Friday, 6 October 2017

Gravity plus Gravity Drives Bessler's Wheel

I decided to post this both here and the the Besslerwheel forum to publish my idea about the secondary force involved in Bessler's wheel and hopefully generate some discussion about its potential as possible step forward towards a solution.

I could apologise for writing in simple terms without the use of numbers and formulae, but I won't because I think they put people off and confuse some fairly basic concepts.

Bessler’s wheel used weights, he makes that clear.  Weights can only have an effect if they either overbalance something or they fall – I leave impetus and inertia to one side for now.  

Gravity enables the weights to fall, or as I prefer to say, it makes them fall, therefore let us cut out all the dancing around and say that Bessler’s wheel is driven by gravity.

What about gravity?  It supposed to be a conservative force, but what does that really mean? To me it simply means that it conserves its energy, or to put it another way, it’s a continuous force, therefore no matter how much work it does it is never diminished, at least not as far as we are concerned here on earth. 

We are taught that you cannot obtain continuous rotational motion from gravity i.e. in a wheel.  The reason is that the force acts on all parts of the wheel at the same time, so that even in a overbalancing wheel the falling weight has to be lifted back to its pre-fall position and it has to be lifted against the force of gravity.

In fact this does not preclude the possibility of achieving continuous motion, its just that no one could see how it might be achieved.  It is correct to say that gravity having made a weight fall, cannot be used to also raise the same weight again.  We need another force to raise it back to its pre-fall position.  For hundreds of years perpetual motionists have searched for the other force without success.  Even today we continue to look for the means to lift the weight back up and many have been forced to conclude that it is indeed impossible to find a force capable of acting quickly with equal power to gravity.

That force has been under our noses all the time.  Gravity is the only available force which matches the desired criteria.  Obviously we cannot use the falling weight’s own  kinetic energy to raise it or another weight back up, because that energy has already been used to rotate the wheel a little.

The answer, it seems to me is to have another weight whose sole purpose is to raise the first weight back up.  Obviously this second weight cannot have an effect on rotation or it would negate the rotation gained by the first weight.

Bessler have us two good clues about this.  Firstly he said his weights worked in pairs, and this seems to support the second weight notion.  And he also described in his Apologia Poetica how “A great fat herd of fat, lazy, plump horses wanders aimlessly”.  I think that this describes the weights whose job it is to raise the fallen weight, in their inactive state.  When they are not raising the fallen weight they must be in a neutral position, possibly their action takes place in the Z plane but I have design which does not require that.

JC

17 comments:

  1. John, I believe that your postulation is absolutely correct. There has to be a division of the two... and his single clue that the weights work in pairs is on point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John you are on the right tract,you are getting close!

    ReplyDelete
  3. So you just try to lift one weight with an other weight. This is what innumerable others have been trying for centuries. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, if you read my post the whole point is not to use a weight which has already fallen and caused a partial rotation. I'm suggesting that a separate weight falls and it's sole purpose is to lift the fallen weight, while having no effect on rotation.

      JC

      Delete
    2. History is full of phrases "that can not be done" or "thousand of wize man have allready tryed this!" Those are only excuses do not to go on.
      I do not like next person, but I like what he have said: "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." (T. A. E.)
      And I think, that only because of that "excuse" in some "other" person mind, new things will happen all the time, to our narrow minded world.
      Have you find to think some time by your self "Hey, this is so simple that why have not though/understand/invent this ... (before)" Sounds familiar from person who have seen inside ...

      There just must wait and do nothing, let other people do the work!


      PLMKRN

      Delete
  4. If I understand it correctly, weight A falls down, causes a partial rotation, then weight B lifts weight A back to the starting point and then? Weight B also must go up to lift weight A again. Maybe you got the solution, but I can't imagine that gravity alone can do the trick. There must something else involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that weights reaction with gravity are not only envolved things, that make wheel to move and hold it in this way. I have found more then 20 different quality and virtue names, witch desribes and/or witch are needed/involved, to get all to work continuously. Gravity (with weights) is main movement actuator and process holder here.

      PLMKRN

      Delete
  5. Do not fall into the rabbit hole John. Lots of people went there and never came back.

    yellow

    ReplyDelete
  6. It all depends whether the rabbit has one eye or two. Where do you think Bessler got the design from!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I only offer suggestions about Bessler's wheel and the subject of perpetual motion. A way of 'legally' circumventing the consequences of the laws of physics needs to be found and my post was simply a nudge in that direction. I have my own theory about how Bessler's wheel worked but I'm not ready to share it until I've finished my own wheel.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  8. A 1 lb weight can lift a 4 lb weight with leverage, ora block and tackle. the weight and its position (on the wheel) and how they interact are the problem. The first weight at the axle has ... say 1 ft lb of leverage. but the second 1 lb weight on the perimeter would have.... say 12 ft lb of torque on the Mersburg wheel it is the positions on the wheel that is the power.... I have made a couple of examples lately and the centrifical forces seem to be more powerful than I ever imagined.... no success yet, but it is the correct principle

    ReplyDelete
  9. sorry, bad math... the 1 lb weight on the perimeter would have 6 ft lb

    ReplyDelete
  10. John, interesting and thanks for sharing.

