I remember speculating about the possibility of finding new uses for Bessler's wheel way back in 1996 when I first published my biography of Johann Bessler, Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?
One of my suggestions was that by dpowering Bessler's wheel in reverse, from an external source, might it not be possble to actually levitate the whole thing? I no longer think this is a realistic possibility but I still think it will prove possible to use something similar to produce a linear propulsion effect - reactionless drive as sought for spaceship drives.
My reasoning was as follows. If Bessler's wheel was driven by weights then, in effect it was converting a downward linear force into a rotating force. If Bessler's wheel definitely worked and was proven to do so, then it follows that reversing the mechanical process should provoke an opposite reaction, in its case an upwards lift, perhaps measurable on scales. Now it seems to me that actual aerial motion might be a step too far, but linear horizontal motion as sought by many historical projects such as the Dean Drive, The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (unfortunately shortened to GIT!), and of course Eric Laithwaite's, "Propulsion System", which was claimed to create a linear thrust through gyroscopic and inertial forces.
I am aware that after years of theoretical analysis and laboratory testing of actual devices, no rotating (or any other) mechanical device has ever been found to produce unidirectional reactionless thrust in free space. That being said I cannot fault the logic described in my initial argument that if Bessler's wheel worked than the reverse pprocess should produce the reverse effect.
The self-same arguments which persist to deny any possibility of Bessler's wheel ever having really worked also apply to the research done extensively on the reactionless drive. I attended a conference on the subject at Brighton a few years ago where I had the honour of meeting Hal Puthoff who was one of the speakers there. I have to admit that no-one mentioned the possibility of Bessler's wheel providing evidence of the possibility of a reactionless drive, most of the discussion was way above my head! The conference drew no conclusions either for or against, it was simply a place discussing ideas.
Anyway something to think about guys.
JC
Reactionless drives are considered impossible because they violate Newton's Third Law of Motion which states that for every action, there is always an equal an opposite reaction. In other words, in any closed system (like our entire cosmos!), the sum of all angular and translational momenta must equal zero. I found through my own research that Bessler's wheels did not violate the third law even though they would only rotate in one direction at a time. The angular momentum they develop while doing this is completely and precisely negated by the angular momentum of the Earth as it reacts by rotating in the opposite direction. Of course, the resulting motion of the Earth is, due to its enormous mass compared to a Bessler wheel, so small it can not be measured in practice. However, if one represents a Bessler wheel by a small metal disc weighing a few pounds which can be rapidly rotated by an attached battery powered electric motor and then fixes this spinning disc's motor to the outer rim of a larger and more massive disc that can freely turn about its own axle, then, as the smaller disc rotates rapidly in one direction, the larger one will counter rotate at a lower rate. If one calculates the angular momenta for the two discs, he will find that their sum is zero and remains so regardless of how rapidly the discs rotate about their own axes.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens if one uses a motor to drive a one-directional wheel in the direction opposite to which it was designed to spontaneously turn? I doubt if it would levitate, lose weight, or produce a reactionless drive in any direction. This is a situation in which one is constantly inputting energy into the wheel which forces all of its weights and levers to move in the opposite directions they normally would. Since their normal directions of motion cause all of the weights and levers to slowly lose mass over time, using the motor to force this process to run in reverse should cause the weights and levers to slowly increase their masses over time. Of course, one would have to do this for billion of years just to double their starting masses.
Update: I continue to labor away at the illustrations for my planned "ultimate" Bessler book. This morning I completed a beautiful illustration that shows what the diminutive levers looked like in his House of Richters 3 foot diameter prototype wheel. The shape of the lever and all of its coordinating rope (actually, more like a string or cord!) attachment points are shown along with the maximum distances between the attachment points and other important structural details. This one figure alone should be of immense interest to any skilled craftsman out there who wants to attempt a physical replicate of Bessler's first working wheel. Well, I'm really stepping out on faith with all of these illustrations considering that I have not yet completed the full testing of my model #1480 which, based on partial testing so far, I am convinced is "it". If I'm wrong again about this, then I will have wasted much effort in the illustrations I have done so far. By the end of this week, I should know if that is the case. Stay tuned for further developments...
Thanks for the lesson in basic physics Ken, but I am well aware of the current orthodoxy and I can assure you that there are some serious academics studying the established opinions because they believe there are ways to avoid the Newtonian consequences.
DeleteJC
Check this out, the video is quite old, but it looks plausible.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtube.com/watch?v=nIt661hfr9c
John,
DeleteI don't know if you've seen this before, but it's a very interesting video about Prof. Eric Laithwaite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt9wTAL5KoU
Yes I'm familiar with both videos, interesting to see them again after such a long time. I was in touch with Laithwaite while he was at Sussex uni and he knew about Bessler. Unfortunately he died shortly after we spoke by phone a couple of times, but was very supportive of my own efforts.
DeleteJC
Thanks for providing that second link, STEVO. Well, I must confess that I have not been that impressed by Laithwaite's various devices that he claims are propelled by gyroscopes. In the video above he demonstrates a little cart that lurches forward when one lifts the pendulum with the gyro at its end and lets it go. Certainly looks impressive until you watch the demonstration more closely and notice that the cart is held in place as the pendulum with the spinning gyro is raised. The reason for this is that if the cart was not held, it would begin to roll backwards. If one was to rig a crank of some sort to the pendulum and use a motor to make it swing from one side to the other, the cart would only repeatedly move forward and then backwards by the same distance. Thus, there would be no net translational motion of the cart. Of course, if one uses wheels on the cart that are designed to lock if they back roll, then the cart would lurch forward during alternating swings of the pendulum. Unfortunately, in a space vehicle one can not use such a method. For all practical purposes, his gyro propulsion system is no more effective than if one had a cart with a spring with one of its ends attached to a point in the cart's middle and then stretched with its other end attached to a heavy weight located near the front end that could slide along a track running along the length of the cart. As the weight was released, it would immediately slide toward the middle of the cart as the cart lurched forward under it. But, as soon as the weight reached and passed the middle of the cart and began to slide toward the rear of the cart and stretch the spring in the opposite direction, the cart would stop and then lurch backwards.
DeleteI've been interested in unidirectional Casimir Force as a propulsion method for a long time. I even tried unsuccessfully to have some suitable experimental material made, back in 1994. Maybe the nanotechnology of the time wasn't good enough, but it might be now.
ReplyDeleteSee http://perpetualmotion21.blogspot.com/2014/09/casimir-effect-force-generator-part-ii.html and following posts.
I tried that link you gave and got "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."
DeleteStrange, I just checked it and it works for me. I'll give it again on a separate line:
Deletehttp://perpetualmotion21.blogspot.com/2014/09/casimir-effect-force-generator-part-ii.html
Or just check http://perpetualmotion21.blogspot.com/ for the entry of 7 September 2014.
Now, suddenly, I seem to be able to download the page which I did and read. I'm not sure what to make of this "Casimir Effect". It's possible that it could just be due to the van der Waals forces that exist between two closely spaced metal plates. If so, then it won't be possible to produce them with a single plate to provide a reactionless drive.
DeleteInterestingly, there seems to be as many people pursuing inertial propulsion as there are those chasing pm. Well, each to his own. I do vaguely recall reading recently about some inventor who supplied NASA with the plans for a reactionless rocket motor that would use microwave radiation inside of a sealed chamber. They, supposedly, are serious considering it and even testing it. I'll have to see if I can find the info again.
ReplyDeleteStevo, thanks for the YouTube link. I certainly enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but the microwave inertial-propulsion had already been tested & verified by both the Germans and Chinese - long before Nasa ever thought about testing it. Any yes, Nasa has actually tested & verified the effect as well!
ReplyDeleteTo say that an inertial-propulsion engine has never been proven in the laboratory is also well off the mark;
Robert Cook: http://rexresearch.com/cookip/cookip.htm
Roy Thornson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4LT3GZjlY
International Space Agency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_yMdmavq_U
Not that long ago, Youtube user 'TinmanPower' prototyped a version and got some interesting (positive) results. This is the same guy, who after proving that he had figured out how to rewire a motor that could produce almost twice the power as it took to run it, suddenly had his internet & phoneline cut, the 'offending' videos deleted, and 'invited' to government offices for a chat - he was given a 'cease & desist' order, with no more motor development permitted!
