I return to this subject from time to time, always seeking clarification. I know that gravity cannot be a source of energy, I've been told so more times than I can remember. But it does seem as though Johann Bessler thought that the 'heaviness', i.e 'ponderousness' or as they say in Latin the 'gravitas' of the weights inside his machine gave the wheel the necessary energy to continually rotate.
Notice that there is a subtle difference between what we know as 'gravity', which is some kind of force field which attracts other things of mass - and a thing's inherent 'heaviness'. Is there a difference? Bessler believed that it was the 'heaviness' of the weights in his machine which gave it the power to turn continuously, but we always take one step further back in the process, i.e. was it the thing that caused the 'heavinesss' in his weights which he did not know of and which we call 'gravity'?
Can it be that this whole apparently pointless enterprise, making a wheel turn continuously simply by constructing a clever configuration of weights, has been doomed to failure because man sought the source of the 'heaviness' when it did not matter where it came from, he should have just been glad it was and is there?
We accept several different forms of energy which we can turn to our advantage in one way or another but the fact that we know from where it originates and how it works and how we can best make use of it, is not neccessarily something we need to know. People have sailed ships using the wind as an energy source for millenia. Same for windmills for grinding corn etc. Others learned how to use water wheels in a similar way. Clock makers even used 'heaviness' to drive their weight-driven clocks, long before Sir Isaac Newton discoverd 'gravity'. Just because no one seems to have discovered how to manipulate weights to rotate wheel continuously does not mean it can't be done. I'm certain that Johann Bessler knew and yet he never mentions the word gravity in any of his publications, because it wasn't known about for many years after Sir Isaac Newton descibed it in Latin as 'gravity'.
My point is this, weights are inherently heavy, we know it is the effect of gravity but we don't actually need to know that to use them. Gravity is not a source of energy but it does create the conditions which can lead to a device being able to exploit the heaviness which gravity gives to an object of mass.
So when Bessler said, " NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity." That is what he meant; the heaviness in the weights, not some remote force called gravity.
Interestingly he used the word ''gravium', at the end of the sentence above which I have translated as, 'centre of gravity', but I subsequently learned that the word ,'gravium', is the genitive plural of 'gravis' which I learned means 'heaviness', so Bessler uses the phrase 'centre of heaviness', which means the same thing but when you put it into the correct context of his time, you can see that he is not referring to the same thing as we are when we use the phrase 'centre of gravity'. He is simply stating that the centre of heaviness is at a certain point but has nothing to do with the force of gravity. We on the other hand, mean that the centre of gravity refers to the action of gravity on the whole structure and identifies the balancing point between both sides affected by the fore of gravity as the central point.
In the second paragraph I suggested that we habitually looked at the conditions prior to the use of weights, or what gravity did to the weights, whereas we should be looking at the weights themselves as they were at the time of their use. We have been looking one step back and ignoring the evidence in front of our eyes.
All we need to know is that the weights are always heavy just as long as gravity is affecting them.
JC
John writes: "All we need to know is that the weights are always heavy just as long as gravity is affecting them."
ReplyDeleteActually, one can consider the weights to be "heavy" whether gravity is pulling on them or not. This "heaviness" is just another way of referring to the mass of an object. While the weight of an object caused by the pull of gravity will vary depending on its distance from the center of a nearby planetary body, its mass remains the same and is dependent upon the total number of subatomic particles contained in the atoms of the object. If you had two spheres of the same radius floating in outer space between two neighboring galaxies and one was made of lead while the other of wood, then you would quickly discover that, if you applied the same propulsive force to both spheres, the one made of lead would accelerate far more slowly than the one made of wood. That sluggishness, "heaviness", or resistance to acceleration of the lead sphere would be solely due to the greater number of subatomic particles contained within its spherical form as compared to the number inside of the sphere of wood.
