The Laws of Physics can accomodate Bessler's Wheel.

It has been commented on more than one occasion on the besslerwheel forum that when the solution to recreating Bessler's wheel is discovered, the laws of physics will have to be amended.  This suggestion cannot be more wrong, in my opinion.  Just recently it was repeated and I thought it worthwhile to see if this view is justified.

We refer to Bessler's wheel as a perpetual motion machine because it would run for ever or until its parts wore out.  But originally this concept was supposed to apply to machines which had no access to an external energy source, obviously an outdated and irrelevant idea because energy has to be accessible to enable work to be done. We might as well call an internal combustion engine a perpetual motion machine because it will run for ever or until its parts wore out - as long as it has sufficient gas to continue to burn, and the same applies to Bessler's wheel as long as it is enabled by gravity.

Bessler used weights, and that is beyond doubt, so gravity had to supply that energy regardless of what others may say or what we have been taught.  The simplest solution is always the best and usually correct so because Bessler's wheel required gravity to work, gravity must have supplied the necessary energy.  Those who rehearse the old arguments about closed loops etc do not allow the presence of several weights to achieve what one weight cannot possibly do - and that is to fall around in a closed loop.

With a specific configuration applied to work according to the right principle there is no good reason why a permanent state of imbalance should not be achievable.  The first wheels were permanently out of balance that is why they began to spin as soon as the brake was released.  If you can begin rotation in an out of balance state then it should be possible for it to continue to rotate in an out of balance state.

I see no reason for a change in the laws of physics to accommodate the above.  The laws have stood us well over the intervening 300 years and they will continue to do so without anyone messing with them.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

More on the dual-directional wheels and the single directional ones.

In my previous blog, I suggested that it made more sense to try to replicate Bessler's single-direction wheels than his later, admittedly more difficult to make, dual-direction ones, and I forgot to add that my comparison was to the Kassel wheel, which rotated at 26 RPM, unloaded.  The previous, Merseburg wheel, rotated much faster at 40 RPM, despite being dual-directional.

At first sight this may seem to damage my argument about two mirror image windmills rotating at half the speed of a single one, but I still think they would if their components were identical in all size respects, but what it does also do is back up Bessler's contention that he could design wheels which could revolve faster or slower and with more power or less as required.  He also suggested that a wheel of 20 ells could be built - more than 40 feet in diameter!  At that time, John Rowley, Master Model-maker and engineer to King George I, designed and built a tidal wheel for pumping water into the Royal Palace at Windsor measuring "twenty four foot diameter and twelve foot broad; for the new brass engine with brasses to the crank, forcing rods and a new crank."  So that kind of size was not inconceivable.

My point is that what ever size and speed and lifting power was possible, we cannot make any assumptions about the mechanism inside the wheels other than to reflect on Bessler's own words about the Merseburg wheel:-

"I constructed my great work, the 6-ell diameter wheel. It revolved in either direction, but caused me a few headaches before I got the mechanism properly adjusted. Why did I make this wheel, you may well ask, and so I will now give you my answer. During my stay in Obergreisslau my detractors put out the cunning falsehood (in order to deceive the world) that my device, like a clock, needed to be wound up. This caused me to make some changes to the mechanism so that all intelligent people would appreciate the falseness of such a proposition. People then began to believe - and they freely admitted it - that the wheel did not require winding up."

The dual-directional wheel was more difficult to make than the single-directional one so logic suggests that the first one would be the place to start.  However I know there are many people out there who are still convinced that there is more to making the wheel dual-directional than simply adding  mirror imaged mechanisms to the same axle, as I described in my previous blog.  In further defense of my belief in keeping it simple by concentrating on the first two wheels, I shall point to the fact that the first two wheels measured 4 inches and 6 inches in thickness, respectively; but the second two were nearly a foot thick, so twice that of the second wheel, and the last one was eighteen inches thick.  This implies the extra thickness was needed to accommodate two sets of mirrored mechanisms.

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

The simplest wheel to reproduce will be the one-direction wheel

I'm sure I've written on this subject previously but it bears repeating I think.

 

I have noticed that some people on the besslerwheel forum describe their ideas for reproducing the two-directional wheel; this seems to me to complicate finding the solution.  Bessler's first wheel could only turn in one direction and he only introduced the ones which could be turned in either direction, to answer the accusations that his machine was driven by clockwork.  He says that it was  a very difficult task to accomplish.