TinManPower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-JF4a6qyDs
The fact that we are still driving around in fuel-guzzling engines that have barely changed in over 100 years, despite vastly more efficient designs being available for decades, hints at where the problem may lie - and it has nothing to do with what's technologically feasable! If we aren't even allowed efficient engines, what chances are there that inertial-propulsion engines would ever be allowed to be developed?
These microwave thrusters are certainly interesting. But, NASA only measured thrusts in the range of 30 to 50 micronewtons with the one they tested. That's about 1/1000th of what some ion propulsion engines produce. Of course, the nice thing about the microwave thruster is that it runs completely on electricity while the ion engines must carry and expel propellant of some sort which can be ionized. The big mystery is how does a microwave thruster work when the microwaves are just reflecting off of the front and back metal walls of the closed device? According to classical physics, that should not produce a net thrust, but it does. Somehow the tapered shape of the chamber is critical to seeing the effect. The surface area of the front of the chamber is less than that of the back and the thrust is toward the front. The only explanation I can see is that the tapered chamber acts like a wave guide and, because the front surface is smaller than the rear, that causes the superimposition of the microwaves there which then increases the energy of each microwave photon that bounces off of the front surface. As the photon is reflected, it imparts a kick to the front surface. After they leave the front surface and have lost some of their energy, they then spread out, de-superimpose, and with less energy strike the larger rear surface. They do impart a kick to this surface, but it is weaker than that which is applied to the front surface.
DeleteI think the device NASA tested is very inefficient. They might consider trying the experiment again only this time leave the larger back end of the chamber open so that the energy depleted microwave photons can escape. This should produce a dramatic increase in thrust.
Maybe it's just me, but I get the impression that you are dismissing or disrespecting everything except your own pet theories Ken. Yet your own theories include minute amounts of mass lost from Bessler's weights to provide the energy for the wheel - UFOs and the paranormal?
DeleteJC
And now, they include exchange of angular momentum with the earth. The best yet.
Delete@John: Actually, I'm impressed with the microwave thruster, but think it needs to be improved so it can compete with currently available ion drives that produce thrusts up to a thousand times as great. As far as Laithwaite's gyro propulsion system is concerned, has anyone managed to get one that will continuously drive an object? All I would need to see to believe he actually had something is for the device to be mounted on a low friction movable platform that could then accelerated the platform in one direction continuously. Should not be too difficult an experiment to set up. So far I have not seen that and I don't expect to.
ReplyDeleteYes, I continue to promote the concept that the energy Bessler's wheels outputted came from a slow loss of mass of their active components. I promote that because it's the simplest explanation and does not get one drawn into various unworkable hypotheses which even include the possibility that he hoaxed all of his demonstrations and official tests.
I consider the topics of paranormal phenomena and extraterrestial visitation in real nuts and bolts spacecraft to be of such importance that I wrote several books on them. To me, some of the reported cases are genuine and involve the demonstration of new physics which, when finally understood in detail, might be of great benefit to humanity. For example, if we can understand how a metal ufo, which would normally weigh tens of tons, can be made to buoyantly float in the air or levitate, then we would be able to construct seriously efficient overbalanced wheels to produce all of the "free" energy we needed. I've worked toward understanding all of these phenomena for decades, but, right now, my focus is on Bessler's inventions and eventually proving he was 100% truthful when he said he had a genuine imbalanced pm wheel. I remain highly confident that this will be the year his secret is rediscovered.
Just when I thought Yildiz was the only game in town when it came to working permanent magnet motors, along comes this Russian inventor named "Soukup" who came up with a rotary permanent magnet motor that uses a specially configured "V Gate" on its rotor to keep it spinning continuously. This video is longer than I usually mention and has no narration. But, if there are any lurkers out there interested in permanent magnet motors that are simple to construct, then I think you might find this of great interest:
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/RYr4ffsFLlU
John, was it you, who erase my comment? Strange to me is that there is not even any sign left of it?!
ReplyDeleteEastlander
No I didn't erase your comment.
DeleteJC
@Eastlander: I've had replies of my own mysteriously disappear on this and other blogs in the past. Probably some temporary overload situation during which the blogspot servers put one's reply into a queue for a time after which it gets dropped for one reason or another. That's why I make sure, after writing a reply here or anywhere, that I highlight and copy its text. Only after I see it is actually posted, do I move on. If I don't see it posted, I just save it as a text file on my Desktop and try posting it again later. The internet is a rather amazing "place" to visit, but, unfortunately, it's still not perfect. I'm also a bit dubious about all of the efforts being made to get everyone to store all of their files in "clouds" or server farms owned and operated by the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. Can they guarantee none of one's data will be lost? I don't think so. If I have anything important, I burn it onto a CD as a backup copy. That way, I know exactly where it is if I need it. But, I'm even noticing another bothersome trend. The laptop makers are beginning to not include a disc drive with their devices, supposedly to reduce weight and keep prices down, which, again, seems to be forcing people to start using the various clouds floating around out there. If those cloud servers ever crash and the data is lost for millions or billions of users, then all hell is going to break loose!
DeleteOddly your comment appears in my list of comments which are usually published unless the software thinks its spam. It doesn't think your spam so I don't know why it isn't there.
DeleteJC
This is my third time to make comment here. I will try to make it with shorter parts.
ReplyDeleteI was able to replicate JC theory about reactionless drive, with "my working wheel". I made those tests in simulation program.
Exact test that I made was, one wheeled cart, where I fix vertical pole to center. Wheel was in top of this pole. Pole high is just that long, where moving weights from outer diameter of the wheel, do not touch the base of cart itself. I was taking also cart and pole totall mass down to his minimum weight. To minimize total pull effect, from bigger mass in gravity field. So if there was some start, then it was little more betterly discoverable.
My findigs at the moment are ...
- When start to spin wheel to other direction, with motor. All wheel, original running mechanism "path", turn itself 90" to upwards. This is almost the same movement like it does ordinary, but heavier side is turning to up side!?
- there must start motor almost from 0, because when start wheel from beginning with nominal speed, then lever system may crash. This from rapid change of movement direction. Here one couse for that is, because my setup do not have some stoping/interaction planes in some point and all lever system collaps from that.
- There need to be used exact speed range with motor. Accordingly with used masses, ..... and wheel outer diameter. If going to spin wheel faster, then all outer movement start to look like ordinary ring or as wheel outer perimenter. So all masses in the ring are equal then. All this because centrifugal force takes his control and pulls those weights outwards here.
If spin wheel slower, then all system look like "herd of lazy horses ... wagging ..."!? They as demand to go faster, but motor force brakes their moves. System have some imbalance here, but not so greate as in normal preticular path, at ideal speeds.
Continues ...
Eastlander
Now, I know to some I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but, several things have come to mind while thinking about Bessler's Wheel being driven in reverse.
ReplyDelete1. If it was driven backwards at the same torque and speed, it would stand still, both forces cancelling each other out.
2. If the driving speed and torque is increased, the wheel will turn in reverse, but will the increased speed upset the reason why the wheel appears to have its speed regulated ?
3. So, what we need is the same RPM in the opposite direction, with more torque.
4. If the wheel requires centrifugal force in one direction to make the mechanism work, would the said mechanism cease to work when centrifugal force is applied the other way, and would the wheel just become a large flywheel ?
More food for thought.
P.S.
DeleteJohn, my comments vanish when I press the preview box.
Concerning your point #4, if a Bessler wheel is driven in either direction fast enough by an external torque applied to its axle, then all of its weights would eventually become pinned to their rim stops and it will just act like a flywheel. However, there is no danger of this happening when a one-directional wheel is allowed to run freely in the direction it is designed to turn in. This is because, as its rotational rate increases, the position of its descending side's center of mass slowly rotates around the axle's center and down toward the "punctum quietus" which is a point located directly vertically under the center of the axle. As this happens, the axle's torque drops off quickly toward zero, but never quite reaches it. Eventually, the axle's torque exactly equals the sum of all of the counter torques due to air and bearing drag that are trying to slow the wheel. At that point, there is no axle torque available to perform external work and the wheel will maintain a constant speed.
