Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Fletcher]

Its just a thought Fletcher but if its true that Besslers wheel some how stole energy from the earths rotation then shouldn't all the simulations we do have those conditions in the simulation as standard?

Graham

Here's my take Graham .. I come from a top-down approach !

Thousands upon thousands, over hundreds if not thousands of years, have tried to to beat Archimedes Law of Levers ( LOLs ) using Mechanical Advantage ( MA ) i.e. Newtonian Physic and Mechanics - bottom lining it, LOLs/MA is just a ratio of weight and distance ( horizontal and vertical ) each side of a fulcrum - and it/they operate in the ambient environment of the earths gravity field which is a Constant 'g' at the earths surface for all intents and purposes I.E. gravity force is Conservative ! - thus, being just a ratio that is used to redirect and multiply force it has a cruel penalty tradeoff ..

What this means to me is that MA x SR ( Mechanical Advantage x Speed Ratio ) is at very best a ZERO SUM GAME i.e. no Net advantage, especially when ordinary system friction losses etc are taken into account - because gravity force is conservative no matter how far out we move a weight horizontally to create torque ( turning force ) that same weight will only achieve the KE equivalent to the GPE it loses ( aka conservative i.e. can not have greater GPE than it started with ) ( e.g. the pendulum swinging back and forth scenario ) - so a wheel designed to have shifted weights ( like much of MT ) will always be a temporary moving wheel, and like a simple pendulum will initially have positive torque followed by negative torque - and both torques equal out which is why it can not restore its full starting Net GPE ( conservative ) ..

So, in my simple analysis the Workaround to the LOL's must be a physical way to get a "free" or "heavily discounted" cost of lifting a weight back to full GPE to reset the initial conditions, and thereafter continue the rotation such that the wheel gains in momentum and RKE i.e. more positive torque than negative torque per segment of the wheel etc .. I believe this will not 'break the LOLs' but be an unrecognized ( potential not seen ) facet of the same physical principles and ratio's, common to all mechanical contrivances and "Simple Machines" ..

= - = - = -

After setting the scene and adding my context, to answer your question ..

** Can a simulation program recreate those conditions and effectively mimic a B. wheel IF "stealing" some of the earth's rotational momentum/RKE is the real source of energy input and output for his wheels continued inexhaustible self-movement ? **

I answer it like this .. by making a statement and asking you a question ?

I believe a sim program like WM can mimic the construction elements of a wheel, and their interactions at face value adequately i.e. parts-wise show a principle of potential operation ..

Can it then show how that wheel-of-parts takes momentum from the earth and converts it into its own continued rotation where positive torque exceeds negative torque per wheel segment ( i.e. non conservative aka discounted cost of lifting ) - my answer is to ask you a question ?

When I build sims they are on my laptop page - I almost always use the earth grounding as the basis FOR i.e. things fall to the bottom of the page - thus momentum, GPE, and KE is dependent on that "static" FOR .. but for the earth to give away some of its momentum to "fuel" the wheel wouldn't I have to build a simulation with a revolving earth beneath it ? i.e. extend outwards the FOR to include a rotating earth beneath my wheel-of-parts based on mechanical principals ?

** What do you think would be the more logical deduction re. the appropriate FOR for a sim based on this momentum transferring "wheel fuel" hypothesis ?

It is another question entirely whether I could do a sim justice with a moving-earth-beneath-it approach - so I satisfy myself theorizing about how a wheel can stay within the Conservation Laws and still be a continuous self-moving, discounted cost of lifting, machine based on mechanical principles - and limit myself to exploring those principles as part of the greater whole ( which I possibly can't simulate with a program to include the moving-earth-beneath ) ..

In short - imo it appears to be a large enough FOR problem, to sim anything of that nature adequately and accurately ..

ETA : even shorter - imo its not likely all of the Prime Mover positive feedback interactions could be simmed in a desk-top kinematic program with limited FOR ..

Additionally, B. didn't have a sim program - but it didn't stop him building a machine based on mechanical principles, and gravity, that broke-the-mold and potentially used momentum transfer from earth to wheel as the localized fuel source for input and output, imo ..

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher I didn't quite ask the question you spoke of but I will answer the one you asked.

I said -

if its true that Besslers wheel some how stole energy from the earths rotation then shouldn't all the simulations we do have those conditions in the simulation as standard?

I was asking about it as an ideal but strange as it may sound I am pretty sure I've already tried it but I ran into difficulty's.

To answer your question yes I was thinking about turning gravity off then making an earth complete with its correct weight then having it revolve and having any wheel idea sat on that. With the wheel itself remaining static on the screen

Or maybe a down sized version of the earth.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Trouble is gravity has to be ON - even if it is conservative it still causes things to "fall" and weights need to have torque to turn a 'gravity wheel' - gravity OFF and Centrifical forces will cause everything to remain in motion in a straight line, due inertia ..

..............

Have you found your answers to your sims behaviours ? ..

[Roxaway59]

It was a few months ago when I tried it and it was Algodoo that I tried using for it and when it didn't work I figured WM2D would behave the same way. I wasn't expecting it to do anything different but I was just curious as to what would happen.