As I've mentioned many times in the past, I believe that all of the energy that Bessler's wheels outputted came directly from the mass of their active weights and levers as allowed by the E = mc^2 equation. So, when Bessler said that the weights were the source of the pm, he was actually right although I doubt if he knew why his statement was right. Back then their concept of energy was still a bit fuzzy and they certainly did not realize that a 4 pound lead weight contained enough energy to power a wheel for millions of years. It would take physics another two centuries to wake up to that reality and, surprisingly, there are still many chasing pm today who have not yet woken up to it.
For Bessler, the method his wheels used to stay in motion was simple. Their weights and levers kept their collective center of mass on the wheel's descending side as they rotated. Unless that condition can be achieved, one can forget about constructing a working imbalanced pm wheel and all he will get for his efforts is something that will keel or reach equilibrium shortly after he releases it. Finding the mechanics necessary to do this is no easy task, however. It requires perseverance bordering on fanaticism and an incredible amount of luck. Bessler had these two qualities in sufficient amounts to be successful. But, then his luck ran out and he was not able to carry through to seeing his invention actually used and improved upon by humanity. When someone comes along today and manages to travel down the same path Bessler did to success, let's hope that something will come of it so that history will not repeat itself.
There was no Luck involved, Orffyreus wasn't interested in making a wheel turn he's idea was to make a machine that produced energy.
DeleteNo luck involved? Well, if it was that easy, why had none before Bessler (that we know of) achieved pm? But, I do agree that, despite the term, "perpetual motion", one is actually in search of a machine that can continuously output energy without requiring its replenishment from the environment. There are many perpetual motions in the universe that do not output energy. For example, every atom consists of a collection of subatomic particles that are in various perpetual states of motion such as revolution, rotation, and vibration. They are only able to maintain such motions because they output no energy while doing so because there is no air resistance or mechanical friction affecting them. If any of their motions did output some energy, then that motion would quickly cease. But Bessler's wheels were quite different. They did continuously output energy, yet required no replenishment of that energy from the environment...at least not during the lifetimes of anybody then alive. Indeed, if Bessler had hidden a very well constructed and perfectly durable wheel in a cave somewhere that was running and we discovered it today, we would note that it was still running at its maximum rotation rate. If we sealed the cave up and someone discovered it, say, ten thousand years from now, it would still be running. If the cave was sealed up and discovered, assuming the Earth and humans still existed then, ten billion years from now, then the wheel, most likely, would not be running. At that time, if one of its lead weights was removed, the people then would be stunned to notice that it was actually buoyant and was slowly rising in the air. This would be because it had become, over that great span of time, totally massless as its energy content was slowly outputted with each wheel rotation to overcome the aerodynamic and bearing drag that resisted wheel rotation. So, technically speaking, Bessler did not actually have "perpetual motion" in the absolute sense of the term. But, I would submit that any machine that could continuously run for billions of years before stopping has earned the right to be described as "perpetual" and I am not uncomfortable describing one as such.
Delete"It's Heaviness not Gravity" is too subtle for me!
ReplyDeleteIf we allow a mass m to fall through a height h in the Earth's gravitational acceleration field g, then we certainly gain energy E = mgh from that fall.
If we are trying to gain net energy, something has to be altered in how that equation applies to the ascending vs the descending side of a wheel. I cannot see how to alter either mass m or gravity g. But although it may seem impossible, and it is certainly difficult, height h can be altered.
The energy is already in the wheel. It's contained in the mass of its weights and their levers. In Bessler's wheels as in any genuine imbalanced pm wheel, the weights will be equal in number on both sides of the axle, but the mechanics of the wheel will, at any instant, cause the descending side weights (which includes their levers) to be dropping at a slightly higher rate than the ascending side weights (and their levers) are rising. Because of this unusual situation, the collection of weights (and their levers) is constantly losing more energy on the descending side than they are regaining on the ascending side. Where does that "lost" energy go? It's really not lost, but is used to accelerate and thereby increase the kinetic energy of all of the moving parts of the wheel including its axle. That increased kinetic energy can then be drained away by attaching an external piece of machinery to the wheel's axle whose various parts will then experience an increase in gravitational potential and kinetic energies. As this happens, these parts will also experience a very slight increase in mass and it will exactly equal the very slight amount of mass lost by the wheel.
