Monday, 1 March 2021

Johann Bessler’s Answer to the Energy Crisis?

It seems that there are still large numbers (the vast majority) of people out there who continue to believe, despite the strong circumstantial evidence to the contrary, that Johann Bessler’s perpetual motion machine was impossible and that he was obviously a criminal.  They cannot be blamed for taking this view, it has, after all, been hammered into all of us, relentlessly, that such a machine cannot work without an external energy source.  But I have no argument with that statement. Obviously without any energy source the wheel, as it was usually called, could not rotate and certainly not do any work.  But Bessler’s wheel rotated, lifted heavy weights and ran continuously for 54 days.  So it worked therefore it must have had an external energy source but what?  We have been told consistently that gravity is not a source of energy, but does that rule out its use an an enabler of Bessler’s wheel?

Since my self-appointed task here is to support Bessler’s claims I must explain why his machine did not break any laws of physics, because I remain convinced that it worked and the inventor told the truth.

Wind and tidal energy are routinely used to power electricity generators.  What do they have in common with gravity?  All three forces cause movement in  other objects. The motion of the wind and the tides is used to drive electricity generators.  Bessler said that the weights themselves were the actual perpetual motion.  Gravity affects mass and can move it,  so even though we are repeatedly told that gravity is not a source of energy.....it is, through the medium of weights reacting to the force of gravity.

This a constant thorn in the side of anyone trying to explain how gravity-enabled Bessler’s wheel worked. It is simple to explain but almost impossible to gain acceptance and yet in my opinion it is the correct explanation

Gravity causes the weights to fall. Dependent on the right configuration, the fallen weight will cause the wheel to rotate a little. If the fallen weight is moved by gravity, then gravity caused the wheel to rotate. It maybe an indirect energy source but it enables the wheel to turn.

The remaining problem, how to raise each weight again so it can fall again, was solved by Bessler, therefore despite the numerous attempts to find a configuration that have so far failed, we know he succeeded therefore so can we.  The solution is out there, waiting for us to find it.

JC





66 comments:

  1. You are putting the cart before the horse. Emphasis should not be on how to raise the weight, but rather, how do we make the falling weight apply more force going downward than the force required to raise it back upward.
    -z-

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For every mass in order to fall, it first has to be raised, looks like you're the one who puts the horse before the cart.

      Delete
    2. Should be "the cart before the horse", my mistake

      Delete
    3. Z wrote "...how do we make the falling weight apply more force going downward than the force required to raise it back upward."

      That's the easy part. Just make sure you keep your going down weights farther from the axle than your going up weights. Actually, however, it's not really that easy or someone other than Bessler would have done it by now!

      Delete
    4. C'est facile à faire avec deux branches opposées.
      cela devient compliqué dès que l'on en ajoute pour obtenir une rotation complète.
      J.B.

      Delete
  2. JC wrote: "...it has, after all, been hammered into all of us, relentlessly, that such a machine cannot work without an external energy source. But I have no argument with that statement."

    Ken B certainly has an argument with that statement. He claims that all of Bessler's wheels actually had unsuspected INTERNAL energy sources (represented by the mass of their weights) and they did not necessarily need gravity to release that energy. He has described how it could also be done using the centrifugal forces acting on a wheel's weights after it had been put into a spinning centrifuge. Even SK described a while ago how Bessler's wheels could run by using magnetic forces acting on the weights if, instead of lead, they were made from iron and the entire wheel was placed on top of a powerful magnet. All of these forces will, like gravity, help to extract the energy in a wheel's weights, but they do not actually supply that energy. A wheel with no weights could be placed in the strongest gravity field yet would output no energy because the wheel does not contain its INTERNAL energy supply...its weights. Bessler knew this when he wrote that the pm was due solely to the weights in his wheels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B’s theory has no basis in reality. The amount of mass lost in a year’s rotation would not be enough to lift a feather let alone add one more spin of the wheel. Nowhere have I been able to find a single document presenting his theory, it his and his alone and has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Please stop putting forward his theories, they belong with his other theories about UFOs, aliens etc.

      JC

      Delete
    2. "The amount of mass lost in a year’s rotation would not be enough to lift a feather let alone add one more spin of the wheel."

