The secret behind Bessler's wheel...

[ME]

Foolish show of sarcastic mastery welcomed!

The irony of sarcasm by accident. It isn't sarcasm when I actually mean it.
Yeah well perhaps a tiny sneer towards "secret", because although inspirational it remains something unverifiable.

I actually think it's fruitful to consider the possibility of swapping things, as that's exactly the kind of out-the-box thing we all need..
Perhaps it doesn't work in the current setup, but maybe in the next.

Keep at it.

[raj]

" ...but maybe in the next..."

This is what you and I and everybody searching for the wheel is hoping for: the next.

What you meant, means to me, damn derogative!

Raj

[daanopperman]

Hi Ralph ,

For one side of the axel to rise up on the taper , the other side have to slide down ,only causing a wabble in the wheel , but no changing in axel vertical level , unless the one side of the wheel axel is longer than it's counterpart , and then only the wheel rim will rise , but not the axel .
It will however keep the wheel running true inside the supports should there be any side forces present .

[ME]

What you meant, means to me, damn derogative!

Raj, sorry for that opinion. I suspect you think it's "derogative" because of your own "high hopes".

As a counterpoint I think it's just arrogant to start a topic on "the secret" while it just showcases your own attempt; nevertheless admirable by the way.
The fact is you can't know Bessler's secret, even with a working PM.
The fact is you are working on your own ideas (which failed by the way, hence "the next"), and there's no other relation to Bessler's wheel than to make it run (as we indeed all try).
There's no, as claimed 22 pages earlier, "found [the] secret behind Bessler's wheel".
In a few months this topic gets abandoned and drowned by other topics, searchable with a title called "Secret behind Bessler's wheel"... while it's actually ""Raj's attempt on Bessler's wheel".

I acknowledge your outside-the-box thinking.
I acknowledge other ideas.
I take those ideas serious and try to show my (hopefully substantiated) view because "simply because I do not have anybody whom I can share my thoughts" (Second post).
If you think that's "derogative", be my guest - there's a report button.

The next time you post one of your ideas on this forum and I see a way to add my perspective then, if like it or not, I simply will.
Good luck with your next attempt.

[john.smith]

@Marchello.

You are absolutely right.
The wheel will fall down and stay there.

The wheel axle must be on fixed to stands. Raj

IIRC it was written that Bessler's axle was supported by tapered pins 3/4" in diameter. They set upon and within a half circle groove cut or routed into the pillar or stanchion.

If so, then any sideways motion would change the circumference of the bearing causing it to climb within its half circle groove, it would then slide to the other side repeating the process. This would give the same reaction of a "Off center" axis that is forever changing.

Ralph

And yet if the pins were tapered as in the attached image they would keep the wheel centered on it's stand. At the same time it would allow for some lateral movement. This would allow for imbalance in the wheel besides what is necessary for it to work perpetually.
I sincerely doubt Bessler's wheel lifted itself. This would mean that the cause of over balance would need to lift about the entire weight of the wheel. That is a lot of unnecessary work.
After all any design that would allow for that much work would be much more efficient just lifting one weight. Just making a simple observation.

[raj]

@ME.

1. As a human being, I believe " doing onto others what I wish others do onto me".

2. The title of this thread is not a claim.
It is just a subject for general discussion: " the secret behind Bessler's wheel..."
However I have brought into discussion here, certain points about Bessler's drawings that seemingly had gone unnoticed prior, which made others high jack my thread for half of its 23 pages.

3. I have always been thankful to you for your kind contribution on all my threads.

Raj

[agor95]

Thank you Raj for an interesting thread and ME for the formula.

Just arrived at an opportune moment.

[preoccupied]

When a bar weight is suspended from a string and applying pressure to an inner wheel then the angle the bar is suspended to the point of contact is a deduction to the weight applied to the inner wheel unless the bar is completely horizontal then the full load of the bar is applied to the point of contact on the inner wheel. I think this is what Bessler means by right angle to the axis. Because it could mean the full load of a suspended weight on a string. In my drawing in this thread I drew this incorrectly, I put all of the strings in very even positions but it's not even if all of the strings are the same size, so oops there. However if the angle deduction is applied and then the force goes perpendicular to the distance from the axle on the inner wheel, if horizontal bars are suspended on only one side of the inner wheel, then the wheel is unbalanced in every position. There is not one point in the turn that is balanced or resisting rotation. In order to build this the inner wheel would have to be a gear and there would have to be four or more gears and a bar in the four or more different positions separately one on each gear. Otherwise the build would be very much tangle or bar weights would impede others somehow. If you arrange it as a swastika it's not unbalanced on all parts but I think it would easier to build and maybe this swastika that uses suspended bars was always periodically in history and that's maybe why the symbol is popular because it was a perpetual motion machine but that had minimal power output or gears hadn't been invented yet back then in ancient times.

Of course if I'm right using gravity to do all of your chores will throw the planet off course and kill the entire human race. I very much disagree with any use of perpetual motion machines gravity or otherwise unless it's understood well enough to be safe. I think gravity is very unsafe to tamper with. It plays too important of a roll for life. We have a responsibility to life not to use gravity for energy if any of you or me finds out how.

