rise of B slows for a given rise in H - of course the graph doesn't include a time axis, but this aspect is implicit in the curve shape (assuming a constant rate of changing H).
Conversely, the decreasing curve drops much faster for a given drop in H. So above the knee there in the 1st quadrant, there's already a non-linear increasing vs decreasing propagation rate, and this difference can be coordinated to engineer losses, but also (esp. in crossfield alignments), gains.
Steorn were using some high-end industrial sims, but i think Maxwell should be enough - even if you have to script your own Sv curves (you could copy them from real material spec sheets for authenticity). Still, not a cheap option IIRC - i think i have an evaluation copy, somewhere.. but don't know if they still offer this.
Had an interesting thought last night:
ReplyDeleteThe AP wheel might simply be arrows, pointing inwards, the clue being radial forces.
The thought i subsequently had - really, rather a question - is whether centrifugal force can be used to cause a displacement from the inside end of the mechanism. What i mean is, suppose you swing a weight on a string around in loops - it wants to fly off in a straight line. So normally when considering applying centrifugal forces, with think of letting the weight causing this CF move outwards, radially.
What i was thinking instead was; would it be possible to use that force - in the form of tension in a string, say - to pull a weight from the axle towards the rim; without letting the outer weight causing the CF to move?
To make an analogy, swing a weight around your head on a string, but rather than holding the other end in your hand, attach it to a pulley which you hold instead, and use the CF generated to wind the pulley outwards. So the arc radius of the swung weight doesn't increase, but instead the pulley (and your hand) is drawn outwards to meet it.
So is that impossible, or just pointless?
In short, using chords to apply the high CF from the rim, back towards the center, where CF is otherwise lower. Then we have two force magnitudes applicable to the same area, for a given RPM. Use one for the output stroke, the other for input...
DeleteOn 2nd thoughts i'v ejust realised this would be equivalent to dropping the point of application of a weight, without lowering weight itself... and my previous experiments with that sugested that's impossible; the mass causing the force has to drop lower for any work to be done.
DeleteShame really, if true, but i still think the AP wheel may be three arrows pointing inwards - indicating radial forces. Feels like the first insiration i've had in weeks...
Vibe,
ReplyDeletemy idea could be adapted to pull a cord around the axle, provided that each of the eight cords had its own ratcheting pulley, with a spiral spring return, locked one way, spring return the other.
I was trying to relax so I could enjoy the coming weekend and, no matter how hard I tried, I could not get that damn Marquis of Worcester wheel out of my mind. The version I have been working with is not exactly like the one he constructed. His wheel did cause the suspended weights on the descending side to be located farther from the axle than the weights on the ascending side, but the torque they created was cancelled out by the slightly greater number of weights on the ascending side. The result was that the center of mass of all of the weights was always right below the axle and could not produce any net torque in that location. Yes, his wheel "worked" during brief demonstrations, but it was only running on the initial impetus given to it and would, after many minutes, finally slow to a stop. The design I was working with used four pendant weights on both sides of the wheel at all times and looked a bit like a Ferris wheel with weights instead of passenger seats. When all of its weights hang straight down, their center of mass will be located below the axle and there will be no torque to accelerate the wheel.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first constructed the wm2d model of my version of the marquis' wheel I thought that it would be a simple matter to use magnets to cause all of its pendant weights to swing together toward the wheel's descending side and thereby cause their center of mass to be located and stay on the descending side so as to provide constant torque. After a half dozen or so tries with various arrangements of magnets, I finally gave up. A few days later I had another idea. I adjusted the model so that a wind would be blowing horizontally from left to right so that it literally blew all of the weights toward the descending side and would keep them in this unbalanced orientation as the wheel turned. Everything looked like it would definitely have to work since, when the wind was blowing, the center of mass of all of the model's weights did swing over to and, most importantly, stay on the descending side. I would have bet the farm that this had to work. Well, it did not! Apparently, the same wind force that displaces the hanging weights also prevents the wheel from turning. Very disappointing.
