Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[Sam Peppiatt]

Update: (can't seam to let it go, Dam!)
Anyway, I might have found a way to prevent the revers rotation of the rollers, (which has been a big problem), by installing a small roller in back of the large disk(s). See top of page 102. The down side of it is, it has to be quite precision for it to work well. I.E., a back stop clutch if you will.

Note to the morality police: I'll do my best to keep my scarf on straight------------------Sam

[agor95]

Hi Sam

You gave me a smile welcome back to addiction central.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Smile all you want. I wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire--------------------Sam

[agor95]

Smile all you want. I wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire--------------------Sam

Hay Sam I was not being sarcastic.

I understand the situation we are all addicted at finding the solution to ' The Quest'.

If you were on fire then I would help you out.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Shifting weights,
I'm thinking shifting weights out on the down side and back in on the up side will never work, not so much due to frictional losses or lack of energy but, because the falling weights experience weight less ness going down and gain heaviness going up. If the weight was say 5 lbs., it might effectively be only 3 lbs. going down and 7 lbs. going up. This is what kills it-----------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

FWEIW,
The back stop roller works. By coupling it with a one-way bearing it firmly locks the disc's in reverse. What this means is; one set of rollers should have enough force to push another set side ways to turn the wheel----------Sam

[Tarsier79]

I'm thinking shifting weights out on the down side and back in on the up side will never work, not so much due to frictional losses or lack of energy but, because the falling weights experience weight less ness going down and gain heaviness going up. If the weight was say 5 lbs., it might effectively be only 3 lbs. going down and 7 lbs. going up. This is what kills it---

I think that is true if the wheel is turning as fast as the weights. If the weights are driving, it will feel the full weight. A see-saw doesn't oscillate or slow down because the fat kid feels light every time he falls.

It is the lack of energy. Sorry.

The back stop roller works. By coupling it with a one-way bearing it firmly locks the disc's in reverse. What this means is; one set of rollers should have enough force to push another set side ways to turn the wheel----------Sam

It isnt' that the roller rolls backwards, the roller stays still as the wheel rolls forwards, moving the roller backwards: due to the effort it requires to lift the weights. Hope that makes sense.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Tarsier,
If a weight is fixed to a wheel and you let it go it will get back up to about eleven and no more. That's the zero or less sum game, right? And, I agree it lacks the energy to get all the way back to 12. However, if I try to shift a weight out on the down side and back in on the up side, I'm lucky to get back to 8.

There are other factors involved and maybe it's not weight less ness. But, it seams to me that there must be more to it than simply the lack of energy. What ever it is, it absolutely can never work.

To the rollers, or binary star as Waltcy calls them. One star, acting as a binary driver, will turn the wheel, if they are pushed sideways. Another star, acting as a binary lifter, provides the force to push the other ones side ways. IF, IF, they don't roll backwards. Hence, the need for a back stop clutch. You get what I mean? If you try to load the rollers, without the clutch, they, the rollers will simply roll backwards and not push any thing-----------------Sam

[johannesbender]

There is 100% enough energy to reach back as high as the weight has been let go off (excluding losses obviously) , energy conservation dictates that an isolated system under the influence of conservative forces and no non conservative forces , where the system has no extra energy input or any energy output that - the energy of the system would remain constant .

Friction and air resistance etc are non conservative forces , gravity is a conservative force , so in a system which receives no extra energy input and expends no external energy output , which has no non conservative forces like friction and air resistance (which reduces the kinetic energy of the weight via energy conversion) , and is under only the influence of a conservative force/s like gravity , the energy would not change (no loss and no gain) , if the weight was let go from 12 it would fall and reach 12 again on the other side , energy would be 100% conserved according the conservation of energy.

However if the system was also affected by non conservative forces (friction resistance etc) , then the total energy would be affected ,as an example some of the energy would be converted in to other forms like heat and sound , which leaves such a weight released from 12 with not enough to reach back to 12 again.

Bessler learned and acknowledged the problem too :(just two examples taken from MT translations , credit Bessler , John Collins ) , in fact Bessler states there would always be stability and no mobility ! why ? the answer

"No. 4:Here the lines curve a great deal and are made up of half circles. It was imagined
without doubt that movement could be obtained in this way; but the former invention
and the latter are the same thing.
Granted! One finds out through calculation and on paper, on one side somewhat more
than on the other side, that a superior weight equalizes; observe! Thus there will always
be stability and no mobility; why?
Answer: because the friction, owing to the machine's own weight and heaviness, eats
away all the supposed superior weight; sufficiently understood."

"No. 13: This is a new weight-invention, with no belts or chains but each weight is
separate and free except that each has an interval arm C with which it forms an angle,
and on the cylinder hangs a figure which has below a weight in the shape of a half-moon
and above a small wheel B over which the arms C sweep and lift themselves up at D.
This invention would be very good for running if not so much friction were present or
someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed."

ETA: There are more comments in MT which shows he acknowledges energy losses too , although his words for explaining it and his understanding was not as ours today or even at a technical level as the time these laws were developed , he knew and understood the losses were part of the reason it could not be mobile , he also learned and acknowledged that the weights would have to be lifted too ! , as a fellow researcher of Bessler I acknowledge what he said , I would be a dumb dumb not to.

[Sam Peppiatt]

jb,
Maybe I'm just like Bessler; I'm not smart enough to know why-------------------------Sam
ETA,
Ultimately, Tarsier is right, there is a lack of energy. What I'm asking is why? Why, is the lack of energy so great? Between the up side and down side.

[johannesbender]

jb,
Maybe I'm just like Bessler; I'm not smart enough to know why-------------------------Sam
ETA,
Ultimately, Tarsier is right, there is a lack of energy. What I'm asking is why? Why, is the lack of energy so great? Between the up side and down side.

I honestly think you should give yourself more credit and bessler too.

My point is , imo , Bessler learned most of the things we talk about today , he did not understand them in the same way as we do , but he does show according to what he writes that he was aware of most of these things , the things he mentions or wrote as for why something cant work is not the typical or average pm seekers mindset which usually excludes accepted physics , but not him he starts out early mentioning friction lifting etc.

[Sam Peppiatt]

If all the losses are due to friction; how can there be so much more friction going down than going up----Sam

[Tarsier79]

Why, is the lack of energy so great? Between the up side and down side.

Because moving weights horizontally doesn't achieve what we want.

Here are some old examples and (I think) some math to show why.
viewtopic.php?p=74513#p74513

[Sam Peppiatt]

Tarsier,
I was referring to shifting weights in & out on a radius. But no matter, either way it doesn't work. however , if a scientist says it's because of minor losses due to friction; I say he doesn't have a clue----------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

I think that is the point. We have to find a way to think outside the box to find something that isn't going to succumb to the failures shown in MT.

Radial changes can cause a continuing movement, but only when we add energy, like when we lift a weight upwards.... I know, not so helpful... I remember fixing a tube so it was horizontal and pulling a string through it attached to a weight to make it spin: pull in at the bottom and release at the top.