Anyone suffer health problems over this?

[silent]

.

[silent]

.

[WaltzCee]

But if you consider the entire wheel as one giant axle ...

I blame that idea on Frank Grimmer, mechanical precession.

[Johndoe2]

Great just got out of ER after spending 2 days in the hospital with pneumonia. Still only 50%. Wheel is going to have to wait a few days until im well enough for another set of modifications. Hopefully well enough this weekend. No work thos week either just rest and antibiotics. Sucks ass...

[ME]

...or consider the axle the wheel...

True, it becomes a naming issue.

The difference between a wheel and an axle is mechanical advantage.
But you talked about "resting on the axle": there is not advantage when they are just the same thing.
Or, when the axle is static, then besides friction with the wheel, any resting mechanism dragged or pushed by the wheel would, besides having the same torque effect on the system, just experience added friction with that lagging axle.

But if you consider the entire wheel as one giant axle ...

I blame that idea on Frank Grimmer, mechanical precession.

Meh, People created a wheel/axle long before Grimer was.


Johndoe2, get well.

[WaltzCee]

Meh, People created a wheel/axle long before Grimer was

Grimmer's idea is the mechanical precession. Maybe he'll
chime in so I don't mischaracterize his thoughts. He is
the first mention I've heard of a wheel driven by mechanical
precession.

I'm pretty sure Fred Flintstone has the patent on the wheel.
Him and Raj.

[silent]

.

[silent]

.

[cloud camper]

Kerry Waenga is a known fraud, his designs don't work because they are based on leverage, which Bessler said does not work and physics says does not work.

Promoting his ideas only helps Kerry scam others making it seem as though there is something legitimate about his ideas - which there is nothing but BS to try and scam your money.

Find someone besides Kerry, a known swindler who has defrauded members on this forum to base your ideas from!!

[silent]

.

[ME]

:-)

The reason I'm so excited about this is that Bessler himself said that if you combine certain mechanisms found in the MT, you can create a movement.

Sure he did. I'm glad you find that remark so encouraging!
It became obvious to Bessler at the moment right before it finally worked which flushed away the earlier failures.

Further demonstrations
regarding the possibility and
impossibility of perpetual motion

NB. May 1, 1733. Due to the arrest, I burned and buried all papers that prove the possibility. However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments, since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them.

Wouldn't it be interesting when any of those hints were indeed like artifacts desperately in need of some Indiana Jones to puzzle them together?
Indiana would need to be extremely lucky when we glance a bit at the statistical implication of "various".
"Various" is at least more than two. With 140 or so drawings you have about three million combinations to discern.
Exponentially more when you'd need at least four, or even when there are several mechanical parts or principles to consider per drawing.
It's such a combinatorial mess of variables, especially when you included specific lengths, positions, orientations, range limitations, mass distribution, dependencies of motion...
Indiana should still need to know some basic physics to quickly see which one will surely fail, and which one may deserve more attention or a push in some direction to kickstart the potential PMM..

Anyway, literally, good luck.
I'm sure the clues will fit in hindsight.
But for me it's really hard to understand at least some of the MT's.
For instance, is there a difference among MT 63, 64, 65, 70, 71, 72 and their principle found somewhere else?
I mean, I could try to project some fuzzy ideas onto them... but would those be Bessler's?

In this day and age, it should be totally possible to build the wheel with a bit more power than Bessler could come up with

Optimization is not the problem as long as we have something to optimize.

[Fletcher]

In this day and age, it should be totally possible to build the wheel with a bit more power than Bessler could come up with.

Optimization is not the problem as long as we have something to optimize.

JB built his first wheel at age 32, in 1712. He died in 1745, 33 years later.

He publicly demonstrated 4 wheels, the first in Gera in 1712, the last at Castle Weissenstein in 1717.

The first two earlier ones were one-directional and self starting. They had to be tied down !

The later two wheels (bi-directional) were not self starting.

He destroyed two wheels. The second at Draschwitz, and the fourth at Weissenstein. The last at Weissentein was destroyed in 1721.

JB says that he built a table top wheel in 1728. And one was planned for his landlord in 1745, the year he died.

Each wheel got dimensionally bigger. They had larger diameters and got thicker. But still they were proportionally like a very thin coin. The later proportional increases in thickness of his bi-directional wheels is postulated to be the need for back-to-back mechanisms i.e. two one-directional wheels on one axle able to revolve and do Work in opposite directions.

Power did not increase significantly, IMO. In fact JB got into a stoush with Wagner about his calculations for power in relation to diameter, which Wagner said JB grossly overestimated, given the evidence of the public wheels.

My point is that over 33 years JB couldn't improve the power output significantly. That is a clue in and of itself imo. Some put this down to lack of structural strength of available materials. I don't find that argument particularly meaningful.

I think it far more likely that JBs' wheels had only a small continuous imbalance ability, and this could not be significantly grown. It was limited by engineering constraints i.e. the mechanical relationships internally employed within the wheels. Surely JB would have made power output a priority for sale prospects, but he either didn't or couldn't ?

For a single wheel on an axle diameter was clearly important to maximising power output. Yet they had low power density.

Having said that ME I'm sure there is room for improvement 300 years later. But perhaps not anything earth shattering, imo.

[ME]

Optimization is not the problem as long as we have something to optimize.

Optimizations can take many forms.
Perhaps we want one for speed, for a Bessler's fan;
Perhaps we want one for slow but reliable, for a Bessler's Clock;
Perhaps we want one that's lightweight and portable, like Bessler's origami.
Perhaps we want one for Power, for a Bessler's Power source;

Optimization is not the most important word, but that small word "we" is.

[eccentrically1]

I’d say the important word is “something “.

[ovyyus]

My point is that over 33 years JB couldn't improve the power output significantly. That is a clue in and of itself imo.

I think Bessler's low power output points to a limited power source rather than engineering constraints.