In looking for the correct path it seems sensible to take a look at the simplest machine, which was the one direction wheel.  This had to be locked to prevent it spinning, because it was in a permanent state of imbalance.  I know there are some who have dismissed this claim by Bessler and have suggested that the wheel had to stopped at a certain point where the weights would tip over and begin the rotation s soon as the brake was released.  I see no reason for adding speculation to the words written by the inventor himself; "these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’
which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and coordinated 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,"

I have emboldened the critical words; the weights keep away from the centre of gravity, followed by this comment, they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it.  What could be clearer?  The machine is continually out of balance, hence the need for the brake.

 

I performed some experiments a few years ago, with a Savonius windmill and a large fan.  I first spun the windmill with the aid of the fan and noted its speed.  Then I mounted a second Savonius windmill onto the same vertical axle.  This second one was designed to turn the other way.  I drove the two windmills with the fan and noted that although they turned in opposite directions their speeds were still similar to the first run with the single windmill.

I then linked the two windmills together.  Whereas before, the two windmills had begun to rotate spontaneously  as soon the breeze from the fan hit them, now they remained motionless.  But when I gave the joint assembly of both windmills a gentle nudge in one direction or another, it began to turn slowly at first but reached full speed in about three turns.  The speed reached was half that of the single windmill - exactly the same result as demonstrated by Bessler's two-directions wheels.

OK, this is not an unexpected result but it shows that the two-direction wheels were also performing as expected - and it also shows that the one-direction wheel also performed a expected; starting spontaneously

So we should be studying the one-direction wheels and trying to find a way to make them always out of balance.  

PS Forgive the unintentional links to the boy band One Direction!

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Wheel update - two mechanisms for proof of principle....again!

It's funny how you can think you know everything there is to know about your design and how it will act and react when in a particular configuration.  My latest design did not react as I had designed it to, but instead of causing me extreme chagrin, it surprised me by acting in an unexpected way.   I knew from the start of this configuration that there were potential variables to the way I finished the design, and I was prepared to substitute those alternatives that would still comply with the initial concept.

Imagine my surprise therefore to discover that the reaction which I had designed to occur within my planned configuration was not only prevented from happening but actually reversed itself and I realised subsequently, it turned out to be the right one!  The correct path of the movement of the weights within my wheel was not intuitively obvious, but actually it makes perfect sense.  How on earth Bessler was able to design them to work as I have now think  that they should work, is just amazing.  I have very briefly imagined that configuration in the past but have dismissed it with scarcely a thought, as being impossible to achieve in a simple mechanical arrangement.

My task now is to remake the wheel with those actions repeated ad infinitum.  I am very doubtful if I can make it with five mechanisms as I have always assumed, so will have to try it with maybe just two. I'm 'fairly' confident that this is the right path, but haven't we all been here before - too many times to dwell on!

Bessler said that when he first tested his wheel it could scarcely turn with just one cross.  This word 'cross' has been a bit of a thorn in my side for many years.  Beside describing a cross as in an X or a plus sign, it can also be used to describe the crossing of a road for example or a level-crossing, as long as the word can also be 'crossing' anything related may apply.

So the phrase seems to imply that the wheel did turn with only one crossing, albeit very slowly and/or unevenly.  In which case one crossing will do, but what does a single crossing consist of? I am unconvinced that one mechanism could achieve a full turn so I am suggesting a minimum of two were needed.  Bessler said that his weight worked in pairs so two mechanisms might comprise one crossing.

I thought that the obsession with the number five suggested five mechanisms and that this number represented the total number of mechanisms possible on one side of the wheel and he had already hinted that more than a single cross was better. So I'm going to make two--mechanism wheel, one on each side, and include my new configuration and hope for success. I should add that my original principle, encoded below, is still the mainstay of my design as without I am certain no success will follow.

One more bit of news; I received an email from a literary agent with the news that a German publisher wishes to translate my book into German and publish it before the end of this year.  Fingers crossed that this time the book appears.  I had a similar experience several years ago but nothing was published then so I am less inclined to get excited about these occasional flurries of interest from the media.

There was the Italian film which was made about Bessler which seems to have sunk without trace after one broadcast; and I'm still waiting to hear about the English documentary promised for this year too.  It looks as if I'm just going to have wait for somebody to invent Bessler's wheel again before anyone really gets excited about the subject.

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.