Landgraf Karl von Hessen-Kassel

[WaltzCee]

I have now[sic] doubt , that Bessler had a ppm .

Although the 2nd Law forbids perpetual or eternal, my Client has yet to get the memo. A gravity powered motor is a different matter.

There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both.

A gravity powered wheel would not be an isolated system by its very definition. If such a wheel would work, gravity would no longer be considered conservative.

I think if a wheel could be made replacing the force of gravity with some other presently thought to be conservative force (ie springs) and would work in deep space the entire matter of conservation of energy would have to be reworked. It is my very strong opinion that when a working gravity powered wheel is made, this sort of wheel will follow hot on its heels.

After that I see mass being replaced by magnetic force. I also see pink hearts, orange stars and yellow moons. I really do!

The main point, as Dr Oh-No! pointed out, perpetual is not an apt term to describe a gravity wheel these days. However have it any way you want.

The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
— Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

"There is something lamentable, degrading, and almost insane in pursuing the visionary schemes of past ages with dogged determination, in paths of learning which have been investigated by superior minds, and with which such adventurous persons are totally unacquainted. The history of Perpetual Motion is a history of the fool-hardiness of either half-learned, or totally ignorant persons."[22]
— Henry Dircks, Perpetuum Mobile: Or, A History of the Search for Self-motive (1861)

quotes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

[ovyyus]

A gravity powered wheel would not be...If such a wheel would work, gravity would no longer be considered conservative.

Such a wheel does not work. Those who don't understand the problem think that it might.

[daanopperman]

Such a wheel could work , as long as gravity is not the prime mover .

[WaltzCee]

Such a wheel does not work. Those who don't understand the problem think that it might.

I'm like Fletcher, I vacillate. What do you make of Bessler's claims that his wheel was (1) an out of balanced wheel and (2) powered by gravity? I also recall some discussion about a Bessler claim that any force could replace gravity. Could anyone correct me if I'm wrong about that.

[ovyyus]

Bessler never said his wheel was powered by gravity.

[MrVibrating]

Such a wheel does not work. Those who don't understand the problem think that it might.

I'm like Fletcher, I vacillate. What do you make of Bessler's claims that his wheel was (1) an out of balanced wheel and (2) powered by gravity? I also recall some discussion about a Bessler claim that any force could replace gravity. Could anyone correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I have in the past speculated that since gravity is a uniform static force field, it might be substituted, in a working design, with any comparable source of such a force, since force is just force, regardless of its provenance.

The first most obvious contender would be inertia from a uniform acceleration, ie. a Bessler wheel atop an accelerating rocket, in microgravity - if the rocket's accelerating at a constant 1 G, the Bessler mechanism should behave identically as it does in a gravity field.

Secondly, we could instead provide that uniform static force magnetically, such as from a large stator permanent magnet, acting upon magnetic masses replacing weights on the rotor.

Then there's springs etc. - ie. we could switch off gravity and instead connect our masses to the ground via 1 G springs, for much the same effect... as long as the springs don't get tangled, the wheel should rotate in much the same way it is caused to by gravity.

As for Bessler's actual claims, he said nothing of the sort. What he did say was that trading height for width is a mug's game, ie. attempting to use OB alone to cause further OB is futile.

However he also said of his wheel that "by rotation, it grows out of balance", all his demonstrated wheels were vertically-oriented, and the one-way wheels were definitely out of balance when tied off stationary..

So in summary, we are looking for a permanently-OB design, that is dependent upon, if not fueled by, the action of gravity, but which isn't violating the laws of leverage, ie. making energy by trading height for width.

I think my latest concept may resolve these seeming conflicts, treading the only remaining path between them - gravity can be used to cause an asymmetry between inbound vs outbound centrifugal workloads on the ascending vs descending sides of the system, meaning there's always an excess of CF on the 'heavy' side of the wheel, and corresponding deficit on the 'light' side. So long as the system is actually rotating, we can harvest more CF-PE from the outbound mass than we need to retract the inbound one, and spend the excess on OB...

[agor95]

MrVibrating

Yes

[ovaron]

Bessler never said his wheel was powered by gravity.

That's absolutely right.
Bessler said nothing about the need of gravity OR the need of weights:

In APO II, XXIX he writes:

Zu dem hab ich (laß dir nur dienen)
Sehr viel und mancherlei Machinen;
Etliche haben zwar Gewicht’,
Auch welche wieder keine nicht; NB.

IF Bessler says the truth, some of his machines have weights, but others do not. Gravitation may not be necessary and if Einstein is right, gravitation is not a force but a geometry.

Gravitation = curvature of space-time

The "prime mover" seems not driven by gravitation.

[agor95]

@ovaron

Some machines did not have weights.

However they will always have mass.

Thanks for keeping us on the correct path.

[WaltzCee]

I'd guess all the wheels Bessler demonstrated had weights.

In November 1727, Bessler's maid, Anne Rosine Mauersbergerin, ran away from Bessler's household and testified under oath that she had turned the machines manually from an adjoining room, alternating in that job with Bessler's wife, his brother Gottfried, and Bessler himself. 's Gravesande refused to accept the maid's testimony, writing that he paid "little attention to what a servant can say about machines". By then, 's Gravesande was embroiled in an academic dispute with members of Isaac Newton's circle about the possibility of gravity-powered perpetual motion, which 's Gravesande persistently defended based partly on his belief that Bessler, though "mad", was not a fraud.[2]

[2] Jenkins, Alejandro (2013). "The mechanical career of Councillor Orffyreus, confidence man". American Journal of Physics. 81 (6): 421–427.

I'll concede it wasn't Bessler that claimed gravity power, as far as I can find any record of.

[eccentrically1]

All of the statements from Bessler that refer to weights being the secret of his PM principle are misleading. They make it sound like the wheel is powered by weights in a gravity field.
The best example:

"For this concept, my 'principle of excess weight'" ... "these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

Their motive force is derived from the PM principle, which presumably is what keeps them away from the center of gravity. The only motive force weights have available inside a static wheel is gravity, so it's easy to think that is the PM principle, especially when he mentions it there at the end.

[agor95]

One of my test sims is just a rod that is 0.999 m on one side and 1.001 m on the other side of the pivot. With 1 kg per meter of rod.

Weights would be good to have at the end of the rods.

However they are not required for the 'principle of excess weight'.

The excess weight at the lower part of the arc could be used to fire [via spring compression] the rod back to center and over balance the rod onto the other side.

The rod in the sim starts horizontal and as this pendulum swings to the other side it requires less force to carry out this action.

That is because the pivot is supporting part of the rod's mass.

P.S. Not to worried about power at this stage,

[eccentrically1]

I think everyone at one time or another has thought springs could be used to lift weights in a flash on the ascending side, thus seemingly causing the weight to be 'weightless' to the system, briefly enough for the descending weight to overbalance the wheel to begin another cycle. Everything just needs to be timed sort of like clockwork. It's a very seductive idea. MT 17 is the first mention.

[agor95]

Copy Right Violation - no one to enforce it - no change there.

[daanopperman]

A wheel rotating at 26 rpm will complete one revolution in 2.307 sec's .

If a wheight is moved through the center from 6 - 12 , there will be no weight on the ascending side of the wheel , and it will only take 1 . 1 second to move from 12 back to 6 .

If the weight is moved from 6 - 12 , for every .006 sec 's , it will cover one deg of rotation .

You will have to , like Bessler said , move the wight up in a flash , but , it will cost a hell of a lot of energy to accomplishe this ,