I was reading, yet again, how the force of gravity cannot possibly be a source of energy. It's not just the world at large who refuse to accept the argument that gravity can be tapped, there are many members of the Besslerwheel Forum who also subscribe to that view. And yet they can only posit the possibility that there must have been some additional source of energy which Bessler discovered and which we must be able to use as well.
So perhaps we should look at the reason why gravity can be used as an enabler of continuous rotation .
Almost 2500 years ago, Plato insisted that with inert matter in motion, because it is not the cause of its own motion; its motion requires a moving cause different from itself. This moving cause cannot itself be of such kind that it also requires to be moved from without. To put it another way There must be an unmoved mover, or 'that which moves without being moved'.
A prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a concept advanced by Plato's best student, Aristotle, as a primary cause (or first uncaused cause) or "mover" of all the motion in the universe. He wrote, 'as is implicit in the name, the "unmoved mover" moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action.
He wrote, 'if it is true that when A is in motion there must be some B that moves A, then if B is itself in motion there must be some C moving B, and so on. This series cannot go on forever, and so it must come to a halt in some X that is a cause of motion but does not move itself—an unmoved mover. Oddly, Aristotle is venturing close to describing a perpetual motion, which he implies is impossible within the context of his argument.
Briefly, then, there has to be an initiator of motion, or ‘first cause of all the motion in
the universe’.
"The unmoved mover”, moves other things but
is not itself moved by any other prior action. We know of only one unmoving mover - gravity.
So primum movens or primum mobile referred to by Bessler and used in conjuction with his statement that the weights in his machine are the actual cause of his perpetual motion, must apply to the action of gravity upon his machine, and be the sole cause of its rotation.
Gravity is an unmoved mover. The source or initiator of every other movement in the universe can be traced back to the effect of gravity. It is not regarded as an energy source because it is a conservative force. A conservative force is a force with the property that the work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken. The gravitational force is conservative because the work done by the gravitational force on an object depends only on its change in height.
Because gravity is indentified as a conservative force and because its work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken, it is understood to rule out gravity driven continuously turning wheels - such as Bessler's. We know that Besser's wheel was not a closed system, therefore it had access to an external force. There is no other 'unmoved mover' force in the universe as far as we know, therefore the only force which fits the bill is gravity.
Notice how we repeatedly state that gravity does do work. If it does work it consumes energy, but that energy is limitless, so although it expends energy, it never runs out. It is perpetual, so now we have a force which apparently consumes energy and does work and does not exhaust its energy supply. If that does not decribe a force which can supply endless energy, I don't know what is.
Notice how we repeatedly state that gravity does do work. If it does work it consumes energy, but that energy is limitless, so although it expends energy, it never runs out. It is perpetual, so now we have a force which apparently consumes energy and does work and does not exhaust its energy supply. If that does not decribe a force which can supply endless energy, I don't know what is.
If we could find other conservative forces which drive mechanical motors then we might understand why Bessler's wheel worked. Wind pressure and water pressure are conservative forces which drive mechanical motors, but they move, due to various causes among them, gravity.
We know the point of interaction between gravity and the wheel; it is the weights. They are doing the same job as air molecules do with windmills, and water molecules do with water wheels. or hydro-electric dams. The weights do the job of interacting between gravity and the wheel, causing it to rotate continuously, if the configuraton is correct.
I will be posting my own thoughts on this as soon as my wheel has been finished and tested - working or not.
Please share the following link and donate if you wish to aid my granddaughter's treatment.
www.helpamy.co.uk/
JC
I will be posting my own thoughts on this as soon as my wheel has been finished and tested - working or not.
Please share the following link and donate if you wish to aid my granddaughter's treatment.
www.helpamy.co.uk/
JC
John, I'm in full agreement with you that Gravity is the initiator of movement, but I believe that once movement is underway, a masses own inertia can create force (such as CF) that acts as the mover. And if the work done by the mass is more than the energy to reset, then you have perpetual motion.
ReplyDeleteYet another thought-provoker, John! A 'keeper' sure.
ReplyDeleteIn reflecting upon gravity here, I understand it to be three things:
1. OMNIPRESENT in our earthly realm - here it's touch cannot be escaped.
2. OMNISCIENT the same - here it knows of all things it touches.
3. OMNIPOTENT the same - here no things may escape it's ever-present proximate force.
These three realities naturally would remind some of (- - -) regarding which Bessler was more specific than my coy little self here.