DeleteMy remark about altering height was made with an eye on future developments. It ties in with my previous remarks about a laboratory frame not being a true inertial frame.
DeleteAlso, for now I'll make just one more comment: Bessler said "A great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a heavy weight to fly upwards..." (AP XLIII) I don't think the heavy weight needs to fly upwards "lightly" if the overall size of the machine is unimportant. But to compact-up the machine to a reasonable size, that word "lightly" becomes very significant.
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a one pound weight rise as four ounces fall, or four pounds rise as sixteen ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain."
DeleteThat AP quote has caused much consternation in the OU world. The only way that one could do that, literally, is if the weight being raised was carefully counterbalanced by another weight of equal mass or by a stretched spring. It does, imo, have some application to the method Bessler used to rapidly lift the ascending side weights and levers in his wheels. Those weights and levers were nearly perfectly counterbalanced, via coordinating ropes, by the weight of and springs attached to other weighted levers ahead of them. That then allowed the inward swinging of those weights and levers just beginning to enter the ascending side at the drum's 6 o'clock position to quickly make them rise. Bessler mentions, while taunting Wagner, that the weights in his wheel "which rest below" then "rise in a flash" or something to that effect. In the models I am working with, my weighted levers do, indeed, rise very rapidly, as they pass the drum's 9 o'clock position.
The reason no one apart from bessler turned the so called wheel was because, all perpetual motion seekers try and turn a wheel. Orffyreus made a machine then placed it inside a wheel. Its impossible for the wheel to turn.
ReplyDeleteWell, it is certainly impossible for a perfectly balanced empty drum and its axle to turn. The "machine" was the collection of interconnected weights and levers inside of the drum that made it all possible. That machine was able to keep its center of mass constantly on one side of the drum despite its rotation.
DeleteWhether Orffyreus was honest or fraudulent he was a genius at he's job, either way he kept the likes of perpetual motion seekers going. What ever was inside the wheel was what made the wheel move? Sure the wheel moved. But if he had shown you what actually turned, and for instanced it looked like a Pumpjack and he just simply rotate it, everyone would have laughed at him, so he put it inside a wheel, simply because it had to rotate, if it never rotated he would have probably put it in a box.
ReplyDeleteOrffyreus was so advanced on the way he thought about things. If he had put he's machine inside a box and just left a spindle sticking out that turned, then someone may have found the secret much sooner? Instead he stuck it in a wheel and threw everyone a load of scraps has clues. What a Genius
ReplyDeleteYes, he could have packaged his imbalanced pm wheel mechanics inside of a box with just a drive shaft sticking out of one side. But, I think he was concerned with eliminating any suspicion that he might have a person inside of the device that was supplying the energy it outputted. To do that, it seems to me that he deliberately made his wheels as thin as possible. So thin, in fact, it was difficult to imagine a trained dog inside of the Gera or Draschwitz one direction wheels running around on the insides of the bottoms of the their drums in order to make them turn.
DeleteThese discussions involve deep philosophical mysteries. Scientific opinion in our times states that energy was at one time suddenly created (big bang) and is now continuously being transformed from a useful kinetic state into not so useful warmth and we will some day reach a state where everything is in thermodynamic equilibrium, same temperature everywhere, not useful, very boring and the death of everything we know. The brave little atoms spin because of the big bang and have no inner "motor", etc. Of course we could do away with the big bang and see the universe as constantly supplying energy to us, replenishing the moving, living systems continuously and creating gravity ongoingly. This used to be the view in earlier times, and the mysterious ether was thought to be responsible or at least involved in this. Experiments to check out the ether failed to delivery the expected results, and it went out of fashion. Ironically, we today see the necessity of "dark matter", a kind of ether in a way. If gravity were something delivered from the outside of matter, rather than something inside it, tugging at other bits of matter, then maybe a Bessler wheel would totally make sense.
