BUOYANCY

[Dwylbtzle]

yes--according to either theory, his or mine, there would be a sliding sound--and then a thunk
and even with his model
someone would obviously say " i heard the weights falling"
so he could be right--ABSOLUTELY

here's the difference
with mine you have to take: the lid off a folgers plastic coffee container-
-some super glue, some tape, a pin, a box cutter and a few household articles
(of course, with bessler they'd be the easily available equivalents of his day)_
and think: hmm i wonder if i did this...
in a way bessler might have wondered about
and then see that it works--even without knowing or caring why
and then build the big heavy duty model from that beginning
and it ends up violating no law of physics
but it taps a known energy

with his model
and i'm not saying his idea doesn't work--stay with me, here
but you have to make a PURE PMM
that he himself says violates the known physical laws
and it erases entropy--friction, inertia-who knows what--well, maybe not inertia
and not only spins forever but does heavy work and starts itself when stopped
all without using gravity--the most abundantly ubiquitous available IN YER FACE energy on the earth then or now
and you'd have to have some heavy weights spinning in relation to each other with mechanisms i can't fathom, sliding them back and forth
and around and around in relation to each other i guess
trying different variations of what i don't know yude be thinking of arriving at (with anything in his day one back then might be familiar with)
all the while as yer trying to come up with the correct thing
from scratch
inventing with malice aforethought, and out of whole cloth, a whole new branch of physics having no book to read on any prerequisite or attending subject to spark ideas from
(and remember most books back then were copied by hand--the gutenberg press having been invented in 1440, in the holy roman empire, and mostly used to print religious texts for the first coupla hundred years--but what books anyway???)
and it CREATES a new source of energy--in some way that jim doesn't explain (where that energy really comes from)
and you'd have to be handy with newtonian mathematical formulas, as jim apparently is, or i can't see any human on earth having the balls to try to do all that
and isaac newton was born on Christmas day, 1642
and it would take some thinking on all these lines by a guy born in 1681
so i guess that MIGHT have possibly been the case
but just barely- newton wouldn't exactly have been household reading at that time yet
and even if he'd read newton he'd have to come to the conclusion that he was wrong about his physical laws and launch into all the above anyway
unless he (bessler) indeed WAS that monkey who accidentally typed the works of shakespeare
after a few random attempts


either model possible, sure....

NOW ALL THIS is NOT to say jimmich's idea wouldn't work
but, jim, i'd be DAMNED if i'd give bessler the credit for thinking of it, buddy
MY idea? wonderful, i'm one of the greatest minds of the 16th century and i proved it
and i've taken the human race to a diner in indianapolis
YER idea?, if real, would take us to the stars and be the tits disneyland hawaii 100,000 years from now
more important than tool making, fire, the wheel, and agriculture, all rolled into one
that's another difference between the two models, so think on that
mine won't even work in outer space
my idea i might accredit bessler with--not yers

[James_Arne]

Dwylbtzle,
One over sight people make is saying that gravity is a conservative force.
What they do not consider is that it is like a river that constantly flows. Still,
it is as Bessler wrote, to understand his motion, you do need a discerning eye
when considering his Maschinen Tractate.
When you understand this motion, then you can start to begin to understand
his words. They to Bessler would be like Orpheus playing a song.

edited to add; His Apologia Poetica is to apologize for the wheel he destroyed. His "The Triumphant Orffryrean Perpetual Motion" is the wheel he built after that and in parts of it, he notes where he made changes to it's mechanics. This wheel most likely worked much better which would be one reason for calling it a triumph. it could be this is when he has considered himself to have conquered perpetual motion.

Jim

[jim_mich]

His Apologia Poetica is to apologize for the wheel he destroyed.

Bessler has never apologized for his invention - an apologia is a defense of something. Bessler's Apologia Poetica is his defensive poetry.

See: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9096#89096

One over sight people make is saying that gravity is a conservative force.

That is NOT an over site. It is a simple scientific fact. No amount of belief to the contrary will make it any different.

[Bill_Mothershead]

Thought you might be interested in this chaps simulations as it seems closely related to your thoughts Jim.

http://www.overunity.com/12550/the-secr ... 28896/#new

Thanks Fletcher.

Kinda reminds me of these from years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFTnVdWqevc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOcy11dkcgg

Kinda hijacked this thread seeing how
pendulums might not be related to buoyancy.