DeleteSTEVO on 1 April 2016 at 20:13 said:
Delete"Now, I know to some I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, . ."
Well, STEVO, I think we all know which ONE here is supposed to be, don't we??? I mean, really! The amount of work put-forth by this tiresome individual-peculiar, this so as to create such an impression, is awesome. I think he LIVES to attempt to impress, no? Might this be because innately he is so very unimpressive to himself? (Only he and his psychiatrist know.)
Please, don't sell yourself short, STEVO. (For what it's worth, I think you're SHARP!)
James
James,
Deletea carpenter I used to work with always said, "There are more accidents with dull tools, than sharp ones."
What he meant was, that dull tools need more more pressure to work properly, the extra force required leads to slipping, thus causing injuries.
The same can be applied to people, the duller they are, the harder it is to work with them, and eventually, someone gets hurt.
(I think I'm going to call you "fast STEVO":-)
DeleteNow, that sounds like one wise advisement as allowed by your carpenter friend and also too, your conclusion regarding it. Yes!
Speaking of such, while learning how to use a chisel properly when building wind chests, one of the naughtier of my German tormentors would on occasion come up behind me after a slip and a curse and whisper "Hey! Muller! It isn't the tool . . . it's the guy behind it." After some of those I wanted to kill him! But, after a while I learned and did no longer.
(Come on, STEVO, put-up your avatar pic! We're not talking a d-p here. This is 2016, after all.)
J.
James,
DeleteI'm still stuck in 1986 mode!
I've not used a camera since they did away with film an developing etc.
My first e-mail was sent about two years ago, and that was a big block of words, not too dissimilar to some comments here, as John will confirm, because it was sent to him.
I still have a VCR, mind you, that's the only way to record TV over here.
And I've just this week scrapped our fax/phone after 17 years of service.
I haven't a clue how to put up a picture.
YIKES! That is pretty early. I guess things progress slowly down there, in the islands. (As I recall you are on one or maybe just in South America? Forgot.) You need some serious up-grading done. You must operate according to 'the primitive life' sort of plan, no? I myself dream of emigrating to TONGA, in Old Polynesia. (It is a good safe distance away from both Fiji and Tasmania, which is important.) They maintain a serious stamp issuing program and are famous for their now deceased famous Queen who appeared on many. Many expats have escaped the unalloyed overbearing horrors which most Western governments have become, by getting out with skins still attached to there, and elsewhere.
DeleteThis topic of John's re reactionless propulsion is almost as interesting a one as is PM. Some time ago I searched down all of the Fifties issues of a famous pulp Sci-Fi monthly (can't remember the name) wherein the subject of the Dean Drive was most thoroughly addressed as an on-going feature, almost. The lead investigator was a scientist big within amateur rocketry of that day, and was quite positive that it worked. He was no fool. I still have them all. If interested STEVO, I could copy and e-mail these to you. If you belong to the BWF, you could P-M your e-mail address to me there, where I could then get it.
If and when you get that pic made, it will be easy to scan and include here. I could do it if you do not have a scanner,(seems like probably not) then, send it back e-mail from where you could include it as an avatar. (Has to be a correct size too.) You have to do that attaching yourself, I think, with Blogspot.
Cheers!
J.
James,
DeleteI do possess a scanner, it's one of those 3 in 1 machines, scanner/fax/copier, but when I bought a new laptop, I plugged it in, and the 3 in 1 tells me there's no computer connected, and the laptop tells me there's no printer connected.
When I did a troubleshoot, the info I got was that the 3 in 1's USB port 1.0, is not compatible with the laptop's USB port 2.0.
It doesn't bother me that I'm not up to speed with all the tech stuff, if I really need something done, I go to the computer store.
Continues ..
ReplyDeleteThe test:
When I run all original setup with ideal speed, where wheel upper side is "heavier" then bottom side. Then all cart just shake itself little bit just in same place. No any moves to any direction. So here can say at the moment, Ben 1 : 0 John.
But ... When start to take "lever systems, with weigt" (in future LSWW) off from wheel, one by one. Then things will start to happen...
When take off only one LSWW, then cart start to move. Movement here is quite small, but it still is. Moving starts always to this direction, witch way upper weights move..
When take off more levers then cart start to move also with bigger "steps". All moves are like steps/jigging. Steps/jigging as cart accelerates, when most of masses are in upper position and may say at outer position, from wheel center. And cart deacelerate litle bit, when masses are most down or closer to wheel center.
I have tryed almost with all possibilitys (I think), with different combinations, places and amounts of LSWW -s in wheel. And find out that most better cart movement with bigger steps was, when all in wheel look like "equal" ... Where at one side was no LSWW-s at all and other half of the wheel, have maximum possible LSWW-s. Here, moving to forward was with quite stable and equal steps and also most longer ones.
So here can also say, Ben 1 : 1 John. Because all depends on final setup.
There is very hard for me to write technical/physical enlish, so I let here other "professionals" to comment why and how all happens this way.
Also, thanks for suggestions Ken!
All the best
Eastlander
When I suggested powering Bessler's wheel in reverse, I did not mean literally driving it backwards. What I did mean was that, given the idea that Bessler's falling weights inside his wheel made it rotate continuously, there is probably a way to produce a device which uses parts of the mechanism to reverse the process which rotated the wheel, and by driving it produce a force which moves in the opposite direction. In other words, reverse the downwards linear force which was converted into a rotating force, and make a rotating force a linear one. If Bessler could achieve what he did in one direction it should be possible do the same in the opposite direction.
ReplyDeleteJC
You have to be careful the way you use a phrase like "falling weights" with regards to Bessler's wheels. In the models I work with the weights never do any "falling"; rather, they merely slowly swing away from their rim stops between 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock and then, after their lever's pivots pass the drum's 9 o'clock position, begin to slowly swing back toward their rim stops again to finally meet up with them on the drum's descending side. Their action is a precise, well coordinated, and continuous shifting process. When they finally alight on their respective rim stops on the drum's descending side, they gentle make contact.
DeleteYou seem to think it is possible to somehow modify Bessler's design so that it could make a wheel lighter or even levitate. That's not possible. All that happens when the shifting motions inside of a wheel are reversed (by activating the reversed one-directional wheel whose weighted levers will do the shifting) is that the torque acting on the drum is reverse and, consequently, the axle will reverse its direction of motion. All Bessler's wheels could do was rotate.
For brevity Ken, I used the phrase 'falling weights' to indicate that their actions were enabled by gravity. Brevity is the antidote to logorrhea.
DeleteYou describe your own design as if it's proven and yet dismiss any other speculation. It seems perfectly reasonable to suggest reversing a mechanical process will achieve the reverse motion. Linear to rotational action can be reversed; rotation becomes linear; linear can be in any direction including upwards. Just my opinion Ken
JC
Ok John, I understood You point about "reverse".
DeleteJust this backward test, from K. mouth, was easily replicatable and cause in my thoughts some own ideas "what if ...?". I just want to test it and share my findings here.
Eastlander
Also, is it just my imagination running wild or do only John and myself have the courage to show our real living visages as avatars?
ReplyDeleteWhy do SO many here hide behind visual avatarish anonymity? Is sucy not actually a form of authentic, crafted non-personhood?
Let us SEE you commenters. (That is IF there is actually anything to be seen - you're being NOT mere tapping and thinking computers.)
Come out of the shadows and reveal what Glory of The Real there is to be revealed.
Eschew common low timidity.
Find and demonstrate COURAGE of presence, and of actuality.
SHOW of yourselves, and thereby BECOME REAL!!!
I guess they're overwhelmed by our attractive images James, and too embarrassed to offer their own for comparison!llJC
DeleteHmmm . . . had not thought of that one, John. In reviewing our two in that light, I begin to see what you mean.
DeleteAlso, I forgot to include that Trevor sports one as well, although it does seem an artful long-shot sort of thing.
(Additionally, that offer I made of scans for STEVO extends to yourself as well, naturally, or to any who have not caused me too much past angst.)
