The secret behind Bessler's wheel...

[oldNick]

The wheel goes against KNOWN science.
The wheel MAY be found, only if we ignore known science.

Raj

Hi Raj, What drives the wheel is well known by science, the only reason they don't use it is.... it's a well known problem for conventional engines and everything is set to eradicate it!.

Nick

[Gregory]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to say that in order to use gravity that you need to space warping technology. That is so science fiction stupid IMO. The actual way like what Bessler would have used is mechanical. You either have a way to change force mechanically and have leverage on the rotation, or you have a delay where force builds up and then overcomes counter force by cascading.

You're actually right! It is pretty ridiculous, sci-fi, and even stupid. But it doesn't make it less correct. Gravity always gives you back what you first put it in, just like a spring. Or like a fridge... There is 5 slice of cake in the fridge. You take out 1 slice every day. After 5 days there will be no more cake in the fridge. No free cakes will just spontaneously appear inside...

Really, in relation to some small scale wheels gravity's basically no different than a spring, or the stupid fridge & cake example I just came up with...

The point I tried to make is that gravity is always symmetrical. Doesn't matter how many ingenius mechanisms I arrange here and there, with some more springs, leverage, and weights there... It will not help the slightest. The machine will be only more complicated, but it will basically act like a simple seesaw, just in an unneccessary complicated way.

If I can't manipulate the gravity field, then it will stay symmetric and will not rotate my wheel. Simple enough. Even if I could somehow manipulate it, in terms of energy that would cost dozens of times more than the work it could potentially do.

As ovyyus said, gravity is a red herring here. Only most people falsly assume it is the holy grail.

[Gregory]

Hindsight sucks...
Perhaps it's false indeed... but that's harder to proof I guess.
First we need something that works.

Pre-knowledge is indeed the question:
Science defines perpetual motion as impossible... When we assume Bessler's wheel could potentially rotate forever and do some stuff, we also assume it's a perpetual motion machine.
Which assumption can be proven false...and how?

Assumptions are really interesting from a psychological viewpoint. People keep assuming various things all the time without even realizing they actually made different assumptions.

Assumptions are sometimes neccessary to help someone keep following his own train of thoughts and ideas, but in the other hand it can be also a strong poison for the scientific mind and against simple logical reasoning. The other interesting point about assumptions (of something unknown) that no one of them can be proven right or wrong, they just simply stay assumptions.

In case of Bessler's wheel the only solid fact is that nobody knows what was inside the wheel, and nobody knows how it worked, or what was the energy source for it. This is the only really solid, grounded fact.

Bessler talked about some weights, springs, etc... These all go as a possibility. Eyewitnesses talked about other things, those are also possibilities. But these are no solid facts, just possibilities. The T-shape pendulum? Doesn't even observed swinging with the wheel in any demonstration by Bessler if I can remember correctly(?). They are just shown as a possibility for speed regulation.

If we assume that Bessler's wheel was really acted like a PMM, so it could potentially rotate forever and do work... Does that also mean that it was a PMM? I think not. There is a possibility that it worked based on some yet not understood phenomena. But it is not neccessary for the operating principle to violate any laws of science. On the contrary, I think it is much more likely that it does not violate anything, because otherwise how could it work anyway, could it? :)

So, what can it be?
A pre-wound spring or other energy storage mechanism?
Trickery?
A loophole in physics?
Something yet undiscovered aspect of nature?
Our understanding of some physical law is invisibly incomplete up to the point to allow for such a wheel?

And the answer is:
We don't know! We only have some assumptions.
Until something is actually proven.

[Ed]

So prove me wrong without referring to the laws of thermodynamics. Prove me wrongs with your own explanations and facts.
...
Then it will be a fair debate.

Raj, I agree with Ovvyus when he says your sharing is commendable, and please believe I am not just having a go at you, but I am trying to help you, and hopefully others, when I point out issues with some of your methods.

Also, do not get the idea that just because these findings are not currently positive, that I viewed what you presented casually.

Your idea as presented here will not work and let me show you why.

Raj's sketch with kinematic overlay

Video of motion of linkages

In the first link, you will see you latest graph paper sketch overlayed with a reproduction using a vector based kinematics program. Basic ask a program that can have connections defined and allow you to see movement of mechanisms, but it does not simulate gravity or forces, etc. so there is no need to worry about bad simulation data, but it is an accurate review of how these linkages would behave connected like this.

Forget that you present no calculations of any kind for the forces, but you don't even use basic trigonometry to correctly draw this idea on graph paper, thereby potentially misrepresenting the entire design, to yourself and to everyone else. You also don't even present the pendulum in consistent dimensions.

In this fast-paced, 140 character world, it seems more of us are losing patience with performing even the slightest amount of work. Oh, we think we are doing work when we are utilizing our brain to simulate an idea "frame-by-frame", with endless hours of speculative thought, but even Bessler talked about it "taking him a long time to calculate everything out and get it just right", not having the idea given to him in a dream and moving on directly to a build but having to figure it out, step by step.

