Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[agor95]

Agreed moving the masses without following a natural path will wast energy.

The device wants to rotate Counter Clockwise.

The weir view is even when the device is not turning the masses are moving.

That acceleration equivalence stuff I go on about.

So there is a fight on as each mass wants to minimize their acceleration.
If a person rotates the wheel one way and the other.
Then the accelerations would change. One could use an approximation using distance
in a step in time.

Each mass in that time step would move vertically up the same amount because of the equivalence principle.

However the amount of movement due to us rotating the device would be different due to these reasons.

The distance from the hub and the vertical component of that rotation movement.

So the rotation we impost on the device has too reduce the total distance travelled by the masses.

Something to think about.

Rotate in the wrong direction or to fast will increase the total system distance in the time step.

You can use the alternative view. In the time step the masses would have dropped in free fall to new positions.
What rotation would cause the masses to be as close to these imagined positions too reduce total distances?

[eccentrically1]

The masses in 63 need energy given to them to get to those positions in his drawing.

They’re just drawn in overbalancing positions.

We have to figure out how he gave those masses energy to get to those positions.

We’re trying to use a minimum amount of energy to move the smallest number of masses the shortest distance in the shortest time.
Mt 63 seems like a good example.

[Sam Peppiatt]

ecc1,
I thought that you along with jb, decided that any change in radius, should be avoided as Bessler also suggested. Or, have you changed your mind about that-----------------Sam

[eccentrically1]

No , that was just a thought experiment jb came up with to show that gravity isn’t an energy field. It’s just a force field; it can hold potential energy but it can’t be used as an energy source. So, any wheel that depends on gravity to turn fails because of this”energy deficit”. Page 86 0r 87.
So to comply with the historical attempts at PM, Bessler wants everyone to think he discovered a classic OB wheel, right?
I.e., radius changing designs. They’re all over MT. But, he also discovered a way to make up the energy deficit.
I think he used the simplest radius changing design like 63 or similar. I’m sure he didn’t use one of those really complicated ones. It was said to be simple, like 63. And the radius change would need to take a very short amount of time, imo.
We’ve discussed before about how little time there was at those rpm’s for the weights to shift radius. Fraction of a second.
They might not have changed very much at all. Maybe just a few inches.

[Sam Peppiatt]

How can you change the radius if you don't use gravity?

I don't see where there is any energy deficit problem. Seams to me, the energy from falling weights is virtually limitless. Or, if there is a problem, maybe what he discovered to avoid it, was by NOT changing the radius---Sam

ETA,
Maybe that's the key to the whole thing. If you don't change the radius, you never have to lift the weights up. And, if you don't lift them, the energy deficit problem is eliminated, if there is one.

[agor95]

We have to figure out how he gave those masses energy to get to those positions.

We’re trying to use a minimum amount of energy to move the smallest number of masses the shortest distance in the shortest time.
Mt 63 seems like a good example.

Members are more than welcome to looking at MT63 and puzzle how to get those mass positions.

The process of analysing MT63 using small steps of time and distance could be call differential calculus.
However that was not really well known in Bessler's time. So shortest time/distance will do.

The process I posted does arrives at the minimum amount of energy within the system to create movement.

We will progress in finding more during the process.
However can you look at MT63 as a teaching aid instead of as solution clue?

All the Best

[johannesbender]

ecc1,
I thought that you along with jb, decided that any change in radius, should be avoided as Bessler also suggested. Or, have you changed your mind about that-----------------Sam

Sam.

I dont know where you have read me said that you should avoid radius changes , one thing i am not is a critic of facts haha ,let me clear it up for you ,it is a fact according to physics that the path taken by a mass between two points of different height , in a gravity field , with neglect to resistance and friction will always need the same work therefore the same energy .

In the no friction and no resistance context ,if you cannot solve the energy it requires to lift the mass from one height to the other , it is irrelevant and pointless what ever path you take .

Now if you add in the resistance and friction in the equations as needed , then depending on how efficient the design is , whether its a radius change or not , one may need more energy than the other.

In the real world the inefficiency costs energy losses , the path taken does not affect the work needed to lift it (neglecting losses), but the resistance and friction along the lift path and the mechanics involved does .