    I have in the last year considered precisely this kind of system, however the angle i was investigating was with regards to the distribution of angular vs linear momentum from a GPE interaction - basic premise being to convert an output GPE directly to RKE and thus angular momentum via overbalance, and then re-lift vertically, without directly applying counter-torque.

    The input and output energies at this stage are equal, however the point of interest to me was that if the falling of the weight adds angular momentum, but the raising does not subtract it, then although the input and output GPE's are equal, there's been a reactionless rise in angular momentum.

    Basic exploit would reduce to temporarily delaying the counter-torque corresponding to an angular acceleration from a GPE interaction, in order to get a half-step ahead and initiate a second reactionless angular acceleration on top of the first, before any counter-torque from the first is applied. Interleaving inputs and outputs from a pair of such angular to linear interactions with offset phases would form a kind of two-stage reactionless acceleration, gaining KE by leapfrogging up the 1/2mV^2 escalator with borrowed unbalanced momentum, type stuff.

    This was inspired by the Toys page - i interpreted items A & B, in relation to the alignments of the toys C & D to the cams on B, as indicating a torque sequence; specifically an angular and linear pair of interactions, each in 180° pairs, but with a 90° offset between angular and linear strokes. Note how the upper toy C aligns to the nearest notch on B, whereas D points to a gap between those notches on B. The asymmetric angle atop B denotes a net torque asymmetry, and the chain A symbolises the torque sequence - note here how the notches on A align to those on B; there's two vertical links crossing from left-to-right (say, the clockwise direction), followed by one link crossing back from right-to-left (anticlockwise).. and so on down the chain / torque sequence.

    Alternatively it could mean a sequence of accelerations / momentum changes.. regardless, same encoding scheme. The asymmetry of the forked angle atop B corresponds to the preponderance of left-to-right, clockwise components of motion, be that net torque, momentum or energy.

    Obviously, i didn't get anywhere with it, yet... But the point about all the N3 guff is that it produces momentum and energy, from nowhere, to order. At least, mathematically. Whereas i can't see how to coax any cooperation at all from just gravity - yet!

    Still, i only presumed to delay the negative torque temporarily - presumably though there must be some negative torque at some point corresponding to the lift?

    The really burning question i have about your suggestions is, you've acknowledged first that weights must get lower in order to perform work, yet then go on to proffer them as a source of input energy to re-lift other weights... so, counter-balancing, then? Normally such weights likewise need to get lower in order to raise their counterparts, so the implication is that you've found a way of doing this, robbing Peter to pay Paul, without having to drop the counter-weight, or else, re-lift it? Some kind of mad gravitational Ponzi scheme?

    In terms of GPE alone i can't fathom what advantage you may have found. Any whispers of a momentum asymmetry would have me on tenterhooks, together with no small amount of frustration at my own current failings to that end, but a GPE asymmetry? Sherioshly? :O

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good thoughts..... the combination of the two types of movement can assist each other if the timing is right. I just finished setting up a similar setup today, that has taken over a month to build. Just working with one mechanism in a 3 spoke setup. I believe that the interaction of all of the levers with the toys page is very involved. I have tried to use the reverse torque of some of the mechanism to help move the wheel, but...... I will work with the angles and levers a little more tomorrow and then complete the 3 mechanisms, but it seems apparent to me that the inter action of the mechanisms is extremely important. There is a wonderful acceleration when the timing is right, but not enough to keep it going.... but it's oh so close. So, overall I agree with your ideas and still believe that there is a little trick that has to be implemented to achieve the continuous rotation. I am using multiple rubber bands for now as my springs, but it will be easy to change that little item later.... We must succeed, life on the planet is depending on us. Maybe John has found that one clue that has evaded everyone for so long. Still seeking

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nicely put Mr V.

      My thoughts included this consideration. I think that when the fallen weight is lifted, it doesn't necessarily have to be lifted the full amount in one go. Any lift would confer a small mechanical advantage and that would lead to a small amount of rotation and the rest of the lift might be easier from that point.

      You are thinking along the same lines as myself with regard to the half step forward, and for me I suspect the falling lever might have two jobs to do, i.e. it might have to initiate a the second action, in order to induce the half step forward.

      JC

      Delete
  12. I applaud your efforts, however, If we accept MT as Bessler's text book, you will see that he investigates this kind of wheels in the first 50-60 designs. He, then, moves on to the other design ideas. I think Bessler is trying to state that this type of designs are impossible.

    yellow

    ReplyDelete
  13. John, your thoughts about the falling weight are similar to mine. Here is the real problem and I see it ........ when the weight is falling, it actually disappears from the wheel. The weight has to be felt or seen by the wheel. I am using a cross piece that runs from one side of the wheel to the other with washers on each end that can easily be adjusted. by sliding it 6 inches, the wheel will rotate in the intended direction and would lend itself to a continuous rotation if moved at the proper time.

    ReplyDelete

Some more on Bessler's Codes

I've decided to share here, some more of the pieces of  Johann Bessler's coded information which I've discovered from time to t...