Flash forward to a few hours ago. I tried to rest, but my failed version of the marquis' wheel kept creeping back into my conscious mind...damn unconscious mind would not let me alone! Then, suddenly, an entirely new approach popped into my mind. A ridiculously simple way of keeping all of the pendant weights leaning toward the wheel's descending side without using any sort of externally applied forces. I was going to jump right up and crack out a quick wm2d model, but decided to restrain myself until next week and just let the mechanism percolate in my brain for a few days. If this novel approach works it will produce an imbalanced pm wheel that is far more powerful than anything Bessler ever built!
Hi Ken, did besslers one way wheel start turning as soon as the brake was released
ReplyDeleteyes
ReplyDelete@ Uneqk. Yes. In fact, I believe, that Bessler only had a single one-directional wheel design that worked. However, he was able to use two of them, back to back, to make a two-directional wheel. The mechanics needed to achieve this is not that complicated and I was able to reverse engineer his method in only a few weeks with about a dozen or so models. The mechanism I have works perfectly and is gravity activated depending upon the position of a drum.
ReplyDeleteBad news, everyone. I could not resist the urge to try out that "simple" way of keeping all of the pendant weights in my version of the Marquis of Worcester's Wheel leaning toward the descending side of the wheel which would have kept their center of mass always located on the wheel's descending side. I tried many variations of it and none would work. I've now given up on it for good and am even thinking of quitting my future experiments with permanent magnets. If Yildiz' motor is not a fraud, then there is no need for me to try to build a permanent magnet motor. He's already done it and, sooner or later, his design will be copied by everyone else. It's only a matter of time.
I'm still a few days away from another "acid test" of my latest and best model for Bessler's wheels and, so far, everything looks good. That, of course, can change in a matter of seconds as a simulation is run. From what I have now, it seems that the levers carrying the weights inside of Bessler's wheels were continuously resetting themselves as a drum rotated. It's as though they were in a state of equilibrium that, once perturbed by drum rotation, would immediately attempt to reestablish itself by automatically and almost instantly adjusting the orientations of its levers so that the center of mass of the weights and levers would move right back to their starting location on the drum's descending side. We usually think of the equilibrium point for a set of weights as being directly under a wheel's axle, but this was definitely not the case with Bessler's wheels. The secret to success in duplicating Bessler's inventions is finding the particular spring tensions he used to make the resetting process always take place just as fast as the drum turned so that the center of mass would stay, more or less, in one spot. This is no easy task, but I think I'm starting to get to the exact numerical values he used for his spring constants. They are right there in the clues he left. Unfortunately, so are a lot of other numerical values and to find the correct ones, the seeker of pm must try each and every one of them. It's a slow and laborious process even with the use of simulation software. Hopefully, I'll have some good news to announce before the end of this year. I've truly reached the point where, if the present design I have does not work, then I will have no other ones to try. It's this or nothing for me and I have to make this work. If not, then it will be time for me to retire to the sidelines with the rest of the retired (that's a polite way of saying "burned out"!) pm inventors and spend the rest of my days encouraging others who may want to try to successfully reverse engineer Bessler's wheels. In any event, no one should doubt that he actually did what he claimed. The preponderance of the evidence we have proves he did and that the basic mechanism he used was "simple". But, I have found that it is both simple and very precise in its construction. Unless one has almost the exact same parameters in his design as Bessler had, then he will achieve nothing no matter how long or hard he tries to crack this "nut" of a mystery.
Ken, simple question...are you and technology guy the same person?