ReplyDeleteMimi
Modern physics would have us believe that the entire cosmos suddenly came into being out of nothing and will, eventually, fade away into nothing. We're just a "temporary", hundreds of trillions of years long "fluctuation" in a quantum gravity field. I, of course, consider this view to be totally ludicrous despite the "higher" mathematics being used to justify it. I think the cosmos always was and always will be. Sometime around 13.7 billion years ago there were probably an infinite number of super giant black holes out there throughout infinite space that got so big that they became unstable, exploded, and spewed out enormous quantities of neutrons in all directions. After about 12.5 minutes half of them had turned into hydrogen atoms and, a few billion years later, things expanded enough and cooled enough for the first galaxies to form from those atoms which were just huge clouds of hydrogen drifting away from the exploded super black holes that had created them. Then came stars, planetary systems, life, and, finally, intelligent life capable of developing things like tools, science, perpetual motion wheels, and even UFOs.
DeleteWhere is it all going? I think, eventually, as all of the stars burn out tens of billions of years from now, gravity will slowly pull everything together to populate the cosmos with an infinite number of super giant black holes again. They will slowly grow in mass as they drawn in the debris of burned out galaxies. Then, once again, they will all erupt and create a new cosmos. This is, I firmly believe, the ultimate reality of everything. It has been this way from the infinite past, is now, and shall be into the infinite future. The entire cosmos is, in reality, just an infinite perpetual motion machine and we sentient creatures live right inside of it!
What will eventually happen to humanity? Good question. By the time our Sun becomes unstable in another five billion years or so, we will probably be able to transfer our conscious minds into android bodies and will enter our own giant mothership craft and take off for the safety of intergalactic space. Maybe we will get to the point where it will really be unnecessary and even undesirable for us to live on the surface of planets. We'll become intergalactic nomads that fly around the cosmos while living in whatever computer generated virtual reality world we dream up. One of our main goals then, will be surviving the end of the present cosmos as everything disappears into all of those super giant black holes. Of course, all of the other sentient lifeforms out there will want to do the same thing. Let's hope that we all have the technology to do it and make it into the next cosmos. Something tells me that only a very small percentage will have that technology and successfully make the transition from one cosmos to another. Unfortunately, the Grim Reaper has a way of overcoming even the best technology.
Mimi, re "the mysterious ether" etc, I was impressed by Don Hotson's articles on "Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy" originally published in Infinite Energy magazine in 2002. Although Hotson was a physics "outsider" he made a valuable step forward. His articles are conveniently accessible from http://www.dirac-was-right.com/hotson-westergard.php
DeleteMimi wrote: "Experiments to check out the ether failed to delivery the expected results, and it went out of fashion. Ironically, we today see the necessity of "dark matter", a kind of ether in a way. If gravity were something delivered from the outside of matter, rather than something inside it, tugging at other bits of matter, then maybe a Bessler wheel would totally make sense."
DeleteGravitational and inertial forces probably are due to "something" happening outside of matter, but, ultimately, there has to be "something" emanating from all matter that does the interacting. I'm not a believer in either dark energy or dark matter. Like the luminiferous aether, I think these hypothetical concepts will eventually be discarded.
Anyway, I've always wondered if there might be some small variation in the gravitational force acting on a cylindrical mass depending upon its orientation in a planet's gravity field. If such a variation could be proved to exist, then it should be usable in the construction of an imbalanced pm wheel. Suppose the force is greater when a cylindrical weight's axis is perpendicular to the gravity field and lesser when it is parallel. One could then construct a wheel with cylindrical weights on the ends of twisting rods such that, when on the descending side, the weights would turn their axes perpendicular to the gravity field and, when on the ascending side, they would then turn them parallel to the gravity field. That would then result in a greater pull on the descending side weights and a lesser pull on the ascending side weights. Of course, before heading off to the shop to try this, one will need to first verify that this effect is real. Were the "gentle" impact sounds heard on the descending sides of Bessler's wheels the result of the cylindrical lead weights there having their axes turned perpendicular to the Earth's gravity field? I'm not convinced they were, but, using a sensitive balance, it should be relatively easy to see if this proposed effect is real or not.