      According to Einstein's famous equation, E = mc^2, a single gram of mass is equivalent to about 9 x 10^13 joules. That's equal to 25 MILLION kilowatt-hours of electrical energy. Now imagine how many grams would be contained in the tens of pounds of lead weights inside of one of Bessler's 12 foot diameter wheels! If the Kassel wheel continuously delivered, say, 100 watts of power, then the mass in its lead weights would have allowed it to run for an enormous amount of time which I will leave to others to calculate.

      John's statement that the amount of mass lost by one of Bessler's wheels as it ran for a whole year might not exceed the mass of a single feather sounds accurate. But, imagine how many feathers you would have to put on one side of a double pan balance to have a mass equal to the mass of all of the lead weights contained in one of Bessler's wheels that had been placed in the opposing pan (those pans would have to be very large!). You would need to use a LOT of feathers and each one of them would represent almost an entire year that the wheel could operate continuously!

      But, I can see one problem with Ken B's theorizing. He claims that Bessler's wheels could operate in a centrifuge. IF that is correct, then they don't really need gravity and gravity cannot be the source of their energy. However, Bessler's wheels never did run in centrifuges and only ran in Earth's gravity field so we really don't know if they would work in a centrifuge. That is only an assumption that Ken B makes. Once we finally get working reproductions of Bessler's wheels, then testing them in some sort of large centrifuge should be one of the early experiments done with them. Something like that could be done by an amateur using a reproduction of Bessler's little 3 foot diameter prototype wheel placed into a homemade centrifuge of some sort.

      Delete
    3. I’m curious to learn how these huge amounts of energy that is apparently available within the mass of the weights could be converted into practical use to drive Bessler’s wheel. It sounds like something from one of Ken’s alien space craft technologies.

      JC

      Delete
    4. How is energy given off by rotating weights?
      How is that energy captured and applied to make the wheel turn?

      I don't disagree with the hypothesis but we see no evidence in nature or in man made devices of such energy liberation. This is so far out there that I have to discount it until there is some shred of scientific proof.

      Delete
    5. @JC and anon16:34
      It is true that Ken has written several books on what he calls "ET UFOs" (he prefers to use that name so people will know he's talking about extraterrestrial craft and not just unidentified manmade aircraft of some type) and tries to explain how they could fly around as rapidly as they've been reported to do and produce other weird effects. To do that he has a new theory of gravity and how to neutralize it and claims our ET visitors use propulsion systems in their spacecraft based on that theory. But, he only rarely mentions using that gravity technology for energy generation although it certainly could be used for that.

      When it comes to Bessler's wheels he does have a simple method for extracting all of the energy in a wheel's lead weights. Actually he says it will happen automatically IF one can build an OB wheel that actually stays OB as it rotates. The reason Bessler's wheels worked was because ONLY his wheels actually did stay OB as they turned while everyone else's did not and still do not. I think most OB pm wheel builders already know that.

      He claims in a turning OB that stays OB that the average drop speed of the descending side weights is always a little faster than the average rise speed of the ascending side weights. As a result of this at any instant the descending side weights always lose a little more GPE than is taken from them by the ascending side weights to make them rise. The little leftover unused GPE in the descending side weights that isn't stolen by the ascending side weights doesn't just disappear though. It winds up being used to accelerate the wheel and increase the rotational kinetic energy of all of its parts in motion.

      What he has found is a nice counter argument to that old worn out "gravity is a conservative force so weights moving around a closed path in a gravity field can never experience any increase in their kinetic energy" nonsense that we've been hit over our heads with for decades now by the scientists who think they know it all. If he is right then that argument simply does not apply to OB wheels even though their weights always drop and rise through the same distances and move around closed paths in Earth's gravity field. That argument is based on a single weight moving around a closed path. In an OB wheel you have multiple weights in motion and at any instant they are all moving with different vertical speeds which do NOT average out to zero. At any instant they always had a slight net dropping speed and a net loss of GPE.

      If his theory is right then whenever one of Bessler's wheels was powering some outside machine, the wheel would constantly be losing tiny amounts of mass per second. We're talking here about fractions of a picogram per second! Unlike nuclear reactions in which mass is lost by only the nuclei undergoing fission or fusion, the mass lost in one of Bessler's wheels was spread evenly among all of the electrons, neutrons, and protons of the lead atoms in its weights. But the rate of mass loss was so low that it might take years before it could be measured even with our most sensitive balances. What was happening inside of Bessler's wheels, even if he had revealed their mechanics to everyone, would have been a complete mystery to all of them because they did not yet have the science needed to understand them. But now, according to Ken, we do have that science.