[James_Arne]

Jim,
With the accusations Bessler was caused to suffer by that first wheel of his and then his ultimately destroying, it would have saddened him. So much work, so little to show for it but what ended as being an ugly episode.
he had feelings which seems to be over looked sometimes, he was after all, a person that was probably alone. And his wheel probably made it more so.
A reference to Mt's 26 & 27 ? " by means of whose weight revolutions continue as long as the cords or chains on which they hang "
And then a reference to Mt 20 ?, " 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 ".
>> That is NOT an over site. It is a simple scientific fact. No amount of belief to the contrary will make it any different. <<

kind of goes against saying Bessler built a perpetual wheel. I guess this is where we are different, I believe Bessler built a working perpetual wheel based on principles of mechanical engineering.
This means he found a way of using the potential energy in a suspended body or mass. Something ti seems people miss the science of. it goes like this, if a mass has an average velocity of zero, then at 1 kg, it still has 9.8 Newton's of force. Why not convert this into kinetic energy in another mass ?
I guess to understand this you would have to understand the math and as kaine put it, I can't because my educationa and experience do not matter. I find that to be a very conservative statement.
And unlike you Jim, i do have a background in engineering.

edited to add; Jim_Mich, I do owe you an aplogy. this is your all's forum and I should go by your rules. it's my exposure to engineering that I have to fault for leading me astray. After all, look at all those hydro electric dams along the Columbia river converting gravity into terra watts of electricity.
I guess thinking about resisting the flow of something gravity is acting upon can generate energy is plain wrong and now I am willing to admit it.
Resistance can not create energy. I stand corrected and hope you accept my most humble apologies.

James_Arne

[Furcurequs]

One over sight people make is saying that gravity is a conservative force.

That is NOT an over site. It is a simple scientific fact. No amount of belief to the contrary will make it any different.

I believe you've both made major oversights!

...at least in regards to your spelling.

:P

Anyway, I thought I might weigh in here just a little bit.

Though I don't want to share very specific details about the devices I'm working on just yet, I can speak in generalities.

None of my devices use buoyancy, but if any of them were to work, it appears they would indeed derive their motive force from gravity. With that said, though, I'm not sure if any energy gain would really come from just gravity alone.

In that the devices would be sitting on and held to the earth, there would also appear to be resultant forces on the earth when they are in operation. So, considering all the applicable "laws" of science - including the conservation of angular and linear momentums - it appears that the energy might actually come mostly from the earth itself.

In other words, the energy gain may come at the cost of a very slight change in the motion of the earth.

Of course, though, until I get something working, this is mostly but speculation.

...and only government, corporate and/or academic institution funded theoretical physicists are allowed to get away with that!

;)

Dwayne

[eccentrically1]

Yes, the witnesses said that they "heard" the weights fall to one side of the wheel. My point is/was (and it has been discussed before by myself and others) that people cannot "hear" weights fall. They can only hear weights hit.

I think that is what he meant; the wheel started to rotate when the weight was first heard to hit something, {rather than "heard to fall"( 'through the air')}. That would be how most people would describe something falling.
We don't hear things falling through the air, like you say.
I'd say "I heard something fall" after it hit the ground. I wouldn't say "I don't hear something falling through the air and it's about to hit the ground". Ergo, the witness wouldn't say "the wheel began to rotate after the weight was not heard falling through the air,and then heard hitting the board". Economy of words, so to speak. Yes?

Falling implies that the weights were moved by gravity. That is an assumption. The wheel was rotated. Then a thump was heard. The witness assumed that the wheel was rotated by falling weights. The witness stated that the wheel began to self rotate as soon as the first weight was heard to fall. What the witness should have stated was that the wheel started to rotate as soon as the first impact of the weight was heard. The witness could not have known the reason for the motion of the weights, except that the noise began when the wheel was rotated.

But even if we say that's what he should have stated (that the wheel started to rotate as soon as the first impact of the weight was heard), it doesn't really change anything.
For all we know, the wheel might have started rotating before the weight impact was heard, and the witness could have misstated that fact.

And can you blame the witnesses for assuming the weights were falling under the influence of gravity, and being the reason for rotation? They only had the sounds to inform them; and Bessler's word that the weights were the reason. The witnesses were as baffled as we are.

Note that only the bi-directional wheels made banging noises. The uni-directional wheels made sliding or scratching type noises. In other words the witnesses could hear parts moving against other parts, which really tells us nothing except that it was obvious that something inside was moving.

So what is the more likely cause for motion of weights within a balanced wheel? Did the wheel magically become unbalanced when rotated? For that to happen it would require that the weights be lifted so that they could fall. If such a wheel was rotated slowly while lifting the weights, then if let go before they fell the wheel would have been out-of-balance backwards. And there would have been back-torque when initially rotated. No back torque or out-of-balance was noted when the wheel was being started. When rotated very slowly and let go, it simply came to a stop, due most likely to friction. But when given a little faster push then the weights inside the wheel were heard to hit, and from that point on the wheel picked up speed until it reaches is normal RPM.

Even if the wheel was balanced, something had to be rotating it, whether it was the weights with magic mechanisms, CF, aerodynamic lift, coriolis force, earth's rotation or the maid.

Weights in motion eventually lose the energy they're given unless it's replaced, and a balanced wheel they could have been in would stop too.

Was it gravity that cause the weights to move, or did rotation of the wheel cause CF, which in turn caused the weights to move?

I strongly believe Bessler's wheel was a motion machine and not a gravity wheel.

It just seems like after 300 years of searching for a gravity solution, that is such a gravity solution existed, then someone, somewhere, would have found it.

CF would be great if it wasn't a reaction to CpF.

It's sort of like when someone says gravity does work without acknowledging the work that is put in the field first. The CF can't appear until the CpF appears. If the two didn't exactly cancel, we couldn't have circular motion in the first place.

I'm sorry, rant over. Somebody solve this thing!

[Dwylbtzle]

James A--the fact bessler went mad and died a broke poet always made me think his idea was real
why drive yerself nuts over a hoax?

Jimmich: gravity can remain a conservative force as evaluated with newtonian physics--and a gravity engine or wheel can still arrange a method of tapping it to do something if you include some effect or aspect of quantum mechanics (the cheat) now that sounds all collegiate and grad school but as i say, one doesn't need to know how to make a phone to place a call
i think bessler just saw something he could add and didn't know WHAT dimension it came from (one of the five models of string theory required 27 dimensions--i think they're now leaning towards 11) the pendulums are certainly placed strategically (outside the wheel) to draw my suspicions--but then again that's why they MIGHT be a red herring he mighta been deathly afraid it was too simple and wanted to dress it up with complications--but i have no proof of that at all---'tis just a sus

edit: with my BFD model the cheat involves something ( i think) attending a possibility afforded by the strong nuclear force (though i may be stating that wrong: maybe only from something that that makes possible: and yer really ending up mainly dealing with the EM force)--the toy involves a phenon involving a facilty of photons--but it's not light so no it's isn't a laser--and the jelly wheel for all i know came from the weak atomic force involving the decay in the welsh kids brain atoms so you'd have the trifecta sweep of cheats in there
(see the cheat thread)
but if bessler used any of these he wouldn't know it

[James_Arne]

Dwylbtzle,
I've always thought a part of his bitterness came from the attacks he had to endure. Jealous people you know.
What started getting me to think he was legit was when I heard his wheel(s) had many compartments. To me, this meants a lot of empty space, kept the weight down. Then I started getting into his drawings and I was like a kid in a candy store. People just do not appreciate the engineering knowledge he demonstrates.
And oh so many clues. It reminds me of Hansel and Gretel, follow the bread crumbs.
Also, since he quoted the Bible a lot I tended to doubt he would play a hoax since his faith seemed to be quite important to him.
I know I have his wheel figured out but it's like I've told some people I know, I build it, it works, that's engineering.
Thing is, I've been kept from having a family so would have no one that really matters to share the triumph or conquest with. It would come up empty.
One thing people have over looked though and that is when you look at the reasons why something can't work, you'll never learn to understand how it can work. I've heard so many times it's about "PROVING" something when with Bessler, it should be about demonstrating something and that would be that Bessler did have the intelligence to know and understand how to build such a wheel.

James_A

[Dwylbtzle]

Kinda hijacked this thread seeing how
pendulums might not be related to buoyancy.

no not nescafe'--the pendulums struck me as possibly either a red herring OR something that might involve the same principle buoyancy uses--and would be the one and only way i could see bessler incorporating some tricky cheat that DID involve buoyancy
i haven't figured out exactly what that would be
because i think it probably isn't what he used so i'm kinda automatically disinclined to strain my brain in that direction--being lazy
but the idea of a piston driving air in a watery environment to somehow get the cheat you could get from compressed air....?
and that might involve two opposable pendulums somehow...?
MAYYYYbe
so not off topic i say
it COULD be the only way he mighta used a different cheat than what i'm using
i can think of many things that one could use as examples of the general idea of how you'd have to use a cheat and how a cheat might work
but only two that i can see right now
for actually building a gravity engine
buoyancy i can't figure except in a NON wheel--but still possible there
and for a wheel one that involves the facility of photons--but which isn't light...(well A facilty of photons--not all photons that exist end up becoming light--they end up doing other things between atoms)
and all these aspects are used by people all the time--they just don't think about any of them-- most of you probably have some things that use the principle i'm thinking of in yer house or even on yer persons right now
that's another big hint as to my idea
i don't want to blab it, but i want to leave enough hints that someone COULD figure it out some day
in case that becomes necessary

[James_Arne]

Bill_mothershead,
Here is a design of water pumping water. Not quite buoyancy but is different. It uses a cycle to work.
And when Bessler used levers, it was in principle (engineering that is)
the same, he pumped something.
Am going to take a break from pm until I am ready to build. Any more, am more interested in building.

James_A

p.s. this is something basic that can work. probably a good place to start to get an idea of what it takes to build something that could work.

edit; forgot to add the drawing lmao @ myself
edit to add; accessAlex from Italy came up with the idea of using a second water bucket to reset the pump and primary water bucket. I thought it was a major improvement over what I had thougth of.
In case you're wondering, when the top reservoir drains into the top bucket, it drops pumping the water back into the top reservoir and lifting the lower water bucket.
then the water empties into the lower water bucket causing it to drop and lifting the pump (and priming it, gravity assist) and lifting the top bucket up to the resrvoir where it open valvess the flapper valve so it can once again be filled.
Flapper would work well with this type of pmm. if you think about it, it will make sense. with the pump, a bladder that is like a snadwich bag could be used. This would mean the pump wouldn't need a seal around the piston. Just saying. Hopefully I can take that break until I can build which would probably be next year sometime.

Jim

[Dwylbtzle]

Dwylbtzle,
One over sight people make is saying that gravity is a conservative force.
What they do not consider is that it is like a river that constantly flows.

i don't know if it's "a conservative force" or not--because it's not a force--there are 3 real forces in quantum mechanics--the strong atomic force--the weak atomic force--and the electromagnetic force
and then they call gravity the fourth "FORCE" but it's just the observable effects of a space/time warp generated by mass

so what i see is: a guy comes to a constantly flowing river--and he sets a millwheel down into it, but he submerges the whole wheel and then says "damn, a river is a conservative force" because he can't get the wheel to spin
if he used a CHEAT--which, in this case, might be a platform that allowed the water to hit the bottom of the wheel only
he'd be fine
and the definition of the river wouldn't have been altered

if you envision a see saw:--you can have two equal weights with gravity hitting everything equally
and you move one weight towards the center--gravity for some reason has more effect on the distant weight and less on the weight nearest the fulcrum "light on one side but heavy on the other"--but you haven't changed gravity

the classic (bogus) gravity wheel diagram shows a wheel with gravity submerging it-(which thing is just automatically happening)-it's hitting every part of the wheel equally--so then the diagrams have
what become see saws radiating from the center--the center is the fulcrum, and when one weight is closer to the center than it's couterpart on the other side of the wheel, that imparts downward force on the wheel where the weight is more towards the outside--but you have an equal amount of little see saws, so everything finds it's equilibrium, eventually

so the diagrams then resort to trying to use some gizmos to keep the weights closer to the center on one side
but they expect just the gravity coming down to supply some (the) extra energy to activate the efficacy of the mind numbing series of rube goldberg gizmos--and it never works that way and never will
it becomes a headache machine--(which would be a great name for a thrash-punk band, come to think of it)
but if you used some other free energy to reset the weights along SOME of the see saws, you'd have it
the newton cheating dishonest quantum mechanic (who is yer cousin) would have arranged it for you "fix ya up, cuz!"--at cousin prices (free)

if you want to try to make the energy you can get from tapping MORE gravity thru buoyancy to be the cheat...
hint: if yer not required to get all rube goldberg--(because yer insisting on making a wheel)--and yer thinking of buoyancy to ju-jitsu flip gravity (levity)--(which could work in a wheel, i guess, i just never see how i'd wanna bother)...

try to get SO SIMPLE yer not even using anything to buoy up
so you wouldn't even CALL it "buoyancy" it's just be "the principle buoyancy uses"
and don't try to lever anything or drag something down and then let it go up again
that's trapping you in conservation again
AND...
the principle buoyancy uses would only be usable AFTER the augment that allows you to do the cheat before you start to engage the devices that do the work
otherwise it can't be used as some direct functionality in itself
that's where everyone trips up
yule cheat yerself if you try that

don't fight newton
get around him

[rasselasss]

Basic chemical reactions i am sure we all learned in school...water/quicklime...vinegar/bicarbonate of soda to name a few ,could Bessler have "harnessed"the energy produced to assist or to power a wheel, buoyancy or such,just a thought i don't profess expertise on this subject matter but i do know these materials were available in the Geographical area of his location at that time.

[daxwc]

Well we do know the newspaper called Bessler a chemist. He admits he was taught alchemy; a lot of inventions arrive from the workplace and what we were taught. But I don't think Bessler was a fraud out right, he was just sly with his wording.

[Dwylbtzle]

if he used chemicals to make a gas stream he woulda had to have had a hell of a supply, cooking in there--(to keep the work produced [and demonstrated] going for such long periods)
and he woulda had to have masked the sound--and then he woulda had to have explained it was a hoax when he finally got someone to back him financially--but he never did get anyone--and then he got heavily PISSED at the world for the rest of his life
and he ate himself up inside--and smashed the wheel out of bitter spite
and sat mumbling and drooling writing blithering cryptic poems in the dark about it till he died a madman

i just don't see all that for a hoax

real;--yeah--makes perfect sense--i'd do all that myself
\but hoax--no