Why gravity is a source of energy for continuous motion.

Following some comments on my last blog, I thought I'd make my case again here rather than adding to the 60 or so comments already in.

I realise that the vast majority do not accept the possibility that a gravity-wheel can be driven continuously just by the force of gravity alone as, I believe, Bessler's was. But if I state my case often enough, maybe enough people, cleverer than I, will take it on board and devise a better explanation. Until then...

My analogy that the force of gravity was similar in its action to the wind or a current of water, and it was therefore perfectly reasonable to believe one could use it as a source of energy, is routinely scorned by most people. They have taken exception to the above analogy, ignoring the fact that is just an analogy. An analogy is an inference based on the idea that if two different things show a similarity in one sense, it may be possible to draw conclusions about other aspects of the thing. It is a way of looking at something differently to try to understand it. I was not suggesting that gravity was in fact either a 'wind' or a 'stream'.

The argument against, goes something like this. Air is a collection of gases, flowing molecules - and water is similar - and when they impact on certain surfaces we can make use of them to drive machinery - but, on the other hand, because gravity is an attraction between two masses, and there are no physical particles available (such as molecules of gas) to impact on the machinery in a way we can use, it is said that it is not capable of supplying energy in the way that Bessler seems to have done. But Bessler did not know about molecules or the laws affecting gravity; he could only observe and experiment. His empirical evidence gave him the answer, and as he said, "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."

How anyone can read that sentence and not understand that it means he used gravity, is beyond me.  But of course as some have suggested he might have been lying or incorporating hidden meaning within the text -  or he didn't mean gravity alone.  But for me it is plain and simple and he used gravity alone to drive his machine.

What gravity is, and what air and water are, is not relevant to my argument; the only thing that matters is that wind can move objects of mass, a current of water can move objects of mass and gravity can move objects of mass. It doesn't matter how they do it, just that they do.

One of the arguments used against the possibility of gravity as an energy source is that gravity represents potential energy. It's there if you've already put in the work. There's potential energy in a book on a shelf because you've lifted it and placed it there. Once you use that energy, when the book falls to the floor, it's gone until you lift it back up again. This is true - and it also applies to wind and water currents. Again, the work has to be put in first to gain the energy output. Release a balloon in the wind and watch it get carried along by the wind, and then grab it and take it back to the starting point (upwind) to release it again. Or put a toy boat in a stream and the same thing applies. It will float downstream and you can pick it up and take it back upstream again.  Just because we have found a way of obtaining work from wind and water streams that converts the force of wind and water to rotational energy output, does not necessarily rule out the same potential conversion of the gravitational force.

And that defines a conservative force. Since the work done by wind and water currents can be reversed, i.e. the object moved can be taken back upstream, or upwind, to be released and able to be moved again, they are conservative forces, as is gravity.  Notice the word up in upwind and upstream, its a clue.

I might not be able to add any comments for a day or two next week as I'm off to Rome on Tuesday and I'm busy writing some notes for the interview.  I'll post a blog when I get back and tell you about it.

JC

Bessler's Gravitywheel, the Bessler-Collins Project, an Italian Documentary and the five mechanisms discovery.

Now that I've got the alternative theories about Bessler's wheel out of the way, we can return to my own theory that it was driven solely by gravity and that this does not violate any laws of physics. I know that not all of my readers agree totally with me but I'm certain that I will prove to be correct.

I'm writing a lengthy document, called the 'Bessler-Collins Project' which sets out my case and I will publish it when I'm happy with it. It incorporates all the clues, both graphic and textual, as well as the work I've done so far. I'm doing this just in case I drop off my perch prematurely!

I'm pleased to say that the Italian documentary is still on, and I'm just waiting on a date to travel to Rome.

I am back in the workshop and in the process of building the mechanism again and still making further discoveries in Bessler's papers - I've found further verification that he used five mechanisms and I know in this instance it does not refer to codes.

This implies that there is a sound reason for needing five mechanisms and I think I know why. Many people have suggested that one mechanisms would suffice to prove the wheel and I agree that it should certainly be able to initiate some rotation, but in my opinion it will be shown that it can only rotate the wheel so far and regardless of being in balance elsewhere it will not rotate further. I know why - or at least I think I do, but I prefer to keep quiet about that for now.

JC

The Leiden Jar, static electricity, a solenoid and some springs!

This is in response to a long email I received about the Leyden (Leiden jar). It is not my opinion, in fact I don't think it has anything to do with Bessler, but in case I'm wrong I thought I'd air the views of another, no matter how wacky -  he's aware of my opinion of his ideas.