ReplyDeleteI never use a pseudonym when posting, justsomeone, and I've never used "technology guy" as a pseudonym. However, last year I did receive several emails inquiring if I knew the identity of someone who called himself "technoguy" or something like that. I've corresponded with dozens of people over the years since I resigned from another free energy type forum and it's possible that one of them could be this "technology guy" you mention or the "technoguy" others inquired about. However, I don't usually respond to emails from pseudonymous individuals and if one of my many correspondents was using one of those pseudonyms, then I would not know who he (or she) was. I like to know who I'm dealing with. Usually, those writing me are curious about my Bessler research or wondering about something in the Bessler literature and I try to help them if I can or refer them to someone else who can. I'm not really an expert on Bessler's history, European life in the early 18th century, or the German dialect that Bessler wrote in. My focus in on the actual mechanics that were used in Bessler's wheels, because, if that is not worked out so as to lead to a duplication of his wheels, then it is only a matter of time before interest in the subject finally fades into obscurity. That would be a shame considering the amount of time John Collins, I, and many others have invested in it. While I don't expect Bessler's design to change the world, it would certainly change the history of science, and, perhaps, lead to a whole new technology of self motive machinery.
DeleteWhile I have not yet performed the "acid test" on my latest and best wm2d model for Bessler's wheels, I have been doing some thinking about how the energy they outputted was generated. Basically, all of the energy produced by a wheel during a single drum rotation comes from the 8 weighted levers as they move between the drum's 6:00 and 9:00 positions (assuming clockwise rotation). As each lever travels between those positions, it swings in toward the axle and its attached weight drops relative to the Earth's surface. As the weights drop, they lose gravitational potential energy and tiny amount of mass associated with that energy. With each drum rotation, the total gravitational potential energy lost by the 8 levers and their weights is then transferred to all of the moving parts of the entire wheel; that is, to its axle, drum frame pieces, coordinating ropes, storage springs, and, of course, weights. That energy can then be tapped by attaching external machinery to a wheel's axle. In practice, this tapping of the energy associated with the mass of its weights will continue as long as a wheel is allowed to run and that will happen as long as the weights, levers, and other moving parts inside of the drum have not lost enough of their original mass so as to become massless. That might, incredibly, require billions of years! So, strictly speaking, Bessler's wheels were not "perpetual". Their run times, assuming a critical part failure did not occur, would depend upon the mass of their weights and levers which served as their stored energy supply. They did not manufacture energy out of nothing and, most importantly, they did not disobey any of the known laws of physics then or now. Yes, he really did do it and, hopefully, we'll all soon know how.
John, with consideration you offered above as follows:
ReplyDelete"As an agnostic atheist myself, my initial reaction to your diatribe, James, was somewhat negative, because I thought you were advocating that we should invoke the powers of a higher deity, to solve Bessler's wheel, but then I thought, what ever works for someone will suffice if it leads to a solution anyway and who among us doesn't want the problem solved? If I dismiss such methods as a waste of time that doesn't mean that I would dismiss a successful conclusion to such acts."
Fair enough 'though I'm not sure that my enthusiastic offering of the simple informing-effusive, at all came up to the estimable level of the diatrible (not yet a word but soon to be) . . . .
To wit
Listening to a lengthy diatribe may seem like a waste of time, an attitude for which there is some etymological justification. The Greek word diatrib, the ultimate source of our word, is derived from the verb diatrbein, made up of the prefix dia-, "completely," and trbein, "to rub," "to wear away, spend, or waste time," "to be busy." The verb diatrbein meant "to rub hard," "to spend or waste time," and the noun diatrib meant "wearing away of time, amusement, serious occupation, study," as well as "discourse, short ethical treatise or lecture, debate, argument." It is the serious occupation of time in discourse, lecture, and debate that gave us the first use of diatribe recorded in English (1581), in the now archaic sense "discourse, critical dissertation." The critical element of this kind of diatribe must often have been uppermost, explaining the origin of the current sense of diatribe, "a bitter criticism."
As Salieri himself heard the Emperor Himself exclaim, regarding their tiny matter then at-hand: "Well . . . there it is!"
And so it was and they are.
The rest may be accessed here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diatribe. All-in-all it is a useful little study for learning the finer points of usage for the term.
As for Mr. Behrendt's contribution to our mini-fuss, there would seem to be some actual little improvement added to his usual monotonous dronings, invariably leading to the usual - Nowhere Land . . .
