Tuesday, 14 April 2015

Breaking Down the Wall of Scepticism.

I have been immersed in Bessleriana for so long that I have become accustomed to the idea that it will only be a matter of time before we prove that Bessler was right and it is possible to extract energy from gravity.  Suddenly I realised I had got too used to the possibility and had forgotten what a bombshell that news would be should it come true!

The reminder came because I was rereading through Sir Isaac Newtons 'Quaestions' notebook the other day, and came across his brief comment about how perpetual motion might be possible if you could somehow shield half the wheel from the effects of gravity, when I sensed a subtext in his note. He wasn't suggesting that it was possible, what he was saying was that one way to achieve it would require the invention of a material which was utterly impossible.  In other words he was implying that it was impossible and you would have to invent an equally impossible method to achieve it. So even my attempt to vindicate my stance by suggesting that even Newton considered perpetual motion might be possible, was flawed!

But I do not accept that it is impossible, because I am completely persuaded otherwise by the huge amount of evidence in Bessler's work, but it does demonstrate very clearly the monumental task we have in trying to persuade anyone else of our conviction.  Newton has achieved an almost God-like status, and his work is taught world wide.  Other scientists of the era have also defined physical laws which still stand today, and every scientist, teacher and in fact anyone with even a little education knows that Bessler's wheel violates some law and is therefore inpossible, so how come we few are so convinced that we know better, that we are prepared to go against the tide and do all in our power to prove 99 percent of the world's population have got it wrong?

Call it instinct, intuition, a feeling, a hunch, a sixth sense, a gut feeling - whatever it is, it has been in the mind of man for thousands of years.  There was a magnetic wheel design in 8th Century Bavaria, and a design for another  perpetual motion machine by Indian mathematician–astronomer Bhaskara in 1159.  There are hints that they were being investigated as far back as the Sumerians, 5000 years ago. Somehow, we just know that it is possible to create a continuously turning wheel powered by weights, and therefore gravity.  In Bessler's day the possibility was discussed by the intellectuals but most of those who understood the argument were swayed by those who said it was in violation of certain physical laws which could not be argued with. The mere fact that it was so hotly debated suggests that the idea went against man's intuition.

The sceptic's argument was logical and those who espoused it were unable to find a concept which would allow such a device to work.  Phillipe de La Hire (1614-1718)  wrote that 'one would need to find a body that was both heavier and lighter at the same time', as equally daft an idea as Newton's gravity shield - and yet there is a certain truth in the statements.  La Hire's reflects Newton's idea too. Either the object changes weight or the effect of gravity on it varies; the end result is the same, the  amount of the perceived weight alters.

There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both.  The only question is this; is gravity an external force or not?  To me it is obviously external.  All physical bodies of mass are attracted to each other by the 'action at a distance' phenomenon hence the force must be external to the wheel - no question.  We can therefore dismiss the 'scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both'. That consensus does not apply here, a gravity-powered wheel isn't an isolated system.

In the end, simulations, learned texts littered with illustrations, lectures - none of them will persuade the hard-liners; only a working model will convince them that after 300 years Johann Bessler's claims were justified.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’



46 comments:

  1. John, Do you think the "great men" of the past that have stated a gravity wheel to be impossible, should still be considered as "great men" if they are proven wrong ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, even the great ones!

      JC

      Delete
  2. I think you're wrong about Newton saying perpetual motion was impossible. He had an idea that gravitational force was due to tiny particles raining down from space toward the center of mass of all objects and the impacts from these particles pushed object together and created gravitational force. He realized that if one could find a material that would block this rain of particles as it struck one side of a wheel, then the impacts on the other side would make the wheel turn perpetually. He did not, however, say such a material was impossible. Even Bessler alludes to this gravity model of Newton when he stated that he had not invented some new kind of material.

    If one does not realize that energy and mass are the same thing, then it is clearly impossible for any system of revolving weights to output energy to their environment if their arrangement with respect to each other is stable over time. However, once one considers that even a tiny bit of mass is equivalent to an enormous amount of energy, then one can rationalize how an arrangement of revolving weights could output energy continuously even though their configuration does not change over time. All they do is simply lose mass at a very slow rate as the wheel outputs energy (and mass) over time. In fact, any arrangement of weights that keeps its center of mass on a wheel's descending side during rotation should continuously output the energy contained in its weights. Whether its motion will be truly perpetual or not is not something which can be determined at this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting notion: so, an Orffyrean wheel could be a universal converter that would convert any matter into energy.

