Friday, 15 December 2017

A Perpetual Motion Machine Must Consume Energy.

When ever I read an opinion on perpetual motion machines there is always included a basic assumption which is stated in an off-the-cuff manner and which is really quite irritating and pompous and irrelevant!

Recently I read that, "the laws of physics and nature tell us that it is impossible for a machine to produce more energy than it consumes, which creates a very real impediment to obtaining a patent. Such a machine is characterized as a perpetual motion machine and when claimed as such it is ordinarily and routinely rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office".  This paragraph deserves a Homer Doh!

Besslers wheel could not possibly have produced more energy that it consumed - neither could any other machine, perpetual or not.  To suggest that some people are claiming that Bessler's wheel produced more energy that it consumned would be laughable, if it wasn't so serious.

This same article tells us that you will need to produce the working prototype before the Patent Office is going to engage in any examination.  "The prototype will be tested thoroughly and if the output is more than the input then a perpetual motion machine has been achieved and the applicant may move forward through the patenting process."

I accept that a working model of a perpetual motion machine is an essential part of the patent process.  But the above is a circular argument.  First they say that a machine that producs more energy than it consumes is a perpetual motion machine.  Then they say that a working model has to be produced and IF it does produce more energy that it consumes, you move forward through the patent process.  What a ridiculous statement!  Obviously it is impossible to produce a machine which will produce more energy that it consumes, and yet we see them seriously arguing about this being a necessary function of the machine in question.  Failing to produce a working model proves their argument.

They seem to have totally missed the point because they are so wrapped in their own explanation. They have set the definition of perpetual motion to their satisfaction and then explain in simple terms why the machine is impossible. They almost seem to be humouring us by taking what they have established as a definition of a perpetual motion machine, and explaining to we simpletons why it won't work, while at the same time talking down to us as if we are imbeciles incapable of understanding.

The truth is that Bessler's machine could not produce more energy than it consumed, how could it?  The actual fact which no one will accept is that Bessler's wheel must have consumed energy, in order to rotate continuously, otherwise how could it then have performed all the work it did?  Where did this energy come from? Gravity or rather the falling of weights caused by the force of gravity.  Like it or not, that is the only possible source and the sooner people come to accept it as fact the sooner we can light up our world with free energy.

The next step is to work out how it could use the energy inherent in weights to rotate continuously.  The one valid concept is so simple it is hard to believe that no-one seems to have considered it.

So first you need a simple system of weights to create imbalance in the wheel.  Secondly you need a separate system of weights whose purpose is to raise the fallen werights back up to their prefall position.  So immediately we resolve the argument that you can't use the falling weights to both overbalance the wheel as well as designing them to raise the fallen ones back up again.  Each weight in both sets  responds to gravity once per rotation.  The first set is raised back into position ready to fall again, that would be analogous to raising them back up with your finger every time, with no cost to gravity.  But in our scenario we are using a second set of weights to raise the first set and this does use gravity. How do we reset the second set?  In fact it is quite simple, the second set are in a neutral position until they fall in order to raise each of the first set; then they rotate backwards as the wheel rotates forwards until they are back in position to repeat the exercise.  So no conflict with the laws of physics.

I have provided some general details of how Bessler's wheel worked, but there are other features which are not apparent at this point.  I do know exactly how it worked so let me throw in another detail, scissor mechanisms.

BTW If I see a certain person plagiarising one of my posts again, I will point it out in embarrasing detail, unless of course he acknowledges my original authorship.  There is a copyright notice right at the bottom of this page as well as a statement to that effect at the top

JC

42 comments:

  1. I think I take issue with what you are saying in this post John.

    We always assumed there was a second set of weights whose purpose was to lift the primary weights to the overbalanced position. This is what we referred to as the prime mover(s).

    Secondly, it sounds as if you are saying the wheel consumes as much energy as it expends. If Bessler put only one rock in the basket it was lifting, then then wheel would only consume the amount of energy it takes to lift it up, and if he threw in more, the wheel would suddenly begin to consume more. I think some clarification would help on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My bad anon, I only meant that Bessler’s wheel must consume energy in order to spin. Of course with the optimum design there must have been excess energy available for doing work as well as simply rotating the wheel.

      I intended us to think of the second set of weights as separate from the first set and independent from the first, other than their ability to raise each of the first set in turn.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense.

