Same or different "Principle"

[jim_mich]

Bessler's first two public unidirectional wheels only operated in one direction.
Bessler's last two public bidirectional wheel operated in either direction.

Do you think all wheels used a same basic method of gaining energy?

Or were there two different methods of gaining energy? This would mean (assuming no fraud) that there are two possible methods of perpetual motion.

[justsomeone]

Same is my vote although I believe he shifted the weights later in his bidirectional wheels. I believe the power, per weights used, is far less for the bidirectional wheels. JMHO

[ovyyus]

It's more probable that all used the same basic principle & energy source.

[getterdone]

I think that the Prime Mover was the same, but the rest of the levers may not have been the same. He said that once the Prime Mover was understood , then many different designs would work.

P.S. those weren't his exact words.

[barksalot]

I think the same method was used for both.

The bidirectional was modification of the unidirectional one I think.

Mike

[Mark]

Your poll question stated Principle, first post narrowed it down to method of gaining energy. Still a bit vague, but generally speaking, I voted 'same'.

[pequaide]

Same: But this is the biggest reason to believe his machine was a fraud. Why would you spend a hundredth of a second thinking about making it go both directions. What is the point; other than a circus mentality. I think it would be difficult to make it go in both directions: if it was real.

[erick]

Being a proponent of the idea that the wheels ran on some sort of overbalancing system Ihave long though that the bidirectional wheels were achieve by arranging the overbalance towards the top of the wheel rather than to one or the other side. As for why he would spend the time to do this, I believe it was to show that his design was the real thing where as something driven by a spring or some other device would, in theory, be unidirectional.

My 2c.

E

[preoccupied]

Perhaps they use the same loop hole in physics but I speculate the designs are different for unidirectional and bidirectional by a lot. How many ways can an application of physics be used? There could probably be thousands of useful designs once the method is realized. I voted same "principle"

[christo4_99]

Bessler seemed to refer to the particular shape or configuration of the weights as a "principle" in the MT . I don't know if this is misinterpretation or not . Also in DT he said that the petrochium was the "principle" piece of his machine ... which I again don't know if that's a misinterpretation or a hint at a clue or possibly nothing .

[jim_mich]

Todd, once again you have your facts scrambled.

in DT he said that the petrochium was the "principle" piece of his machine ...

Bessler only mentions 'peritrochium' two times, in DT.

The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely – that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity – without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation – such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other ‘automatics’ – e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding. For this concept, my ‘principle of excess weight’, is NOT just an external appendage, an ‘added-on device’ which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cords or chains, from which it depends, permit. NO, 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 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, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.

It is, however, an incontestable truth that my much-mentioned Wheel deserves not only the name of the long-sought Perpetual Motion, but also, just as much, the name (Perpetual) Mover; since it is an example of one of the best-known of all mechanical appliances, namely a peritrochium.

I state this since I once -

1. Attached a cord or rope to the wheel’s axle, and led it over two pulleys out of the window. With the aid of this arrangement I was able to raise a chest full of stones, weighing approximately a hundredweight, as high as the height of the building itself would permit.

2. Attached some planks of hard solid wood, average crosssection (shaped like the outline of the prismatic solids) five inches, and length 7 feet, to the device; these were then moved and raised by arms attached to the axle by means of a type of cradle similar to those found in fullers’ –or paper-mills.

3. Used the motive power in the spinning peritrochium to drive an Archimedes Screw standing in a large reservoir of water, thereby raising the water and creating a veritable cascade.

He does not say that the peritrochium was the principle piece of his machine. Bessler plainly says, "these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ " The peritrochium refers to the large wheel with a rope wrapped around the axle, thus leveraging the rotational force of the wheel.

Todd, you complain that we keep correcting you, but that is because you keep making incorrect and wrong quotes.

Bessler seemed to refer to the particular shape or configuration of the weights as a "principle" in the MT . I don't know if this is misinterpretation or not.

It is you not reading carefully enough.

I could devote a whole thread on just the above Bessler quote. It is so full of information. But when wrong assumptions are made, then this quote of Bessler's will lead you astray.

[christo4_99]

I could really care less about any of this in the sense of taking peoples anal criticism . Just feel free from now on to take anything I post as my correct opinion without feeling the need to "correct " my "opinion" .

Here are the specific quotes , and since he had referred to the wheel as a petrochium at one point I didn't see the harm in calling it that myself . :
Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen. The base of the cylinder is 12 Rhenish feet in diameter. The height (or thickness) is between 15 and 18 inches. The axle (or shaft) passing through the center is 6 feet long and 8 inches thick cross-sectionally.
From DT
And this:
2. Because balls have been the main principle of almost every
mobilist, the good gentlemen have tended to cherish this concept and
one finds it in various books on mathematics and mechanics and with
the accompanying illustration the mathematicians have generally tried
to prove the impossibility of perpetual motion, as though there was no
better figure available for such proof. In particular, Jungnickel has
presented three such machines in his unusual book entitled ‘Key to
Mechanics’, on pages 243, 246 and 247, offering compelling proof of
the impossibility of perpetual motion. Sturm also uses this figure, and
even the late Leopold uses it in his Machine Treatise, of which he was
able to complete only 8 sections prior to his death.
From MT

And Jim even if I had all my facts straight and completely and tidily organized , and if I knew everything that you know , if I was the best student on this subject I still wouldn't know how to build a P.M. machine . But I don't let it bother me because I know what I know and that's good enough for me . Anyway , in my opinion the above is a bit of an overreaction and uncalled for scolding . And yes I realize I didn't spell " peritrochium " correctly .

[ruggerodk]

Bessler said something like "a wheel is perhaps too small for his PM mech".

Can anyone point to where he said that?

Thanks
ruggero ;-)

[MrTim]

That would be my sig (below), and it is NOT from Bessler.... ;-)

[ruggerodk]

Alright...thanks ;-)