[Once in a lesser while I'll weigh-in here with a little needed comment or two for whatever they might be worth, this time being one such occasion.]
ReplyDeleteJohn, we have all, I am sure, come to expect stimulating-to-thought topics as coming from yourself appearing here on these pages but, this particular one IS "a Deusy" and so, I now appear.
You wrote thus "Notice that there is a subtle difference between what we know as 'gravity', which is some kind of force field which attracts other things of mass - and a thing's inherent 'heaviness'. Is there a difference?"
Clearly, this is an invitation to explanation in need of a tiny response and therefor I become willing servant to the necessity . . .
Inertial mass = gravitational mass.
The first is determined dynamically and the second statically. Any difference existing between these (as I understand it to be) going solely to the matter of HOW these two quantitative determinations ARE MADE, their shared quality being identical as to essence. (Physics guys: I invite that any necessary correcting be done? In such depths as these, I AM but the struggling amateur here?)
http://dev.physicslab.org/document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=dynamics_inertialgravitationalmass.xml
And also you gave to us this delicious little morsel to chew-upon:
'So when Bessler said, " NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity." That is what he meant; the heaviness in the weights, not some remote force called gravity.'
OK, "not"!
Then, with what are we left?
It is, as Bessler explains and with not much equivocation - that these masses actually PRODUCE his 'kraft' FROM NOWHERE! (If it is in fact true that gravity's attraction is not energy per se.)
(And yes, yes, yes we KNOW WELL what our present boorish Professor of No Degrees except that from Bloviation U., will now likely repeat as his explanation for the thousandth and first tedious time. Please, YOU, do spare us a reprise of it?)
Now as in Dreaming Mode: IF it were found to be the case after examining a working Bessler wheel that this was happening, that energy was being observed as created from NOWHERE . . . it would thus constitute 'an act of creation' which is supposed by many to be of the Province of the Divine strictly. (The Natural World re-creates from that existing already.)
Given all that, then this would stand as being evidentiary of very, very much of Something.
I suggest that, by virtue-of and reliance-on Newton's Third Law of Motion, that it is THIS upon which Bessler depended exclusively for his excess whatever in truth it actually was/is. The co-equal REACTION was the kraft's very source, nothing more. (But, just TRY and attain it. You'll soon be chasing after quicksilver existing in the Fourth Dimension.)
We'll know soon if I am right.
James
Yes I agree James, I in actual fact it is not the heaviness, it is the differential weight due to gravity; no energy involved!
Delete"BINGO!" Trevor.
DeleteThanks.
We two would seem to be rolling on similar (if not identical) tracks, re our mechanical approaches.
"Any day now," man! :-)
James
Update: Yesterday I made it to model #1470 and, so far, all I am getting upon testing are further keels. Very disappointing considering I've already completed about half of the illustrations I intend to use in a book on Bessler's wheels which, quite unfortunately, must now be put on hold pending some successful tests that indicate I've finally found "it". I'm still convinced at this point that I have the correct lever shape, suspension spring constant, and end weight mass. The problem seems to be with the counterbalancing of the 9 o'clock weighted lever and must be due to not having the correct lever mass and ascending side lifting ropes attachment points. For the next few days, I'll be doing a rigorous analysis of what I need to make it work and, of course, looking for clue justifications in the two DT portraits. Amazing what a difference a few tests can make. Last week, convinced I finally had "it", I was on top of the world and all things seemed possible. Now, things look gloomy. The die hard pm chaser, however, must be able to absorb these cycles of ecstasy followed by agony and keep on moving in the direction he (or she) thinks will finally yield real results. Time now for me to get back to work on it. Hopefully, I'll have more positive news to report tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting subject John,
ReplyDeleteit made me go back and read Yakov Perelman's book, Physics for Entertainment, again.
