The puzzle has been solved

[ovaron]

"Wie Überwucht so plötzlich steigt" simply means that the imbalance increases. It does not necessarily mean that weights rise higher. Even if weights are shifted horizontally from the center to the periphery, one would say in German that the "Überwucht plötzlich steigt"

[Fletcher]

Thanks ovaron .. that makes sense to me. I like it when you guys who are native German speakers weigh in on translations. Especially if you have some physics and Bessler knowledge as many do. Context is often as important as the actual words I feel.

[unstable]

Ovaron, I thank you too.
Probably it is something that we all suspected, now we have the confirmation.
Understanding the meaning of Bessler's sentences correctly is essential for not fixing on false concepts.

[ovaron]

The problem is that we don't know exactly what Bessler means with "Ãœberwucht".
"Ãœberwucht" is no longer a common word today (maybe it also wasn't in his time), but IMO doesn't denote the weights themselves, but the imbalance.
"Wie Überwucht so plötzlich steigt" could then be translated as "how imbalance so suddenly increases".
However, if he means the weights themselves, then it has to translate "how the weights rise so suddenly". As always, a question of interpretation.

Sorry for the confusion. ;-)

[ME]

There's this common Dutch word NL:"Overwicht", high change we and our neighbors share a common meaning.

Two English words:
EN:"prevalence", to prevail, superior in force or power; predominant
EN:"preponderance": the quality of being greater in weight, force, influence, etc

I thought it was already settled on being this last one.

My personal associative image with this word is the moment when things have the opportunity to prevail (but doesn't necessarily need to).
Like, two opposing armies of equal force... only one still has infantry on route; a bit late to the party. When they arrive, that army will have NL:"overwicht"/EN:"superior force" and will likely win, or make the other retreat.

My Dutch/German dictionary doesn't know DE:"Ãœberwucht", but does know DE:"Wucht". Heavy, Weight, Packing, Load; and DE:"Wuchtig", Heavy, powerful, lifting up.

When you 'overload' or 'overpack'.. it will be at the point that something has to give (otherwise it's just heavy).
All indicate a change in leverage.

We also have NL:"Overgewicht", means: Excess luggage when you travel, or obesity.

In Holland and Germany the temperature DE:"steigt", NL:"stijgt", EN:"increases, rises".
When the increase (DE:steigen) of leverage (DE:Überwucht) is so sudden (DE:so plötzlich) then something got dropped or landed, or settled down on that lever (the lever could be the wheel itself of course)... but exactly how (DE:Wie) that's actually done is not something Bessler is talkative about (DE: Schad’t nichts, wenn mein Mund gleich noch schweigt)

[Fletcher]

All good discussion. Sometimes revisiting these things thought to be 'set in stone' and looking from a different angle or context can lead to a better understanding of what a sentence or phrase might mean in reality. Especially when not viewed in isolation.

In this case ovaron's alternative interpretations of meaning IMO reinforce B's other comments about the workings of his wheels. He says they work on imbalance, there is a preponderance, an excess impetus etc.

So for a 'gravity only' wheel to have excess leverage (asymmetric torque) two things can possibly lead to this scenario. You have to decide which is more or less likely.

Firstly, an internal weight can be given more GPE (vertical height) than it loses as it transitions elsewhere. That smacks of a 'helping hand' which has been discussed many times i.e. a replenishable fuel or ambient sourced power to give the weight excess height (that can be pure leveraged height gain or a 'quick/sudden' acceleration so that a weight launches to a new greater height after an initial impulse).

Secondly, a wheel might be in a configuration where there is always excess leverage to continue rotation. The problem here being that in a gravity only scenario to create leverage, even where one weight falls and another rises elsewhere by mechanical 'connection', the net GPE lost must be greater than the GPE gained to have any movement/leverage at all. Furthermore it is not only a case of net heights lost and gained but also a factor that the falling weight, at least initially, must have greater GPE lost than another gained so that it has inertia and will continue to move even if later it is losing less GPE than another gains.

The net result in the second scenario is that however it is managed the wheel CoM will move laterally and downwards. This is well known tho it can be greatly mitigated by the companion weight rising on the other side of the wheel to minimise this effect. Think MT's 9 thru 12 here as examples.

So to round out the current thought process of excess leverage as the causation of B's self moving wheels a second mechanical system would be required whose net CoM loss added to the excess leverage/preponderance rather than hindered it as is usually the case.

