One of the endless problems we face, researching Johann Bessler’s claims to have invented and built a perpetual motion machine, is the reaction of the vast majority of people. It isn’t just the scientists, teachers, theoreticians, historians and other “experts”; it is ordinary people like ourselves who dismiss with either scorn, humour or irritation our tentative suggestion that Bessler might have been telling the truth.
I have never believed that Bessler’s perpetual motion machine supported itself with an internal closed energy supply and those people who mock us for thinking that, must think we are complete idiots. The definition of perpetual motion has altered somewhat in the intervening 300 plus years but I have always believed that it must have an external energy supply and in my opinion, gravity lies at the root of the energy consumed by Bessler’s wheel. Gravity is the best and probably the only force capable of providing continuous rotation to Bessler’s wheel.
The energy supplied by gravity enables the weights to fall, so some people insist that Bessler’s wheel was gravity-enabled not gravity-driven. If a wheel can be built and the weights within, fall due to the effect of gravity, and they are configured in a similar way to those within Bessler’s wheel, resulting in the wheel rotating continuously, then I cannot see anything wrong with calling it a gravity-driven wheel.
There are so many ways we use gravity’s force via some other medium, that to suggest it couldn’t have been done in Bessler’s wheel is just ignoring the evidence that his wheel worked. I know all the arguments repeated parrot fashion ad nauseam against this subject and I have firmly dismissed them over the last few years. At the beginning I wasn’t sure, but the more I studied it the more certain I became that I was right. Johann Bessler himself was not entirely happy with the designation, “perpetual motion” for his machine, but could only say that it was propelled by the weights.
I once thought it would be possible to persuade a scientist or professor of the truth of Bessler’s claims, and thence get him to devote time and money to studying Bessler’s wheel and in the end develop a working model. But the reaction to my efforts was universal. Fear of failure, fear of peer’s bad reaction, loss of reputation, fear of losing job, fear of not getting another, fear of family recriminations and worst of all, loss of standing in a very reputation conscious society. I did find a scientist who was very interested but he wanted to see a working proof of principle model, before he committed time and money to its development. Nothing has changed. We are on our own and even when we succeed there will be doubters and a vicious backlash from the intellectuals, and there are even some who suggest that a planet full of gravity-driven wheels will somehow effect earth’s rotation and stability and doubtless they will join in the clamour of discontent and disbelief.
But no one can argue with working gravity-wheel and once it’s design and method of application have been explained they will all eventually have to concur that they were wrong.
JC
Will his wheel work on a spinning wheel type space station where there is no natural gravity?
ReplyDeleteIn the artificial gravity such a space station creates I see no reason why not. But it might have less power, I suppose it depends on how close to the strength of earth’s gravity the station’s artificial gravity gets. These type of stations tend to have low gravity level.
DeleteJC
I like your post!
ReplyDeleteThanks Øystein, keep up your own good work!
DeleteJC
I understand from his work that for him a Perpetual Motion Machine is a device that moves at a constant speed in steady-state unless an external force is applied and of course if we ignore tear and wear.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very good definition. I think he brilliantly used rotational speed for PMM definition. It is somewhat like Newton's second law of motion.
John Collins,
ReplyDeleteYou are right about scientist; for all of the reasons you mentioned. I would like to add a couple of more. They will never admit that they don't know how Bessler's wheel worked. Also they are like a well fed dog; they make so much money they don't need a gravity wheel. What do they care if electric rates go through the roof, or if, petroline goes to 10 dollars a gallon, or more. They really don't need one. Sam
For what ever it's worth, I'm starting to have some positive results; with my wheel. It uses a slider(s) / cross-bar(s). Reference MT-15. A compound lever lifts the slider back up, at the 6 to 12 position, every one half revolution. It' fairly easy to get a mechanical advantage, (MA) of 32 to 1. Which means one OZ. will lift one pound but, only for a short distance, so the stroke of the slider is quite short. Just the weight of the lever becomes an issue. It, the lever needs to be as light as possible. I suspect this is what professor Wolff was seeing. I.E., the levers swinging back and forth. The major break through; is the use of compound levers. Bessler may have learned about them while working on the organ. Sam Peppiatt
ReplyDeleteCorrection: I should have said; one Oz. will lift two pounds, Sam
ReplyDeleteThe hanging weights come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another, and therefore remain out of the center of gravity by a spring that connects them together.
ReplyDeleteDoes that sound right?
Szanowny Panie John . Nie grawitacja ! nikt nie wie czy jest ?. To ciążenie ciężarów a więc różnica ciężkości jest interesująca.
ReplyDeleteGoogle’s translation gives this, “Dear Mr. John. Not gravity! no one knows if it is? It's gravity and so the difference in gravity is interesting.”
DeleteNot sure if I understand, but thank you for posting!
JC
Szanowny Panie John. Dziękuję za odpowiedź.
DeleteNie zajmuj się grawitacją. Nikt nie wie co to grawitacja.
Zajmuj się tylko ciężkością ciężarów.
1 ciężkość = 1 siła a 2 ciężkości = ważenie ciężarów = wahadło.
Czy teraz zrozumiałeś ?
Pepetualman, No-------Try to imagine one slider at it's vertical position. If you lift it up the wheel will become top heavy and will rotate downward until, it is again vertical. At this point it has to be lifted back up to keep it rotating. A single horizontal lever pivoting on the center line with a weight on the end of it will lift the slider up, as it swings down. A chain is attached to the short end of the lever to pull the slider up. But, as the weight on the long end of the lever swings down, it causes the wheel to be bottom heavy. Hence the need for a compound lever. With the great increase of leverage, the weight is so small it no longer makes the wheel bottom heavy. Sam
ReplyDeleteHum, Well I guess I’ll go back to the drawing board and see if I can draw the parts that you’re talking about.
