Prime Mover

[ruggerodk]

Whatever the mechanical arrangement might be that produces a prime mover force, it is not the OOB weights as shown in MT 15.

You and JB are right, though....

MT15 is the prime mover (principle)

Ruggero ;-)

[AB Hammer]

MT15 is the prime mover (principle)

Ruggero ;-)

Ruggero

LOL nice to see you posting. But! are you sure about that? Bessler said

nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight."

[ruggerodk]

Yes AB...it's been a while ;-)

To answer your question, firstly I would point to the understanding of the not seen 'source'. Some could argue the source to be fx gravity or CF....
Very difficult if not impossible to see in a technical drawing, you know.

Secondly - suppose the 'superior weight [singular]' is the whole figure of MT15... then JB definitely show it.

But...MT15 isn't the only drawing that shows this principle ;-)

PS: Nice to be back
ruggero ;-)

[ovyyus]

And this point of yours shows the confusion about the definition of a primer mover. Like most words or phrases, this one has multiple meanings...

I don't think there's too much confusion about what Bessler meant by 'prime mover', even if we don't know what 'it' was. I think his use of the term was probably commonly understood to mean a thing that imparts motive power to drive a load, such as an engine or an animal. A water wheel is referred to as a prime mover, not the water. An engine is referred to as a prime mover, not it's fuel. A horse is referred to as a prime mover, not it's feed. Etc, etc.

In MT Bessler states that his prime mover is not shown and implies that adding his prime mover will solve the problem. Therefore, Bessler's prime mover appears to be a 'thing', an add-on that will power an arrangement of weights and cause continued self-rotation. When Bessler mentions prime mover he is probably not talking about a force but rather is referring to a physical 'thing' which may be added to or taken away from a load (in this case an arrangement of weights).

Jim, your proposed fluid momentum wheel obviously has no added on prime mover 'thing' and so your use of the term prime mover, in this particular instance, might not be easily compared to Bessler's use of the term prime mover.

[jim_mich]

I kind of like going back to Aristotle .. the first cause of all movement, itself unmoved.

It all boils down to whether one thinks of a first mover as a first initial force. Or as an initial source of motion such as an engine of an animal.

With Bessler's wheel is might be said that his Prime Mover is/was his "Principle of Perpetual Motion".

[ovyyus]

With Bessler's wheel is might be said that his Prime Mover is/was his "Principle of Perpetual Motion".

It also might be said that Bessler's prime mover was something that could be added to or taken away from a load. Like a horse can be added to or taken away from a cart. In that sense Bessler does not seem to refer to his prime mover as being a force, but rather a thing.

[jim_mich]

I never thought of Bessler's words in the sense of adding something separate to be the the prime mover. I always imagined it from an engineering point of view. The motion required of the weights was either shown or not shown. And if the prime mover motion mechanism was not present, then the mechanism would need altering to bring about the required motion. I've always envisioned the prime mover to be a pattern of weight motion. The mechanical (or fluid) method for producing the motion is not important, as long as the motion was present. Bessler wrote something to that effect. Let me quote his actual words so as to not butcher the quote from MT...

because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them.

[ovyyus]

I've always envisioned the prime mover to be a pattern of weight motion.

Which leads to the notion that Bessler's secret is fundamentally a problem of geometry. Yet centuries of mad-cap researchers exploring all manner of geometry with overbalanced wheels, motion wheels, heat wheels, atmospheric wheels, etc, etc, practically every conceivable design and combination, have come up empty handed.

MT is an exploration of geometry. Bessler provides analysis of the various designs, but all (at least the ones he annotated) are shot down as being flawed or as being useless without the addition of his prime mover. The inference seems to be that some of the MT designs might actually work with proper application of his PM principle. That doesn't suggest a geometrical problem but rather a lifting (or mass acceleration) problem solved by application of a prime mover 'thing'. Pure speculation, who really knows.

[BIBLEAL1]

Hi JIM , I agree with your post . The phrase "Prime mover literally means first mover." Great post . BIBLEAL

[ovyyus]

Hi JIM , I agree with your post . The phrase "Prime mover literally means first mover."

The above phrase is related to the philosophical/theological meaning of the term 'prime mover'.

Why would Bessler use the philosophical/theological meaning of the term 'prime mover' in relation to a machine? Isn't it more likely that Bessler would use the mechanical meaning of the term when discussing machine design?

[wheelrite]

maybe the 'inferior' smaller weights collectively, linked in, is the prime mover(set)? Each latched vertically around 11pm/11.30 pm and sprung released to just go 'over the top' 12pm position? You probably couldnt save more than the 'half hour' or so in compression from the fall, but there is definately to much talk of springs, sears, latches, bows, shooting etc. in his writings for there not to be some of this involved? Now how do I connect it all up?...........
Best Regards
J