[sleepy]

Hey PreOc,
If you drop a mill wheel into a stream,it uses the force of the water to turn it. If you pull that wheel out,the force of the water is still in the stream, and the water that would have turned the wheel is still moving down the stream. What I'm getting at is this. If you have a working perpetual motion wheel and it is in the stopped position, just sitting there tied up,gravity is still pulling on it. We use gravity everyday in many ways. We use it in sports,transportation.
I just used a bunch of gravity earlier today when I set my groceries down and expected them to stay put.As long as Earth is rotating and has mass, I feel as though gravity is inexhaustible. But that is just my opinion and neither of us has any proof to back it up.

[preoccupied]

sleepy I believe that gravity is an output of heat energy in a vacuum this being the vacuum of space. Not including any fuels inside of the planet causing heat - the heat from the sun spreads across the surface of the and concentrates into the center of the Earth through a conic spread from the surface area. The cone shaped direction of even heat distribution causes heat to be very high in the center by comparison to the surface after constant supply of heat is applied to the surface. It's hotter than any heat that comes to the surface through gradual collection of the heat. Nearly all of the Earth's new internal temperature should come from the sun like this. Then instead of being lost into space what happens is that it presses its force into the vacuum of space as gravity and this is a kind of buoyancy and this is what gravity really is. If we use a machine to overuse the force of gravity we will cool the planet and change the direction it's spinning. We only require a small change in direction to make a big eventual change on our planets position so we cannot use a gravity perpetual motion machine at all. The force stolen from the planet Earth by lifting weight should be x2. The force stolen by sitting still is x1. I think a weight free falling is neutral. All forces stolen are burning heat stored in the center of the Earth but this is renewed by sunlight. I think a perpetual motion machine would eat 4x when it lifts. It uses gravity to lift x2 already a x2 burden to lift something some other way.

[preoccupied]

Hey PreOc,
If you drop a mill wheel into a stream,it uses the force of the water to turn it. If you pull that wheel out,the force of the water is still in the stream, and the water that would have turned the wheel is still moving down the stream. What I'm getting at is this. If you have a working perpetual motion wheel and it is in the stopped position, just sitting there tied up,gravity is still pulling on it. We use gravity everyday in many ways. We use it in sports,transportation.
I just used a bunch of gravity earlier today when I set my groceries down and expected them to stay put.As long as Earth is rotating and has mass, I feel as though gravity is inexhaustible. But that is just my opinion and neither of us has any proof to back it up.

Two experiments would be basically the same to see how much energy is drained. If artificial gravity is created through heat and vacuums the heat could be measured against a perpetual motion machine using its gravity, and it could be measured against how fast it loses its heat without the perpetual motion machine. Artificial gravity could be simulated by spinning a platform really quickly like would be done on a space station floating around Earth right now. Then the power source could cause the platform to freely swing and it could be measured how much more quickly it comes to stop with a perpetual motion machine running inside of it. Artificial gravity using heat should be simple enough to create. It should be exactly what I'm saying it is, so if you heat something inside of a vacuum, it should create gravity.

[sleepy]

If you heat something inside of a vacuum it's going to create a force of some type,but you can't label that force as gravity. And if you are going to make a test by using a spinning platform to create artificial gravity,then it's going to be comparing apples to oranges. Like testing artificial sweeteners against sugar. They won't act the same in your recipes. But I admire that you are trying to think far enough forward to prevent a possible cataclysm.

[daanopperman]

Hi preoccupied ,

Trying to create artificial gravity would be like working at a effluent plant and suspect someone is farting all day long .
You will only see a black object when it is bathed in light

[preoccupied]

I have a bit of an identity confusion when I talk about this topic of artificial gravity. I'm talking about creating artificial gravity using heat and vacuums and I am talking from experience and not just an idea. It should work or maybe I don't remember enough about it and I'm being misleading because I forget details that would make it work. Right now I'm interacting with my Mom Alice but she does not acknowledge that her sister Candice exists. I was living with Candice at a young age when I published work sometimes on cassette. I'm out of contact with the whole business related to that and it's very frustrating because Candice is being treated like she doesn't exist. Candice does exist in my opinion but I don't know if she wants to be a part of my life, or whether Alice just went bat shit crazy and is senile now. When I had access to vacuum experiments I could create artificial gravity and levitate. If you created artificial gravity you would start to hover and orbit Earth. You would have to leave Earth's gravity in order to run the experiment on artificial gravity from heat and vacuums for the device to have its own gravitational pull and not orbit Earth instead. The same is true for spinning a platform to use inertia, because to get an accurate measurement on that you should be in a space station setting. I think vacuum gravity is the same as Earth's gravity and I think that inertia experiments would give an identical measurement for how much energy is lost by using a gravity perpetual motion machine. So we can probably simply use the international space station and have them install artificial gravity and a gravity perpetual motion machine and they would likely get perfect measurements there for how much energy will be eaten by each personal gravity engine if they were used on Earth to produce electricity. I still think that lifting a weight eats a measurement like x2 and a sitting object eats x1 or an amount that doesn't change much but is just based on it's weight. Free falling might have no effect until it stops and or is lifted. I think gravity lifting gravity would be twice the burden on Earth's gravity, so if what I described is a gravity perpetual motion machine, if you use it you would double your impact on Earth's gravity supply and I think over time if the planet does that that we would fly off of our orbit around the sun in a new direction.

[k.waenga]

I WILL BRING JOHANN BESSLER BACK TO LIFE, HE WILL REIN AGAIN, HE WILL AWAKEN ONCE MORE ...K.WAENGA.