Tata!
I've mentioned this video before, but, in light of the topic, it may be worth a second mention.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXDXcXFhMnw
Now, considering the Evoligram idea, two counter-rotating discs, cancelling each other, left and right weights moving in and out, at the same time, bottom layer in, top layer out, and vise versa, both neutralizing themselves.
Top and bottom weights moving in the same direction.
So, if Bessler's Wheel works in the same way, heavy at the top, light at the bottom, balanced either side, and if the two way wheel was mirror images back to back,
wouldn't spinning each half in their respective directions,give the same result as the Evoligram ?
Thanks for the video link, STEVO. Like other videos devoted to free energy devices, it contains references to individuals who claim to have produced inertial or reactionless drives. I suspect that, if we had the facts (which we will rarely, if ever, get), then we would find out that most of this is just hearsay, rumor, unsubstantiated claims, delusions, and hoaxes. So far, the only reactionless drive that I've seen that was independently verified as genuine was that microwave thruster mentioned above that NASA tested. Unfortunately, it's about as powerful as a butterfly's fart and, most likely, will never actually be used unless its performance can be dramatically boosted. But, it does seem to show, although on a very small scale, that there may be a few exceptions to Newton's third law of motion. The same, I fear, applies to Bessler's wheels. Once one gets past their obvious novelty, he has to confront the sobering reality that their power outputs are just too low to be suitable for commercial power production. However, despite that major drawback, I see them as providing guidance toward future devices that might, indeed, be able to provide serious power for our planet. But, first, we need to successfully reverse engineer his wheels so they can be duplicated. Again, I am confident their secret will be fully known this year.
DeleteNow I must take issue with your metaphor about a buttlerfly's fart Ken. You surely have no knowledge of precisely how much power is in a butterfly's fart, nor indeed if they even indulge in such heinous practises. Given that they probably exist by drinking nectar from flowers through their tongues, which function much like straws I suspect very little if any thing as noxious as out labrador's vapours ever escape from them.
DeleteOf course if you are referring to the ones who gain sustenance from tree sap, rotting animal matter, and other organic material. materialthen indeed you may have useful reference, but as far as I know no one has ever measured the output from one of those.
So you have taken an assumption as a fact Ken, shame on you!
JC
Now John,
DeleteI don't know if butter flies fart, but it's a pretty good assumption to make that dragonflies do. Have you ever noticed that they fly with their tail curled under them, I'm of the opinion that this is because if they ever need to make a quick reverse flight, so as to avoid a predator, they can just pass wind and make a rapid exit.
Lol! Any animal, such as a butterfly, that has a digestive system will, on occasion, let one rip. And, while the nectar these diminutive flying machines feast on regularly, nectar, is close to a 100% blend of various sugars, the sweet liquid also contains all 20 amino acids which, of course, are necessary to build the various proteins found in the cells of a butterfly's body. In their digestive tracts, as with all animals, the processing of these amino acids leads to the production of one of the worst of the green house gases, methane. That methane must be vented and there is only one place it can escape which is from their tiny anuses at the end of their abdomens. Nectar also contains traces of nicotine and it's believed this creates a sort of irritable manic state in the insect as it tries to suck up all of the nectar from one particular flower. That manic state then serves the purpose of forcing the insect to fly off to another blossom to obtain additional nourishment whilst simultaneously increasing the frequency of pollen transfer from one flower to another.
DeleteSo, there we have it. The butterfly begins to feast on a flower's tasty, but limited nectar supply. The sudden dose of nicotine makes him manic and nervous and he then takes off for another flower. But, perhaps to get there he must fly with all of his might against a head wind in the opposing direction. At that point, a sudden blast of methane issues from his anus and the resulting rocket propulsion gives him the necessary additional thrust to compensate for the head wind and make it to the next flower. Cross pollination occurs as a result and the balance of nature and our planet is preserved. According to some rough calculations I made using a typical butterfly's head on cross sectional area and the force that would be produced on it by a summer zephyr of, say, 3 mph, his methane powered thrust would have to be about 70 micronewtons. Hey, wait a second, that's even more powerful than that microwave thruster that NASA tested!
Update: Happy to report that I've finished all of the illustrations for my forthcoming Bessler book that deal with the clues given in the second DT portrait. I thought I had finished yesterday until I realized that I had completely forgotten about the clues that give the actual shape of the levers themselves. That oversight has now been taken care of. Now, I'm moving on to the far easier to understand clues in the first DT portrait. Slowly, but surely, the pieces are beginning to fall into place even though I still have not finished the complete testing of my model #1480 even though I promised I'd have it done by the end of this week. Unfortunately, promises can be broken, but, right now, my priority is completing all of the book's illustrations.
Tantalizing clue: See that large tilted protractor in the second portrait? It represents the letter "D" and it stands for "Draschwitz"! Why did Bessler put it there? Because if one knows where to look and interpret what he's seeing, the construction parameters for the Draschwitz wheel are also contained in that portrait!
Off topic but I wanted to reply to Ken's statement that Bessler's wheel would be nothing but a novelty "too low to be suitable for commercial power production".
ReplyDeleteBessler's wheel was reported to lift a box of bricks weighing 70lbs using a rope wrapped around its 6" diameter axle. If my math is correct, that is 17.5lb-ft of torque, or 17.5lb of weight at a 1ft radius. That is huge and hardly a novelty. If your design is only going to exhibit a poultry fart of a force then clearly it is not Bessler's design. It is time for you to come to grips with this. Day after day we hear of how you misinterpreted a clue or how you were mislead by a false clue. Witness reports outweigh any statements you can make about the power of the wheel. Time to move on.
One hundred per cent agreement here anon! I've been trying to make that point for ages - seemingly to deaf ears, or utter indifference.
DeleteJC
Well certainly I meant no disrespect to Ken. He is working under the assumption that geometric elements in the portraits represent clues, and by inference, because his build is weak, it must mean Bessler's Wheel was also weak. This completely ignores the first hand evidence we have, that his wheel was strong. This has to be given priority over any interpretation that suggests otherwise.
DeleteKen, if your builds based on your portrait interpretations don't support the known facts, like 17.5lb-ft of torque, then it is time for you to question those interpretations. Otherwise you are taking yourself down the primrose path. You are doing yourself and the cause a great disservice.
DeleteAnon,
DeleteI think that was about the figure I came up with when I did a physical test.
I wrapped a rope around an old piece of drain pipe, and lifted a 30Kg. weight, using a torque wrench as a lever.
It was disputed at the time, and I was told both my wrenches needed calibration, since one of them is a simple beam and indicator type, there's no way to adjust it. Besides, it seems unlikely that both would be out by the same amount.
"Ken... snip ...You are doing yourself and the cause a great disservice."
DeleteLOL - That'll fall on deaf ears !!
Guys, let me clear up some misconceptions you all seem to have concerning my research and the performance of Bessler's wheels.
DeleteFirst, all of my wm2d models are for Bessler's House of Richters prototype wheel. It was only 3 feet in diameter and could just manage to accelerate itself up to a speed of, maybe, 60 to 70 rpm's. I believe this small one-directional wheel was the one he kept in his various homes and which a few witnesses mentioned seeing. Most likely, he demonstrated it to visitors during the periods between when he had larger wheels available for exhibition. Maybe, if a cord was attached to its small axle, it could rapidly hoist a weight of a pound or so a foot or two before it quickly came to a stop.