Yes, it will be spectacular to observe mineral ectropy in living motion, a GIFT of gravitas appearing 'as if miraculous'.
mi·rac·u·lous
adjective
Occurring through divine or supernatural intervention, or MANIFESTING SUCH POWER.
"a miraculous cure"
synonyms: supernatural, preternatural, superhuman, inexplicable, unaccountable, fantastic, magical, phenomenal, prodigious; rare thaumaturgic
What might such a lesson to be learnt be, where, by natural means of simple leverage, weights, springs, resonance and it's magnification and all other manner of like earthly simplicities, would all be seen to coalesce and produce an effect totally at-variance to the laws of motion and mechanics that physically gave rise to it?
I shall here endeavor answer this summarily . . .
To the committed ordinary realist - at very least, I believe, it would constitute an irresolvable paradox and be accepted as such without much further duress.
To the observing scientist - a supreme vexation driving many to either escape in madness or suicide or, belief in something even more and better than themselves. (Well PERISH the thought!! Lab-coated mankind is to worship his own marvelousness or, this would appear to be very often the case.)
To the contemplating divine - tangible, operative evidence of the otherwise unknowable/unseeable and thus (at least in this one single case)needing no longer of belief for sustenance.
Yes, as Bessler indicated obliquely, 2019 is to be a very good year.
[Numerologically: 2+0+1+9 = 12 = 1+2 = 3. To many 12 & 3 bear great significance. To scoffers - simple, meaningless mysticism.]
Thank you James. I’m planning to make some kind of announcement on 6th June 2019. It will either say test I have done it, the wheel works - or I will say I have failed and I will post everything I know about the wheel. The date is intended to reflect Bessler’s first public demonstration. It would have been more satisfying to have succeeded in 2012, exactly 300 years later, but 2019 do nicely.
DeleteJC
Interesting John. Is 300 in any way significant to Bessler? I like James comment and it seems to have more significance.
Delete2019=2+0+1+9=12=1+2=3 (the AP wheel)
No, just a round number, but there was Bessler’s last panegyric to Karl which included every 100th year from 1519 to 2019. So this year is appropriate for any revelations.
DeleteJC
As always you're most welcomed, John.
DeleteI'm sure we're all awaiting June 6 with breaths abated as finally, we shall be treated to a glimpse at just what you've been up-to over all these many years.
As regarding Bessler's panegyrics, might he have left to us one also for 3019 or, was this year's the last - "das ende"? If so, then it will be up to the grandchildren of those of us that propagate to carry the Besslerian Torch forward, into the next centuries and beyond.
As long as our theory of gravity is not complete, gravity only engines are a possibility.
ReplyDeleteCheck MOND vs Dark Matter
RAF BRAVO James--A Sermon in Stone you shared with us!! Yes, Mr. Bessler is quite specific( see Das. Triumph.pages 201 to 204 beginning with FIRSTLY where he gives credit where it is due) We should not think of gravity as a force but as a property of space, teeming with whirl and zip!! see LeSage theory of gravity. It yanks gravity out from under the umbrella of conservative forces!
ReplyDeleteHa! Did not mean for it to come off that way. Definitely I shall investigate your LeSage theory of gravity recommendation. Thank you.
DeleteThe LeSage theory is better left to the ages. It is right up there with blood leeching to cure illness.
DeleteIt just gravity alone that initiates perpetual motion; but you have to use all five properties of physics to access the fruit of it.
DeleteWow my education failed me. Please tell me what the 5 properties of physics are Trevor.
DeleteAnonymous 11 April 2019 at 15:17 : after that fine a warning, the Le Sage sounds even more intriguing.
DeleteJames, you'll have better success proving the world is flat than finding an external pushing force. Le Sage's theory is a macro interpretation of his observations.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThey are; gravity,mass,velocity,inertia,resonance....work it out!
ReplyDeleteWhat is your definition of inertia?
DeleteInertia has been used interchangeable to mean momentum (MxV), and it also has been used to represent the ability of an object to resist a change in movement, and is measured as the amount of mass (M) of the object.
I think including inertia either way is redundant.
I don't know what you mean when you say "resonance" but if you are referring to a repeating movement of an object through some path (such as a pendulum swing), then that is not a unique property, but rather just a forced movement due to constraints placed on the object by pivoting bars.
