The war of the ego about an unrealizable illusion

[unstable]

Oh yes, the battle of the ego intensifies ... to the point of not giving more importance to the discovery of the possible solution. ;-)))

[ovyyus]

These weights (themselves), on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement

What part of the above quote describes the lifting of weights?

Once again. It's not opinion, it's fact. Bessler never spoke about what actually lifted the weights inside his wheel.

[unstable]

Bessler really did as I showed on the previous page. I make the discovery public. Therefore it's "prior art"
If you set the starting point in the middle of the operation ... well, from the middle to the end of the movement, the position of the COM rises ! More clear than that I do not know what to say. Do not be blind, analyze what I have showed ... it's his secret !!

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... &start=161

[Oystein]

These weights (themselves), on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement

What part of the above quote describes the lifting of weights?

Once again. It's not opinion, it's fact. Bessler never spoke about what actually lifted the weights inside his wheel.

Because he didn't use the word lift?

Bessler said:

NO! on the contrary!

These weights constitute the perpetual motion itself

"Itself" is not a physical principle, is it?

Instead of lifting and lowering, that would not make so much sense in a rotating wheel, Bessler used the description "speedy flight".

So does he not really say that "These weights constitute their perpetual speedy flight itself?

If you exchange flight with lift...we are damn close aren't we?

[unstable]

Marchello, Fletcher and John (Collins), carefully analyze what I have shown and try to simulate it. It is Bessler's secret. I'm sure.
He exploited the conversion between arc movement to straight line movement. It seems to provide an advantage to our purpose (PM). It had already been clear for some time, to me, that the secret had to do with the conversion of the arc to the straight line movement

I am very happy and satisfied that I finally managed to figure out what the mechanism used by Bessler was. I knew I was on the right track. Now I have had the confirmation and I'm sure that is the heart of the secret of the Bessler wheel.
There will certainly be constructive variations with respect to what Bessler did, but the principle is that !

[Oystein]

Anyway I just want to close my part of this discussion with repeating Bessler statement, true or not:

These weights are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself;

If Bessler told the truth here and by saying that the motion of the weights was caused by the weights themselves as he wrote. That would include all kinds of change in motion like: rotating, lifting, pushing, pulling, jerking, lowering etc. etc.

Two options:

- If so, Bessler actually told about what lifted or moved his weights! The weights alternating on moving each other.

- Or else he lied about what drove the weights in his wheel!

The one view is not more true than the other at this point.
None is a fact.

IMO
ØR

[ovyyus]

Because he didn't use the word lift?

What about...

...anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the center and climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly...

or...

A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall.

or...

...one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound...

or...

I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise.

I guess you'll now complain that 'raising' isn't 'lifting' :D

[unstable]

My drawing also explain the shape of the Bessler weights. Cylindrical with an hole in the middle. Weight must roll on a surface and pierced with a bar, as I have done. Many clues match with my mec.
I hope you all understand that the secret has finally been discovered.

A very low power spring may help a lot... has Bessler use too.

[daxwc]

It is sort of ominous to me that Bessler never talks about gravity being the cause for raising the weights. I know JC believes it is because the term was not used much yet, but Bessler does use the term "excess impetus". I think in a roundabout way the following quote pins it on mechanical application and therefore gravity.

"He writes that, to date, no one has
ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required
task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I
were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then
people would say: "Now I understand!� AP pg 236 John Collins"

[unstable]

The problem was to find a type of linkage that would allow the center of mass to move upwards. I arrived there thanks to some intuitions. The Bessler design (toys page) of the bar with 5 slots (for sliding guide) helped me a lot. Thanks to that design I realized that they were N cascaded mechanisms. The idea of the lateral weights used also for helping to lift was by intuition and test. Simple and effective mechanism.

[eccentrically1]

"The energy can't be perpetually drawn from the machine's environment, that isn't PM."

Might it be considered PM while the energy source isn't defined?

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean Bessler's wheels drew energy from the environment, but either he didn't know that, or he knew it but that was his "secret", and allowed him to claim genuine PM?

eg: James Cox knew that fluctuations in atmospheric pressure powered his clock, yet he claimed it was a 'true PM' because his mechanism harnessed what appeared to be a relatively undefined perpetual force. By today's standards Cox would be labelled a fraud for such a claim, yet he was able to act in good faith at the time (and retain his head if so challenged). In this regard, Bessler may have exercised an advantage that no longer exists for us.

Yes, since the terms and concepts 'energy' and 'energy source' weren't understood very well, then the "force" that could have powered his wheels and did power Cox's clock would not have been as defined as the force of gravity, for example. The only other three fundamental forces not even a consideration.

No one ever tried to answer my challenge question.

How much force do you think it takes to nudge a flywheel along?

If the weights didn't move in and out (the classic OB method Bessler seems to rule out in his statement -

"Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to be that one has to learn through bitter experience." -

which unfortunately doesn't square with this one -

"a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, at its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time."

If the weights were only balancing each other's mass relative to their motion,(in other words, they were merely "along for the ride", and not overbalancing the motion of the wheel structure, because no matter their relative positions they balanced each other) then we are left with an unbalanced static wheel but a balanced flywheel, once in motion.

If we are left with a flywheel of ? mass, how much force would it take to nudge it along once it reached its top speed?

[daxwc]

You are mistaken eccentrically1 it is taken out of context you need the whole quote:

"These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up
an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle.
Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing
places all the time. (This principle is in fact the one that Wagner
said he owed to me - but I was quite wrongly implicated, as I'd
never informed anyone about the matter.)"

[daxwc]

Bessler’s parameters for perpetual motion is declared in DT.

"But if any of these would-be heroes thinks he may have a
chance to cause difficulties with hair-splitting arguments about
whether my machine really deserves to be called a Perpetual
Motion device, which, they say, is an impossibility according to
the best mathematical arguments, then let them think again, for I
really have never been able to understand why names should
cause (page 72) such vexatious problems. I therefore set forth
the following explicit definition of the object in question so that
all can recognise the basics of the matter: -

A Perpetual Motion mechanism, as desired so long by the most
well-known persons, is at bottom nothing other than a machine
made of material, therefore heavy, substances and parts,
assembled in such a fashion that once it has received an
externally-given motive force will never lose it but will continue
endlessly without interruption to retain that motion." DT pg 216

[unstable]

L'importante è che almeno uno fra di noi ci sia arrivato. Tra non molto avremo tutti un modello di ruota a rotazione perpetua, in casa. Eureka, eureka, finalmente è stato risolto il mistero...dopo 300 anni... era ora !

The important thing is that at least one of us has arrived. Soon we will all have a model of perpetual rotation wheel, at home. Eureka, eureka, the mystery has finally been solved ... after 300 years ... it was time !

[daxwc]

Well at least you are proving your handle is germane. 8)