A Video Demonstrating Bessler's Secret

[John.Smith4]

This video demonstrates how a 2 axis system works. It is IMO what Bessler's disc around the axle (he called it his principle mechanism). If a person is familiar with using trigonometry to consider how force shifts because of a secondary axis then that would help them to understand this.
The 2 drawings of Bessler's wheel shows that if a round disc has it's axis of rotation lowered from that in Bessler's drawing then that is what I am showing.
The red line in the 2nd image shows the direction the weight would be moving towards when it is being retracted. And that's 90° to the axis of the disc.
I may just work on build and stay offline. IMO the personal attacks on me were unnecessary. And unfortunately building is a lot of work as well.

https://youtu.be/zxuhMafxatg

p.s., the pendulum is also a cross, IMO it was Bessler's way of saying have faith.

[MrVibrating]

On YT you've labelled your video with the description "Bessler used a 2 axis system of rotation to conserve momentum."

But by definition, Bessler's wheels did not conserve momentum, since it would be physically impossible (mutually contradictory / oxymoronic) to be able to supply excess KE without also offloading momentum at the same time - KE means a moving mass, which also thus means momentum. Likewise, tapping off or harnessing / harvesting a KE gain without also taking momentum is non-sensical.

So it is a foregone conclusion that his wheels were "creating" momentum - either generating it from nothing ("ex nihilo") or else drawing it from Earth. Either way, they did not conserve momentum.



Furthermore the illustration you show above features two forms of inertial interaction. On the left is a linear inertia, interacting with an angular inertia; the linear inertia is also subject to gravitation.

Likewise, on the right-hand panel, we see two interacting angular inertias, one of which (the pendulum) is also subject to gravity...


As i have demonstrated in my current thread, both these conditions are capable of generating momentum from nothing. As such, it seems indisputable that what he's showing us here is the prime mover - the mechanism solely responsible for the symmetry break.

[MrVibrating]

...FWIW these key ingredients are also the main features of the three Kassel / Weisenstein engravings (featuring the stampers and water screw).

In a nutshell, if we apply a mutual force between two such inertias, whether they're angular or linear of some combination of both - at least one of which is also subject to gravity - then momentum is not conserved. We gain momentum.

No further solution is necessary. That is all we need to replicate.

[John.Smith4]

Mr Vibrating,
I think there will be much debate about what role conservation of momentum plays in this. One reason why is because the ascending weight will slow as it is being retracted unless the wheel accelerates. If that happens then momentum is being conserved.

[John.Smith4]

This is a little bit better video. Bessler did say
Cross-bar
cross-bar (noun) a structural member that crosses other elements; two perpendular beams crossing at the axis; lazy tongs
1.a “If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster." AP 340 Collins translation
http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic ... es&start=0

This is something that might work without levers. This would require the top weight to roll outward 90° ATC (3 o'clock) when the ascending weight is fully retracted. Then for 90° AfterTopCenter to BC (from 3 to 6 o'clock) there would be a significant over balance. If enough momentum is generated then about 1/2 of it would be used to retract the bottom weight as it moves from 180° (BottomCenter) to 90° BeforeTopCenter (6 to 9 o'clock).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9mNWSYdRYE

For any better demonstration to be done would require an almost complete wheel. Without levers it's about 75% complete, with levers less than 50% complete.

[MrVibrating]

Mr Vibrating,
I think there will be much debate about what role conservation of momentum plays in this. One reason why is because the ascending weight will slow as it is being retracted unless the wheel accelerates. If that happens then momentum is being conserved.

As a weight falls, it is converting its GPE (gravity times mass times height) into KE (1/2 mass times velocity squared).

Obviously, GPE = KE under this fundamental condition.

But since "KE" is a function of mass and also velocity, it also shares these dimensions with momentum, (mass times velocity).

For example, suppose we drop a 1 kg weight into freefall:

- Gravity's acceleration is ~9.81 meters per second, every second.
- So after falling for 1 second, 1 kg has a velocity of ~9.81 m/s.
- Since KE=1/2mV^2, it has 48.1 Joules.
- Since P=mV, it has 9.81 kg-meters/sec of momentum

Obviously if it then bounced, perfectly-elastically, straight back upwards, then it would rise by precisely 9.81 meters, in one second, and you'd be able to freeze-frame the moment it stopped in mid-air before plummeting again.