In summary a 'gravity only' self sustaining wheel must have excess leverage via some unique mechanical arrangements where GPE is lost and gained internally by weights resulting in a NET lateral shift of wheel CoM (to cause leverage in the first place) and also a NET gain in system CoM height (to cause excess wheel momentum (re overreaching swing arc) to carry beyond the sector/division) so that overall excess leverage and momentum is the resultant and natural condition.

Any other thoughts ?

[Silvertiger]

One should also consider how "impetus" was considered in Bessler's time, especially with the popularity of the Tunnel Experiment. Impetus then becomes a side-to-side motion rather than up and down. Bessler could have easily used this notion of gravity pendular oscillation when he states that while one weight has an upward impetus (momentum), another has an equal downward one. The tunnel thought experiment provided that a ball was suspended on a celestial cord from the vault of heaven, which, when let go from a height, would pass through a tunnel through the center of the earth and come out the other side an equal distance, and would oscillate like that back and forth through the earth-tunnel, and thus gravity for a time could be perceived as movement in the x direction, as the curve of the arc-segment it traced through the earth would have such an immense radius that the curvature could be dismissed and the path could be treated as a straight line. I'm paraphrasing from the wiki of course.

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

Yes, I have an other thought.

We can move weight's sidewards without loosing high.
So we can receive torque for free !!
The energy in the wheel will oscillate!!
There are some conditions to meet this, but it is possible.

I showed how to get the "Ãœberwucht", it is based on a different fast acceleration of the mass against gravity.

We have to double the construction on one lever. Left and right.
So one of the Pendelwheels are going to the rim and the other to the axle, producing torque.

[unstable]

Fletcher, very interesting what you wrote .. I have to elaborate, it is not easy for me to understand all this.

[Fletcher]

That's ok unstable. It's not easy for any of us to understand else we would have come up with a thought experiment to prove the proposition and it would have fallen out of the math used in the physics formulas long ago.

If B's wheel was a gravity only wheel working on sustained imbalance then it is a well hidden but subtle relationship to system CoM and mechanical interactions.

[unstable]

"If B's wheel was a gravity only wheel working on sustained imbalance then it is a well hidden but subtle relationship to system CoM and mechanical interactions."


Yes, and it is probably for this reason that the Bessler system could not be discovered for many years yet.

[Georg Künstler]

of course you remember Besslers words

swinging is the key

But he hasn't told us the form/characteristics of the swinging.

From my Experiments I have found that the swinging is a Swinging in the room.
This is a Swinging up and down and also from left to right.

Such an Experiment can be shown very easily with an excentrical weight best is an excentical roller and a sheet of paper.

When the sheet of paper is moved horizontal the excentric roller will react on this movement with raising the excentrical weight up.
A periodic Repetition will increase the amplitude of the swinging.

Have a look to the mails of THx4. He has already the platform for the Excentrical roller.
His platform is oscillating horizontal..

I have seen such a construction at the Castle ELZ in Germany.
It is used to bring children to sleep.
The figure was like a Head with two eyes.
The head was shaking and also the eyes were Swinging like a pendulum.

In my eyes a 2 stage oscillator.

[ovaron]

@ Georg

of course you remember Besslers words

swinging is the key

Where did Bessler say that? Bessler talks about "Schwung" what means momentum.
(Des Rades eigne Kraft von innen
Muß ohne allen Schwung beginnen)

I'm not aware of any place where he speaks of "Schwingen" what would mean swinging. Translation confusion?

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Ovaron,

http://www.besslerwheel.com/wwwboard/messages/435.html

I don't know from where the source is comming. I have not the original german source.

[unstable]

From Bill site: "Karl stated to his ministers that he believed the wheel was indeed a perpetual motion and that he was amazed that no one had invented a similar machine before Bessler. He claimed it was so simple and easy to understand that a "carpenters boy" could build one after seeing inside the wheel."

What I believe we all ask ourselves is how it is possible to obtain OU through a mechanical system defined "SIMPLE" by Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel... and if it really were simple, why nobody came close to the solution, even just by mistake ?
I'm interested in what Trevor writes ... it could be probable as an answer to the mystery.
There is almost certainly a physical principle that we can not focus on.
In my opinion, only the exploitation of a certain physical principle could allow rotation while keeping the mechanical structure simple.

I wonder if Bessler did not use the air to slightly brake and slightly accelerate the weights differently between the two parts of the wheel. ... or anything else designed to create a differential between the two sides of the wheel. With gravity alone it seems impossible to achieve this.