      Delete
    6. Well thank you once again Ken..(rolls his eyes! Please please no more!

      JC

      Delete
    7. I think Ken B is trying to turn what many consider the pseudoscience of pm wheels into a science that would appeal to real scientists. He's got his theory of how Bessler's wheels worked which sounds plausible and a wheel design to go along with it. I think what he says does make some sense. Hopefully, that design he found will work if and when someone actually tries to build it.

      Delete
    8. @anon 17:14

      You wrote "But, he only rarely mentions using that gravity technology for energy generation although it certainly could be used for that."

      How would that be done?

      Delete
    9. My opinion in general , for instance in the case that a theory or claim is being made on a large scale without any proven merit ad nauseam, is ,there is a saying that goes "put your money where your mouth is" ,reality does not care about words and theories , nor claims without physical proof .

      There are many , who can create virtual sim's of continuous rotating wheels , however there are many who throw those designs away because they are found faulty when properly investigated.

      Where the real butter comes in , are those who push beyond the virtual world , and bring a design in to reality.

      There is nothing wrong in trying , and nothing wrong in believing or searching , imo however if someone wants to proof a claim , or try to proof some merit towards anything ,then there is only one way to go about it , the same way Bessler went about it : "shut up or put up" ,anything else is just dust in the wind .

      -JB

      Delete
    10. Anon 20:55: "How would that be done?"

      He published a design for a machine which he believes would be able to weaken even completely the gravity field of any object placed near it when it is activated. This machine uses electrical power.

      Now imagine something like Bessler's wheel only instead of a hollow drum you have a heavy solid metal wheel which could be made of iron. You put Ken's gravity neutralizer near the 9 o'clock position of the wheel and activate it. That makes that side of the wheel lose its weight. How much weight it loses depends on how much power is supplied to his device. Since the 3 o'clock side of the metal wheel is now heavier the wheel will start to turn clockwise. As metal enters the bottom of the ascending side it gets lighter and as it leaves the top of the ascending side it gets heavier again. At 3 o'clock it always has its normal weight. If this works it would cause the CoG of the remaining heavy part of the metal disc to shift way over horizontally onto the descending side toward 3 o'clock and stay there. That's good because it should produce maximum torque on the axle.

      This setup works like a gravity dynamo when the axle is attached to an electrical generator. He said that like in a Bessler wheel the energy is gotten from the mass of atoms in the heavy metal disc. If the gravity neutralizing machine suddenly stops working then the ascending side of the metal disc will just immediately regain its normal mass.

      Something like this could be used to replace fossil fuel and nuclear type power plants with a safer alternative because it won't produce any carbon dioxide or radioactive waste. To work effectively though his gravity neutralizer would need to only use a small amount of electrical power compared to what any electrical generator connected to it produced. You would also have to provide some electrical power to get the dynamo running after which it would become self powered.

      Delete
    11. Reste à voir si l'appareil ne vas pas neutraliser la masse complète de la roue de métal.
      J.B.

      Delete
    12. @JB

      It would not have to completely neutralize the entire mass of the metal wheel to work. If it only reduced the ascending side mass of the wheel by a few percent, it would work. But, if it reduced too little of the ascending side mass, then any electrical generator connected to the axle might not make enough electrical power to keep Ken's "gravity neutralizer" machine working. Ideally you want to neutralize as much of the ascending side weight as possible.

      The more I think about something like this, the more it seems to me like it would be the ultimate free energy gravity generator. The turning metal wheel would lose a lot of GPE on its descending side while only needing to regain a fraction of that to lift the reduced mass of the wheel on the ascending side. That means there would be a lot of GPE left over to run an electrical generator attached to the axle.

      Then I thought this couldn't work because it would violate Newton's 3rd law of motion. The generator would create more CF on its descending side than on its ascending side so there would be a net CF in only one direction which would be toward the descending side. But, Newton's 3rd law would be satisfied if the Earth below the machine responded by rotating in the opposite direction! Newton's 3rd law only says that the sum of the changes in momentum in a closed system (here that would be the wheel and the Earth) at any instant must always equal zero. The law does not say you can't balance linear momentum with rotational momentum.