In it he explains how a ton of wood weighs more than a ton of iron because of Archimedes' principle, in that it displaces more air, so the true weight is the weight of the wood plus the weight of the air it displaces.
Also that, a globe filled with liquid will spin slower than a solid globe of the same size and weight. All of which I thought the differences might be exploited.
Then I thought of the fact he mentions, that a falling object is weightless.
So, as we all know, the rolling weight type wheel doesn't work, it eventually finds it's equilibrium, but what if there's a "rogue weight" that runs in a different track.
When it's still, say being held in a hollow cup in a corner of the track, the wheel can still overbalance in as far as it moves to it's equilibrium point, but just before it reaches, the "rogue weight" drops, making one side lighter, so the wheel tries to find equilibrium again, and the sequence repeats.The "rogue weight" would probably have to be hollow and filled with shot, so as not to bounce.
Also, if there were five rolling weights, the extra track would make a pentagon shape around the outer edge of the wheel.
Another thought, with five rolling weights, the wheel may try to find equilibrium when there's three rolling weights on one side, and two rolling weights plus the "rogue weight" on the other, thus being equal, but when the rogue weight drops it's unbalanced.
DeleteHow about this scenario. You have weights arranged around the rim of a wheel on the wheel's radial spokes so that, as it turns, say, clockwise, weights on the ascending side drop down from one radial to the one below them during which time, of course, that falling weight is not connected to the wheel. That then causes the descending side to be momentarily heavier and turn. As the falling weight drops, it eventually strikes the next weight below it and triggers its drop. This impact prevents most of the first falling weight's kinetic energy from being transferred to the wheel itself so as to slow its clockwise rotation. That second weight then repeats the action of the first and so on and so on. This system would require precise timing of when the weights on the ascending side drop. What happens continuously on the ascending side of the wheel would sort of mimic what that Jacob's Ladder on MT's "toy page" was doing; that is, a sequence of events in which the action of one thing triggers the action of another.
Delete@ Ken,
DeleteI had thought of a similar idea to that before, but the problem is, as the weight drops, the next one is coming up to meet it, so in fact the falling weight only travels half the distance necessary.
With a separate track, it can be made twice as long, so as to accommodate the full movement of the wheel.
@STEVO: True, but there will be some time period during which it is dropping and the opposite descending side of the wheel is heavier. However, in thinking about this approach I realize that it is unworkable. The problem is that, in order to reset the weights, they have to be sliding or dropping on the descending side of the wheel and that action would then lighten up that side and negate any lightening taking place on the ascending side. Well, another "great" idea up in smoke. When it comes to gravity wheels, one must consider what is happening on both sides of the wheel at the same time.
DeleteDo You think something like this ...
Deletehttp://ge.tt/2NVuavY2
Eastlander
@Eastlander: Very nice and somewhat complicated design you have there. Currently, its center of mass is right at the axle, but, I assume, when it runs the weights on the ascending side are retracted while those on the descending side are extended. However, I've seen other designs similar to this in the past and they don't work. The problem is that it takes energy to retract weights at 6 o'clock and extend them at 12 o'clock and the weight extended at 3 o'clock just can not supply the needed energy.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis goes back to something I posted before ."Division" is what Bessler used to make the weights on the ascending side of the wheel lighter than on the descending side.Division and accumulation: oppsites...the reason vapor can be lifted and accumulated to make clouds and then rain/oceans/rivers.
ReplyDeletePlease don't point out my errors in spelling in the above. I am aware of them.
Delete"Division" to lighten ascending side weights. Sounds interesting. Can you supply more details?
DeleteInteresting.
Delete"Catching at words if unworthy of a judge." Hobe. 343
Being meant to apply, and does, to our ordinary selves as well, this as to misspelling as well as meaning.
Hello John. You wrote : "But it does seem as though Johann Bessler thought that the 'heaviness', i.e 'ponderousness' or as they say in Latin the 'gravitas' of the weights inside his machine gave the wheel the necessary energy to continually rotate."