I mentioned in my biography on Bessler, the coincidence of Pieter van Musschenbroek, a professor of physics at Leiden University, inventing the Leiden jar, an early method of storing static electricity, in 1745 - the year Bessler died, (it was also discovered by Ewald Georg von Kleist in Germany the previous year). I had previously examined the remote possibility that Bessler used static electricity in some way to provide the additional force often suggested as necessary, to make a gravity-driven wheel complete a full rotation, and recently the idea has reappeared in a couple of emails.

The story of the first test of the Leiden jar and its effect on van Musschenbroek's student helper, Andreas Cunaeus, is well reported in wikipedia. He was virtually knocked out by the strength of the electric shock he received and was unwell for two days following. Van Musschenbroek went on to arrange some spectacular demonstrations of the power of the device, and after having experienced the shock himself he wrote, in a letter to his French colleague Réaumur, that the whole kingdom of France could not compel him to repeat the experience. The French priest Jean Antoine Nollet, a great popularizer of electrical phenomena, learned of the Leiden experiments via this letter and lost no time in contriving even more spectacular demonstrations. They culminated in one involving 700 monks joined in a circle to a Leiden jar!

It was suggested that if 's Gravesande, being a close friend and colleague of Musschenbroek, was so intently examining Bessler's wheel perhaps it was because he suspected some electric component at work within the wheel.

The static electricity stored in the Leiden jar was generated in the first place by transforming mechanical work into electric energy, usually by means of friction against a glass. Jan Ingenhousz invented an electrostatic machine made of plate glass - in 1746.

It will be recalled that Pieter van Musschenbroek, was the guy who was contacted by Daniel Schumacher, Peter the Great's librarian, charged with buying experimental equipment for his universities and of course it was Schumacher who negotiated with Bessler to buy his wheel for Peter.

My correspondent wondered if, perhaps Bessler had already discovered how to generate and store static electricity in a capacitor, or something akin to the Leiden jar. This he might achieve by including glass plates within his wheel, as per Jan Ingenhousz's method. The capacitor would have to be fully charged before he began. However I have questioned whether it is possible to temporarily power a magnet by discharging a capacitor suddenly. I suspect that the resistance in the magnet's coils might be too high for the sudden discharge of static electricity to overcome, but I'm not knowledgeable about this.

He went on to suggest that if it were possible then it might lead one to suspect that Bessler had designed an electromagnet or even a simple solenoid, powered by sudden discharges of static electricity which could be used to deflect weights on springs, thus overcoming the wheel's reluctance to continue to turn. Bessler, you will recall, said that he used springs but not in the way you think.

I know - it's crazy, but I like it!

JC

Update - and the Conversion of Centrifugal Force Into Linear Force and Motion

Well it seems to me that the Italian interview has gone the way of previous offers from the media. I had an email a couple of weeks ago saying that they were unable to obtain permission to film within the Trivulziana library at Castello Sforzesco, which doesn't surprise me, so an alternative date has been promised for an interview in Rome. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation, but if something concrete does materialise I'll let you know.

My own efforts to reconstruct Bessler's wheel progress at a snail's pace because of frequent calls on my time from other commitments. I'm busy trying to make my garden (yard?) fox-proof at the present. We have a problem with urban foxes and they seem to be living next door - you should see the holes leading to their dens! Now back to matters Bessler.

Some years ago David E. Cowlishaw produced an invention he called a Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster, this was a way of the mechanically generating a unidirectional force, with which it was hoped one could direct a vehicle or a boat, in any direction, or indeed drive a space ship. It would replace gear trains, propellers and jets, as a device for generating thrust

It was said that this device was a consequence of the variable inertia property of matter. I would suggest that it was an example of parametric oscillation.

If Bessler's wheel is successfully built, it too will rely on parametric oscillation, (see my article on 'kiiking') and might show the way to a successful inertial propulsion engine - providing the correct configuration is used, to swing weights around, in such a way that the circular movement ends up producing a unidirectional thrust. In much the same way that an electric motor reversed becomes an electricity generator, so Bessler's wheel reversed, or driven, could be designed to produce a unidirectional force from weights rotating about the wheel axle.

There have been a number of claims to have successfully built an inertial thrust engine but I am not aware of any reliable examples - although someone may correct this impression. The point I am making here is that, just as in theory one could reverse the direction of energy in Bessler's wheel to produce linear force and motion and this would prove that inertial propulsion engines were a valid area of research, so on the other hand would the successful construction of an inertial propulsion engine also prove that Bessler's wheel was a valid area for research.

JC

There would be enough energy output from Bessler's wheel to power every home in the world.

Sorry to bang on about this but it is important in my opinin. There's been some discussions on the forum about how much power Bessler's wheel could generate and it has been argued that Bessler's wheel will never be of any practical use. I quoted some of Bessler's words and one particular sentence that struck me afresh was, "If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis."

I know there are many, both here and on the forum, who are sceptical about the amount of power which would be available from a modern gravity wheel. I have a sanguine disregard for this scepticism and ask you to consider this.