      Delete
    2. Yes, an Orffyrean wheel would do that. It would not have mattered if Bessler had used bottles of mercury instead of cylindrical lead weights in his machines. One must think of a "machine" as merely a conduit for transferring energy and mass from one location to another. This is how such things as levers, pulleys, scissor jacks, etc. work. With an imbalanced pm wheel one has a conduit from which energy and mass issue to anything connected to its axle. But, there does not seem to be any energy or mass entering the other end of the conduit; in fact, there is no other end of the conduit! This looks like an obvious impossibility to a classically trained physicist. The other end of the conduit, however, actually exist inside of the wheel. As weights on its ascending side swing in toward its axle, they lose a very small amount of energy and mass. That energy and mass can then be drained off by any machinery attached to the output end of the conduit or the axle. When a weight returns to the 6 o'clock position again after traveling around the wheel, the process begins again and it will then lose a tiny bit more of its remaining energy and mass. The process is a slow one and, based on calculations I did years ago, could take tens of millions to billions of years to complete for a four pound weight depending upon how much work the wheel is performing continuously. I suspect that even after we finally have the design Bessler used and working replicas are constructed, there will still be some who will not believe it is genuine and will insist that they are hoaxes of some sort. We've all been brainwashed into believing that any mass moving around a closed path in a force field can not experience any change in its energy or mass. Bessler's wheels, however, prove that this is not necessarily so.

      Delete
    3. Ken - You wrote:

      "I think you're wrong about Newton saying perpetual motion was impossible. He had an idea that gravitational force was due to tiny particles raining down from space toward the center of mass of all objects and the impacts from these particles pushed object together and created gravitational force."

      I didn't know that Newton said that. I should love to have a reference since it would underpin my view of gravity as an external wind blowing steadily downwards.

      Also, the advent of the black holes discovery explains where those infinitesimally small particles finish up. If you can have large black holes at one end of the matter scale why not also minute black holes at the other end. :-)

      Delete
    4. I've read about this Newtonian gravity model in several places and can not remember a specific reference for you, Frank. The model sounds plausible at first sight, but has some inconsistencies that surface upon further consideration. For example, why should these minute, yet massive particles selectively rain down toward the center of an object? That implies that there is some force present pulling them down. In other words, to use this gravity model one has to already assume that there is an invisible force present to direct the motion of the particles! Much easier to just keep the invisible force and skip the hypothetical particles.

      Newton, btw, is a very fascinating character and, not too surprisingly, his personality was very similar to that of Bessler. I like to think that if they had ever met, then they might have become very good friends.

      Delete
  3. Myślę , że Newton miał rację i do tego pokazał drogę , którą trzeba zmierzać aby poznać ruch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The earth is part of the system. So interactions between weights in a wheel and the earth are internal to the system. Gravity isn't an external force between two bodies. If two bodies comprise a system, their gravitational attraction to each other is internal to their system.
    In order to keep weights pushing around a wheel using gravity as an "external" force, then you'd have to invent Newton's impossible shield.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bessler's wheels do not strictly need a planet's gravity field to operate. One could put such a wheel inside of a spinning centrifuge located in space and the wheel would also turn and continue to output the energy and mass of its weights until they were gone at which point the wheel would stop turning although the centrifuge would keep on spinning. Note that none of the energy and mass that leaves the Bessler wheel comes from the centrifuge itself. This simple example also demonstrates that Bessler's wheels did not obtain the energy they outputted from the Earth's gravity field.

      Delete
  5. Thanks Ken. If we have to abandon the earth someday, we'll take centrifugal force wheels with us on our space stations to provide our energy needs.



    ReplyDelete
  6. Historians know more about ancient Rome thousands of years ago than they do about
    Europe a few centuries ago, the reason being that there has always been a problem with record keeping in Europe . I believe the reason the Bessler wheel remains unsolved is because what is shown in the drawings is not recognized today .
    Hundreds of years ago the technology that existed in Europe was more advanced than the technology we have today , today we have machines that do nearly everything for us, agriculture, the making of clothes .etc.
    All that did not exist hundreds of years ago and so they had to have technologies that are forgotten . For example if you were to observe organic natural farmers today, they are starting to develop technologies that one might think did not exist before but that had to have existed before centuries ago .

