Tuesday, 5 July 2022

Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine Worked!

We generally refer to Johann Bessler’s wheel as a Perpetual Motion machine or device, but such machines are consistently said to be impossible and therefore Bessler must have been a fraud.  However the evidence that he was genuine is remarkably convincing so how do we explain this apparent paradox?

Maybe it depends on the definition of perpetual motion.  I think we are familiar with these definitions but do they apply to Bessler’s wheel? The answer must be ‘no’ for two reasons.  Firstly such devices are impossible and would violate the law of conservation of energy, therefor his machine was not a perpetual motion device.  Secondly the definition of perpetual motion states that in such a hypothetical machine there is no external source of energy, and Bessler said his machine was dependant on the actions of a number of weights, this implies that the weights actually supplied the energy to rotate the wheel continuously. The only potential source of energy from outside the machine was gravity- or rather, the effect of gravity on the weights.

Even Bessler pointed out that his machine could not be described as ‘perpetual’ for reasons such wear and tear, old age, accidental damage etc.  ‘Continuous motion ’ seems a better term  to me, it removes the unreasonable word ‘Perpetual’ which implies that it will turn for ever regardless of how many thousands of years! 

But gravity is not an energy source.  This is true but it is a force and can enable a weight to fall in a special configuration which may seem as though gravity had provided the energy.  The energy is a property of the mass and it’s interaction with our planet and for instance waterwheels are driven by falling water,  enabled by gravity.

But so far no one has found a way to design a system which allows the fallen weights to return to their former position ready to fall again - no one except Johann Bessler.

We have been repeatedly told that there is no design which can accommodate such an action, but is this true?  I assume that Bessler succeeded therefore there is a special arrangement which allows the fallen weights to return to their pre-fall position, ready to repeat and repeat.

The energy provided comes from the action of gravity on the weights, so there is no mystery where the energy comes from.  For repeat falls to be possible there must be a particular inclusive action by a part of the mechanism.  Repeat falls are also vital for continuous overbalancing.

Bessler described the action of the wheel in this way.

“ …these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed (page 21) in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the heaviness movingk and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.”

Bessler mentions this “PM principle” many times and it is this that provided the answer to the problem of returning the weights to their starting position.  It is hard to see what else provided the energy when he states so clearly that the weights themselves “are the essential constituent parts…”, only gravity could provide the force which moved the weights.  

The word gravity or gravitas used by Newton simply meant heaviness but he did not invent the word, but was the author of a crucial "shift of meaning": previously "gravity" denoted a quality, after Newton, a force. You could say that gravity formerly meant, the tendency of objects to fall toward the center of the earth but after Newton it meant the tendency of two objects to attract each other.

Given the successful tests, and the word of a highly respected man who inspected the interior of the machine - and Bessler’s own words, how can anyone doubt the veracity of his claims?  But you have to put aside your prejudices and consider the facts.  Was his machine a fake?  Was the Landgrave of Hesse Kassel fooled, a man who had supervised the experiments by Denis Papin for ten years at the castle, before Bessler arrived, as well as being an honest broker during the 30 years war involving many European countries and their rulers? The answer must be a resounding no.

In the end, a perpetual motion (pm) machine is defined as needing no external source of energy, which is ridiculous, but means that Bessler’s wheel was definitely not a pm device.   He ascribed the source of energy to moving weights, enabled by gravitational force. This is possible provided the fallen weights can be returned using the actions of the other weights.

Bessler found the solution and so can we.

JC





24 comments:

  1. Bessler said his pm principle was deeply hidden. Weight force and torque have been well known as a source of motive force for thousands of years. What is not discussed by him is how he managed to keep the weights from resting vertically beneath the axle. They were forced to continually seek but never find the rest point all weight wheels have including his. That was the mechanical miracle that is deeply hidden, not that weights in wheels have motive force.

    “ …these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it...”

    ReplyDelete
  2. "We have been repeatedly told that there is no design which can accommodate such an action, but is this true? I assume that Bessler succeeded therefore there is a special arrangement which allows the fallen weights to return to their pre-fall position, ready to repeat and repeat.

    He ascribed the source of energy to moving weights, enabled by gravitational force. This is possible provided the fallen weights can be returned using the actions of the other weights.

    But so far no one has found a way to design a system which allows the fallen weights to return to their former position ready to fall again - no one except Johann Bessler."

    Leverage doesn't work, too many energy losses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JC wrote "...and Bessler said his machine was dependant on the actions of a number of weights, this implies that the weights actually supplied the energy to rotate the wheel continuously."

    Ken B also claims that the mechanical energy that B's wheels put out came solely from their lead weights as a wheel turned. But he thinks since each wheel only had so much lead inside of it, it could only deliver so much mechanical work before it had to come to a stop even if its parts were replaced before they wore out and failed. With a constant power output of a few tens of watts one of his wheels could have run for millions of years! That's not truly perpetual, but I think close enough for most people to call it so.