There are two conclusions to be drawn from the above quote; firstly that the inventor could make his wheels more or less powerful, regardless of the apparent external dimensions; and secondly by placing more wheels on the same axle he could increase the power output.

The Kassel wheel was able to lift a chest of stones weighting 70 pounds on the end of a rope, but I have argued that it was designed to turn more slowly to increase its chances of surviving the longevity test. Now picture two or more Kassel wheels, both mounted on the same axle. Together, they should be able to lift 140 pounds or more, depending how many are added. Applying the first conclusion from the above quote means that the 140 pounds lifted could be increased - elsewhere he claims a fourfold increase. So possibly, the 140 pounds lifted could be increased to 560 pounds, or a quarter of a ton. Given due consideration, I am sure that there is enough potential to run a home electricity generator, and overcome the maximum possible load, as long as there are enough wheels of the optimum configuration on each axle.

By 'optimum configuration', I mean a wheel which can only turn one way. Two-way wheels were balanced and needed a push to start them, therefore I do not subscribe to the idea that the mechanisms could turn the wheel in either direction. My idea of mirror image mechanisms is more logical to my mind, in which case removing the reverse-turning mechanisms would reduce an unnecessary additional load imposed on them, and remove their extra weight. This configuration would be less complicated, less likely to suffer problems and probably have more power available.

So I am confident that when it is finally built, Bessler's wheel will provide electrcity for every house - everywhere.

JC

Why the Kassel wheel turned so slowly and what this could mean for us today.

I posted this thought on the Bessler forum but I think the message got lost in the argument I was trying to make, so I repeat the point here.

If Bessler was able to make his first three wheels turn at 50 RPM regardless of whether they were one or two-way wheels, why would he make his final and most robustly built one, only able to turn at about half the speed of the others?

My suggestion was that it was done in anticipation of the the long endurance test, so he could be sure that it would suffer less wear and tear because it would only have to to turn half the number of times, compared to the Merseberg wheel.

We know he claimed to be able to make wheels that could turn slowly or faster, so the slow rotation inherent in the Kassel wheel was deliberate. But there was a disadvantage to this decision, the slower RPM was less powerful, in my opinion, so he added extra weights on either side of the existing ones to give the wheel a little more power, and that is why the Kassel wheel was thicker than the Merseberg one, which was the same diameter, but only two-thirds the depth.  It seems to me that a slower turning wheel might produce less power than a faster turning one? If so that would explain the extra depth to his wheel when compared to the Merseberg one - he needed to add some extra weights.

On the above understanding I suggest that it would be possible to produce a much faster turning wheel complete with extra weights that could generate the kind of power we seek for our modern electrical requirements.

JC

Could Bessler's wheel be the answer to the global recession?

I had a dream last night that inspired me greatly. I dreamed that I had finished the wheel and it worked! I posted a video on youtube showing the wheel with all the detail about how it worked clearly revealed, and when I awoke the next morning (still in my dream) and looked out the window, the road in which I live was filled with photographers, reporters and TV vans etc, all waiting for me to appear.

I was interviewed and said that this discovery would end the global recession and create growth and employment through out the globe, and would prove to be the greatest invention of the century.

Then I really woke up - what a disappointment to know it was only a dream! But I must have been thinking along those lines even if only subconsciously, and I think perhaps there is an element of truth in the dream - I think this machine could have a major impact on unemployment.

I looked up "global recession" on google and found this statement in the first link I looked at "The biggest threat to the global economy is the dearth of growth and jobs rather than the size of government budget deficits."

So I return to the hunt for a solution with new determination, and so should we all - and anyway, I don't want acres and acres of windmills and solar panels covering the English countryside and that could happen unless we can find the answer.

JC

6th June 1712 + 300 years = 6th June 2012

In my last post I tried to make the point that without a small additional force we cannot make the wheel turn a full circle, and since no other force has been found that accomplishes this simple fact, I maintain my belief that there was only gravity required to drive the wheel. To my mind, believing that there is this other mysterious force available is far less believeable than that two bites at gravity were taken by each mechanism. I respect other people's opinions but I can't help feeling that there are going to be some people with egg on their faces when the solution is found.

I have just read an excellent explanation as to why these other forces such as centrifugal and the other ones associated with a spinning wheel cannot ever be sufficient to supply that extra force. See the Besslerwheel forum response to my post entitled, "A theory about why the number five is so prominent in Johann Bessler's works." by nicbordeaux. The link is at http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93780&highlight=#93780

Thanks to technoguy for reminding me about next year's 300th anniversary of Bessler's first exhibition of his gravitywheel at Gera. I hadn't forgotten but these things have a habit of creeping up on you and all of a sudden it's here and nothing has been done in preparation. Somehow we must find a way to celebrate it, ideally with a working version of Bessler's wheel. While I am optimistic that this will be achieved by then, I have to be realistic and admit that after 300 years of failures, the odds are against us succeeding, so we might just miss that date!