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course the weights inside Besslers wheel would not dissolve and disappear while running, nor the electrons keep loosing their internal speed/energy while the wheel runs. Ken is indeed suggesting that Besslers wheel was a simple type of atomic/nuclear reactor. I don`t think Bessler suffered from any radiation sickness, as he lived quite long. (trying to be funny, I know the levels would be low) You see, if Besslers wheel worked, E=mc^2 must be incorrect, for several reasons (No matter what you say JC, I know you would like to not brake any laws, then your view would be easier to swallow, but it is simply not possible).That is the real or deepest reason scientists will not believe in PM, because nobody dares or have the intellect to challenge E=mc^2. But I assure you that the weights did not dissolve, and that E=mc^2 will be proven wrong. Already several experiments has proven it to be inconsistent! So it boils down to a single question: Is the "empty space" really empty as E=mc^2 suggest or is "empty space" some kind of medium for transferring waves? (Like in the Zero point Energy theories). If Besslers wheel was genuine E=mc^2 will automatically be proven wrong and some form of ZPE/Quantum theory will be proven to be correct or more correct. This is also the reason why Einstein never could explain gravity nor magnetism, but only supply formulas to calculate their values. Of course he is correct in that bodies loose internal energy when set in motion, and that gravity fields acts just the same, by slowing the the internal "RPM" of atoms/electrons. But this does not mean that he is correct in assuming that space is empty! Actually, this is the same problem as with Helmholtz because Einstein assumed Helmholtz theory to be true, therefor there can be no other exchange of energy in space than what is shown through the formulas, and space must be empty. So was Helmholtz correct in assuming that no PM is possible? Einstein built upon that assumption and this is the SECOND reason that E=mc^2 will be proven wrong if Besslers wheel worked! And that is the reason Einstein could not complete his unified theory about "everything".

    Einstein only gathered existing formulas into one system, (including Helmholtz assumptions) and found a formula that gives the correct values for internal vs. external energy of mass. it does not tell, HOW gravity or magnetism propagate or what space is! We still have a long way to go, and again Helmholtz would actually be the one to blame!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Ken is indeed suggesting that Besslers wheel was a simple type of atomic/nuclear reactor."

      No, I'm not suggesting this at all. There were no nuclear reactions occurring inside of the weights Bessler's wheels used. But, as a wheel ran and continued to output energy and mass to machinery attached to it, the individual subatomic particles that composed the lead atoms in the weights would continue to lose some of their energy and mass content. Despite this, however, all of the normal physical and chemical properties of the atoms in the weights would remain the same. No radiation was emitted as the subatomic particles lost energy and mass as happens during a nuclear reaction. Unless one can accept this concept, he will never be able to understand exactly where all of that mechanical energy Bessler's wheels outputted came from. I fully accept the reality of this concept and the validity of E = mc^2. To keep the center of mass of an imbalanced wheel fixed in space as the wheel rotates means that center must be continuously raised at a rate which matches the rate at which the turning wheel is trying to cause it to drop. That requires energy and, as I've mentioned previously, that energy in Bessler's wheels could only have come from one place: the ascending side weights as the levers they were attached to swung in toward the axle. The real problem for the serious Bessler wheel reverse engineer is to figure out the mechanics needed to use that energy and mass being lost on a wheel's ascending side to shift all of the other levers and their weights closer to the wheel's rim so as to cause the center of mass to rise constantly during wheel rotation. I continue to search for the mechanics he used and have absolutely no doubt that it involved the very clever use of spring tension. I also have no doubt that there is only one place in all of the Bessler material where one will find some specific information about how Bessler's mechanics worked. Those hints are the first things one encounters as he opens DT.

      Delete
  8. You are talking about Bosons, Fermions and Quarks etc. giving of energy and mass to the wheel = external energy, What happens to this mass when the subatomic particles are at a standstill? and they no longer contain any energy? What about the Atom nucleus, the electrons, protons and neutrons? Does the lead weights have the same weight/mass after giving off that said energy? What if Bessler used iron weights, would the same happen to those subatomic particles too? Was Helmholtz theory correct? No PM is possible because of the Conservation law he introduced? You say that E=mc^2 is correct, then Helmholtz also have to be correct! You are WRONG when you try to establish the fact that DT is the only work by Bessler that contains hidden information. it is in fact provable false claims! Actually MT is the only work where he actually write in clear text that hidden information exists! How can you say that Bessler always was genuine, and then claim otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm saying that in a working Bessler wheel that the rest masses of the electrons, neutrons, and protons in its weights' atoms will constantly decrease. That decrease does not affect the other energies and masses that these subatomic particles might have such as their kinetic energies and electrostatic potential energies. These will remain the same and that will assure that the atoms in the weights will not just eventually collapse. Even if the rest mass of, say, an electron reached zero, the particle would still have kinetic energy and the mass associated with this and remain in its orbit about its atom's nucleus. Since this applies to subatomic particles, it makes no difference what element's atoms they are found in. If a Bessler wheel was run for billions of years and the rest masses of all of the subatomic particles of its weights' finally went to zero, then the wheel, having not driving torque, would come to a halt. If this happens, then true perpetual motion machines are not possible. However, it might be the case that there is some as yet unknown law that would prevent the rest masses of the subatomic particles from reaching zero. Maybe they can somehow steal rest mass from the subatomic particles in atoms outside of a pm machine with those subatomic particles, if need be, stealing it from subatomic particles even farther away. In this case, then, since the cosmos contains an infinite amount of rest mass, true perpetual motion machines are possible. There is, unfortunately, no way of deciding this issue at this time. The duplication of Bessler's wheels will have the world of physics in terra incognita for a while and give the theoretical physicists much to consider. I'm sure that one will find all sorts of interesting "codes" in all of Bessler's literary works. He was into religion, mysticism, numerology, astrology, alchemy, and God only knows what else and these things definitely influenced his writings. But, the real question is will correctly interpreting any of these lead to a description of the mechanics used in his wheels that can be used to duplicate them? I assert that they will not and are a major distraction that can waste the time of the serious Bessler reverse engineer. I have found a total of about four illustrations in MT in which Bessler hints in the notes to them some of the principles his imbalanced pm wheels used and there are other quotes sprinkled throughout his writings that are helpful too. But, they are the gravy and the meat of his secret lies in the symbolism incorporated into the two DT portraits. I would advise any serious student of Bessler's wheels to focus mainly on these illustrations and the text that accompanies them. They contain, imo, his legacy to posterity and the only real means to finally solving the Bessler wheel mystery. I know what I'm writing here may depress the code breaker types out there. But, the portraits also contain codes both alphanumeric and geometric. They are actually the most difficult of the ones he produced because they were intended to guard the most important discovery of his life and one that no one else before or since has found (with a possible exception or two). A good place to start with is the second portrait. Find the temperature indicated on the mercury thermometer on the wall behind Bessler's right shoulder and one will be on his way (its value is a very important parameter used in the construction of all of Bessler's wheels). Also, be prepared to construct hundreds of model wheels along the way to test out one's interpretation du jour of any particular symbol.