      One big problem I see is that such a wheel could actually tear itself apart if it was allowed to accelerate to a speed that was too high. That however would be prevented by the drag on the axle caused by an electrical generator that was producing electrical power. Since Ken's gravity neutralizer is electrically powered you could have some sort of governor on the wheel's axle. When the axle speed began to become dangerously high the governor would sense that and automatically turn off the electrical power to the gravity neutralizer. Both sides of the wheel would then have the same mass and it would begin to slow down from the drag on it due to air resistance and bearing friction. You could also have some sort of emergency brake that would be activated.

      Assuming that building one of his gravity neutralizers won't be that expensive, something like this could produce virtually unlimited electrical power for only a small fraction of what all of those solar panels and wind turbines everyone is planning to build would cost.

      jason

      Delete
    13. @jason

      Sounds like Ken's "gravity neutralizer" would make something like this possible!

      https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/9-6.jpg

      But, suppose in his "gravity dynamo" a weight passed 6:00 at the bottom and lost all of its mass temporarily. It then rises to 12:00 and that requires it gaining no GPE to do so since it has no weight. Then it emerges at 12:00 again and is no longer affected by the gravity neutralizer and has all of its mass and weight back again. As soon as that happens it now suddenly has all of the GPE if would have had at 12:00 if energy had been used to raise it from 6:00 to 12:00. But, thanks to his gravity neutralizer, no energy was actually used to raise the weight, so where does that GPE it suddenly have come from?

      Yes, I know what you will say...it comes from the mass of the weight itself. Still seems mysterious but then again so does everything having to do with energy and Bessler's wheels. I'd like to see a sketch of Ken's gravity neutralizer if anyone has a link to it.

      Delete
    14. anon 18:06 wrote: "I'd like to see a sketch of Ken's gravity neutralizer if anyone has a link to it."

      There aren't any images of it on google images. But Ken B put a drawing of the device in an early book he wrote on paranormal phenomena. Go to this page on Amazon and then click the "Look inside" on the book's cover on the left side. Once there make your way to page viii and you will find the drawing of the device at the top of the page:

      https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Paranormal-Kenneth-W-Behrendt-dp-1403325510/dp/1403325510/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

      In this drawing he calls his gravity neutralizer a "rotating anti-mass field generator". In later writings he refers to it as a "rotating antigraviton generator". It works by rotating a large ring shaped electromagnet which makes its internal magnetic field rotate along with it. But, he's placed a giant tubular capacitor inside of the electromagnet that when electrically charged holds electric fields at right angles to the moving magnetic field. That somehow causes the device to produce an anti-mass field around itself which he later decided was just a lot of antigravitons per second coming out of the inside of the electromagnet. He claims that the gravity field of objects is caused by them emitting huge numbers of gravitons per second. When you put one of his active antigraviton generators near an object emitting gravitons, the antigravitons coming out of the device neutralize them and that weakens the gravity field of the object which makes it lose weight.

      Delete
  3. JC wrote : "Gravity causes the weights to fall. Dependent on the right configuration, the fallen weight will cause the wheel to rotate a little. If the fallen weight is moved by gravity, then gravity caused the wheel to rotate. It maybe an indirect energy source but it enables the wheel to turn."

    IMO to describe a Bessler 'runner' as Gravity-Enabled says it all as a descriptive.

    However it doesn't help much to explain where the replenishing 'Energy' to self-sustain rotation and do external Work comes from. We generally all know the Physics arguments for why gravity is not energy (because it is a force and a force is not energy). And it is considered a conservative force. So I won't go into why science says the path a weight takes has no bearing on the energy result.

    Science does have a way to compare forces and energy. It's called the Work Energy Equivalence Principle (WEEP). It's actually a Theorem and not a Law AFAIK, so open to being proved inconsistent in some circumstances (just hasn't as yet). So a force x displacement can be compared to energy units because they are the same units. But then it looses traction as far as Bessler's runners are concerned. And that we know very well.

    My deduction is that a Bessler wheel is a runner because gravity force creates internal torques in weights, which turn the wheel temporarily. In that sense gravity is the prime enabler.

    However for a Bessler runner to accelerate and self-sustain its rotation et al then there must be an imbalance of internal forces (on average) in the direction of rotation.

    To do external work etc B. circumstantially proves that a perpendicular field of acceleration, with the correct mechanics in play, can be used as a replenishable 'well' to continually draw water from, so to speak.