As I've said before, Raj, you have great skill when it comes to physically building, and I'm sure you measure twice and cut once and all of that, right? I'm just discussing the earlier stage version of measure twice cut once, but using basic maths and/or software to help visualize and even confirm the validity of an idea or to more quickly rule it out.

I'm sure most of us on this forum have many of these skills, and if not, they are skills worth honing IMHO.

[Fcdriver]

This is what we all agree on? we know there is a spring loaded set of weights on or in the wheel, that they move to and from the axial and that it is common opinion that the work done outside the wheel had no effect on the, spring loaded weights, or any weights, inside the wheel, am I correct? That no work down outside the wheel effects the circular path of the spring loaded weights?

[justsomeone]

That is unknown. Bessler said the large plump horses wander aimlessly. Do the weights somewhat change their course under load? Unknown.

[preoccupied]

Raj drawing shows what I think might work if pulleys displace weights. I think that Johann Bessler might have looked into pulleys and that pulleys were commonly used for other things. When he visualized his daily work in his mind and dreamed about a days work when he slept at night he might have seen pulleys in his dreams. The body and mind repairs itself and becomes stronger when sleeping and dreaming. His visions of pulleys might have been very strong while he wanted to make the magical device become more effective. Bessler might have gotten good sleep at night and had good blood circulation and a healthy diet. This might be true if Bessler used pulleys to make his wheel run. I do not want it used to make electricity or run for a long duration of time anywhere on Earth. We should deliberately avoid technology like this until we are a multi planetary species. Or Multi star.

[raj]

Ed, kindly confirm this:
Your video is testing only the linkage, correct?
You have not fed the simulation program with any data,correct?

Your answers is vital to my understanding of my concept.

If your answers to both above questions are 'yes', then your simulation shows a working concept.
Thank you.

Raj

[Ed]

Hi Raj,

"Your video is testing only the linkage, correct?" Yes
"You have not fed the simulation program with any data,correct?" If I understand your question correctly, no. The lower wheel is being turned so you can see how the pendulums would move. If there was no force on the wheel, the pendulums bind up trying to turn the wheel. Actually either way, connected the way they are, this can not keep turning without running into a bind.

[raj]

Ed, your second answer is still not clear to me.
Please explain how the motion in the simulation occurs?

Why did the wheel and the pendulums move in the first place?
Don't worry about about their running into a bind.
Please clarify And explain in details every steps of your simulation starting from my drawing. This is very important for me. I shall be ever grateful to you for this.
I am a lay man in this field, so please help!

Raj

[Ed]

Raj,

In the kinematic simulation, there are no forces being simulated. The only source of movement is either pushing something with your finger, or making something move as if by a motor. I made the lower circle move, and it starts to move in one direction until it binds and can't move any further then it reverses direction and moves until it can't move any further.

There is no momentum, or force of any kind. This is purely a motion simulation.

[raj]

Thank you very much Ed. I have learnt something new from you: Kinematic Simulation.

I think we are on the right tract to possible rediscovery of the wheel.

Your kinematic simulation and my set of drawings show same motion, except the getting bind up in your simulation.

The explanation for getting bind up is simple: lack of any force being applied.
Compare your first simulation to your second simulation. The designs are almost identical except for the minor change in the shape of the pendulums.

There was no getting bind up in your first simulation because you had provided some different sources of forces to the wheel.

My set of drawings above are static frames of an ALREADY rotating Large FLYwheel taken at 45 degrees rotation clockwise. Because of this clockwise rotating force of the wheel, the pendulums are prevented to swing further to the counter-clockwise side of the Large Flywheel, swing back and forth getting bind up.

This set up is my basic idea of providing ASYMMETRIC forces, torques and time of rotation.

So as I said, we are still on the right tract.

Thank you.

Raj

[Gregory]

Hi Raj,

I have made a simulation of a modified version based on your original design. Here you can find a video clip of it, I hope the link will work correctly.

The wheel is push started to 4 Rpm, then left alone to rotate by itself.
Gravity and some Air friction is enabled.

[MrVibrating]

Here's an angle i'm currently chasing:


- moving an orbiting mass inwards generates positive torque

- moving it outwards generates negative torque

- normally, these +/- torques cancel out; no net change in energy or momentum

- precisely the same cancellation we encounter between rising and falling weights


My line of attack however is thus:

- the positive inertial torque is applied to the wheel and all of its internal parts, except that of the extending mass generating the negative torque;

- the negative inertial torque is not applied to the wheel, and neither is it accelerated by the positive torque; instead it takes place upon an armature, sharing a central axis with the wheel, but which is able to decelerate independently of it.

- so in summary, the inbound mass accelerates the wheel and all parts minus the armature upon which the opposite mass is extending

- the outbound mass only decelerates itself and its armature... while on the descending side of the wheel!

- thus, gravity re-accelerates it, bringing it back up to speed with the rest of the wheel!

The basic trick - the point at which energy is gained - is in re-extending the mass without incurring the deceleration this normally applies; instead, its speed being replenished by gravity!

If this is viable, then, surprisingly (not least to me), it looks like it actually would be energy from gravity...

Obviously it won't turn out to be viable, but i'm still wrestling with it for now..

[preoccupied]

edit