ReplyDeleteIt sounds exactly like Ken's hypothesis: inside the wheel, the weights themselves ARE the material source of energy. And, as they GIVE a part of their inner energy, then certainly they LOSE a part of their mass.
"It sounds exactly like Ken's hypothesis:" - Michel Gaillard
DeleteAs appertaining this very issue of long-ago, as disposed-of massively and got his presumptuous, narcissist pushy verbose butt kicked off of BWF, I wrote above most gingerly as deserved . . .
(And yes, yes, yes we KNOW WELL what our present boorish Professor of No Degrees except that from Bloviation U., will now likely repeat as his explanation for the thousandth and first tedious time. Please, YOU, do spare us a reprise of it?)
Thanks for the acknowledgement, MG, but I doubt if Bessler was aware of the enormous energy content of the lead weights in his wheels. Consider this quote of his:
Delete"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the center of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."
I think the part of this quote translated as "...so long as they remain out of the center of gravity..." should have been more properly translated as "so long as they remain out of the center of of rotation of the wheel".
It's obvious that Bessler knew he had a working imbalanced wheel design which ran because the center of mass of its weights and levers was located on the wheel's descending side and stayed there despite wheel rotation. He mentions that the weights, one by one, applied their weight to the axle which made it turn. In the models I work with, the weights gently alight on their rim stops between the drum's 3:00 and 4:30 positions at which time the radial spars of the drum that their pivots are attached to do, approximately, form a right angle with a vertical line passing through the center of the axle. But, ultimately, it was because the descending side weights were a bit farther from the axle's center and thus dropping faster than the weights on the ascending side that were closer to the axle's center and rising a bit slower which allowed Bessler's wheels to operate. That discrepancy in the rates of vertical motion of the weights and their levers resulted in energy and mass being extracted from these active parts and then distributed to all of the moving parts of the wheel. When a rope was attached to the moving axle of one of his wheels, that energy and the mass associated with it could be thought of as actually flowing out of the axle at light velocity into the attached machinery to activate its parts and, of course, slightly increase their masses. However, if Bessler did actually know that this process was happening, then he was way ahead of Newton and actually closer to Einstein in his understanding of mechanics! I don't think that was the case, though. He was a very skillful craftsman with a burning drive to achieve a working imbalanced pm wheel and that is exactly what he did.
James : I did not understand the whole meaning of your reply (English is not my native language!). I just felt an angry tone. Why? I just compared what John said in this present topic and what Ken says for long. I have no personal opinion about this subject. I should like to read John's opinion about this comparison, because I know that John doesn't agree with Ken. That's all. Is it really off topic?
DeleteI see, Michel. I should have guessed that it was not, and been just a bit less colorful in WHAT I said, and less creative with the WAY I said it. As to factuality, I think that would constitute a fairly honest confession? As far as it goes?
DeleteYou see, mon cher, your comment supplied me with the just-right opportunity to grind some upon an old and viciously stubborn, myopic and mega-boorish thing needing much more of it than he will ever likely get, I fear, or at very least not enough so as to finally GET RID of him . . . finally . . . so that peace might here again reign with Mr. Collins having back finally, his very own blog.
This Loquaciousness Itself type personage came equipped when conceived in the womb, with around 1.6 billion words for assemblage and then to reassemble in this way and then that, and then differently again over and over, all this for presenting to the world, wanting them or not, ready or not, resulting in-sum as only SO MUCH BABBLE but he, or rather It, hoping against hope that something out of it all might actually come to some kind of tangible fruition, continues-on regardless, heedless.
But, so-far, it's no dice, just words like maitre Debussy's Ce qu'a vu le vent d'Ouest. "What the West Wind Has Seen" but, with absolute ZERO of any artistical effect to say nothing of course, of actual creational result but rather, just effused posterior WIND, and nonsense making NOISE sans d'art!!! (Don't bother to look up those two words ending in "al" as they do not exist, as they were "customed" for il momento.)