His larger Merseburg and Kassel wheels were able to do rapid hoists of weights in the range of 60 to 70 lbs. Yes, it takes some energy to do that, but that was energy that had build up in a wheel after it had been accelerating up to its maximum running speed for, perhaps, several minutes. That energy could then be outputted to the lifted load during a much shorter time period to produce a fast hoist. However, his wheels could not output power at that level continuously. If the hoisted load was made large enough, it would, by the time it reached the second floor window, have completely used up all of the energy that had accumulated in the wheel and the wheel would then stop. At that point the load, unless held in place, would begin to drop and force the axle to begin rotating in the opposite direction. The weighted levers of the one-directional wheel inside of the drum that had provided the energy that lifted the load were then forced to counter rotate and that action would, via the gravity latching system his two-directional wheel's used, caused all of its weights to become locked down to their rim stops. The other one-directional wheel inside of the drum was then turning in the direction it was supposed to and all of its weighted levers, previously locked to their rim stops during the lift, were now freed and actually aiding in the rotation of the wheel's axle. However, the dropping load would cause this now driving one-directional wheel to "over speed" and that then resulted in the center of mass of its weights moving over from the descending to the ascending side of the wheel. That action would serve as a brake to slow the descent of the load. As the load descended, it would be adding lost gravitational potential energy to all of the weights inside of the two-directional wheel. When the load reached the ground, its rope to the axle would become tight and it would immediately begin wrapping around the axle in the other direction. Now, however, the rotational kinetic energy stored in all of the wheel's weights would begin to lift the load again. During this second lift the one-directional wheel that had been active during the first lift would still have its weighted levers locked up and the lift would be accomplished by a combination of the flywheel effect produced by all of the weights as well as the torque being provided by the second one-directional wheel whose weighted levers were unlocked during the descent of the load.
This repeated rising and lowering of a heavy load would have been very impressive to a crowd watching it. However, it is basically an illusion and hides the fact that the continuous energy output, that is, the power, of his wheels was very low. This is one of the main reasons, imo, that his wheels never sold. Those examining the wheels quickly realized their limitations compared to the newly developed steam engine over in England. They were interested in a wheel that, like a windmill or water wheel, would have a high continuous power output which would be needed to perform tasks like quickly pumping the water out of a flooded coal mine. Bessler's wheels could not meet that requirement.
Ken the first publicly demonstrated wheel was 4.6 feet in diameter, not 3 feet. The Merseberg wheel gained full speed in three turns so did not need to spin for several moinutes before hoisting the 70 pounds up from the castle yard, and you assume a 'gravity latching system', but no one knows if this was used.
DeleteFinally you have often speculated that the Gera wheel was small model that he kept in his house, but there is again no evidence that this is true, just another of your pet ideas that assumes a greater reality the more you express it. You suggest that, 'maybe if a cord was attached to its small axle, it could rapidly hoist a weight of a pound or so a foot or so before it quickly came to a stop'.
This is total fiction bearing no relation to any known evidence. You can't base your argument on assumptions which have no supporting facts.
JC
I'm well aware that his first publicly demonstrated wheel was at Gera and was only 4.6 feet or so in diameter. However, my research begins with the 3 foot diameter House of Richters wheel because that was the one he first found success with and it is the one that is the focus of the clues in the two DT portraits. Actually, we don't know exactly how long it took the Merseburg wheel to reach its maximum rotation rate of 40 or more rpm's. I've made models that took almost five minutes to reach full speed using my best estimates for its maximum torque. One must remember that, due to centrifugal forces affecting the shifting of its active weighted levers, the torque his wheels produced decreased as wheel speed increased. That would have lengthened the time needed to reach their maximum speed. All of the fast hoists of 60 and 70 lb loads of bricks his wheels did were not done using a wheel that was initially stationary and then directly connected to the load. In such a situation, the wheel would not be able to turn and lift the load at all. Such a load could only be lifted by a wheel starting from a standstill if the rope from the wheel's axle passed through a pulley system that increased its torque by a factor of five or more and in such a case, the load would only rise very slowly. To make a load rise quickly required suddenly attaching the end of its rope to a projection on the axle (see item numbered 14 in the Merseburg wheel illustration) after the wheel had reached its maximum speed and then had its maximum amount of rotational kinetic energy available to apply to the load directly without needing to use the pulley system.
DeleteThe gravity latching system I refer to was a component inside of a two-directional wheel's drum that allowed only one of the two one-directional wheels it contained at a time to drive the drum while the other retrograde rotating wheel was disabled as its eight weights were held against their rim stops. It was the fabrication and adjustment of these latches which gave Bessler those "headaches" he complained of after he had completed the Merseburg wheel. There is only a single clue in the second DT portrait that I've been able to find that refers to these special latches Bessler needed to use, but, despite that, I have the full details of how they worked and will, of course, reveal all in my upcoming Bessler book. The important thing to remember about them is that without them, Bessler could not have used two one-directional wheels to make a two-directional wheel.
I'm also well aware that he destroyed the Gera wheel when he moved to Draschwitz. I did, however, speculate that later, after the death of Count Karl, Bessler, in need of money, tried unsuccessfully to sell his design to the Royal Society in London and had constructed a small wheel for their representatives to view, test, and then purchase. That wheel, imo, would not have been another 12 diameter one, but, rather, a small 4.6 foot Gera sized one-direction wheel. Unfortunately, the deal, for one reason or another, fell through and Bessler, probably in a fit of anger and frustration, also destroyed that wheel. Perhaps it was the remains of that wheel plus his original 3 foot diameter prototype that his widow found in his workshop after his death. Well, we may never know all of the details to these events in his life, but, if my testing of model #1480 is successful, then at least we will know how he did it and with enough detail for his wheels to be duplicated and again amaze those who see them in action.
As far as the lifting power of his small 3 foot diameter wheel is concerned, all I can say is that the models of it I make would, indeed, be able to lift a 2 lb weight attached to its axle to a height of about 1 to 2 feet before they came to a stop.
The wheel at the House of Richter was the 4.6 foot Gera wheel. No-one has described a three foot wheel Ken. Actually Bessler described the Gera wheel as a 5 foot wheel in Das Tri. We do know that the speed of the Merseberg wheel achieved full speed quickly and your suggestion that it probably mtook several minutes is completely your own idea.
DeleteYour comment "One must remember that, due to centrifugal forces affecting the shifting of its active weighted ...blah blah blah" is again a supposition since you have no idea how it worked.
I agree that the wheel did not begin to hoist the bricks from a stationary position, but that is like turning the ignition to start a car while it's in top gear and no clutch; you just don't do that, you start in neutral and select a low gear, and start off slowly. So you wouldn't start the hoist from a standstill either.
There you go again - eight weights! There is no evidence that there were eight weights, only a vague reference to "about eight" sounds of weights hitting the side towards which the wheel turned; and that only on the largest Kassal wheel. You don't know what caused the noise; whether it was a fake noise introduced by Bessler to confuse us or if the sound of one weight was dampened
to reduce its volume, something he admitted to in earlier wheels.
Latches? Again a guess by you with nothing to tell us that you are guessing there were latches, nor do I think you have found the right reason for any, if there some.
As for your final throw-away comment, "As far as the lifting power of his small 3 foot diameter wheel is concerned, all I can say is that the models of it I make would, indeed, be able to lift a 2 lb weight attached to its axle to a height of about 1 to 2 feet before they came to a stop", why should it stop at two feet? You can use a pulley like Bessler did and increase the height and therefore the length of time of the lift.
JC
John, I sometimes wonder if you read your own translations of Bessler's writings! This is from page 271 of AP:
Delete"So it was at the house of Richters in the year 1712 I achieved the discovery of the wondrous device that has amazed the world so much. My industry was spared the curses which accompanied the earlier efforts. The machine stood 3 feed high...On unfastening a bolt, the wheel immediately began to revolve."
This was not the 4.6 foot diameter wheel that he, months later, decided to publicly demonstrate in Gera.
As far as the Merseburg wheel is concerned, I can find no mention of how long it took to accelerate until it reached its maximum speed of 40 or 50 rpm's. As for the Kassel wheel, from witness observation we know it took two complete drum rotations until it reached 26 rpm's. If you know of any quotes describing the acceleration times for either of these wheels then please do let me and everyone else know of them. I contend that these times were a lot longer than anyone supposes.
"... again a supposition since you have no idea how it worked." Not true! I have a very good idea how all of Bessler's wheels worked and am now on the very verge of verifying "the" design he used. I can say without any reservation that the biggest limiting factor on a free running wheel would have been the centrifugal forces acting on the weights at the ends of the levers as wheel rotation speed increased. Bessler, however, saw a need to further limit this maximum free running speed and that's why he started to attach various drag producing mechanics to those cranks at the ends of their axles.