The first thing I noticed is that masses don't attract one another so I figured that was a problem right there.

These simulators are obviously not programmed with that kind of detail but I wouldn't mind betting that some simulators are programmed that way.

I wasn't able to make a circle with the diameter of the earth it had to be smaller but I could make the mass the same.

I think I spent a day messing with it in various ways and scratching my head getting nowhere and then I left it. I didn't think it was worth mentioning on the forum at the time.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I just had a look at this again in Algodoo and if you go into the script for an object there is an input for something called attraction and another for attraction type. I tried this and it does seem to work so maybe it can be done in a scaled down way.

Just notice that you can access it on the edit menu, material, at the bottom and it describes its function as acting like gravity. I'm not having any luck at the moment with it.

Graham

[johannesbender]

wm2d has something called planetary gravity in its world options , also a force field , which you can create force fields and wind and planetary gravity etc etc

[Roxaway59]

JB I must admit that I haven't spent much time thinking about the possibility that Besslers wheel could have tapped into something like the earths rotation. I don't get the impression that Bessler thought it did though.

There are a lot of people using simulators without incorporating the earths rotation into them but on the other hand plenty of real experiments have been done with negative results.

I'm just curious to see what others say about it but I must admit that if I find a decent way of incorporating it into a simulator I would rather run my simulations that way to be on the safe side.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Graham .. it is simply an explanation with some plausibility for his wheels energy input and output source, whilst metaphorically colouring-in within the lines of Newtonian Mechanics, and the Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Energy ( & Thermodynamics ) ..

Every other potential explanation for the energy source ( e.g. gravity ) requires colouring-in outside the lines, and proving it ..

That does not mean that the interaction of the wheel mechanics with 'what-ever' is easy to find or workout - tho he and Karl said it was easy to understand and build, once seen ( paraphrasing ) ..

I think most agree that if shown an energy/fuel source ( top-down approach ) for a car engine doing Work, most could eventually back engineer a combustion engine .. it's a little harder to build an engine and then dream up the fuel for it, tho that's what most of us attempt to do ..

[Robinhood46]

it's a little harder to build an engine and then dream up the fuel for it, tho that's what most of us attempt to do ..

I disagree Fletcher.
I think most of us think the fuel is gravity, which is what Bessler told us it was.
We might not understand how the fuel works, or actually know what gravity is, but we do think it fuelled the wheel.

[Sam Peppiatt]

I agree Robinhood,
I mean isn't gravity challenging enough? Why make it even more difficult-----------------Sam

[Fletcher]

.. it's a little harder to build an engine and then dream up the fuel for it, tho that's what most of us attempt to do ..

I disagree Fletcher.

I think most of us think the fuel is gravity, which is what Bessler told us it was.

We might not understand how the fuel works, or actually know what gravity is, but we do think it fueled the wheel.

Hi RH .. I disagree with your disagree ;7) ..

Please quote where B. said the fuel for his self-moving wheels was gravity, and I'll stand corrected ?

What he did say is his wheels had to remain out of the Center of Gravity i.e. in a state of continuing imbalance/overbalance - caused from excess weight, excess impetus, preponderance ( his words ) - IOW's, his wheels had more positive torque than negative torque ( unequal directional torques ) - once they began rotation with a push in either direction for the two-way wheels, and once released for the one-way wheels which had torque in any position stopped at and tied down at ( no small feat - all ours find a "balanced" position and have equal torques ) ..

Since gravity acceleration ( 'g' ) is a constant acceleration value at the earths surface then it applies the same 'g' acceleration to all objects with mass on each side of a fulcrum, regardless of the horizontal distance to that object ( i.e. it's moment ) - what this means is that "gravity force" is conservative - i.e. once an object is given GPE it can lose height around a fulcrum for example and will gain the exact same amount of KE as GPE it has lost ( for any height on the way down ) - as we all know this also means that we can never have greater KE than the GPE lost, and the same on the ascending/recovery side for KE lost and GPE gained - i.e. conservative means that an object cannot gain more GPE than it started with under 'g' influence alone ..

** This is why scientists say that the distance away from the fulcrum and the path a weight takes to the bottom and up again is irrelevant ( non consequential ) - all that matters is the vertical height lost and gained => GPE = KE = GPE ( not considering normal system frictional losses etc ) ..

To have a self-moving wheel "fueled" by 'g' alone we would need to break the Law of Levers ( which is f1 x d2 = f2 x d1 around a fulcrum ) and that is a simple ratio of input to output, and an immutable corner stone of all simple machines and mechanics thru the ages ..

So, staying with colouring between the lines of classical physics metaphor some other form of 'energy' must be entering the wheel, and after ordinary system losses to frictions etc, leaving the wheel as rotational momentum gain to the wheel from a standing start, and external Work ( f x d ) output done ..

Now, if you happen to believe that Newton and classical physics is wrong about 'g' being conservative then all you have to do is not build a self-moving wheel, but simply prove by physical demonstration that the Law of Levers has an exception to that Law that is repeatable .. and like Mohammad went to the mountain so the current crop of scientists and engineers would flock to your continually resetting lever ( once started ) that could also do external work, and the wheel that would surely follow ..