      Delete
    2. This theory is really clear, Ken, and allows Science to accept the possibility of a gravity wheel. As two masses are needed for creating a gravity field (for instance 1. the weights of the wheel and 2. the mass of the Earth), don't you think that the Earth may also lose a part of its mass while the wheel is running?

      Delete
    3. Earth must counter rotate in response to the rotation of the imbalanced pm wheel in order to conserve angular momentum (the Earth's motion is, of course, imperceptible due to its enormous mass relative to the wheel), so I guess that it is possible for the subatomic particles in the Earth (and anything attached to it!) to also lose a portion of their rest masses. If this is the case and if the loss of rest mass is equally divided amongst all of those subatomic particles, then an imbalanced pm wheel would be able to run continuously for far, far longer than my calculations indicate. If this is the case, then it also means that the example I gave about the Bessler wheel running inside of a centrifuge spinning in outer space drew the wrong conclusion. For that case, the centrifuge would also lose mass as the wheel outputted energy and sent it off into space. The problem with this is that it forces the Earth and the centrifuge to behave like pm wheels even though they are not configured for that function. For the time being I am just going to consider the weights and levers inside of the pm wheel to be losing rest mass as the wheel runs and performs external work. Yes, the physicists are going to have a lot to ponder when we finally, God willing, get one of Bessler's wheels resurrected and running. You have, however, brought up a very interesting matter which did not occur to me previously.

      Delete
  9. Sorry, I think you are very wrong. Good luck to you though!

    ReplyDelete
  10. The temperature on the thermometer is 55 degrees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least you tried to guess it. But, sorry, that is not the right temperature. To find it you will need to look at a very high resolution image of the thermometer and (hint) use something else in the portrait to locate the temperature on the thermometer. The temperature is given in degrees Fahrenheit, but the number also represents degrees of angular measurement and it's probably the most important angle incorporated into the mechanics inside of Bessler's wheels. Finding this temperature is a sort of test. Imo, only those who can find it will have any hope of solving the Bessler wheel mystery. Those who can not find it might as well quit the pursuit and take up something less intellectually demanding. They will save themselves much frustration and bitter disappoint in the long run.

      Delete
    2. Interesting idea Ken. The thermometer, if that is what it is, is likely an alcohol one as Daniel Fahrenheit did not invent his mercury one until 1714, and there was no standardised scale in use then, a bit too quick for a book published in 1719, but it might just manage it. But anyway he did not apply his Fahrenheit scale to his mercury thermometer until 1724. The alcohol thermometer was notoriously inaccurate and was mainly used to detect temperature changes. The Celsius scale was not used until 1742.

      JC

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the info on thermometers, John. I believe that it is a mercury thermometer and whether or not it used the Fahrenheit temperature scale is not really that important. What is important is that it does have a temperature scale marked on it. The mark nearest the bulb would most likely be zero whatever degrees were used and each major mark above that would most likely be another ten of those whatever degrees. Careful examination of the etchings between the major marks shows that each ten whatever degree change in temperature was further subdivided down into eight smaller increments and each of these would correspond to 1.25 whatever degrees since 8 x 1.25 = 10. (Fahrenheit would have developed his scale by just dividing the temperature change between the major marks up into ten degrees each.) Using the system of degrees shown on the portrait thermometer, it is indeed possible to find an exact temperature indicated on the thermometer. One will not find it by just examining the thermometer itself. However, there is something else in the portrait that points to a certain temperature on the thermometer. Good luck finding it! I only discovered it by accident, but it is a very important clue with regard to the mechanics used inside of Bessler's wheels.