Nevertheless, I'm confident that someone will succeed in the next couple of years and I intend to do something to draw people's attention to this significant date - why? Because if a working wheel has not been made by then I think we shall need more publicity to attract new minds to the problem. Maybe none of us 'oldies' familar with the story will succeed and it will take someone with a completely fresh outlook to finally win the prize. How can we grab some headlines? I don't know and I'm not really into making a public spectacle of myself,at least not deliberately - however....

From 27 July to 12 August 2012 the London Olympics will be taking place and the eyes of the world will turned this way, and maybe with all the journalists and other media present and probably looking for stories to send home, before the Olympics start, perhaps I can grab some media attention? I don't have any ideas yet but I'm working on it.

JC

Gravity can be used to power gravitywheels continuously because it is a conservative force.

Many people believe that Johann Bessler's claims were genuine, in which case an acceptable theory which fits in with modern science, has to be found which will allow a gravity-driven (or gravity-powered) wheel to work. There is strong scepticism against such a device for good reason. It appears to go against everything we have been taught. Putting on one side, for a moment, the statement which says you can't do it because gravity is a conservative force, there is the seeming impossibility of raising a weight again once it has fallen, causing a wheel to overbalance. That energy appears to be lost and therefore an additional energy source is sought which will bridge the gap or close the circle.

Various methods have been suggested such as using ambient temperature changes or static electricity or even a solenoid valve on a spring. The truth is that no one has come up with a viable additional energy source - except for me! We know Bessler said his weights worked in pairs; I have suggested that the secondary, 'shifter', weight fell and in doing so moved the primary or 'shifted' weight into a position which unbalanced the wheel. The additional energy source is therefore also gravity. There are two weights, one falls and has no effect on overbalancing the wheel but the second weight is moved by the action of the first weight and it is that one's position which overbalances the wheel.  There are two pieces of gravity used separately,

I have, in the past compared the force of gravity to the wind in an attempt to show that it may be a conservative force but that does not mean it cannot be used to drive a weighted wheel continuously. The wind is used to drive windmills, waterwheels and boats, why not gravity?

Because my argument rested on the theory that wind was a conservative force I sought support for the idea from the internet. Surely I would find either a definitive statement that wind was conservative or nonconservative. Imagine my surprise therefore to discover the extraordinary fact that I am unable to find a single web site which definitively states that wind is either conservative or nonconservative! Nobody discusses it - or nobody is able to say one way or the other.

I did find one fleeting reference which stated that "wind drag is friction and therefore non-conservative". The example referred to a racing car and the effect of wind drag which was therefore friction and so a nonconservative force. I agree in that context, but let us consider some simple definitions secured from the internet.

"The work done by a conservative force in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken." This also applies to the wind, we only measure the strength of the wind by seeing how far it moves something from A to B, the path is irrelevant.

I can lift a fallen rock against gravity and allow it to fall again. I can also catch a balloon blowing in the wind towards me and carry it back upwind and allow it to blow downwind again. There is a clue in the words "UPwind" and "DOWNwind".

"A conservative force can be thought of as a force that conserves mechanical energy. Suppose a particle starts at point A, and there is a constant force F acting on it. Then the particle is moved around by other forces, and eventually ends up at A again. Though the particle may still be moving, at that instant when it passes point A again, it has traveled a closed path. If the net work done by F at this point is 0, then F passes the closed path test. Any force that passes the closed path test for all possible closed paths is classified as a conservative force". When the wind causes a windmill to rotate, the blades travel a closed path so the wind is a conservative force.

"For non-conservative forces, the mechanical energy that is lost (not conserved) has to go somewhere else, by conservation of energy. Usually the energy is turned into heat, for example the heat generated by friction. In addition to heat, friction also often produces some sound energy. The water drag on a moving boat converts the boat's mechanical energy into not only heat and sound energy, but also wave energy at the edges of its wake. These and other energy losses are irreversible because of the second law of thermodynamics."  The windmills provide useful and usable energy - it is not 'lost' - which can grind flour and pump water etc. So wind is not a nonconservative force.

"Conservative Forces are reversible forces, meaning that the work done by a conservative force is recoverable, i.e. you can get out any work you put in or vise versa." Wind is a reversible force. Not only does the wind drive windmills but, for instance, you can electrically drive a windmill and produce wind. The wind is a reversible conservative force. use an electric fan and place a small windmill in the path of the wind. The windmill will begin to turn.

Saying that gravity cannot power a gravitywheel because it is a conservative force is incorrect. However this does not solve the problem of how to make it work for us but it does show that it is not impossible just because it is a conservative force.

JC