Well, there's no need to again debate the total number of weighted levers in his wheels. I've settled on the number 8 because, aside from examiners of the wheel reporting that number, it has certain advantages in terms of constructing an imbalanced pm wheel. The number is low enough so that things don't get too congested inside of a drum and the number of coordinating ropes and the layers containing them is minimized. Yet it's large enough to keep the center of mass of the weights from "wandering" excessively as the rotating wheel's mechanics tries to keep it on the drum's descending side. 8 also has special numerological significance which would have appealed to Bessler.
I do agree that the matter of the gravity activated latches used in the two-directional wheels is rather controversial. I've only found one reliable clue concerning them, but I know that without their presence a two-directional wheel made from two back to back one-directional wheels is not possible.
"...why should it stop at two feet?" Again, in reference to his House of Richters 3 foot diameter prototype wheel, when it was used to impress his visitors by performing a rapid hoist of a small 1 or 2 lb weight attached directly to its axle, it would only have lifted the weight from the top of a table to the axle. Since the wheel was 1.5 feet in diameter and its axle, perhaps, 2 feet above the table, Bessler had to pick a weight massive enough so that it would bring the wheel to a complete stop before the weight rose and hit into the axle. The mass of that weight was somewhere in the range of 1 to 2 lbs and, after having its cord suddenly attached to a projection on the axle of the model wheel when it was at full speed (probably greater than 60 rpm's), the rising weight would have used up all of the wheel's angular momentum just before it reached and hit the axle. At that point Bessler would have grabbed it to prevent if from falling back to the table top and causing the model to begin counter rotating.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@STEVO - Ha! I saw that before you removed it.
Delete"The knife's come out of the drawer again, along with the whetstone!"
Aw, come on, it's not that bad - Ha! (As well as much else, you've a good sense of humor and likely, of not-too-serious self too. Excellent, are these.)
I was born a Taurus/Gemini cusp and we sorts do not suffer fools nor blowhards lightly; up to a point yes, but after it is to be that knife you referenced symbolically.
J.C. (as he has allowed to us before, here and over at B.W.F.) was blessed by being born an Aquarius, and thus his enduring saintly patience with nonsense and the overbearing/repetitious, which some of us here (present company excepted) certainly are on occasion guilty of plying.
Of course we've no idea where in the astrological scheme of things you might fit STEVO but, if pressed to, I would guess (even though having very little evidence with which to) . . . Gemini or maybe another Aquarius?!
Also, a pressed guess as to what might be our Resident Personage-Peculiar's might be is . . . obviously . . . Capricorn or some such which main specialty is stubbornness as combined with absolutely perfected boorishness and, of course, never knowing WHEN to quit or back-off! (Am I being too harsh and cruel???) And, just as it is with Jim_Mich sometimes, I too "reserve the right to be wrong" re the sign guess.
If any here might be interested in finding out just what a Taurus/Gemini cusp might be, actuallee, there is no better place to start than right here at Logan's Life on blogspot.com http://xloganslife.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-taurus-gemini-cusp.html
Logan is a young brother T/G, and has done a splendid job of making clear to others 'our ways'. He has us all pegged to perfection.
Well, that would be IT for now, STEVO!
Be well and get that wheel working, man!
James
James,
DeleteI deleted the comment because I was wrong about the 16 weights, it was one of those late night ideas that seem brilliant, but then you have second thoughts about it.
Not that I give a fig about astrology, but, yes you are being cruel about Capricorns, because, I am one !
Oh, no!!!
DeleteYou're pulling our legs, right?
Well, if not it is a good thing I qualified my little mis-guess with "(even though having very little evidence with which to)".
You might be a cusp of one or the other but, since you do not "give a fig about . . ." etc., then this would mean nothing to you. For most of my life in this regard I was like yourself but, got wise later. (I am assuming that you are rather young as I am not?)
(Some percentage of we humans are pro- the proposition that, what our five senses can detect alone, is all that is deserving of serious cognizance. It is so that the governance of the high world of money and it's production has always looked to the stars for guidance. This is WHY the interior decor of our own Federal Reserve building [Properly "The Eccles Building".] is that of The Astrological, and, that both our first billionaires, Rockefeller Sr. and Morgan Sr., made their decisions accordingly. These two are regarded by most that are sane as having been rather successful. Are YOU successful???)
Your Blogger user profile reveals 79 inquiries, no other information being present. (Admittedly, mine contains very little as well.)
Take good care, STEVO.
James,
Deletewhen we were all prattling on about sci-fi musicals, I did mention I am a Capricorn. I was born January 5th. 1955.
Speaking of J.P.Morgan, if you check him on Wikipedia, you'll see a photo of him in an oval frame, transfer the bushy moustache to his head, to make more on top, and you have more than an approximation of the way I look.
Complete with rhinophyma and rosacea, and a strong dislike of having my photo taken.
STEVO, I missed that. If I'd read it, I would have remembered.
DeleteMorgan is one of my favorite Gilded Age studies. I place him as PARAGON-ABSOLUTE among all banker-type cliches. No other model for their predacious but grand like was his better - none!
By means of finance capital these characters built industrial America. Now it is their successors that have determined to 'wipe' the succeeding generations that physically built it all O-U-T!
Full-circle, and the trained Left now helps lockstep with every increment to it's own execution, frightened stiff that they by word might "offend" and be expelled from their ranks according to the disapproval!
Who could have thought that by such means a people could be brought to underwrite their own destruction? Buy canny use of GUILT as morphed subconsciously to self-loathing, this was to be done. (Past tense here chosen purposely.)
So STEVO, you ARE a young one! (Let us exchange those ten years! You can have my wealth and I your years. No-prob!!!)
When learning organ building, one of my colleagues was famous for being Capricorn. We got on very well. He had many fine qualities loyalty, steadfastness and honesty being but three. He also was a 'James'. Then there is that known stubbornness and single-mindedness which can be of real benefit depending but, also can work to create some odd characterological juggernauts with which we one's outside must deal.
"Big" Jim was no exception to this, as I found. I was marked as be the "little" by our sole Hungarian fellow worker, even though just 1" lesser in height, coming to 5'-10.5" total. (I envy J.C.'s extra to six feet!)
Although not having such as you describe, I too dislike my photos, being not at all photogenic. (Some naturally are, such as J.C.!) I come off as being 'severe' of appearance.
(Now morphing to the rather darker: 0nly God and he himself know WHAT our own Peculiar Personage might appear like. I can just imagine in my worse of nightmares.)
If your interest was just a bit better than a mere fig's-worth, I would run you chart IF I but had your TIME of birth and PLACE. Lacking these, not much accuracy can be had.
There is a fine chap who runs a GREAT radio show, Richard C. Hoagland. He has some sort of Establishment science education/background. As a guest he has on periodically an Astrologer, and such discussions between them can and do become very interesting.
As I understand it, Hoagland accepts that what Astrology has always sought to describe has actually to do with what is termed "Hyper-dimensional Physics" and, that it is real.
I suspect that the energy that empowered Bessler's various wheels had and would have it's origin from this very place somewhere in time and space. (I am getting way out of my depth here, being very much a three dimensional, SIX senses accepting sort.)
The link going to "The Other Side of Midnight" http://othersideofmidnight.com/montue-apr-5-dean-radin/ This describes tonight's guest, a scientist/musician. Gonna be good. Here is the paste-in .mp3 stream link: http://live.darkmatterradio.net:8303/stream All starts at 12:00 AM Pacific Time.
As a tail to this ramble, I believe that one of Morgan's names was Pontifrax, or something like that. I have a young snap of him at about eighteen, and he was A KNOCKOUT, but, also showed all the signs of his coming, naturally resolute domination of all! What a chap! (He also was highly educated and erudite, not usual things generally known of the banker class.)
Well, I'd better stop here before getting into any MORE trouble.
James
The first record we find of Orffyreus's invention can be found in the Leipzig Acta Eruditorum (1717). From this work we know that Orffyreus demonstrated a self-moving wheel in the town of Gera. The wheel, measuring 3 feet in diameter and 4 inches thick, could be started with a slight push and would quickly pick up speed. The wheel was able to lift up a 7 pound weight hanging by a rope wrapped around the wheel's axle.