    The well will practically not go dry and the result via the extra-ordinary mechanics of the runner is that it can output useful Work, as an energy equivalent. Following from that reasoning whilst gravity force is the prime enabler it is the wheel mechanical arrangements that allows the field of acceleration to be tapped to output energy as Work as long as the materials shall last.

    Scientists will have a field day explaining it more accurately and succinctly if and when a Bessler type runner sees the light of day again. But gravity will still be the prime enabler, imo. So tally-ho chaps.

    "Johann Bessler’s Answer to the Energy Crisis?"

    If it can out compete other low cost energy and space taking forms of energy production. Part of that will be marketing and push. It will likely have at least an niche attraction, in some circumstances and environments, cultures etc. Focused efforts will create a strong wind blowing behind it and it may be a partial answer to the "energy crisis" providing it can be scaled for Western high-draw and commercial energy demands, imo. Whether it is or is not the answer to the Wests energy crisis is for others to decide. Myself, would be mighty pleased just to see one 'live' again in this modern industrialized world, even if a fish out of water compared to Fusion Power.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bessler undoubtedly found an overbalanced type wheel design that worked, but it took a tremendous amount of effort and, I suspect, also a lot of luck. For every Bessler that comes along there could be a hundred thousand others who put in the same amount of effort but did not have that extra critical luck that they needed when they needed it.

      It's almost like Bessler was in some sort of pm wheel lottery where a hundred thousand other inventors, just as skilled as he was, bet on a hundred different designs each that they were convinced would win that lottery, but did not win its jackpot by finding a runner. But one guy, Bessler, bet on his different hundred designs and, by an incredible stroke of luck, a working pm wheel was one of them. Something like that could even make an atheist start believing in God!

      Delete
    2. Anon03:44 :

      It could seem like a massive game of chance (luck) except for perhaps one thing. MT. Where B. says ...

      " Further demonstrations regarding the possibility and impossibility of perpetual motion

      NB. May 1, 1733. Due to the arrest, I burned and buried all papers that prove the possibility. However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments, since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them. "

      - Johann Bessler, cover page of Maschinen Tractate

      Suggests to me that there is a logic to his PM mechanics. Not easy to discern or find (understatement), either on your own tod, or by entering the maze of MT.

      And since forces, torques, energy, etc were not well developed he was not encumbered by the 'rules'. For him it was purely a mechanical problem to be solved. Take this thing that pushes downwards and make it turn something continuously, and output Work. He said he had a rare dream (of the mechanical solution principles) which he implemented successfully. Anecdotally his mechanical solution is simple to build, and to understand. But apparently not easy to imagine or discern the logical conditions of the mechanics that give rise to the 'runner'. If one man can dream it, then another can think it, and yet another can build it. You make your own luck, as Bessler did, imo.

      -f

      Delete
    3. My apologies to T.S. Eliot

      Between the idea
      And the reality
      Between the motion
      And the movement
      Falls the Shadow

      Delete
    4. "Falls the Shadow"

      For all pm chasers since Bessler, that "shadow" was the one cast by the Grim Reaper! When the appointed hour comes for him to extend his bony hand and grab a pm chaser by the shoulder to begin leading him out of the world of the living, he is totally unconcerned about the pm chaser's future plans, builds in progress, or dreams of fame and fortune. The Reaper only has one mission and he always makes sure he completes it...

      Delete
  4. Here's a short video of a display devoted to perpetual motion devices in the state museum in Gera, Germany. They have a replica of the wheel that Bessler exhibited there in June of 1712. Unfortunately, their replica has to be hand cranked up to speed unlike his!

    Click on the CC at bottom of player and then click the gear icon to the right of that. Then select Subtitles, then Auto-translate, and then pick your language which will be English if that's what you speak. Finally, play the video. The youtube auto-translations are really a mess, but they will give you a general idea of what the German narrator is saying.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lKTN35SPZw

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the link, for me there is little new there, however it was very interesting to note that the wooden wheel shown rotating in the museum, had five radial struts. As many know I’ve spent many years trying to convince everyone that Bessler’s one way wheel had five mechanism. I wonder why the chose to use five instead of four or eight.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Maybe John should try getting in touch with the guy(s) who build that replica wheel and ask why they put those five radial struts on it. It could be something as simple as they didn't have enough wood for six or eight struts on both sides. Or, possibly, they found a new document that we Besslerites haven't seen before.