      Delete
    4. I've been studying a little more about early thermometers and realized that, until Herr Fahrenheit came along, they all had variations in their accuracy depending upon who made them, the liquid used, and the location of their manufacture. Early ones did use alcohol because, generally, it would not freeze on even the coldest day of the winter. One simply added some dye to the alcohol and then enclosed in a sealed tube from which the air above the column of alcohol had been pumped out. Most of the alcohol as contained in a bulb at one end of the tube. Next, the tube of alcohol was affixed to a wooden plaque. Finally, the temperature marks were added. Generally, on the coldest day of the winter where the thermometers were produced, the column of colored alcohol would be at its lowest height and that height would be marked with a zero. Then, the thermometer would be taken indoors and allowed to warm up. A person would then touch the bulb and warm it up to body temperature which, of course, caused the alcohol to expand and its column inside of the glass tube to increase in height. When the column stopped rising, that height was marked as 100 degrees which is close to the normal body temperature of 98.6 deg Fahrenheit. The span of 100 degrees then marked on the plaque was then subdivided into increments of 10 degrees and these could be further subdivided. Once the plaque was marked, it would simply be copied and used for all other thermometers a particular manufacturer produced. The problem with this approach is that only two thermometers produced by the same manufacturer would agree with each other! Fahrenheit came up with a system of standardizing the manufacturing of thermometers so that thermometers from different manufacturers would agree with each other.

      Delete
  11. It's interesting that first the temperature is indicated in fahrenheit, then a few hours later , it doesn't matter if the fahrenheit scale is used or not. Typical flip-flopping whenever the need arises.

    The crosshatching in the drawing is giving the illusion that the major marks on the thermometer are intentionally subdivided. If you count the hatch marks between the darkened lines, they don't all equal. Some are 5, some are 6, some are 7.
    The darkened line on the right of the tube that gives the tube a shadow, is joined with the vertical hatch mark in the top half, then curves away from the hatch mark in the bottom half. The left half of the tube has two hatch marks, that don't join.
    The only difference in any of the major marks is in the 4th one. It has two continuous horizontal hatch marks that have been darkened. All the other major marks have an extra horizontal line; most of them broken lines on the left half of the tube.
    If you count up from the first dark line in the middle of the bulb to that different major mark, the "reading" is 24. Whatever.

    But I think you're reaching. Given that the crosshatching is already there in the drawing, and he then drew the vertical lines darker for the outline of the thermometer or whatever, and then randomly drew the major marks in, without regard to equal spacing, tells me this is meaningless as far as a clue is concerned. You're seeing something that isn't there. It's a coincidence from a convention of drawing, at best. Numbers and angles aren't going to explain how his machine actually worked.

    If I was going to use the thermometer as a clue, I would use the fact that the chemicals used in them expand and contract depending on the environmental conditions

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I agree with Doug, Ken. Bessler's portrait looks much more modern compared to the one with the hole in it. I think Bessler used the second one as a means of showing himself as not just a literary and spiritual person, but also as an engineer and a scientist. The second one must have existed before Bessler used it, therefore whatever it contains was there already, and that means there is little to be gained from its study - however that is just my conclusion and I could be wrong.

      JC

      Delete
    2. @ dougsubous: Not really "flip flopping" as you suggest. I assumed that Bessler's thermometer used Fahrenheit degrees, but with John's input and other material I've read about early thermometers, I realize his thermometer most likely used a different temperature scale. The units for the degrees on his thermometer are irrelevant, hoever. What counts is the number that is indicated on this thermometer by a interesting "pointer" in another part of the portrait. The section pointed to subdivides the span between the ten degree marks into 8 segments which would make each equal to 1.25 degrees. I have checked the ten degree spans on other parts of the thermometer's scale and they too are subdivided into 8 segments. Perhaps in some of these it is difficult to make out the 8 segments, but they are very clear in the section that the pointer indicates.

      @ John: Actually, I have found important information about Bessler's wheel mechanics in both portraits, but there seems to be more data in the second portrait. I think I read that, currently, there are only about a dozen or so known original copies of DT in existence in various libraries and private collections. I wonder how many of them still contain the two portraits or even the second portrait. I suspect that many of them are missing these portraits because, over the centuries, various owners of the text who were Bessler wheel reverse engineer types tore them out so that they could keep them once they got rid of the full text. Maybe they, like me, spent many hours studying these unique illustrations under great magnification desperately trying to extract and interpret the clues that Bessler left in them.