But , neither one of them whether its the more efficient one or not , and whether the more efficient one is a radius change or not , would end up having enough energy to reset unless the energy problem is solved .

Therefore whether something is either based on a pendulum swing or a bounce or a radius change should not be the main form of argument for what is deemed as a "possible working device" , the main point is energy and it is energy that will show what is and is not a "working device".

Its the facts that is backed by physics , and why i said Bessler could possibly have meant (perhaps maby who knows) with changes in radius or as he put it "some things further away than others" does not necessarily solve it as he has learned through sheer effort , and which is littered throughout MT too , its not just a matter of a design that arranges for torque or motion but a design that solves for the energy .

He clearly was naïve when it comes to physics as showcased in MT with all those non workable designs , there was a clear lack of understanding the energy/work required in the physics of those designs , and according to himself wrote that he left out the solution , if his solution was real it would have been something that solved for the energy.

It is my opinion and i will share it without caring being called a SOB , he started out very gifted in mechanics but not learned in physics , and then later on learned the physics and learned why they did not work , one without the other is pointless .

ETA , don't like spotting mistakes in my text.

[eccentrically1]

How can you change the radius if you don't use gravity?

I don't see where there is any energy deficit problem. Seams to me, the energy from falling weights is virtually limitless. Or, if there is a problem, maybe what he discovered to avoid it, was by NOT changing the radius---Sam

ETA,
Maybe that's the key to the whole thing. If you don't change the radius, you never have to lift the weights up. And, if you don't lift them, the energy deficit problem is eliminated, if there is one.

Gravity is only good for one cycle if your design begins unbalanced (the weights put into place by hand). After that, your design would need to lift those weights into those positions because your hands aren't there to place them. Gravity can't lift a design into continuous OB. There is no virtually limitless energy from falling weights unless they are limitlessly lifted by some external force (via energy transfer).

If he didn't change the radius in his design, then the weights were simply part of the wheels' mass, adding to the moment of inertia and they were just giant flywheels waiting for that transfer of energy he found. The energy deficit problem isn't eliminated in a flywheel, it's just minimized by some amount.
I think the short lift tests were small radius change designs and the long test was nearly a flywheel.

[eccentrically1]

We have to figure out how he gave those masses energy to get to those positions.

We’re trying to use a minimum amount of energy to move the smallest number of masses the shortest distance in the shortest time.
Mt 63 seems like a good example.

Members are more than welcome to looking at MT63 and puzzle how to get those mass positions.

The process of analysing MT63 using small steps of time and distance could be call differential calculus.
However that was not really well known in Bessler's time. So shortest time/distance will do.

The process I posted does arrives at the minimum amount of energy within the system to create movement.

We will progress in finding more during the process.
However can you look at MT63 as a teaching aid instead of as solution clue?

All the Best

Yes, it's a good teaching aid. That's why he put together all of MT, as a teaching aid.

[Sam Peppiatt]

jb, ecc1,
I don't know what to say---------------------------Sam

Maybe I will add this. I refuse to accept the theory that it can't be done.

[johannesbender]

Energy losses in mechanics according to chatgpt ( i sure hope it has its facts straight , because it saves me time i would have needed to research and write all of it... )

In mechanics, there are several types of energy losses, including:

1. **Frictional Losses**: These occur when objects rub against each other, generating heat and reducing mechanical energy. Friction can occur at contact points between surfaces or within fluid mediums, like air or water.

2. **Air Resistance**: When an object moves through a fluid, such as air, it experiences resistance that can dissipate kinetic energy. This effect is particularly significant at higher speeds.

3. **Elastic Deformation**: When objects undergo deformation, some of the mechanical energy is converted into potential energy in the form of elastic strain. This energy can be lost when the object returns to its original shape.

4. **Inelastic Collisions**: In collisions, some of the kinetic energy can be lost if the collision is not perfectly elastic. In real-world scenarios, most collisions are at least partially inelastic.

5. **Sound and Vibrational Energy**: Mechanical systems can lose energy in the form of sound or vibrations, which are often considered as unwanted energy losses, such as in damping systems.

6. **Heat Dissipation**: Energy can be lost as heat due to various mechanisms, including internal friction within materials and resistive heating in electrical components.