      Delete
  2. I find it always interesting that scientists claim that gravity is a conservative force, but at the same time can not explain what gravity is. The knowledge of the conservative power of gravity follows the very often used "but that knows everybody"- principle. Also, the claim that energy can not arise from nothing, should not stand so. First, just like gravity, you do not even know what energy is at all (you only know its effect) and, secondly, recognized scientists work with a similar hypothesis (big bang) in which a whole universe should have arisen out of nothing. So why not "a bit of energy"?
    The driving energy for the Besslerwheel is most likely only gravity. Perhaps, as long as one does not have a clear explanation, one should call the wheel somewhat neutral "energy extractor". With such a name everything remains open, where the energy comes from.

    ovaron

    P.S. What has been plagiarized?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’d prefer to keep the matter confidention unless further examples appear. He knows who he is.

      Delete
  3. Gravity is merely an inert force between and proportional to all mass.
    It is not an energy but can be used to create energy by strategic mechanical means.
    All this is in order so long as it does not contravene the laws of physics!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes thank you Trevor. I think we are all aware of that.

      JC

      Delete
  4. John Collins,

    I agree with you, nothing drummer than a smart scientist! Maybe a better way to describe it is in terms of efficiency. Also comparing it to a water wheel can be helpful, to understand how it might work. With very little heat loss, and minimal friction, the greatest inefficiency would be, when one set of weights has to lift the other set up, with the help of mechanical advantage. It's efficiency may be quite low maybe 25%, who knows for sure. Anyway, the energy is in the weights just like in the water wheel. The difference is, it's using the same weights over and over, Sam Peppiatt

    ReplyDelete
  5. Perpetual motion is easy. I live just down the road (70 miles from) one of the largest perpetual motion energy factories in the USA. It was built (at great cost) in the mid 1970's and has been supplying energy to the electrical grid ever since.
    It produces more energy than it consumes, an impossible idea 100 years ago.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do not see the Bessler technology as perpetual motion, I have always thought of it as anti-gravity technology, Johann Bessler discovered anti gravity.



    ReplyDelete
  7. If we can arrange a thick magnetic sheet in space, where zero gravity exists, and then place the Bessler wheel just a few inches above away from it.... what could be the outcome?... would the magnetic sheet exert the same force on BW and make it spin?...then can we still call this an anti-gravity device?...or just a magnet powered wheel?...

    ReplyDelete
  8. IMHO... Bessler just discovered a very simple method to convert a continuous linear acting force or pull into mechanical rotary motion...using extremely simple levers and weights... where one weight reaches the farthest point from the center and exerts maximum thrust while the opposite weight approaches the center thereby exerting considerably lesser thrust...and it is this which overbalances the wheel in general...

    ReplyDelete
  9. What I mean by anti-gravity is making weights fall upwards. I know that here today we are at a time where gravity is thought to be something akin to magnetism and that anti-gravity could possibly be achieved electrically, because of that I should not have said anti-gravity.
    Weights can be made to falls upward by swinging them and that is what I meant.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A simple demonstration of what I am saying would be to swing something, a shoe, hold a shoe in your hand, swing it 180 degrees and let go, when you let go, it goes upwards a couple of feet, depending on how hard it is swung.

      Delete
    2. Just re-reading my above posts I realize now that I am also guilty of a further thought crime by thinking that weights can be made to fall upwards by swinging them .

      Delete
    3. Maybe flung upwards, but not fall upwards.

      Delete
    4. flung as in "forced"

      Delete
  10. The whole problem/point here is, that science says that lifting the weight(s) uses the same amount of energy as is gained by the falling of them - therefore nothing can be gained. You might look at gravity as a pressure, similar to the pressure of the wind, e.g. pressing on the blade of a wind-turbine having a vertical axis (Savonius turbine). Oddly enough the wind-turbine will turn, although we seem to have the same situation: the wind presses down on both sides of the rotor: the concave and the convex sides. You might expect this to cancel out, but it does not, due to the flow of the wind creating different lines of pressure. The question is, of course: is there a similar trick we can use for gravity?
    I say: yes there is. We have inertia and centrifugal force, even Coriolis force. The "trick" would be to employ these forces in a non-linear system, such as the simple pendulum is, when it is made to swing higher than 40 degrees (see "kiiking"). Good physicists know about these effects of self-oscillation and use them, e.g. for self-acceleration in partcle colliders. The main issue is, that traditionally, gravity is considered a no-go, probably because it is unclear where its force comes from. In the non-linear examples in literature, usually there is some sort of external energy source available. It is just a mental blockade.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But what I feel is Bessler didn't design it that way...the weights needn't be flung at all...they follow an amazing method...a very cleverly designed structure inside...it is this that Bessler was afraid...one glance would give it all away...a very simple but novel way...it comes to ones mind only after intense thinking process...this is the actual secret or mystery surrounding the wheel...the lever-weight system play a contstant game one against another... ceaselessly... believe me, it is really artfully designed as depicted in Bessler literature...the clues are both in the writings as well as in drawings...and in the portaits as also...only a genuine seeker can arrive at this...out of the box approach is key...I appreciate your contributions dear but you need to take into account all these...a game is played inside or call it a trick...to outsmart the gravity effect on the ascending side...have a nice day...