      Delete
    3. Yes, what you did up there is called flip-flopping. Changing the rules. You issued a challenge to find the temperature indicated on the thermometer, stating specifically it was in fahrenheit scale, then when you found out it was probably not a fahrenheit scale, you said it didn't matter, any old scale would give the right number, and then you said it isn't really on the thermometer, it 's in another part of the portrait that points to the right section.
      I have a hi res copy of the portrait and there is definitely less than 8 segments in some of the spans.
      You shouldn't feel bad that you had to backpedal, I've noticed it happens to people quite a bit when it comes to defending Bessler's wheels.

      Delete
  12. The question of whether a gravitational interaction is an "isolated" system, and gravity internal or external to the system, is a slight mis-framing of the situation; to put "isolation" in more conventional terms, we understand that gravitational interactions are "thermodynamically closed" systems if gravity is held constant.

    This can be further paraphrased in the axiom that "closed-loop trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy".

    So gravity isn't exactly "external" to the system - indeed it's an integral or decisively "internal" component of it - as would be any force, for any interaction utilising that force.

    However an external source of energy would come to be implied if the density of that field - and thus the magnitude of its force - varied in time during the course of the closed-loop trajectory, or else if the force magnitude varied unequally between inbound and outbound phases of the trajectory by any other means.

    We could invert that statement to say that if the net energy of a closed loop trajectory was non-zero, then energy must've entered or exited the system, and that it thus wasn't thermodynamically closed.

    In summary, an asymmetric gravitational interaction - one that gains or loses energy in a closed-loop trajectory through the field - would prove that gravitational interactions aren't exclusively closed thermodynamic systems, and that the effective force being applied by the field can vary in time using only the internal energy of the system, with no measurable energy entering or exiting it. Rather, the net energy of the system would rise or fall, instead of remaining constant as expected.

    Thus Bessler's wheel, if real, was an open thermodynamic system, demonstrating that gravity is an active, not passive, force, and by extension, any other force substituted to the same effect would likewise be shown to be energised - the only available mechanism for which would be the quantum vacuum fluctuations responsible for manifesting the forces and their 'action at a distance' in the first place.

    And while truly groundbreaking, it would only underline a point already implicit in the standard model, and consistent with the thrust of the point JC makes above; that contrary to intuition, masses do NOT interact directly with one another, and neither do charges or magnetic moments... rather, they only react with their complimentary boson fields, which in turn react back with them. Any force interaction, open or closed, is at the very least a menage a trois, with the vacuum's activity acting as an intermediary between the masses or charges in question. In an asymmetrical interaction, or rather, inter-reaction, the vacuum activity performs unequal workloads upon input and output phases of the exchange, and is therefore the source or sink for the gained or lost energy.

    Again though, we should be reserved in our usage of the term "perpetual motion" since it is already a fait accompli implicit in Newton's 1st law - a body's motion remains constant unless acted upon by an outside force. So perpetual motion is merely the default behaviour of everything everywhere already. Of course what the term is really meant to connote is 'free energy' - that is, free at the point of usage, in the same way as our NHS, but specifically by means of asymmetrical force interactions, be they gravitational, electromagnetic or what have you.... Pathological skeptics will remain no less scornful regardless, but at least we'll be the ones maintaining the scientific high ground.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I understood most of what you wrote Mr.V and I think I summed it up in my words :- " Phillipe de La Hire (1614-1718) wrote that 'one would need to find a body that was both heavier and lighter at the same time', as equally daft an idea as Newton's gravity shield - and yet there is a certain truth in the statements. La Hire's reflects Newton's idea too. Either the object changes weight or the effect of gravity on it varies; the end result is the same, the amount of the perceived weight alters.."

      JC

      Delete
    2. From there testing, there was little doubt that Bessler's wheels were able to constantly output mechanical energy. Since they were not being driven by an discernible outside energy source, that inescapable conclusion is that they carried the energy they outputted inside of them. If one of his wheels was able to output tens of watts continuously for hours, days, or weeks, then that would seem to preclude the idea that they were powered by some sort of windup clockwork type movement as Christian Wagner suggested. Bessler had no batteries to use and the idea that they were powered by compressed air as Leibnitz suggested seems improbable. I can only see one source of power for his wheels: the energy content of their lead weights. Even a decrease in the rest masses of the various subatomic particles in their lead atoms of a fraction of a percent would have been enough to power one of Bessler wheels for decades! Find an imbalanced pm wheel design that manages to keep the center of mass of its operative weights on the wheel's descending side as the wheel rotates and you find the secret of Bessler's wheels. I urge anybody serious about reverse engineering Bessler's wheels to study the DT portraits as intently as possible. You will be amazed at what begins to come out of them. And, of course, keep building. To speed up your progress switch over to using computer modeling / simulation software. You can do more with one of these in an hour than you can in a shop in days.

