Theorising Bessler's `Excess Weight`

[Gill Simo]

It's the case is it not that when it comes to attempting to discover PM we're all faced with a somewhat unique circumstance...that being that all knowledge applied to the matter is, as such, irrelevent.

This is because all knowledge relevent to the matter defines it as impossible....we all might have a nagging suspicion that it is possible...but as things stand we truly only `kmow` that it isn't!

The innevitable result of this situation is that nobody actually has a reference point from where to start one's investigation.

However, we do, in this instance, have input straight from the horses mouth so to speak & although we've all pawed over Bessler's words over & over, without apparently gleaning the slightest of insight, it remains the case that those words are all we've got, end of...so we really have no option other than to go over them again...& again.

Now...I've addressed this before...but I feel this qualifies for an again.

Bessler has a working PM device right before him & he declares that the weights employed themselves constitute the PM itself...that these weights `are moving in accordance to a Principle of PM`
There's no doubt, no question, on his part....he's looking at it & concluding that there is a Principle for PM & that these weights are, to the best of his knowledge, engaging in that Principle.
The next part is quite the opposite though....that this Principle results in what Bessler states to be a `theory` of excess weight...his theory then.
That is surely intriguing is it not?

It suggests that Bessler has no doubt as to the Principle involved but he is still forced to question the result/effect of that Principle....only able therefore to suggest a theory?

We all jump to an assumption when `excess weight` is mentioned....we immediately assume imbalance somewhere around the axle...it's the very first & more often than not the only thing we jump to in assessing any design presented here...where's the imbalance, no imbalance = no driving force.
We appear to think that we know everything there is to know re imbalance/excess weight...that its presence or not is some obvious.
But come on now...for it clearly wasn't obvious to the very fella who cracked it, was it?

Bessler's theorising suggests that there is, or according to him at least, possibly is, a form of excess weight beyond the one both he & we know very well & so readily adopt.

All that said then I'd like to offer a simple design...I'm not going to make a case for it because I really know nothing other than high school physics when it comes to all the forces acting within a wheel.
Many here do know a lot...so I'll ask you's to please apply that knowledge to the following....but with excess weight like you've never perhaps imagined it kept in mind.
Put simply...might the following arrangement possibly give rise to a situation of excess weight...can any of you's forward a theory for it?

-------------------

Take three bunched spheres in one palm, three in the other & bring them together...to form a six sphered octahedron..
Now go beyond bringing these six together...squeeze further, such that one set of three starts to ride over the other, all three of its spheres therefore spreading out from their bunched situation.

How far I really wouldn't know...a squeeze resulting in a very slight ride/very slight spreading...a squeeze resulting in three max spread spheres sat directly over/around the bunched three. Whatever....

Employing the distance between your two palms, set two Sabu Discs, each on their own independent axles, at that distance apart...with this squeezed six sphere arrangement sat within.

Gravity will of couse balance this arrangement out....the spread three will contract inwards towards being bunched, the bunched three will expand/spread outwards...until both sets of three are each held, spread equally in either disc.
Manually force any set back to being bunched...due to the design of the two discs then that set will be forced along the axis towards the opposite disc, resulting in the other set spreading out further, also forced to move along the axis in the same direction.
And visa-versa.

Alternatively....imagine a seventh sphere set centrally between each set of three. Again, squeeze until that seventh sphere is forced between one or other of these two bunched sets, spreading them apart....again, no matter by what degree.
Gravity will again dictate that this seventh sphere will rest/balance between both sets...both sets spread equally. Manually force one set together, the seventh will be forced along the axis into the other set, thus spreading them further.
Again, visa-versa.

On the face of it all is & remains balanced throughout....but might it be of significance that this balance is both around & along the axis?

Might it be the case that this seventh sphere can be considered the axle...that gravity is being applied to it vertically & that, as Bessler suggested...this axle must move in its turn?

I must confess that the situation here has me confused....the squeeze of the two discs is causing the central, seventh sphere to force apart spheres around, either side of it...but that seventh sphere has the force of gravity acting vertically down on it....would this result in the squeeze of that seventh sphere being different in terms of its force on each of the individual three around that its squeezing on either side...that force/squeeze differing & dependent upon where around exactly each of any three may be positioned?

Is that seventh sphere, acted upon by gravity, an excess weight that's somehow being factored into the sum of weight in motion about the axis...about itself as such?