      Maybe they had access to a Gera newspaper article published after June 6th, 1712 that described Bessler's first public demonstration of his wheel. If so, maybe that article contained a report from an eye witness that said he was close to the wheel during the demonstration and could distinctly hear it emitting FIVE scratching sounds per rotation as it started up and was still moving slow. If those scratching sounds were due to levers rubbing against the inside of the drum, then that would lend powerful support to John's much dismissed claim that Bessler's wheels only contained five weights!

      Who knows how much more important information about Bessler's wheels is out there somewhere that we've never seen before! As each one is found, it will help to energize Bessler pm wheel seekers even more!

      Delete
  5. In case nobody has seen this yet over at BW forum, its a video recent made by our RAFORD that shows how his spring loaded version of MT 25 works. It's rather impressive and could not work smoothly without the springs. It almost looks like he's on the verge of getting a runner!

    https://youtu.be/F7ChaL8qZNw

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very nice, well made build he has there. Most just bypass MT 25 and dismiss it as unworkable, but he says wait a minute, look what happens with some spring tension added in!

      This is another design that needs to be simmed to see where the CoG is while the four weights are shifting about. Then what happens when you place two of the mechanisms perpendicular to each other inside of a drum. If that design keeps the CoG of all eight weights on the descending side throughout a full rotation, then he's got a runner and its time to add those extra levers, weights, and springs to what he already has constructed. If that completed built works, then this could be Bessler's design!

      One major problem, however, casts doubt on it being Bessler's design. Bessler mentioned that he let people reach into the drum of the Merseburg wheel to grasp its axle and prove to themselves that he didn't have any weights suspended by ropes or chains wrapped around the axle that were propelling his wheel. RAFORD's design has a lot attached to the axle and if this is "the" design Bessler used, then those reaching into the Merseburg wheel's drum would have felt those attachments immediately.

      However, maybe RAFORD's design is another runner Bessler had which wasn't used in the Merseburg wheel? Maybe RAFORD's design was used in some of Bessler's earlier wheels?

      Delete
  6. I'm sure no one want's to know. However, this is what I've learned so far: The wheel used split pendulums that lock temporarily / rotate with the wheel going down, then unlock / translate going up. You don't lift weights or shift them in and out radially. They, the pendulums, just swing back and forth----------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seen this one yet?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J6j89VI2nU

      Delete
    2. His latest fake is just a combination of MT 12 and MT 13. His wheels are all powered by hidden pulley cords in the axle supports that are in turn driven by a battery powered motor located inside of those thick bases he uses. I wonder if he was a serious pm chaser in his earlier days that finally burned out from repeated failures and then decided to turn his nonrunners in animated sculptures? He does a good job making them though and pm chasing noobs might actually be fooled by them. Hopefully they don't waste any time trying duplicate any of them!

      Delete
  7. Sounds easy enough to build a prototype Sam. Mechanical timing of the latching and unlatching might be a headache. Electrical magnetic latching using solenoids might overcome any timing issues for testing if the CoG is maintained to one side of the axle and the thing accelerates. Good luck !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AA 19:26. Yes, you are quite right. With an encoding dick for position information and a tack., and a servo, with negative feed back, you could control the speed of the wheel with changing loads. Just by controlling the pend.. Which would have to be done to generate A.C.
      For now the timing is done with a cam and the latching with ratchets. You just have to swing the pendulums up about 40 degrees for them to latch; then they release automatically at bottom dead center,(BDC).
      I suspect that's what was making all of the noise in Bessler's wheel. Can you imagine 8 ratchets in a wooden wheel; what a racket that would make!
      Yeah, it's easy. And thanks-----------------------Sam

      Delete
    2. "You just have to swing the pendulums up about 40 degrees for them to latch..."

      Hopefully, your overbalanced "split pendulum wheel" will be putting out enough energy to swing those pendulums up and also still have a lot of energy left over to accelerate the wheel or power some attached AC generator.