      Delete
    3. Ken, can you indicate a link to the two high resolution portraits? I only got two copies with low resolution. Difficult to see any details in both of them...

      Delete
    4. Here is a link to a nice copy of the DT text, including the portraits, that is held in a university collection. By fiddling with the magnifying glass, you can get some decent high resolution images of the portraits. Notice how the second portrait is made from a sort of glued on flap that folds over the first portrait so that Bessler's face will appear in the second portrait. I just love gimmicks like this in books!

      http://objects.library.uu.nl/reader/index.php?obj=1874-206158&lan=en#page//24/83/12/24831284496948047699702573152743842009.jpg/mode/1up

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Ken. They are pretty good!

      Delete
    6. In my opinion, there are some clues to find in the first portrait, especially when looking at Bessler's hands and at the positions of the fingers. The leaning jug and the sloping book seem to me significant as well... But what about the skull?

      Delete
  13. I think it's safe to assume Bessler's wheels were thermodynamically open. We know it had friction, and we know friction does non-zero work in a closed loop trajectory. It escapes as unusable energy in the form of heat.
    I think it's also safe to assume his wheels weren't converting energy from quantum vacuum fluctuations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But quantum vacuum fluctuations are what the force IS. It's what a photon is, what all gauge bosons are; gluons, W & Z bosons and gravitons.

      When we release a mass to fall, it is quantum vacuum fluctuations propelling it down to the floor. When we pick it up again, we're performing work against these spontaneous particle emissions from the vacuum. These boson exchanges are responsible for the 'action at a distance' that confounded Newton et al.

      If we can pick up a weight when it's lighter, then drop it when heavier, the source of the resulting energy gain is the excess output work performed by the vacuum... which is only to say that the energy came from gravity, but in quantum parlance. The classical view is tantamount to concluding energy creation, whereas the quantum view gives us a resolution consistent with conservation of energy - what we gain mechanically, the vacuum potential loses.

      It is the vacuum energy that an asymmetric system is 'open' to - its hidden source and sink.

      Delete
    2. I can appreciate the theory, and I even understand it, but as far as explaining how Bessler's wheels worked, it's about as useful as Ken's theory that the lead weights' mass decreased each rotation.
      We haven't even been able to detect gravitons yet, much less gain an advantage from their existence. The technology doesn't exist yet. It's safe to assume it didn't exist then.

      Delete
    3. Ah but then apples still fell before Newton invented gravity! The moon still orbited Earth before Einstein stole the patent on spacetime curvature... ;P

      Sure Bessler's wheels worked, but invoking QT is the only route out of the 'energy creation' conclusion, and the (justified) scorn it invites...

      Delete
    4. Invoking QT to explain his wheels is one thing. Physically showing it with a futuristic wheel using technology that hasn't ever been conceived, as the only route out of the 'energy creation' conclusion, is another impossible thing.

      Delete
  14. I'm still battling a bad case of bronchitis and, now, I've developed a strep throat on top of it! At the rate I'm going, I'll be popping antibiotics for the rest of this month! Anyway, I did manage to do a little work on my wm2d model wheel this morning (model #1137) and realized that there's something I have not tried yet. All along I've been making the assumption that the levers inside of one of Bessler's wheels had the same mass as the weights; that is, for the Merseberg wheel the lever, like its lead weight, would also have had a mass of 4 lbs. Now I'm wondering if this is wrong and that, in reality, the levers weighted more that a weight did. For example, in the Merseberg wheel a lever might have had a mass of 6 lbs instead of 4 lbs. I'm now trying a 50% increase in lever mass in my 3 foot diameter wheel and am hoping this will, finally, cause my ascending side levers to shift fast enough so as to keep the center of mass of all of the weights and levers on the wheel's descending side during wheel rotation. My model is now very close to doing this, but still needs some small change to make it happen. Maybe this will do the trick. Most chasing the secret of a working, Bessler type imbalanced pm wheel never seem to consider the mass of the levers that hold the weights. But, the reality is that their masses are almost as important as those of the lead weights in providing the wheel with a net torque. The levers in Bessler's wheels were probably crafted from wood (white oak) and were penetrated by various steel pins to which the coordinating ropes were attached via hooks of some sort. That is a lot of metal in addition to the wood and the idea of a lever actually weighing more than a lead weight seems very possible to me now. I'll have to see what happens in the next few days.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Making the levers heavier will move the location of the center of mass of the wheel - from where it is now under the axle - closer to the center of the axle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The center of mass of my model 3 foot diameter wheel is not directly under the axle, but displaced onto the descending side by a horizontal distance of about 0.110 inches. Increasing its diminutive lever masses by 50% did reduce that to about 0.100 inches. Scaling up to the Merseberg wheel with its 16 main levers (there are other levers used, but they do not directly drive the wheel) and increasing the mass of each lever from 4 to 6 lbs translates into a 32 lb increase in gross lever mass. That would certainly be acceptable if it results in a dramatic increase in shifting speed of the ascending side levers. I now realize that keeping the center of mass of the weights and levers on the wheel's descending side during wheel rotation is critically dependent upon how fast those ascending side levers shift. If they do not shift fast enough, then the center will just sink right down to an equilibrium position below the axle which Bessler referred to as the "punctum quietus" or "point of rest" and there will be no net torque to drive the axle. Somewhere in DT Bessler is mocking Wagner's theory about how Bessler's wheels worked and Bessler adds a most significant remark when he says that the weights in his machine "which hang below must rise in a flash" or something like that. I believe he is referring to a weight on a lever as its pivot passes the 9 o'clock position of the drum and the weight is below a horizontal line passing through the center of the axle. At that point the weight must begin a rapid motion back toward its stop near the rim while all of the other major levers are also shifting, but at varying rates. I now believe that all of the failures I've had with my last 1000 or so models stem from not being able to get that rapid lever / weight shifting that Bessler achieved. I'm hoping this increase in lever mass is what's needed. I should know in a few more days if this damn throat infection does not get worse.