Please dwell on it & by all means confirm to me that my thoughts are muddled & irrelevent to the cause having done so.

In closing I'd like to add that Bessler surely didn't employ spheres as here employed along with Sabu Discs. There's little point in explaining it just now...but there is a very simple alternative to using spheres. That alternative appears to perhaps connect to Bessler's toy's page & to an alternative to Sabu Discs...namely Bessler's wheel engraving.

Thanks/Gill

[agor95]

Hello Gill

An interesting read of your textual presentation.

It would take some time to implements a visualization.

However I am studying concepts inspired by yourself.

Your placement of a Tetrahedron between two Sabu Discs.

This then inspires the principle that a two ball swap can happen in a three sector enclosure.

That in turn hints of using more than two dimensions gives us more options.

Previously noted a one dimensional movement takes energy from the system.
However if this was increased to two dimensions then this energy loss is reduced.

So a mass moving forwards and backwards converted to a mass moving in a circle.

From there you can look at three dimensions.

However one has to break out of the existing
conceptual framework or you will be confined within it.

Regards

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Gill, Yes, excess weight. Maybe a lot of weight. If so, why so much? It's some thing to consider---------------------------Sam

[agor95]

Hi Sam

Something to think about; What is weight?

Then how to make more of it in excess.

Regards

[Sam Peppiatt]

agor95, Not so much what, as why? If Gill is right, why so much weight? maybe what it means is the weight was in close or closer to the center, not out near the rim of the wheel, as I have always imagined it would be---------------------------------------------Sam

PS Remember your big roller inside of a wheel, you know, the one with the 1 to 1 gear ratio? Maybe it was some thing like that.

[agor95]

...why so much weight?

It is tricky trying to figure out why. So I went for the simplify approach. Then build up to the reason why.

At the moment I have chosen 'what weight is' and in a way that gets me to the why you seek. Also large wheel side.

The point is a wheel does not have to be large or have weights within it. But you need 'Excess Weight'.

So a device can be light and have weight.

Regards

[Sam Peppiatt]

I'm sorry agor, you have a way of losing me. I'm thinking about weight compared to leverage. If a weight is way out near the rim it doesn't have to be very heavy to turn the wheel. However, if the weight was in closer to the center of the wheel, it would have to be heavier, a lot heavier, to do the same thing. Do you see what I'm suggesting? If indeed there was excess weight; perhaps that's the reason why. And, if that's true, maybe a heavy roller near the center, was used to turn the wheel, ----------------------------------------Sam

[agor95]

Hi Sam Peppiatt

Well riddles are a part of Bessler world.

There is problems when invoking levers for they are conservative.
Also a mass on the rim has issues with the limit of gravity's acceleration and getting the mass back up to it's starting point.

These generally block people from moving on to another way of thinking.

I understand your thinking for I have studies the options in the past.

I trust you agree we want weight on one side of the wheel more than the other?

Regards

[Sam Peppiatt]

argo, Right, However you seam to have totally missed my point but, never mind-----------------------------------------Sam

[agor95]

argo, Right, However you seam to have totally missed my point but, never mind-----------------------------------------Sam

So you are putting forward a heavy weight needs to exist near the center of the device to act like a smaller weight at the rim.

Therefore the 'Excess Weight' is this heavy weight required near the center due to the mechanical advantage of levers.

Regards

[Sam Peppiatt]

Yes, Yes, argo, that's it, a little bit like the hamster effect. My notion is; the wheels had constant torque. A heavy roller would do that. It would drive the wheel continuously. The question is; how to drive the roller, how to replace the hamster----------------------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .
The question is; how to drive the roller, how to replace the hamster----------------------------------------Sam

I hear soon is looking for a job.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Very good Walt. Why not? No, he's on disability------------------------Sam

[neuberlintourist1]

Picture please

[Tarsier79]

Sam. Weights near the center don' t have to be heavier to have the "same" effect.

I have two balanced weights out near the rim on a wheel, one at 3 and one at 9: I move the one at 3:00 out 3cm. It provides a small torque and the wheel turns.

I have the same two weights, but now they are very close to the axle at 3 and 9: I move the one at 3:00 out 3cm. It provides the same torque as above. The only difference, the weights now have less inertia compared to the wheel. Less inertia is easier to move, the wheel turns faster than above.