      Delete
    3. AA 22:47, Have to try and see, but with no load, for now--------------Sam

      Delete
  8. There are too many wild guesses happening here, time and again, when it comes to explain the BW's energy source... This would rather remind one of the proverbial five blind men describing an elephant... Each one has his own theory... The idea that Gravity is the enabler of a BW maybe partly right... Why not the swingings?... Unless and until we have a runner in hand these guesses are going to remain as guesses... Just because Bessler termed the weights as the main pm contributers we it is natural for us to conclude the energy source as gravity... But Bessler found an unique way to arrange them to get the wheel move continuously... And we have no idea yet as to what that secret mechanism is and so it is but premature to arrive to a conclusion at this stage... It is also not very clear what exactly it means to call gravity being an enabler... Is it because it provides that heaviness?... And, from where does the actual power come from?... The story remains perpetually incomplete... Giving room to such guesses... Initially, we thought that Gravity was the main power source and later we settled for its enabler role...as a solace... But the future could lead us to something different... In the Bessler school the beginners attribute it to gravity... It is just natural but as one dwells deeper he sees a different scenario... If it was Just Gravity then it wouldn't have taken about 300 years... It is simple yet complicated to understand... That's the beauty with Bessler... To bring about the process of losing mass in weights you would need some High tech involvement... So it is ridiculous to say that the answer lies in the weights losing tiny amounts of mass gradually...
    And, that just amounts to complicating the whole story considerably... Is gravity really playing an indirect role here?... Then who actually is playing the Direct role?... We have this habit of creating more confusion and then finding a newer term every time to try to explain the same... Should we prepare ourselves for the next 300 years wait?...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And we have no idea yet as to what that secret mechanism is and so it is but premature to arrive to a conclusion at this stage..."

      Again SK speaks for EVERYONE! Did we ALL elect him to do that for us??? I must have missed that vote.

      If the Ken B theory is correct, NO "High tech" was required for Bessler's wheels to produce energy. The mass loss of its weights will occur automatically whenever an OB wheel turns IF it actually stays OB while it turns. Bessler's wheels did not use any sort of electrical equipment because it hadn't been invented yet!

      "We have this habit of creating more confusion and then finding a newer term every time to try to explain the same... "

      Yes! SK does that regularly here. But, that's exactly what we expect from someone trying to become this blog's next TOP GURU!

      Delete
    2. SK makes a valid point about jumping to conclusions, but he also has a habit of telling us how it works, or why someone's design doesn't work, as if he knows the solution, which he clearly does not. That also adds to the confusion.

      Delete
    3. Hey anon 22:26, didn't SK say a few blogs ago that he knew how Bessler's wheels worked? Now he's saying that "we have no idea yet"! Maybe like SG he got hit in the head by lightning since then and can no longer remember that secret which he previously knew?! Damn that lightning. Anyone who finds the secret of Bessler's wheels please stay indoors during any lightning storms so you don't get amnesia after being struck by a lightning bolt!

      Delete
    4. The problem is that if I say I know the solution I get critized from all quarters including Fletcher... I would rather keep pretending as if I too don't know the secret because this way atleast I remain safe from getting hurt in the brick-bat that usually follows...

      Delete
    5. Oh...you are only PRETENDING to not know the secret of Bessler's wheels. Well, that explains everything!

      After that bizarre revelation I must now nominate SK for TOP GURU on this blog! Votes will be counted over the next few days to see if SG will remain TOP GURU or if his crown will pass to SK.

      Poor SG...he will be so heartbroken if SK wins because he did so love wearing that sparkling, bejeweled solid gold crown of the TOP GURU.

      Delete
    6. SK you sound so much more intelligent when you pretend you don't know anything.

      Delete
  9. I would say for the next 3000 years!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would like to bring that down to 0003 years...

      Delete
  10. I'll simplify it for you SK .. Gravity is a force. It acts on objects with mass. If weights are attached within a wheel format gravity acts as an enabler causing a gravity induced torque in those weights, about the axle. Bessler's wheel weights, in a single rotation, traveled the same vertical distance up and down. However his wheel mechanics were arranged such that there were unequal system torques acting at the axle during a rotation. More torque on the descending side and less on the rising side. This lead to the wheel accelerating and gaining momentum. The wheel could do external work (f x d <=> E) whilst maintaining a working rpm. The wheels energy losses were ordinary mechanical losses of heat deformation and sound, and Work output (Load), that did not need conventional energy replenishment to the system. IMO.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gravity sort of acts like an invisible spring. When you lift a weight in a gravity field you are stretching that spring which requires you to expend energy which increases the GPE of the weight. Then, later, if the weight falls back down, the weight turns that energy you stored in it as GPE into KE. That KE can then make some machine in the environment operate.