      Delete
    2. Cripes!

      Here we go again with that hoary old threadbare and non-workable atomic theory of KB's!

      For any that might like some really fun deep-treatment on this literal stink bomb of latter-day pseudo-science, go over to the BWF and enjoy levity while viewing the last few months of some discussion, high-lighting the how and the why of the drumming-out of our too-wordy writer here, as it occurred there.

      That madcap Grand Exhibition of The Utter Nonsensical is now repeating HERE and, I predict also, that the same point of the ultimate-insufferable will be reached, on the same account, with the very identical action occurring, thank goodness, or alternately, the lucky stars above - take yer pick.

      "Better late than never."

      Sure, that's right.

      And as well, seems that now we are to be entertained by THIS NOTE of the predictable/personal too. . .

      "I'm still battling a bad case of bronchitis and, now, I've developed a strep throat on top of it! At the rate I'm going, I'll be popping antibiotics for the rest of this month!"

      I'll just bet, and self-poisoning while so youthful-still. (Relative to myself that is, and a very few wiser others here.)

      "And, he was SO young and beloved, too!" as the casket lustily embraced it's due fill.

      Yes, the Grim Reaper now NIPS at our boy's toes and still, the correct message does not dawn!

      More "popping of antibiotics" surely will do the final job for Him - His Majesty Death - just follow the doctors of the palliative remedy ignoring causation, for the obvious necessary (as in 'end') to finally occur, the whole taught process from cradle to grave being only a matter of time, and not in-the-least one of whether. (Big Pharma: the MAIN Big Monkey Business growth industry in the good old USA. (Dare we wonder 'why?' )

      Well, at least relief by blessed omission is soon to be ours. Soon to be ours sure; at least this.

      "TIME - Man's most precious coin."

      James

      Delete
    3. I firmly believe that the "mass diminution hypothesis" is the only one that will ever explain how Bessler's wheels worked. Assuming they were genuine, and I do, then their energy output came from somewhere inside of the drum. I dismiss the vacuum energy theory as just so much nonsense. It basically wants one to believe that something can come out of nothing. Amazing what physicists will come up with in order to rationalize their data. We might as well say that things happen in our universe due to pure magic!

      Anyway, I generally avoid using medications because about 80% of them are either marginal or optional; that is, they only make a small improvement or are not even really necessary. However, in certain cases they can, literally, make the difference between life and death or can help people lead normal lives again. But, there is always the issue of unwanted and potentially dangerous side effects. One must carefully weigh the benefits against the risks before committing to use any chemical substance not normally found in the body. As one ages, his immune system can weaken and, occasionally, a bug will come along that can overwhelm it and claim another victim. I read one report that said it is estimated that 25% of the people who die each day around the world do so from infectious diseases which could be cured with less than a dollar's worth of antibiotics! I want to make sure I am not one of them.

      Delete
  16. I found this interesting artistic interpretation of Bessler's wheels. It uses rolling cylindrical weights to keep the center of mass on its descending side. Of course, it won't work...but, I'm tempted to try modeling it just in case the artist happened upon a design that works!


    http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/attachment/%3C42c812e3@news.povray.org%3E/orffyreus.jpg?ttop=226403&toff=650

    ReplyDelete

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...