Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[Sam Peppiatt]

I think the reporter must have been right. The weights would have to have had springs, just as I described, but it's some thing you have to make up your own mind about---------------------------------Sam

[Robinhood46]

Can it be assumed that the weights were cylindrical for a reason?
Is there a logic to making cylindrical weights, if triangular or square ones would have done the job equally as well?
Some of my failures over the years had weights of all sorts of shapes and sizes, a weight is a weight.It is it's mass that is affected by gravity not it's shape.
Can we deduct that any wheel that could work with weights other than cylindrical, are destined to fail? Or at least, not be Bessler's wheel.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Robinhood46,
Wolffe said that the weight that Bessler showed him was definitely cylindrical. No, hell no, they could be any shape, but to slide in and out on a spoke, a cylindrical weight would work best. Just as thx4 has suggested Bessler was faced with a big problem. He had to find a better way to stop them, better then by grabbing a hold of it. For me, it's what ever shape takes the least amount of sawing--------------------Sam

[Fletcher]

Not be Bessler's wheel RH.

Nothing was left to chance imo .. I have speculated previously they are Rollers with mass i.e. roller-weights (rws).

And my previous theory a year ago was that a looped chain ran around the outside of the roller-weights to add back imbalance forces.

So I simmed and built the perfect balanced subsystem - A Ramelli geared Roberval with the leavers horizontal - at the end of the leavers were rws - as you would expect it was perfectly balanced (had zero torque tendencies) in ANY position. Then I added the looped chain around the rws so that it hung off the rws to one side of the axle. The system COM and COG was clearly to one side of the center axle. It would move this way and that and stop.

Explanation : if one link is taken as a datum it would move backward or forward until the entire system (the chain) reached its position of least GPE (just like any pure-gw), and it stopped there at PQ. The sim showed this would be so, but I wanted to see the real-world build do the same thing - it did ! (you can find and read the thread with pics etc).

Conclusions : 1. that was about a perfect cancelled torque subsystem, then add back torque, as I could dream up. It didn't get even close to replenishing GPE and being self-moving - dead duck. 2. B's. solution has a constant drive torque ! Rws have either something rolling around them .. or .. they roll on something (as previous explained in my other thread just mentioned).

I think there is a lot of cognitive dissonance with the facts surrounding B's. wheels self starting from ANY position (one-way wheels). And being also able to be started with a push from ANY position for the two-way wheels.

If the witness statements are read with impartiality it perhaps sinks in - especially if you consider Wagner trying to accurately duplicate B's. performances.

Caveat : if you are not interested in how B. found a PM Principle and created a PM wheel then all this is moot, and carry on ! And as 99% do, continue to find a special case where a pure-gw miraculously is a self-mover, but first has to be primed to the optimal position of positive torque, and cross fingers that it will be unable to find and stop at PQ !

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher, what does that mean? pQ-----------------------from a big dummy---------------------------Sam

[Fletcher]

John Collins DT pg190 hardcopy :

Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717 :

"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

PQ = Punctum Quietus = "quiet point" =>> position of least Gravitational Potential Energy = Zero Torque

[Sam Peppiatt]

Thanks Fletcher,
Right. I remember that now----------------------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

... and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium...

What is the chance this means one weight rests against another? Placed together... touching, or placed together on a wheel. Arranged one against another, or arranged so that ones torque/force/impetus works against the other. You can see why someone might take this to mean impact. Literally those words seem like they roll past each other, or rest against each other, causing a further imbalance somehow. (repelling magnetism?)

[Fletcher]

@T79 ..

Mike Senior's Translation in JC's DT Pg190/191 Hardcopy

German and Latin Pages 20/21

"The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way
that weights (page 20) applied in accordance with the laws of
Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has
caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the
said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely –
that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity –
without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation –
such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other
‘automatics’ – e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require
rewinding. For this concept, my ‘principle of excess weight’, is
NOT just an external appendage, an ‘added-on device’ which is
there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the
continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cords
or chains, from which it depends, permit. NO, 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. To this end they are
enclosed (page 21) in a structure or framework, and coordinated
in such a way that not only are they prevented from
attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must
for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which
is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their
housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of
loads applied to the axis of rotation."


The previous translation from BW.com resource pages.

"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

[thx4]

@Fletcher, many thanks for the clarification...
I ended up reading the proposed articles, and there are a few things that bother me.
Apparently the pillar hammers or (stamp) can't be on the bi-directional, and it seems that the bi-directional is less powerful than the mono. I'll come back to the other elements.

In any case my current prototype is unidirectional, it requires a reset on a turn, so I may be in a bind (but I doubt lol).
I'm working on presenting the beast to you.
A++

[johannesbender]

thereby developing an impressive velocity which
is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their
housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of
loads applied to the axis of rotation.

Apart from the term constant torque ,we can also say that according to these descriptions , when it has constant torque, there is also the constant tendency to increase angular momentum from zero (start) up to its final speed, which was limited by the total weight of the masses and size of the wheel , because this is basicly the description of momentum/angular momentum .

Torque does not change with velocity , however angular momentum/momentum does change with velocity , so it seems likely that he says the end result is sufficient gain in momentum which is useable for work , however the added mention of the size of the "housing" refers to angular momentum.

Torque and angular momentum both are affected by force*distance .

So if we were to dial back to root causes , some of our prime properties at work were force and distance , which seem to have constantly disrupted equilibrium of the wheel and weights (according to interpretation).

If the masses weight were constant then the property that would be changeable was force and distance , if the distance was constant then the property that was changeable was force , if the force was constant then the property that was changeable was distance .

Either one or more of those properties were manipulated , which of them requires work to be done ..?

Edit: many mistakes were made on my mobile device ...

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
You can insult, be little and, reticule me all you want. Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how it was done doesn't mean it can't be--------------------Sam

[johannesbender]

@Fletcher ,I remember reading something to the effect of Bessler saying "that nobody's laws are in danger" ,
which i presumed meant something like "no one has to worry about their well known laws being broken when i reveal it" ,
if that was the case and i am not out of line here with what i remember and interpret from memory ,
there does not seem to be a situation where people need to "try" and break the laws ,
instead , i have always felt the correct approach was to be realistic and not to dismiss physics/mechanics as we know it ,
but to use what we know about it in a realistic and favourable way ,to overcome the so called "limitations" or confines ,
even carl was quoted as saying the principle was "viable".

So i am very easy to agree with applicable physics as we know it is the basis of a theory like the one you mention.

[Robinhood46]

Fletcher, i agree entirely that nothing was left to chance.
They were cylindrical because they couldn't be any other shape, or, because any other shape would have been less effective.
In my opinion, every factual detail we have, which are pretty limited admittedly, must be respected if we hope to replicate his achievement. I'm sure you have had the same experience, that often we need to modify things because without the modification, nothing bloody works.
The arms were curved, because they needed to be.
The weights were cylindrical, because they needed to be.
The weights were removable, because they needed to be. (not because it made it easier to move the wheel)
There was one inspection hole, because that is all that was needed.
When we try to replicate his wheel, if these factors don't fit our wheel, it will not work. Obviously just my opinion, and i would be pleased if someone made a runner that respects none of them, i just don't think it will happen. At least not until we actually understand the principal of perpetual motion and start the process of improving it.
Everything he said, is often adding more confusion than help, but i think he was only being economical with the truth as opposed to lying through his teeth.

[johannesbender]

Karl and the others who agreed to inspect and subject Besslers wheel to tests , did so "for the love of truth" , so we can be sure there is truth in theire statements as well as besslers.

Its not a lie when you state the same fundamental thing in a different way .