      In Bessler's running wheels the weights were constantly losing GPE and turning it into KE. But, they were losing a LOT more GPE than was put into them when the lead in them was dug out of the ground, its ore smelted, and Bessler finally put it into his wheels. All of that extra GPE Bessler's wheels delivered had to come from some source because it could not just come out of nowhere. JC claims (or used to claim) the source was Earth's gravity and Ken B says it was the mass of the weights themselves. Who knows for sure though? Maybe the source was something weird like the rotation of the Earth or the Earth's magnetic field or the tides or who knows what. But that extra GPE did not just pop into existence out of nothingness and that's for sure...I think!

      Delete
    2. "In Bessler's running wheels the weights were constantly losing GPE and turning it into KE."

      You are both right and wrong... During rotation something special happens in BW and gpe is constantly replenished owing to the special design and unique arrangement... Gravity is used both ways... During the ascend as well as while descending... Hard to accept this but it is a fact...

      Delete
    3. Thanks Fletcher@ 21:24...

      I must admit that as always you are on the right path... This always couldn't be true in JC sir's case...

      Delete
    4. SK please continue pretending you don't know anything.

      Delete
  11. The best way to understand gravity, is to hold an ordinary brick up about shoulder high. Then drop it on your foot. You can drop it as many times as you need to, if you don't get the first time------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Sam... By trying this we would surely get to know how gravity causes objects to fall but how does it help us to understand about the weights going up?...

      Delete
    2. Suresh Kumar, that's why you have to use pendulums. It's the only way to get the weights back up-----------------Sam

      Delete
    3. SP, if the purpose of your pendulum is to simply move the weight from right to left (or left to right) then why not just make a slider and slide the weight horizontally? Can you elaborate more on the the function of your pendulum please.

      Delete
    4. AA 19:37; Yes, that's a very good question. There is a trick to it, the weights don't slide or shift, in or out. The pendulums are "L" shaped. The longer leg of the "L" is more or less horizontal and is 8 inches long with a 1/2 pond weight at the end. The shorter leg of the "L" hangs down, is 6 inches long with a 1 1/2 lb. at the end of it. So the "L" is kind of laying face down with the longer leg of it always pointing to the down side of the wheel. At 3 O'clock it's sticking more or less straight out 8 inches, from the rim of the wheel.
      Here's where the trick comes in. With the pendulum freely swinging / translating on it's pivot point, the wheel is totally balanced. If you temporarily lock it to the wheel it becomes out of balance. The weighs never have to move in and out. Simply by locking and unlocking the pendulums the wheel is goes from balanced to out of balance---------------Sam

      Delete
    5. Looks like veproject1 already had a similar idea with his "Universal overbalanced wheel":

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOLX-Cp0zsw

      But why does he have to push it to make it run? Shouldn't it be self starting? Just another fake of his.

      Delete
    6. AA 19:37 Follow up. The locking and unlocking uses a ratchet gear, which is the easiest part of the prosses. The ratchet grabs when the weight is falling down. Then automatically releases, as the pendulum / weight starts back up--------Sam

      Delete
    7. AA 21:31 If I'm looking at the right one, the problem is; it translates all the way around which means it's always balanced. For it to work, it has to ROTATE / temporarily lock to the wheel going down-------------------Sam

      Delete
  12. Hi John. You have been searching for 5 mechanisms to make the weel overbalanced.
    But if the weights worked in pairs, as stated by Bessler, would that make 10 weights in your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I used to think so Per-Henrik, now I have other ideas,

      JC

      Delete
    2. Looks like 5 weights are important, because it's the minimum number that will still work. It makes sense, one weight can only drive a wheel about 90 degrees. Four weights would be marginal, hardly work at all----------------Sam

      Delete
    3. Weights working in pairs could indicate adjacent weights worked together.

      Delete
  13. there is only potential energy that unfolds at the right time.
    For example, if I take a simple wheel and throw it, it will stop for lack of extra energy... But if at the moment when it stops, a device exploiting the last joules creates an imbalance which will re-launch the wheel, etcetera ... There is nothing else to explain. Of course we have to find this device, let's remain confident :)
    Sorry for the translation.


    ReplyDelete
  14. One weight goes down and the other goes up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you using any springs? They can make the impossible seem to happen!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB7R2ttYWCw

      Delete

Reviewing the Power of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine

Many people have calculated the potential power of Bessler’s wheel and concluded that it wouldn’t amount to much, however I’m not convinced ...