To wit
" . . .for the secret to Bessler's wheels, I'd gladly crawl on my hands and knees over broken glass and up to the altar of any church and then spend a week in prayer more fervent than any known by any cleric in the history of humanity!"
Well, at least such a declaration might be SOMETHING now improved about him, seemingly.
Sadly (but understandably/predictably), the old BWF is slowing down to a tempo molto larghississimo, with but only a few of the regulars being left (mostly the old elitist and too proud Fourby's and Fivers) plying their usual wares, all of it headed doubtless-so for Nothing Land. (As distinct from that other destination of Behrendt's)
Perhaps it is that a bit more of on-the-knees activities rather than Will-As-God stuff, might render what stubbornly just will not materialize and, maybe, the Bessler Experience is, after all, just one big test to see if now we might have improved some as to "demeanor" towards the ineffable/invisible? (Some like to say that miracles do happen.)
(A rat-assed coward shot Brann in the back in the streets of Waco in Texas. The surprised assailant received six big .45 ones into his decrepit carcass compliments of Editor Bran, these as just reward and then some. Yes, writing against the tide does entail it's little risks. It is easy to get along by going along but not here, not anymore . . .)
Cheers and good luck with PM.
James
"The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
". . . Brann was a journalist known for the articulate savagery of his writing. . . ." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cowper_Brann
Sorry James, calling your comment a diatribe was too strong a word and I must put it down to poetic license! I fear Ken is taking over my blog and I recall saying something simlar about him when he inhabited a stretchof BWF.
DeleteThe problem is, how do you request a contributer to reduce their prolixity without causing offence and which may leading to dudgeon, when in fact I welcome all offerings of kinds?
JC
John,
Deletewhen I see a comment that is just one big block of words, I see who it's from, read a line or two, decide whether it's drivel or not, and if it is, I pass.
It leads to a lot less disgruntlement !
Not a problem here, John, not at all, but thanks just the same for your shown kindness.
DeleteAs for how might be effected such trick as you now ponder, I've not a clue as, unlike with yourself and deceased editor Brann, I've never edited any thing other than my own near-diatribes here, and over at BWF and so, as a result, this leaves me in a lessened position for the giving of any useful, tangible advice, along such lines as you presently are in wonderment about. Sorry.
Here at JCN/B, there seem far fewer participants for any effective drumming that might otherwise be achieved, to such a needed purpose, in or out.
Excellent! Both "prolixity" and "dudgeon" are brand new ones on me. These must and shall be investigated and lexically incorporated forthwith, post-haste. Thank you. (Seemingly, it takes a real, authentic 'Queen's English' speaker to come up with such gems. Over here, in the Colonies, we just amble along, doing as well as we are able, given that limitation.)
Now, for a bit of on-topic comment . . .
Wholly, I must agree with what you have stated above. Here as well, seemingly - it just not compute, given the historical facts as we know them presently - that fraud on the part of Landgrave Karl nor some absolutely perfect trickery of Bessler's, could have been any elements then-in-play.
No.
The critics and Sayers-Of-Nay will always try their best to throw these and such into any pile of contention, this so as to make them seem more real, I think. (Yes as I do knowing a little bit of our human nature, and it's depraved bent toward crafting false realities for the creating of useless and irrational "gain," etc. Truth, when and where authentically accessible, IS sovereign; lying and dissemblance being of the Devil's Realm.)
If not, after all, mystically-empowered actually (which as you might know by now I accept as being an actual possibility), then 'the dodge' must be found in some really, really neat trick of mechanics such that serves to react asymmetrically to the symmetrical field that is gravity's. (Vibrator has had much of insightful interest to say on this, I know.)
In a more positive mode, this is all I can offer for now. Others will do better.
James
"The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
". . . Brann was a journalist known for the articulate savagery of his writing. . . ." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cowper_Brann
John wrote "I fear Ken is taking over my blog and I recall saying something similar about him when he inhabited a stretch of BWF. "
DeleteSorry if I seem to be doing that, John. I was just trying to provide some content and stimulate discussion when it seemed like things were a bit slow around here. I will post less frequently and abundantly in the future and only report on my research if I make what I have to consider significant progress. I am not offended by your "hint".
