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!
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
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