    I still don't understand how the energy in the lead weights got liberated though. If you put some pieces of lead on the floor they will just sit there forever doing nothing. But if you put them into a B wheel then suddenly they do work for millions of years? Does seem impossible but apparently that is exactly what happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand that some people think Ken B’s explanation is legitimate, but ever since I read it I have puzzled over the output of watts from lead weights to turn the wheel. I have occasionally scoured the internet for a paper on the subject but there is absolutely nothing. If anyone can point me to such I would read it, but it ain’t the answer to Bessler’s wheel.

      JC

      Delete
    2. The only thing Ken B. is an expert at is hoping lead will evaporate, due to eating too much tuna fish back in the day. If performing the equivalent of studying inkblots and incorporating their interpretations into a simulation which has its reality constraints loosened whilst killing a load of trees makes one an expert, then God help us!

      Delete
    3. The B he should be focused on is Bhaskara.

      Delete
    4. Throttle up Throttle Down works fine!

      Delete
    5. JC wrote " I have occasionally scoured the internet for a paper on the subject but there is absolutely nothing. If anyone can point me to such I would read it, but it ain’t the answer to Bessler’s wheel."

      What KB maintains is that all of the energy B's wheels put out was already contained in the mass of their weights. He uses that famous E = mc^2 equation to justify that claim and it is a legitimate claim. He also claims that in any genuine OB wheel that actually stays OB as it keeps turning, the weights will slowly lose their energy and mass over the millennia. The weights don't "evaporate" as anon 18:45 wrote. No, they just weigh less and less over time. There's no way to know if that actually happens yet because we need to have a working wheel to test.

      KB's method for getting the energy and mass out of the weights is not that obvious though. It involves a small difference in the rates at which gravitational potential energy is lost and then regained on a wheel's descending and rising sides. He claims he has made sims showing this rate difference happens.

      His approach also predicts that one of B's wheels could be made to run with using natural gravity! It could work just as well if placed aboard some sort of giant rotating space station like that one shown in Kubrick's movie 2001 A Space Odyssey. In that case the wheel's output of its weights' energy would be enabled by centrifugal instead of gravitational force.

      Delete
    6. I’m not dignifying the above comment with a proper response.

      JC

      Delete
    7. IT HAPPENED! This INSANE man DOES want YOU to know that HE ascended to a HIGHER pedestal long ago and has NO ability to nor intention of build ANY of his nonsense, but he will leave it up to YOU…the viewer/reader of his CONTENT.

      Delete
    8. Sorry JC, that was directed at Ken B or Anonymous KB, and not you.

      Delete
    9. No problem. JC

      Delete
    10. Comment deleted. JC

      Delete
  4. Hello everyone,

    I'm surprised that many of you don't take into account all the information that Bessler has given.
    The weights work in pairs.
    At some point the weights (motor) are prevented from following the rim
    of the wheel.
    So in my opinion, there are the weights (slaves) that follow a path to the rim 12 to 6 o'clock, and the same weights from 6 to 12 o'clock follow a path closer to
    to the center...
    As the peas work in pairs, I will say that at the periphery there are the weights
    As the peas work in pairs, I would say that at the periphery there are the slave weights and towards the center the master weights that walk slowly giving the orders at a precise moment.
    Bessler speaks of his wheel as a hollow drum, without a through axis, which leaves more space.


    Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I Scaled up to a 20 ft machine in the simulator. calculations indicate approximately
    5700J 2.0 -2.26 m/s just thought you might like to know!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh I forgot that's with only two lever sets

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Stephen. Forgive my ignorance but I don’t know what that means. I looked it up,on google but thst didn’t help either. Are you referring to output, and which machine are you referring to.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Ok I get it now. The teaching has changed since I was at school. The Newton was only adopted in England in 1960 so I missed out on that because schools were lagging behind the introduction of the International System of Units.

      The joule is a derived unit of energy in the International System of Units. It is equal to the amount of work done when a force of 1 newton displaces a mass through a distance of 1 metre in the direction of the force applied.
      1 metre per second = 2.237 miles per hour.

      JC

      Delete
    3. So nice to see SG helping to educate John about the latest concepts in science. Hopefully SG will also give John some much needed advice on how he can finally get his latest wheel working if he ever begins building it. It's nice to have someone here like SG who is finally making real progress. No wonder John is so fond of him.

      Delete
  7. John I scaled it to 10 m connected 8 lever sets applied 450Nm brake and it still maintaining a steady speed

    ReplyDelete
  8. I do believe that converts to 27 thousand watt per hour

    ReplyDelete
  9. What simulation program are you using Stephen?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Does anyone have a VR headset I was thinking about setting up a virtual exhibition of the design

    ReplyDelete

The Solution Lies within the Existing Documents.

We should return to the task in hand and leave aside the dubious benefits of Remote Viewing, we need to trust only what we know.  We can onl...