    ReplyDelete
  12. John I am interested in what you think patents are for for real and who really is served by patents! I guarantee you it's not for the inventor...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Stephen, you’re right, I am totally against applying for a patent for Bessler’s wheel.

      I don’t necessarily think that patents are bad in all cases although only good for large companies who can afford to maintain them and go after patent infringements.

      I can imagine that there could many many co-claimants and thousands of infringements which would eat into any money you might hope to receive, not to mention having to spend all your time fighting legal battles to maintain your patent.

      JC

      Delete
  13. Johann Bessler discovered the technology it existed a long long long time ago! Patents are property claims how can you lay claim to property that you didn't invent.!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm gleaning from John Collins and 0ystein that the mechanism and other internals of the wheel weren't so simple after all. I suspect the actual movement was actually quite complex and timing of moving parts was critical. There shall be no believing anyone that the design was simple or artful without actual working proof. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it’s like looking at diagram of say, a steam engine, or a petrol engine, you can understand what happens and how it works and the basic concept is simple, but I, for one, could not make one.

      Having said that, I think Bessler’s wheel was much simpler than the above, but although Karl said it was simple, his reference to a carpenter’s boy, may have been misleading. An apprentice in any trade agreed to work for a skilled person on a low wage, or simply board and lodging, for perhaps ten or fifteen years in order to learn the same skills. So a carpenter’s boy may refer to an apprentice of several years experience.

      JC

      Delete
  15. Karl's statement about the wheel's internal mechanism is one proof and the fear Bessler maintained throughout about revealing the internal mechanism by covering with canvas is another...the very mention that a carpenter boy could replicate after a few minutes glance also cannot be ignored...Karl had stated why no one had thought of it earlier...none of the closest bessler's family member was even taken into confidence in this regard...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Any wheel that is suspended above the ground comes to a grinding halt when the initial impetus is waned... this is because the wheel is balanced...to get it moving again it just needs a gentle nudge or it has to be im balanced...this is what Bessler found...he devised a way to ensure that one side is always heavier...and does this require a very complicated arrangement and timing?...

    ReplyDelete
  17. The swinging happening inside is one such movement that Bessler took advantage of...the levers employ the lever principle in every turn and this is another advantage... used to support the ascending weights as well as for the ones descending...and thirdly, another secret simple principle is deployed to assist the ascending weights to ward off gravity...it is just these three main factors that actually ensure a smooth performance...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Suresh Kumar, You are very close to it. I might add a forth step. You have to start with one horizontal slider through the center of the wheel, with an equal weight on each end of it. If you shift it to the right two inches it will swing down to where it's vertical. And remain there. It has to have help. It requires a second slider 90 degrees to the first which forms a CROSS. Now the wheel will turn a little farther, @ 45 degrees, and that's as far as it will go. The next step is to get the slider,(s) back up. This is done with a spring that is a little bit weaker than the total weight of the slider,so that when the slider is vertical it will stretch the spring all of the way. Then when the slider is at a 45 degree angle it forms an incline plane with a mechanical advantage of about two to one. Now the spring is strong enough to push/pull the slider back up and over. Are you with me so far?

      Now here is the tricky part of it, the most difficult to imagine, at least for me. It's never going to work with just one spring on each slider. Each slider has to have two springs one to pull it one way and another to pull it the other way after the wheel has turned 180 degrees.
      Both springs can't be engaged at the same time. One has to release while the other is lifting. That's where I'm at now. The springs have to shift every half revolution. The forth step if you will. Also to do this the sliders have to latch. Is it simple? Sure after the fact, Sam Peppiatt

      Delete
  18. Maybe he invented more than one type of PMM and one of them was simpler .

    ReplyDelete
  19. In part, John, you stated sans unequivocation that "The truth is that Bessler's machine could not produce more energy than it consumed, . . ." Then, questioningly, ". . . how could it? . . ."

    It is to these two that I now address myself.