Sad, isn't it? All that work (up to about 601,056,015 words out by now and counting, and yet . . . NOTHING but more of the same is by himself yet promised - we all having to stand-by hoping/praying and reading the blather, hoping for the promised implicationally improved results!
Numerously, in one way or another, "he" has been asked most politely by our Esteemed Moderator, Mr. John Collins, to consider attempting to desist from essentially dominating ALL, or at least most of the dialogue but, seemingly now, once again, the authoritative appeal HAS FAILED and continues to so-do, and likely shall no matter what, short of application of that Authoritative Pry-bar once again.
Oops, there I go again: "The girl JUST can't help it!"
So it would seem, that I have. Sorry. Now, back to normal.
So, Michel, with what are we now left to cover?
Ah, yes, the tone that definitely was on the "angry" side but, the exquisite prefatory action that went-in originally to creating it, I believe you may not be aware-of, and just as well for it WAS ugly, and very far afield of what we are all here for . . . Mouvement Perpetuel, compositeur Mons. Poulenc.
Well, as turned out to be the case, just as it was with Mr. Collins' plan for a house sale and following grand reparation to Spain, sometimes some things just do not go the way one would like. What I have just described above (but hopefully not TOO colorfully this time) is just one more example of this difficulty sort.
And to finish, finally, NO Michel, it really was not off topic. We understand every word and appreciate more than you could EVER know, your heartfelt and generous contributions.
By the way, how old are you, Michel? I notice the use of our Peace sign so I thought you might be a young one.
"Peace, man!" as we dudes and chicks used to say to on another over here, while at Woodstock.
Vive la France!!!
James
Hmmm . . .
ReplyDeleteAll motion here seems to have come to a grinding halt.
Did I say or do the wrong thing so as to break The Machine?
No - its Rusted away
DeleteOh no...that's torn it!
ReplyDelete"It's Heaviness not Gravity which provides the Energy for Bessler's Wheel".
ReplyDeleteI could not have said it better. How does one take full advantage of an object's mass? If one fails to understand this, one will surely fail.
"If one fails to understand this, one will surely fail." - Anonymous 18.III.16.
ReplyDeleteAnd I could not have put that any better.
On it's face, the truth of it seems a thing-obvious.
Now what? (Back to work.)
In a weird way it's Gravity, because if you were in outer space it wouldn't or couldn't work.
ReplyDeleteOne of Bessler's wheels could work in outer space if it was put aboard a rotating space station. That is, it could be run solely using centrifugal force or any other unidirectional non-gravitational force that was available. This is because the energy the wheel outputs has nothing to do with gravity, but comes solely from the mass of the weights themselves.
DeleteUpdate: I've pressed on to model #1477 and, up to this model, have only gotten keels for my efforts. I'm trying something different with the current model, however. I've greatly reduced my lever masses so that the 9 o'clock weighted lever could, in a real physical model, actually be lifted by merely blowing on it! If my ascending side levers that swing in toward the axle are not able to lift this weight fast enough to keep the center of mass of all of the weights and levers on the descending side so as to provide constant torque, then the problem would seem to definitely be confined to the interconnecting rope attachments involved. Maybe I'll have some better news to report in a day or two. Stay tuned.
Gravity is an acceleration field. There are ways to produce an acceleration field and in those cases, the same principle would apply with the right conditions. Gravity doesn't exist alone. Something else must be added to the mix - gravities partner if you will.
Delete"Gravity doesn't exist alone."
ReplyDeleteMany forget that when two objects "gravitate" toward each other, that process involves the interaction of two gravity fields, one from each object. We have accurate mathematical descriptions of how gravity operates, but, unfortunately, our concept of what gravity is is still lacking. Something emanates from each object and it is those somethings which interact outside of the objects in such a way that they then pull the objects together. Much the same happens with electric and magnetic fields although the somethings in those cases must be somewhat different from the somethings involved in gravitational interactions since they can produce repulsive forces whereas gravity can not.
There is a big difference (the making it possible difference) between objects and the Earth and an object. Anyone care to guess.
Delete