You're a gentleman as always Ken. No need to post less frequently but if you could pare them down somewhat we'd al be pleased.
DeleteJC
There is an old saying " the less someone says the more people listen. "
ReplyDeleteThere is an old saying " the less someone says the more people listen. "
ReplyDeleteThere is an old saying " the less someone says the more people listen. "
ReplyDeleteSorry, stopped listening, lol
ReplyDeleteThe older I get the less I listen to what people say and the more I look at what they do. Andrew Carnegie.
DeleteJC
Did someone say something?
DeleteEliminating the impossible for PM is easy. What remains is what no one can figure out!
ReplyDeleteAnother "acid test" his morning and another failure...so what else is new? It all seems to come down to the levers and weights moving between the drum's 6:00 and 7:30 positions. If those lever do not swing in toward the axle fast enough, then it is impossible to keep the center of mass of all of the weights and levers on the wheel's descending side. It seems the spring constants I am using are still too much and need to be reduced further. But, then there's that problem that crops up of having to keep the upper drum levers stable with lower tension springs. I need to let this be for a few days so my unconscious mental computer can work on the problem. It must be overcome or I will have hit a road block around which I can not find a detour. Stay tuned for further developments.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your brevity, Ken. Good luck.
DeleteJC
Yes!
DeleteFor this absolutely thanks are in order but we shall SEE (won't we?) as to how long this little improvement-tease-bone is to last.
It is so, sadly. Some 'types' of the supposedly civilized do seem simply not able to resist exploiting freedom to be overbearing, to the point of forced impositions - this done rather too often under the convenient cover of appearing amiable and informative, etc.
Like monotonous, mono-tonal madness of prattling also went on for months upon months over at BWF, as was practiced so very cheekily by our present subject/personage.
Yes, we SHALL see . . .
- James
"The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
". . . Brann was a journalist known for the articulate savagery of his writing. . . ." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cowper_Brann
More acid testing and more failures. I'm still convinced that I have the correct lever shape and attachment points and only need to have the correct spring constants to make it work. I'm now at model # 1060 and having problem with the 6:00 to 7:30 lever. It is truly the major obstacle in making the design work. It must rapidly swing toward the axle as the wheel rotates clockwise or the center of mass of the weights and levers will not remain stationary on the wheel's descending side. I'm now focusing all of my efforts on getting this to happen.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I've also been researching various approaches to permanent magnet motors (even though I swore I would never again do so!) and came across this interesting "window display". Amazing how similar it is to that Finstrud gadget!
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/perpetual-motion-machine-makes-novel-window-display/
In case anybody is confused by the tangle of parts in the Finstrud machine, here is a nice labeled side view of it to ponder. After a moment of study, it's method of operation should become obvious.
Deletehttp://peswiki.com/images/8/8f/Fr-gmd.jpg
I'm surprised that nobody seems to know how the Finstrud machine works even though it is painfully obvious.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think I've managed to narrow down the spring constants that Bessler used on his levers to one of two values. Now I've got try both of them and see if I can finally get that damned 6:00 o'clock going to 7:30 o'clock lever to swing in toward the axle fast enough to keep the center of mass of all of the levers and their weights on the wheel's descending side during drum rotation. So far, every effort I've made has failed, but I'm starting to think that one the ropes interconnecting my adjacent levers is not attached properly. I'll be experimenting with different attachment points over the next few days to see what happens. Every one of the many parameters involved in Bessler's design must be correct or the pm effect will not manifest. I'm starting to feel a bit more optimistic with this new approach. To paraphrase Mr. Holmes, when you've eliminated everything that does not work, what remains must work. Now to see if this applies to pm wheel research!
A few times now I have posted and the post quickly disappears? Does anyone know why?
ReplyDeleteregards
Jon