In that moment, all of its KE has been converted back into GPE, and with it, all its momentum also.

Therefore yes, gravitational interactions can only ever be fully conservative, with regards to both momentum and energy. No gain in either is possible.


Therefore Bessler's wheel wasn't a gravity wheel, even though it may have resembled superficial expectations of what that might entail..

Yet it did appear to depend upon vertical orientation. I'm not aware Bessler ever explicitly addressed this particular feature, though he does seem content to let others' be led by these false impressions..

Only an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law could explain his wheels' ability to gain momentum.. both in spite of not having stators to torque against, as well as because of that fact; a stator would act as an 'earth', grounding out the momentum gain. At the same time, since the wheel and axle turned together as one piece, how could it be applying torque? All motors need rotor and stator elements, yet not Bessler's wheels!?

Evidently then, there must be something you can do in a gravity field, via vertical rotation, that effectively violates Newton's 3rd law.

Breaking N3 does cause a rise in momentum, and for the same reason, energy. It not only doesn't need a stator, but could not work with one. I've already demonstrated the method, for both these angular / angular, and angular / linear interactions, using gravity to skew the effective resistances to accelerations of the two inertias, and so cause an asymmetric distribution of momentum, resulting in a non-zero sum of consistent sign that can be accumulated over successive cycles, yielding very high KE gains.

Momentum gained this way cannot be undone. It can be dissipated away, just like any other momentum, but, since the stuff is generally conserved, the only way to truly get rid of it is to run the same interaction that produced it, in reverse..

And yes, that's pretty much the same picture as with GPE interactions - picking the mass up again is undoing the momentum it generated. But there's a key difference; you have to undo that momentum gain to re-lift the weight. But you do not have to perform the inverse asymmetric inertial interaction, in order to perform a second of the same sign. Or third, fourth etc. - after five, you're more than 2x OU - twice as much rotational KE, compared to the PE required to wave the masses around. In principle, you can continue cycling asymmetric inertial interactions, of the same sign, one on top of another, indefinitely, only ever gaining momentum, and never having to give it back to where it came from.

I'm pretty sure this is the only solution possible, since it's fully consistent with all known physics and follows naturally from first principles - gravity (or any static force field) is required to cause the momentum imbalance, but does no actual work - it doesn't 'power' the resulting momentum rise, rather, input energy does, albeit at a drastically-reduced fixed rate, invariant of RPM. The energy gain arises from the 1/2mV^2 multiplier corresponding to the accrued momentum.

The principle could be readily tested with a live build - the test rig is simply a drop-test; drop two equal masses at the same time, aligned vertically, while also applying a linear force between them. Could be something as simple as a spring.

Analysis of the results would involve measuring / recording the relative accelerations of the weights as they fall - so we'd want to see a meter scale in the background, with a digital clock with milliseconds, and nothing else. We don't even need to know the exact weights of the masses, provided they're definitely equal, tho knowing the weights too would be best. The spring constant can simply be deduced from watching the mutual accelerations. A 60Hz phone camera could catch all the action..

Although a simple experiment, with entirely predictable results, given the context of that result, this could end up the seminal experiment of the century, for its extraordinarily overlooked significance... YT commenters will be lining up to claim they noticed all this years ago but couldn't work out what to do with it, LOL..

Anyhoos just shooting from the hip.. it's great that you're building, testing hypotheses and developing ideas. But watching people earnestly attempt GPE asymmetries is a human tragedy in motion.. i've wallowed there myself, we all have, even against our better judgements. What you find at the end of it - something Bessler himself seems to address directly - is that at the end of the day, all the levers and pulleys etc. are irrelevant to the equation - you can look past them, see thru them, and just focus on the weights vs gravity and height; gravity's constant, rest mass is constant, and thus any closed loop trajectory must yield zero net energy, regardless of the paths taken up or down. Any notion to the contrary is fool's gold. Magical thinking. OU cannot be magic..