DeletePerpetualman, It's back to the drawing board for me as well. Without the one Oz. weight it was more or less balanced but, with the One Oz. weight it was still bottom heavy. I still think it has possibilities but, for what ever the reason it's not good enough, Sam
DeleteIs perpetual motion in nature? I was thinking of how birds flap their wings. When a bird brings it's wings downward, it produces an upward lift. And when it brings them up, there's a slight loss of lift until it brings them back down again.
DeleteSo, imagine a wheel with birdlike wings on the periphery of the wheel. As the wings on the left side move inward towards the center of the wheel, the wings on the opposite side move outward and thus, causing an imbalance to produce rotation.
Any thoughts on this?
It is a gap in physics and it is staggering that no one else sees it.
ReplyDeleteA wheel composed with weights that would turn by gravity is a school example of a perpetual mobile. It is considered to be impossible. So if someone builds one it is a bit silly to say that it is not perpetual motion. But indeed John you are right. It is a machine and gravity is the source of energy and therefore it should be called a gravity mill or gravity turbine. I like the latter. I was wondering, could you call the Niagara Falls perpetual?
About the consumption, and conservation, of energy from gravity, I don’t think that energy is consumed. I think that new energy is created. The earth will not slow down or loose mass. Einstein taught us that gravity is curved space-time. We are not pulled back to the earth but we are pushed down by space-time. So if energy is consumed it will be consumed from the universe. But I don’t think that is the case. I think that the universe constantly creates new energy and that this is the reason for the expansion of the universe. Currently the expansion is explained as dark-energy.
They are all so wrong.
Marinus.
The earth was made to stand to times indefinite. Therefore, wind, water, heat, cold, sun light, ect....Is perpetual.
ReplyDeleteEven eternity was put into man's heart by the Creator.
What a concept!
If the wheel rotates by gravity alone, then the only reason for rotation cannot be anything else then an overbalance in weight. The wheel is, in other words, falling. It is in a state that you could describe as a perpetual fall. Falling is motion so perpetual motion after all. Only when it is stopped, whatever the reason, the motion is interrupted. Does that qualify the motion to be called non-perpetual? Because you can stop it?
ReplyDeleteMarinus.
In scientific terms, a PM machine is a closed system that works continuously forever without an external input. Falling motion has an end, so it is not perpetual. If the height that the weight dropped was infinite then it would be perpetual. But continuous rising and falling of weights without ever slowing down is a good example for for perpetual motion. By definition, any external input for increasing or maintaining the speed qualify the motion as non-perpetual, not stopping it.
DeleteMarinus,
ReplyDeleteThe name, or term, "Perpetual Motion", is a bit of a misnomer. We use other terms that are a misnomer. For example, we say a vacuum cleaner sucks, when we know that it doesn't, or a teapot is steaming, which isn't true because steam is invisible. The term Perpetual Motion is no different; it's just an easy way to describe it. Sam
What will be the most energy efficient: a wheel that spins vertically, horizontally, or diagonally?
ReplyDeleteAssuming it’s gravity driven, I’d say vertical spinning, horizontal axle.
DeleteJC
Does that mean, you have to put a sign on it; THIS SIDE UP?????????Sam
DeleteSam, do you look for such a sign on your bike or car.....? ;-)
DeleteHaha, that’s funny guys!😁
DeleteSorry men! I couldn't help it; but then a scientist wouldn't know, right? No Herbert, no sign on my car. Perhaps I should have, what if I got it upside down? Sam
DeleteOf course if your design utilizes weights displaced by CF rather than gravity, horizontally rotation would seem to make sense if you can utilize existing bearings to reduce friction.
DeleteLet me make sure I got this straight; gravity wheels work in a horizontal position. That must be what I've been doing wrong! All this time I've been trying to get it to run in a vertical position. No wonder it doesn't work. Sam Peppiatt
DeleteYou must be joking, but if not, gravity wheels work in the vertical (up/down) position.
DeleteAn overbalanced wheel has either more weights on the descending side or the weights on the descending side are shifted outward more so than the weights on the ascending side. This is why an overbalanced wheel self starts and continues to run. They mystery is how to maintain the overbalanced state so the wheel continuously runs.
Gravity has such perfect properties for moving giant and small items. When we interrupt its effect at the perfect time, it will be in our benefit to use. The weights simply are a path for the energy to transfer as required for our use in the Gravity Powered Wheel. How is your build coming along John ?
ReplyDeleteFor every action there’s an opposite but equal reaction. So, is there a way that we can get the reaction to travel in the same direction as the action?
ReplyDeleteYes in a way. You have to use the Earth as a backboard of sorts. If the Earth were smaller and less massive, and you pushed off to jump in the air, the Earth would fly away from you as much as you way from the Earth. However, with its relative massiveness, that doesn't happen. It appears to be an immovable object. That can be used to your advantage.
DeletePerpetualman, No, I don't think so. But, there must be some way to shift it 90 degrees. This would divert the back force to the frame, to circumvent it, so to speak. I don't know how to do it. maybe you could find a way-------------Sam
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it would go to light speed and beyond!
Well, I have a couple of ideas up my sleeve that I would like to try. And your right about the 90 degrees. I’ll try these ideas and then share the results.
ReplyDeleteJohn Collins,
ReplyDeleteHas thought about this too. I. E., a reaction less drive. Scientist say it's impossible But, they say that about every thing, if they don't know how to do. I've tried for years to find a way-------------------, good luck with it. Sam