DeleteRAF James, I highly recommend PUSHING GRAVITY edited by Matthew Edwards (2002) ,2nd chapter (pp9--40)article by prof. James Evans which gives a good historical account of LeSage theory.Enjoy!!
ReplyDeleteSounds interesting. Will pursue it. Thanks again!
Deletewhen translocating the wheel Bessler removed the weights, and at that time only a 'twang' was reported, this was caused by the latched/spring part of the mech being released without a weight attached (usually preventing the noise)
ReplyDeleteregards
Jon
Glad to see you are still at it. My last design was basically two wheels counter rotating inside one wheel sharing two weights as they turn...each one half full all the time.
ReplyDeleteJohn, in re-reading your latest opus, this paragraph part featured special resonance for me:
ReplyDelete". . . It is not regarded as an energy source because it is a conservative force. A conservative force is a force with the property that the work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken. . . ."
This is all believable on it's face so, what we are left with is the also obvious answer that a device must be constructed and built to the end of being asymmetrically RESPONSIVE to the uniform conservative attractive field of gravity. Such a phenomenon would then cause the device TO BEHAVE non-conservatively.
Regarding this most unusual (to put it leastwise) achieved effect, my belief is that it would then become dependent upon direction of rotation - one or the other - meaning that, in one way the energy inserted to initiate it's rotation would be lessened or lost, and in the other gained, the two direction-dependent outputs summing identically to what was initially input, and therefor preserving conservation externally. (This, of course, so as to keep peaceful the Lab-coat Coterie.)
To me, all of this seems obvious. I could not put it anymore clearly than that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei climbed jacobs ladder and try to ring bell. but then i fall and land on head. all i get for effort is big lump on head and no pm!
DeleteAnd might you, Glorioso Verbosa, comprehend WHY you are not of such worthiness, so as to merit a thoughtful response?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe weights gained force by their swinging......... First is the weight of the mass then there is the additional force that is added by their swinging.
ReplyDeleteGravittea, I don't think "swinging" is the accepted translation anymore. John C. can chime in on this, but I think "movement" or "motion" is the accepted translation. Too bad because swinging is SO specific and implies a pendulum type movement, even if it was a single shot movement. It may still be the true movement, just not exactly how Bessler worded it, possibly to hide the true motion. Because of the change in accepted translation, you can't conclude that CF was the added force, but you can proceed under that assumption.
DeleteIn 1678 Robert Hooke conceived the law of springs known as Hooke's law. He used a coil spring in his experiments so this suggests he had access to springs of sufficient quality to experiment with and prove his theory.
ReplyDeleteThis occurred many years before Bessler even began experimenting with his wheels. What this tells me is, if Bessler did use springs in his wheel, they were likely reliable and had predictable/repeatable performance, so they could have been employed in a more technical way than just dampening or pushing. Just my opinion of course.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymous 15 April 2019 at 22:51 was my post and I personally don't see a need for springs at this time, at least with the approach I am taking. I merely threw out the information for those looking to confirm their use.
DeleteYou can say springs were not needed in your opinion, but to state it as a matter of fact as you did is wrong since you do not have a working Bessler Wheel or a complete decoding of AP to confirm that.
While springs can store energy, they can do other things such as apply a resistance force to keep weights from free falling (e.g., zero length springs), so really there is no way to tell how Bessler used springs or for what purpose.
There are occasions when a spring is useful for instance where you have two hinged levers which can open to maximum, they may need a spring for helping the subsequent closure of the two levers which might otherwise lock open. Hard to explain in just words but my feeling is that that is what Bessler meant when he said spring were sometimes used but not in the way the questioner implied.
DeleteJC
Bessler was likely implying his springs were not mainsprings like in a watch. Since his axle was not fixed this wouldn't be too hard to understand - unless he used a heavy weight hanging from the axle to act as an artificial horizon.
DeleteJohn, we are waiting eagerly. But my gut tells me that your solution is probably a variation of a design in Bessler's MT.
ReplyDeletePlease remember Bessler's MT is basically "I tried, they are not working, do not try these" collection.
It is and it isn’t! Parts of it do appear in MT but it isn’t as simple as that. Any way you will no in a few weeks. 🙂
DeleteJC
MT may be a collection of devices that don't work, but he also added comments about what is right and wrong, or what works and what doesn't work, and he said if you combine some of them you could come up with the movement needed for PM.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete