Gravity Wheel -or- Motion Wheel

[Grimer]

People "assume that Bessler's wheel was turned by gravity" because all the evidence points in that direction. The fact the wheel is vertical rather than horizontal. The fact that banging is heard on the descending side of the wheel suggesting that weights are falling on that side.

No doubt other members can think up more reasons.

[cloud camper]

Why do people assume that Bessler's wheel was turned by gravity? Why do people assume that a balanced wheel could magically become gravitationally unbalanced in either direction when rotation is started?

I dunno. Why do some people assume we can only "use" gravity by "using" it up?

Why can't we have a balanced wheel that becomes unbalanced when rotation is started and oscillates from balanced to unbalanced?

[ovyyus]

Why do people assume that Bessler's wheel was turned by gravity?

The question is irrelevant if the wheel wasn't powered by weights. Why do people assume that Bessler's wheel was powered by weights?

[Andyb]

Jim ,i personally believe besslers wheel was turned by gravity because of spin and momentum and impetus and in some points on the wheel cf ,this is not totally due to what bessler has said but my own experience,i have built 300 odd now and have seen that keeping ever thing moving is the only possible way to make a wheel work,secondly Jim what other force could make the wheel work i mean cf alone could not do it, cf combined with oob possibly but gravity is still the force to create energy or work .

Thanks for your points Jim i do believe you have a reason for driving us to look in new directions to gain insight and change in the way that we think ,after all these years of toil there is stiil no working wheel even though so many minds and spirits have worked so hard but still we have no wheel may be we are trying to be to cleaver ,i do not now but some thing is a miss,all the best andyb .

Gill simo i agree with you up to there only being two pairs i have been developing 9 section wheels for some time now creating a system that use two pairs in a 9 section leaves me lost for even a approach to solve this problem ,i will consider it further and get back to you if i have any insights ,thank you very much for your input.

Cloud camper we seem to be on the same page dude i have a system that creates the 360 degree that you search for its very simple indeed i will post photos at some point i have never done this before but i will figure it out, a part of me wants to keep it to my self and not share it with the world but i am going to supress that and push the button ,i am not saying that it will work but it has some very interesting points mainly being that the weight the 1/4 that is lightly causes the lb to fly upwards not massive movement but possibly enough to create movement ,any way i will drop the photo and look forward to hearing what you think, all the best Andy b

[Grimer]

Why do people assume that Bessler's wheel was turned by gravity?

The question is irrelevant if the wheel wasn't powered by weights. Why do people assume that Bessler's wheel was powered by weights?

Because it's ovyyus. ;-)

[primemignonite]

Jim:

This time I can't presume to speak for any at all.

"Why do people assume that Bessler's wheel was turned by gravity?"

I suppose it is because Bessler said in so many words, that force is to be gained by means of weights-aswinging. (Swungen, was it?)

"Why do people assume that a balanced wheel could magically become gravitationally unbalanced in either direction when rotation is started?"

Well, not by the power of any magic surely, but rather by the correct use of his (Bessler's) "principle of excess weight", it being gotten to act on one side alone, and over-and-over-and-over and so-on - the achieving of this effect being a result of the first, i.e. the swinging weights gathering force with the resulting energy within them then effecting the displacement of said excess weight, so as to cause continuous rotatory motion.

Really, this is not difficult of conceptualizing as Bessler was quite clear in these two areas but, is-so a thing to design, and then especially is to build.

I hope this fills-in some gaps by the answering of your two queries?

Stay warm.

James

[ovyyus]

An Ovyyus conclusion is often drawn from a false premise :D

An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian.

[Grimer]

...
Notice the difference between Bessler's description of the weight movement and Wagner's description. Bessler talks of weights moving in and out. Wagner's description, according to Bessler, is of weights gravitating to the center then climbing back up. This is the only time Bessler mentions gravity, and he is simply repeating what Wagner talked about.
...

All this talk about weights moving in and out has made me realise the connection between Bessler's wheel and Keenie's.

Both use pairs of pendulums. In the case of the Keenie I only saw this clearly when I applied the KISS principle and reduced his wheel to single weight which fall from 2 to 4 and weights at 6, 8, 10, 12 and 2 which act together. This gives us a simple pendulum of short period and a compound pendulum of long period.

In the case of Bessler it seems that he gets his two pendulums of different periods by moving a single weight out from a small radius to a large radius and vice versa with a second weight.

So Keenie gets the difference in period by changing the shape of the pendulum bob but keeping all the mass of the pendulums at the same distance from the centre.

Bessler gets the difference simply by moving weights out from the centre and back.

The two designs are so different that I doubt Keenie relied on Bessler information at all - though he might have been inspired by his forebear's achievement.

[jim_mich]

The English word 'weight' is a direct evolution of the old German word 'Uberwucht'

In all of his books, he alludes to different principles of mechanical perpetual motion, for example, “My 'principle of excess weight’, "principle of superior weight", “The causative principle of the movement, its ponderous impetus.�

Actually all three of those are the same and not different principles, in fact they are the same word in German (Uberwucht) but, confusingly, have been translated differently each time by the same translator!

The English language evolved from the old German language and from French and with a smattering of other languages mixed in.


Bessler stated that his wheel was turned by Uberwucht. A literal translation of Uberwucht means "over weight", or "excess impetus", or "over force" or "unbalanced". The literal translation of 'wucht' means force, such as the force of gravity or any other force. You must have some force to rotate a wheel. And that force must be unbalanced. It must be greater as an object moves one direction and less as the same object moves back the other direction. Gravity is constant. Here on planet Earth gravity cannot be stronger as the weight falls then weaker as the weight rises. Wagner argued this fact with Bessler, saying that it is impossible for rising and falling weights to turn a wheel. But Bessler kept saying Uberwucht, ie, out-of-balance. The meaning of Bessler's words went right over Wagner's head. Wagner could not grasp the words that Bessler wrote. Wagner did not understand. Bessler said that weights gained force from moving. He never said they gained force from gravity. He said his wheel gained force by being Uberwucht. And everyone think he meant unbalanced gravity. Uberwucht can also mean unbalanced force of any type. The only way for any wheel to self-rotate is if it has Uberwucht, unbalanced force acting upon the wheel. "Weights" is our word used to indicate heavy objects. Saying that Bessler's wheel was a gravity wheel because it used weights is a false statement. It is the same thing that Wagner assumed. Wagner knew that Bessler had shown weights to people, and had said that it was the weights that gave the wheel its rotational force. And foolish Wagner assumed that Bessler was claiming that the rise and fall of the weights turn his wheel.

Oh you simpleton - you are a joke! What are you up to now Wagner? Just because my wheel has weights, I'm not to be trusted? Get the cataract aired that is blinding all your senses and learn to draw a distinction between various kinds of weights! Any conceivable Mobile on this earth has to be constructed from something - I can't make something out of nothing, and neither can you, or even the Devil himself. Listen - my weights are not like those in turnspits and clocks. They don't need to be raised up - it's a different arrangement altogether from what you see in mill-wheels, turnspits and clocks. This is all mentioned in Part One; read it at your leisure. Have I got to slap you on the snout with it, you ignorant half-wit, before you properly understand it? Your exploits are absolutely astonishing! You take the slightest opportunity to pick a quarrel, and seek to prepare a trap for me. You say my word is not to be trusted - you, the archvillain, who surely has feasted on all the lies there are. If honour means anything to you, show me what I wrote in the newspapers.

Note that Bessler says, "learn to draw a distinction between various kinds of weights!" There is gravity weight. There is inertial weight. There is momentum weight. The word 'weight' means both gravity force and mass-weight. Mass-weight effects inertia and momentum. Gravity weight effects gravity force. We use the same word but it has different meanings. Do I have to slap you forum members on the snout to make you understand?

Bessler's wheel was turned by manipulating inertial weight-force and momentum weight-force where weights were allowed to move/swing in and out on a rotating wheel. His wheel was turned by the motions of weight-mass, much like a child pumping a swing. It was not turned by gravity weight-force.

After 300 years, “And are ye yet without understanding?�

[getterdone]

Hi Andy/ Cloud Camper

Quote: Cloud camper we seem to be on the same page dude i have a system that creates the 360 degree that you search for its very simple indeed i will post photos at some point i have never done this before but i will figure it out, a part of me wants to keep it to my self and not share it with the world but i am going to supress that and push the button ,i am not saying that it will work but it has some very interesting points mainly being that the weight the 1/4 that is lightly causes the lb to fly upwards not massive movement but possibly enough to create movement ,any way i will drop the photo and look forward to hearing what you think, all the best Andy b


I believe that what I'm currently building is along the same ideology as what your working on. I've posted some pics and I'll provide more when it's possible for me to get back in the shop

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... c&start=60

Leo

[cloud camper]

Andy, I would really enjoy studying your concept.

With all your build experience, your ideas have high credibility.

But don't cast your pearls before swine. If it works people will just rip it off and give you no credit. If it doesn't work no one will appreciate the thought
and experience behind it. Maybe a few of us!

Frank, why do you say the Keenie has pendulums of the same length? I see it as being two levers of different radii. To me this is no different than the child's swing. The child swinger can only change radii a small percentage of the pendulum length yet gets great results!

Leo - nice work - I'm interested. I will study your posted link.
Now we're on the true Bessler path!

[Grimer]

...
Frank, why do you say the Keenie has pendulums of the same length?

Because it has. The difference in radii of a weight on the inner wheel and the weights on the outer wheel is negligible and I'm sure Keenie would have made it zero if practical considerations hadn't prevented him.

I see it as being two levers of different radii. To me this is no different than the child's swing. The child swinger can only change radii a small percentage of the pendulum length yet gets great results!

It's a seductive idea but mistaken. The child's swing is working with the Bessler principle of a weight changing its radius, albeit only a small amount and unlikely to generate significant energy without the input of the child - in contrast to the Bessler where his words suggest a much greater change in radii.

The Keenie and Bessler principles of operation are totally different.

Incidentally, I've put a new post on my forum which you might like to read. I propose to develop the persistence of motion concept on that forum and eventually post the discussion on the main forum so anyone who appreciates the validity of the analysis has an opportunity to be the first to build a Keenie Mark 2.

[DrWhat]

I'm off to work but Jim just a small thought.

I agree with your supposition that it is the motion of the weights that is relevant. Not the use of gravity in some way.

To me the wheel needs to stay balanced in a gravitational sense, but inertial forces create a "tug" momentarily to one side of the wheel.

My issue in designing a wheel has always been how do you set up a reference frame, and does Bessler use a reference frame to reset the motion of the weights. Ie put them back into a starting position. His axle was freewheeling! I keep coming back to a large pendulum on smaller pendulums to reset the lateral bias. Or a large pendulum as the mechanism connected somehow to and swinging over the axle to drive the wheel (the prime mover) with other mechanisms creating the bias. Which then pose their own problems.

Damian

[Grimer]

Once you know the correct method, it becomes easier to move a weight back inward after it moves outward than it is to raise a weight back upward after it falls downward.

I don't understand. The only way I can see to achieve this is to alter the rotational speed.

I can see that if you slow down a horizontal rotation then it is easier to pull the arms in - so by varying the rpm you vary the ease with which a weight can be moved in and out. Is this what you meant or is there some other method?
...

Sorry to have to raise this point again, Jim, but I find your statement most intriguing and for my understanding of Bessler your answer is very important.

Are you saying that there is some "correct method" of pulling a weight in on a horizontal plane and that using this "correct method" as opposed to any other takes less energy than letting it go out? If so, are you prepared to explain this method to the forum - or is it a secret which, quite understandably, you want to keep to yourself?

[jim_mich]

many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time.

Jim.... Bessler, in having the advantage over the rest, was well able to play with words/ambiguity....and people.
The most glaring example is of course "apply it's weight to the axle which in its turn must also move".
Bessler said... These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle.
You say.... So let me put this very clear. Bessler said the weights move in and out. One weight moved in and one moved out, then they swap, and on and on they go.
Look again at what Bessler said & you'll see that what you state is actually very unclear, with respect.

How about .... These come in pairs, such that, as one of the pairs takes up an outer position, another pair takes up a position nearer the axle?

If you read Bessler's statement in this way then, assuming his grammar to be impecable, he is not only giving away that pairs move in whilst pairs move out....he is also, by way of the term `other` and not `others` revealing that there are just two pairs in total.

Gill, it took me a little time to understand your point or your thought in your posting. At first I thought your thinking was wrong. But I always try to look at things from different perspectives. Then I realized the uncertainty of the statement. The uncertainty is due to the ambiguity of the word 'pairs' followed by the word 'them'. There is uncertainty as to what 'them' refers to. 'Them' could simply mean 'them weights', which is how I understood it. Or 'them' could mean 'them pairs', which is what you are saying. Unless there is something in the original German text that make it clearer (which I doubt), then we will never know which thought is the correct one. I don't think is matters much. Obviously there were any number of mechanisms, and each mechanism had at least one pairs of weights. In another passage Bessler says that now there are two and two, which would indicate that before now there were not two and two. And if not two and two, then what? We might assume only a single pair of weights.

I strongly believe this is the main difference between the one-way wheels and the two-way wheels. A single pair of movable/swingable weights (only two weights) cannot be balanced. It is always OOB except when the weights keel. Two and two weights can be movable on the wheel and still remain balanced all the time. Two move out as two move in. If they are properly symmetrically spaced, then the wheel will stay balanced as the weights change positions on the wheel.

These "two and two" weights will stay gravitationally balanced as they move in and out, but they will not stay inertially balanced. The momentum of a weight changes as it moves in and out on the rotating wheel. And this motion or momentum force can be carried from weight to weight by the cross-bars. The inertial force of a weight can cause the wheel to change rotational speed, like with a spinning ice-skater. It is not necessary for a wheel to be gravitationally unbalance for it to be rotated by moving weights.