[Robinhood46]

I think you are right that he didn't say 'gravity powers my wheel".
What he did say was "the weights are the motive force", or "the weights are the source of the motion", or even "the weights are forever seeking equilibrium".
I can't remember word for word everything he said, but he definitely made it very clear that the weights were playing a crucial role.

We could do a pole;
Do you think gravity was the fuel of Bessler's wheel
YES
NO
If it's yes you buy me a coffee and if it's no, I'll buy you a beer.
We'll have to drink it for each other, because you live too far away.

[preoccupied]

I think we all want to break the law of levers by shifting weights. The contribution that I think I've made recently is that when using an outside static position from the wheel or a catch to shift a weight, that what I am attempting in my designs is to put the weight shifting axle close to the axle of the main wheel because the whole distance to the axle on the main wheel from the axle of the shifted weight is a loss of leverage to turn the wheel, if the whole wheel's collective overbalance is being used to shift the weights from the static position outside of the wheel or a catch. I mean I'm putting my static connection in my drawings now in the center of the wheel. I've seen classical perpetual motion designs that put the catch outside of the wheel but this creates an invisible resistance that is the distance of the axle of the shifting weight to the axle of the wheel though so those are bad designs with extra resistance. Because the distance between the shifted weights axle that is connected to the main wheel and the axle of the main wheel, that distance is a loss. I have been trying to make gains in my drawings using right angles following Bessler's clues. My weights that shift are right angles from each other. But I think my most important contribution to attempting to design this is that I put the catch near the axle of the main wheel reducing the loss, because catch is all invisible loss of torque. You totally lose all of the leverage between the axle of the shifted weights lever and the main wheel's axle, like totally. And that's how my logic is flowing. I think the law of levers might be able to be broken by shifting right angles as long as you aren't doing it inefficiently by not noticing that the catch or static position outside of the wheel that is being used to shift the weights is done at a loss and for what reason. The reason being the distance between the axles of the shifted weight and the main wheel which is all lost leverage that is I mean when the overbalance of the total wheel is applied to shifting the weights.

[Fletcher]

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." PM-AAMS ? hardcopy

"a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, at its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time" – AP pg 295

No argument from me that "weights were playing a crucial role" RH ..

But that is quite different from a statement saying that gravity was the "fuel" / energy source imo !

Above is a small selection of the available quotes from John Collins books etc - there are many many more that tell us conclusively that his wheels were unbalanced wheels, with weights recycling in and out from the axle/fulcrum, continually changing places - and that these weights were the PM force itself ..

Since we can not functionally or practically either increase or decrease the mass of each weight as it rotates ( unless you are Ken B. ), and we also just as futilely can't arrange the 'g' constant to change on demand as a weight moves from one side of the fulcrum to the other to either cause a net positive torque or decreased energy cost of restoring a weight to reset GPE each revolution then we are kinda stuck with them being absolute - so while gravity is an insitu and ambient ingredient to an earths surface PM/OU wheel of the Bessler kind, which obviously has an important and undeniable part to play in his 'weights are the PM itself' philosophy, then imo we must look elsewhere for the 'energy input and gradient' that allows his weights to forever change places and develop an impressive directional force in the direction of rotation i.e. they "gain" and can do Work ( Joules ) - we have little to work with and philosophize about, other than inherent inertia of objects with mass, and relative momentum's between objects, whether that be linear and/or rotational context .. unless we really think that the LOLs in the mechanical context can be broken and thrown out with the trash once and for all ? ..

Tell you what - I already admitted that most always did, and always will, think gravity is the "fuel", so that would be a bet I'd lose and be silly to take on a poll of members lol - still it is Friday and a beer awaits me tonight, win or lose ..

[Robinhood46]

If we take your initial remark in it's entirety;

I think most agree that if shown an energy/fuel source ( top-down approach ) for a car engine doing Work, most could eventually back engineer a combustion engine .. it's a little harder to build an engine and then dream up the fuel for it, tho that's what most of us attempt to do ..

We can see where, i think, the difference of opinion comes from.
"I think most agree that if shown an energy/fuel source ( top-down approach ) for a car engine doing Work, most could eventually back engineer a combustion engine".
My argument would be, somewhere along the lines of, you got fed up with not being able to "back engineer" a gravity wheel, you convinced yourself gravity isn't the fuel, because if it was, you would have back engineered it by now.
Therefore, because gravity isn't the fuel, something else is, what the hell could it be????
I can understand that you are in the position of " it's a little harder to build an engine and then dream up the fuel for it", but i think the rest of us are still more than happy to continue trying to back engineer a wheel that has gravity for it's fuel.
Obviously we can't speak for others, but i would have thought most of us have given a lot of thought to other eventual sources of the energy/force of his wheels. To the extent of being fine with the idea that he was too stupid to know what it really was, and he just fooled himself into believing it was gravity. I have never managed to find anything convincing enough to really believe he was mistaken, and i have no reason to believe he would have lied. His head was at stake, not a beverage.