    To the first I ask, aside from the fact of the existence of a preponderance of the evidence that indicates pro- for it, how could such a thing be 'a known' and thus "the truth"?

    I'll endeavor to answer my own question.

    It could be known absolutely IF we were to have an actual Bessler Wheel to examine.

    If and when this ever is to happen, then we will know (as in possessing knowledge certain-and-true, because having witnessed/experienced it) and be enabled thus to state with authority good enough for witnessing within a law court, the matter's actual, driven truth.

    Now, granted, this following law maxim could be with convincing effect applied here: "Obvious truths need not be proved" but, I assert that no such thing IS of the "obvious" in our case of present, and therefor could not be.

    As for your part-the-second: I suggest (not asserting) that it - excess energy - could issue-forth from NOWHERE at all.

    Being not necessarily an Agnostic per se, nevertheless this, I am abidingly suspicious of dogmatic, organized mystical cultism. That said, this fact does not force me into any belief pro the non-existence of a Creator of all that is.

    Some of of no mean authority have suggested that the existence of gravity might be a physical manifestation of such a Creator's Will.

    Setting systems of mere belief aside, I assert that this cannot be dismissed logically and, until proved, would best be left as open-ended propositionally.

    On my own part I have observed the production excess energy found where it should not be, and it manifests of-itself by means of simple imbalance.

    To-perfection, this comports with what Bessler said essentially, I believe.

    WHY, I ask, is it so intensely difficult for the human mind to conceive, that some thing might be producible from no where at all?

    Again, I endeavor to answer my own query.

    It is because that most all, if not all, experience shows such to not occur. However true, as it is, this does not obviate the possibility that said such might occur somewhere, at some place, at some time. This because 'a negative cannot be proved'.

    Feliz Navidad

    James







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greetings James, and my apologies for my lack of response, you may know the reason for this in my next blog. I will add to this on the morrow!

      JC

      Delete
    2. Yes, thank you John, and likewise in-return from here.

      Apologies not needed but, thanks anyhow for the thought and, I look forward to whatever it may be that's next-coming. (I like pending mysteries :)

      James

      Delete
  20. Greetings John, Did Bessler say that four weights were the minimum number needed for movement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi RAF, I don’t believe he said that. He was referring to something he called crosses or cross-boards which in my opinion did not refer to the number of weights so much as the number of crosses in his scissor mechanisms, which I believe he stated where’s number essential ingredient.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Although Bessler has not specifically stated that the minimum are four weights, his statements can be interpreted as such. He wrote: "There are always two and two," which adds up to four. He goes on to say that if he builds a wheel with only one cross, the wheel turns very slowly. A cross usually has four ends (each with a weight?). In my understanding, four weights are the minimum. His wheels most probably had a multiple of four as weights.

      ovaron

      Delete
    3. OVARON,
      You must be right! One cross, NOT one crossbar. I could never figure that out. Not only would it run slow, with only two weights, it wouldn't run at all. Yes, one CROSS, two and two,four weights. I think you are right, I wish I would have thought of it, Sam

      Delete
    4. Follow up; the last wheel had two cross's eight weights just as you suggested, Sam

      Delete
    5. Sam,
      I do not think his last wheels had only 8 weights. Witness Fischer has reported the impact of "about" 8 weights, which many interpret as 8 weights. I am convinced that a lot more weights were involved, but only 8 were heard per turn. It may well be that 4 weights work together so that only one was heard per turn. IMHO

      Delete
    6. OVaRON
      I think eight is right, two cross's eight weights; that impacted the rim of the wheel. Excluding of coarse, the so called, "prime mover weights", that were in close to the center. There might have been eight of those also, or at least four. They said, they could here a weight fall, then the wheel would begin to rotate. I'm thinking that was one of the prime mover weights------------but, who knows, Sam

      Delete
  21. A balanced closed system, cannot move..... even if only for an instant. It is only an unbalanced system that can move. If we believe, as I do, that he was an honest man.... then if we look for a system that remains out of balance then the weights work in pairs. and it so simple that the count could not believe that no one had thought of it before. So simple, Please John..... help us all to see what you see

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks John and Ovaron.John,would you please share with readers your marvelous cogent statement found in Perpetual Motion-page208 in the first full paragraph starting with"Simplicity is the key" and ends with "not worth the asking price" This is our benchmark for design!!

    ReplyDelete

Bessler the man versus his achievements.

When I began to publish information about Johann Bessler, I stuck strictly to the facts as I knew them then, so I included Bessler’s own co...