7. **Hysteresis Losses**: In cyclic processes involving materials that exhibit hysteresis, such as ferromagnetic materials, energy is lost as the material undergoes repeated cycles of magnetization and demagnetization.

Minimizing these energy losses is crucial in engineering to improve the efficiency of mechanical systems, whether it's in machines, vehicles, or other applications.

Now some more :

The types of energy losses mentioned earlier are some of the most common and significant ones encountered in mechanics and engineering. However, depending on the specific context and system under consideration, there can be other forms of energy losses as well. These may include:

8. **Radiative Losses**: In situations where electromagnetic radiation is generated, such as in high-energy particle collisions or electronic circuits, energy can be lost in the form of photons.

9. **Electromagnetic Induction Losses**: In electrical systems, energy can be lost due to electromagnetic induction, which occurs when changing magnetic fields induce currents in nearby conductors, resulting in energy dissipation.

10. **Fluid Viscosity**: In fluid mechanics, the viscosity of a fluid can cause energy losses as it resists the relative motion of adjacent fluid layers. This effect is known as viscous dissipation.

11. **Creep and Plastic Deformation**: Over time, materials subjected to constant stress may undergo creep or plastic deformation, leading to energy losses as the material changes shape.

12. **Wear and Tear**: In mechanical systems with moving parts, wear and tear due to friction and contact can lead to energy losses and reduce the lifespan of components.

These additional forms of energy losses may not be encountered in all mechanical systems, and their significance varies depending on the specific application. Engineers and scientists consider these factors when designing systems and aim to minimize energy losses wherever possible to improve efficiency and performance.

Imo there are some things which are unavoidable and some things impossiple , and no design on earth can avoid all of the above mentioned energy losses , unless if someday by some very advanced technology it happens to be possible to avoid all of the above mentioned energy losses .

In the sim world and in the math world , all of these losses can be ignored , and the laws that was established states that even if all such losses are ignored , that the energy out is never more than the energy in , the most you can get from ignoring energy losses is that the energy out can be equal to energy in .

If we accept that it is impossible to avoid all energy losses in a build in the real world , then we have to accept that energy out would be less than energy in , and that to solve such a problem requires to adress the energy loss .

If you think about it , if the wheel was not fraud it would be based on an energy solution , and if it was fraud then it turned because energy was provided by some other fraudulent means.

The irony of it is , if you want to build a fraudulent self sustained device or a real self sustained device you need energy for both cases.

[WaltzCee]

.
.
::: this is a most excellent & delicious word salad that the most worthy have assembled & presented for our collective consumption & enjoyment. :::

::: usually it's just the verbal diarrhea of intellectual masterbation. :::

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy,
I think I figured it out. Maybe you can draw a picture for me. Like so: The RING & Rollers are mounted in the usual way.
A bell crank is mounted to and pivots on the exact center line of the drum. The long arm of the bell crank is horizontal when a drum is at 3:00, pointing into the center of the wheel, with a weight on the end of it. For CW Rotation.

The short arm of the bell crank is connected to the axle of the roller. The bell crank drives the roller continuously, which in turn drives the wheel continuously. For some reason great simplicity is difficult to imagine------------Sam

ETA,
The bell cranks would remain more or less horizontal, having translating motion. I.E., they go around in a circle but don't rotate, I think.

[eccentrically1]

If we accept that it is impossible to avoid all energy losses in a build in the real world , then we have to accept that energy out would be less than energy in , and that to solve such a problem requires to adress the energy loss .

If you think about it , if the wheel was not fraud it would be based on an energy solution , and if it was fraud then it turned because energy was provided by some other fraudulent means.

The irony of it is , if you want to build a fraudulent self sustained device or a real self sustained device you need energy for both cases.

What does everyone think a genuine energy solution would be?

[Sam Peppiatt]

The weights are never lifted and never fall------------------------Sam

ETA,
Looks like no energy required. All that's needed is the force of gravity. Gravity keeps a constant force on the bell crank. The bell crank keeps a constant force on the roller and, the roller keeps a constant force on the wheel. Around and around it goes.
Does that answer your energy problem, jb-----------------------Sam