ReplyDeleteThis I do believe came from Frank Edwards, who was a reporter, he wasn't chasing perpetual motion, he just wrote about Orffyreus.
Check out the truth about Frank Edwards, Uneqk on the Besslerwheel forum. He made a number of errors and added some extra information for which there is no documentary evidence, so my advice is to ignore Franf Edward's "facts".
DeleteJC
Orffyreus one way wheel needed a slight push to start. He's mechanism's inside the wheel had to be turned to take up any slack play before giving it a push to send it on it's way. If you just simply removed the brake it would unwind and freewheel backwards to it stopped. Orffyreus was so clever that he could, depending on the on-lookers just release the brake and the wheel would turn, then he would stop the wheel for some reason or another, so the on-lookers would believe it started SPONTANEOUSLY.
Delete@Uneqk: The witnesses who saw the one-directional wheel in the village of Draschwitz in 1714 reported that it immediately started rotating as soon as the rope securing it to the floor was released. It did not require a push start as did his next two two-directional wheels. His one-directional wheels were always imbalanced and their internal mechanics kept them that way.
DeleteSorry Ken, but Orffyreus was no Fool. He done everything in he's power to stop or trick people from findings the secret.
DeleteYou and most people think that Orffyreus wheel started spontaneously, and sure your spot on. But Orffyreus had to protect what he had, so when he pulled the brake to stop the wheel it simply pull on a spring which stopped the wheel and stretched a spring, so on releasing the brake, the spring pulled the wheel untill the mechanism's kicked in.
That's the only way it could start spontaneously.
Believe me, that's a fact.
I don't know what "brake" you are referring to, Uneqk. On page 275 of AP we read how he managed to regulate / stop his 3 foot diameter prototype wheel's rotation:
Delete"The bolts which regulated the motion were screwed into and out of the axle by many people, for I allowed all my friends to operate it."
I think these "bolts" were simply metal bolts that were screwed down on top of the small wheel's open axle pivots and their friction on the two ends of the wheel's axle could adjust its rotation rate. After a while, however, that would tend to cut a groove into an axle pivot and this is probably not how he would stop anything from the next Gera wheel up to the "mighty" Kassel wheel. I recall reading that they were stopped by having an assistant literally grab the axle and use the drag from his body weight on it to slow the wheel to a stop. In other words, Bessler used an assistant (and perhaps himself on occasion) as a sort of human brake shoe! Such a stunt can be dangerous if one's shirt somehow got wrapped around the rapidly turning axle. I think, most likely, a thick, somewhat stiff pad of leather was pressed against the axle and then the person put his weight on that to slow the wheel to a stop. There is a quote about someone trying to suddenly grab onto the rim of the Kassel wheel and being lifted several feet into the air before it stopped turning. In order to withstand this kind of sudden increase in gross weight, the Kassel's drum frame must have been very strong, indeed.
Ken, first of all we are talking about 300 years ago. The later wheels including Kassel wheel turned both ways. Im only talking about one direction. It might not of been a modern brake of today, but like i say he was a very clever man. He's still fooling people today. Unfortunately we will never really know? So no matter what turns up spinning, if it doesn't start spontaneously its not Orffyreus so called wheel.A simple Yes or No will do.
Delete"So no matter what turns up spinning, if it doesn't start spontaneously its not Orffyreus so called wheel. A simple Yes or No will do."
DeleteIf it's a one-directional wheel and is not self-starting, then, imo, it's not the same design that Bessler found and used. However, that does not mean one does not have a working imbalanced pm wheel. I've always believed that there is more than one way to achieve this effect and that Bessler did not have a monopoly on the subject. Ultimately, it's the test results that count. If one has to push start his one-directional wheel for it to become pm, then that's fine with me. Finding any design that works, whether it's Bessler's or not, is a major achievement and certainly on a par with anything Bessler achieved. Indeed, one's non-Bessler imbalanced pm wheel might even be superior to Bessler's design and have a higher power output!
Ken, I appreciate what your saying, but I think it's sad for Orffyreus. It turns out that Bessler was to good for himself. He done such a fantastic Job of protecting he's machine that people are now convinced it started spontaneously. You and John have probably put close on one Hundred years into bessler, if not more? and yet between the pair of you , you don't really know how big he's first working wheel was.
DeleteOne lot of clues and yet so many ideas.
Whether bessler's wheel worked or not ? Either way he fooled alot of people.
Well Done Orffyreus (your a legend).
I know exactly how big his first working wheel was: three feet in diameter. Of course, those were "his" 3 feet and would have varied a bit from "our" present day American and English "feet". The only way to know with absolute certainty what the diameter of his first working prototype was would be to build a time machine, go back to Gera, Saxony in early 1712, and get his permission to use our own tape measure to measure it. Obviously, that won't be happening and we'll have to settle for thinking of that first working wheel of his being three of "our" feet in diameter.
DeleteKen, As it goes talking about Time Machines..... Only kidding. But if you manage to go back and measure Orffyreus wheel, make sure you take a feet and inches tape and not a metric tape, they can be confusing sometimes.
DeleteBut for now all the best to you and John.
Bessler's original one-way wheels were self-starters meaning they had torque at rest. This self-starting nature gave rise to accusations that his wheels were driven by clock work (were wound up). To eliminate these suspicions he came up with a unique OB weight engagement strategy that allowed his wheels to free-wheel in either direction, but once a certain speed was achieved, the OB weight shifting mechanism would kick in and sustain and drive the wheel. Likely CF was utilized in this endeavor.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt Bessler's Wheels were powerful and when ganged together, represent a viable energy source.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said
ReplyDeleteBUT
I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant!
JC
Hi John, save the word play for Ken, I'm not smart enough to figure out what you are saying. I knew my last comment would cause confusion. I'm thinking how to reword. I think was attempting to say all his wheels had torque, lots of torque.
DeleteA lot of torque? The Merseburg wheel could just barely lift a 60 lb load whose rope was attached to its axle after running through a pulley system to increase the lifting force by a factor of five (or perhaps more!). That means that the maximum weight that could be lifted by having a load's rope directly attached to the axle was only 60 lbs/5 = 12 lbs. For a 3 inch radius axle, that's a torque of 12 lbs x 0.25 feet = 3 foot-pounds at startup. When the wheel was running at its maximum speed of probably 50 rpm's, it's torque would have been close to zero (as I've mentioned many times previously, this would be due to the centrifugal forces acting on the weighted levers forcing their center of mass on a wheel's descending side to rotate around the axle until it was almost at the "punctum quietus" position directly below the center of the axle). If we average those figures, we get (3 ft-lbs + 0 ft-lbs)/2 = 1.5 ft-lbs.
Delete"...lots of torque." Sorry, I just don't see all of that torque everyone is talking about. I think you are all being deceived by those rapid hoist tests done with Bessler's wheels. They were impressive, but used the so-called "flywheel effect" involving the quick release of the rotational kinetic energy of a wheel that it had slowly accumulated after needing several minutes to reach its maximum free running speed. When one looks at the actual continuous, long term power output of his wheels, the levels are far less impressive. Amazing how Bessler's showmanship was fooling his witnesses three centuries ago and its still fooling the vast majority of pm chasers today! It is not, however, fooling me.
". . . and its still fooling the vast majority of pm chasers today! It is not, however, fooling me." - K.B.
DeleteHow nice.
I have to admit - I am being fooled-still but, 'am trying.
While at it I have to admit too that, my own patience for certain of cheeky and arrogant behaviors of-recent as withstood in an almost saintly way by our most patient and gentlemanly host/moderator, J.C., would surely have run it's coarse LONG ago, had I been he.
Fortunate it is for our most well-noted perpetrator of most peculiar personage that I am not.
Of-recent I've taken to studying the various disorders of personality existing such as schizoid, narcissistic and etc. and have learned that, generally, these are and have been for a long while on-the-rise everywhere in our Western part of the world. (This being due mainly to Leftism now gone totally wild and infusive, and producing what are now essentially suicidal behaving nationalities, these being mostly European so-far, excepting for the Magyars who seem to possess-still the blood fury of Attila for their survival. I have of-recent taken-up the learning of Hungarian, just in case.)
An actual real and breathing schizoidal type (SPD) I've had to deal with recently in my life, for over a period of half-a-year, and it has been quite a ride but also a useful study, as well. Fortunately the first has now ended but not the last.
It has occurred to me that certain sorts of implacable manias (such as consistently unrewarded chases after that Elusive Chimerical Power ranging over ever-mounting decades possibly) can coalesce most cruelly so as to produce symptomologies similar to actual personality disorders.
Perhaps it is that a specific one is yet to be identified especially and named by the experts - the psychoanalytical theoreticians - for our particular area of so-far fruitless searching as now withered-down to a mere simpering, sad pathology?
Don't know. Hope not.
The schizoidal type is essentially a robot that is human, and because having little or no guilt, capacity for empathy, nor shame potential, seemingly could be VERY dangerous! The saving grace to them I have found, (if one could put it in that way rightly, and thank goodness for it if so) is that their fantasies of causing destruction due to amassed resentments remain dormant for they are shy, tending toward seeking seclusion from our essentially bewildering world and others unlike themselves.
The narcissitic ones, however, are far more active and aggressive, and are destructive KNOWINGLY. Although these do display some characteristics of the SPD's, these are far more animated and in-touch with their primary reason for being, their "narcissistic supply," as the pros term it.
Specifically, when not tangible/material, this becomes attention and patience-sapping as endured by we Normals due to their ghastly overbearance and tireless self-congratulating, these even though carefully qualified by them so as to SEEM self-deprecating and therefor somehow excusable, which really they are not if and when examined in-detail.
Yes, it is so that this behavior is isolated in a way just as it is with the SPD's but, it is here dynamic, and is ever present being put-upon it's quite-too-patient, enduring victims. (This being most of us here.)
With our own case here, where and how is the experience to end, finally?
With a blowout or psychotic break of which we will likely never hear of? Or rather, with just Nature taking her natural course of elimination, of the very narrowly endurable now gone-on for way to long?
As he always does eventually, Father Time will tell.
(Coarse and course. Dangerous homonyms, these two. Watch out for them!)
In between contemplation's of internal P-M structures, such matters-disparate-seeming might well bear fruit for the considering, so I respectfully make bold to suggest?
Onward and upward.
James
I must agree with you James, there are two people who I have determined are inherently narcissistic, in that they are imbued with extreme selfishness, and have a grandiose view of their own talents and a craving for admiration. They refuse point blank to take criticism usually ignoring it or failing to view it as criticism. It is a waste of time debating the matter with them as they are blind to their own faults.
DeleteJC
I don't think Bessler's showmanship is fooling you Ken - you're doing a fine job yourself.
DeleteJC
I am truly gratified that you do, John, and thank you for so-stating.
DeleteAs for your amplification as done upon my original, naturally I am ALL concordance.
(How fascinating it would be to learn WHICH the second is but, I'll not inquire.)
James
"I don't think Bessler's showmanship is fooling you Ken - you're doing a fine job yourself."
DeleteMy prediction is that, if my model #1480 proves to be a "runner", then you and a lot of others will be making a hasty 180 degree reversal in your opinions about the approach I'm promoting which, I can assure everyone, is based strictly on the clues in the Bessler literature and, particularly, those found in the two DT portraits.
Oh, and btw, last night I reread that first Wagner criticism on John's excellent website and at the end, after Wagner gives the schematic for his fake, mainspring powered pm wheel, he tells how he has used it to do rapid hoists of weights of several pounds through a height of several ells. He then says it would be easy to do this for more massive loads with a larger Bessler sized wheel using more springs inside of it. Well, I don't for a second think Bessler's wheels were fake, but I found it interesting that Wagner was well aware of how deceptive those rapid hoist demonstrations were and how even he, Wagner, could do them with his smaller fake pm wheel! If one tries to estimate the power of Bessler's wheels based on rapid hoist demonstrations, he will invariably grossly overestimate their power. Don't let yourself fall into that trap!
DeleteQuestion to JC
ReplyDeleteIf I remember or understood here correctly, from some time ago you have mentioned that you do your real word wheel test/build in some round plywood disk. Where you try to put/fix/build all levers, weights and all other stuff, what there needed, to this plywood disk.
My question here is about that: Is your last findings buildable to this plywood disk also or you last idea is totally new approach, without this plywood disk?
I´m just little curious here, without any need to additional and particular details about your last setup. If possible to give something out, then just somekind of yes or no, was here more then enough for answer. I really appreciate this!
Little backgroud of this. As my 3D real world build starting to take shape and I see now that, there is not easy in first place to frame/build up all directly from 2D to 3D world. There must use some specialy shaped levers in one point or put then things together little differently, then in 2D.
Eastlander
I'm not sure if I understood your question Eastlander but here goes. I have indeed used a three foot diameter plywood disc to mount levers and weights on, and as soon as I am back in my own house and have room to swing a cat, I shall resume work!
DeleteJC
@Eastlander: I found this old video on youtube which shows John's three foot diameter plywood disc with some of the various mechanisms he was testing. It's got more holes in it than a used dart board, but that can happen to parts when one is actively doing "hands on" research in the pm field.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deA6KbNZft0
@John: Hope you don't mind me posting that link. I assume your latest mechanism departs substantially from those shown.
Yea, I have seen this video some time a go.
DeleteJust my thoughts here about this board.
As I see it now from my findings, there is very hard to build unidirectional wheel only to one board ... Maybe between two boards was more comfortable to run it!? But then there is more difficult to put all together to working machine. As there is so less space then to put hands in it, for fixing the mechanical parts.
John, I just affraid here that You may not have right solution available at the moment, or You do not have make it so far, to see some obstacles in one point!? Outer perimeter is just a shell, not support for mechanics.
All the best
Eastlander
@Eastlander: The "perpetual motion structures" Bessler used consisted of spring suspended weighted levers whose steel pivots were held in lubricated brass bearings that had to be embedded in a drum's radial spars. They are the strongest part of the drum and ideal for resisting the centrifugal forces that would be applied to the weights and levers as the drum rotated. It is even possible to make one of Bessler's wheels using a single disc with an axle on one side of it. This, as you noted, is not the best way to do it for a variety of reasons. The drums Bessler used were, until he covered their sides with cloth, open frameworks of many wooden pieces. He would have installed everything but the weights before he covered the sides of a drum up with cloth. Once that was done, he would mount the drum and axle in the bearings of the upright supports and, finally, install the weights by working through the openings in the cloth on one side of the drum. However, that was not the end of it. He would still have needed to check all of the critical lever angles inside the drum and, if they were not close to certain particular values (given repeatedly in the two DT portraits), he would have to correct them by adjusting the lengths of some of the coordinating ropes interconnecting the levers. This adjustment probably took a few days to complete, but, once done, the wheel could be put into immediate use.
Delete@Ken. Next hint is quite familiar "... A wheel appears, is it really a wheel...". What this metaphor tells to us? It tells to me that it can be what ever other shape also, not only ring, disk or round object! (it actually is some other shape). I have build my first working test on "disk" shaped base. But later on, I have seen, that there was much easier to put all to "shaped crosses". Because there is lot of unused space in internal structure, when watch only to lever fixing places.
DeleteWhen come from 2D to 3d world. There you do not want that internal masses hit the sides of the drum. So there must use little "advanced" lever system, to avoid this. When try make those fixings only to one board only, this is just very difficult to achieve.
Eastlander
"Next hint is quite familiar "... A wheel appears, is it really a wheel...". What this metaphor tells to us?"
DeleteI think Bessler is just saying that, while his invention looks externally like a wheel, it is certainly not like an ordinary wheel on the inside. Most of his wheel's drums were empty space with the active parts near the rim.
No problem Ken, it is slightly embarassing to see what I was working with and on in those days!
ReplyDeleteJC
The Highway 1 rubber wheel-stops also called parking blocks or car stops are black with yellow reflective for maximum visibility. Phone: 0800 175 571
ReplyDelete