Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Roxaway59]

Since my guess here is as good as anyone else's then my guess is that he found a work around for the law of the lever that then allowed gravity to power his wheel. The levers were the prime movers that exhibited the same quality that his wheel was then able to exhibit. Gravity just did what it always does with a lever that is out of balance.

I do have another theory but I don't like it and I'm pretty sure no one else would.

Graham

[Fletcher]

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.

There's the hole in the argument right there RH - a common misconception that like an annual weed keeps popping up in the garden every year ..

Gravity is 'g' , an acceleration in Classical Physics - and when in the presence of an object with mass Gravity is a Force ( mass kg x acceleration m/s^2 ) ..

Gravity Force is NOT "Energy" ! .. or .. Force is not Energy !

Under the Work Energy Equivalence Principle or 'Work Equivalence Principle' a Force applied over a displacement/distance gives Work Done - i.e. f x d = WD => Work Done is Joules => Energy is Joules ..

Force (N) = mass (kg) × acceleration (m/s²) ..

Work Done = force × distance moved in the direction of the force ..

Bessler didn't say 'gravity' was the energy ( vis viva ) for his wheels, tho he had every opportunity to say so but was careful not to say that or similar - tho he made it clear that the weights gained "force" from their swinging ( R Gould translation ) and the weights went on and on changing places ..

R Gould - Oddities .. “The internal structure of the machine is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights, once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue this movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement.

Clearly he found another arrangement for 'energizing' the overbalanced wheel, one that I suggest wasn't the usual "passive/sedate" moving of the weights in and out common garden variety that has failed all others since Adam was in shorts - he said he found it where others had looked - he tweaked his approach in a new direction whilst still using the overbalanced wheel format, imo ..

[Robinhood46]

I do have another theory but I don't like it and I'm pretty sure no one else would.

If it involves pixies i will like it, i just wont think it's true.

[Fletcher]

Since my guess here is as good as anyone else's then my guess is that he found a work around for the law of the lever that then allowed gravity to power his wheel. The levers were the prime movers that exhibited the same quality that his wheel was then able to exhibit. Gravity just did what it always does with a lever that is out of balance.

I do have another theory but I don't like it and I'm pretty sure no one else would.

Graham

I agree - that he found a mechanical Workaround to the LOLs, so that the net overbalance torque could proliferate and grow ( causing the wheel to "gain" ) instead of dying down to a stop .. it answers the question of how a force can become energy in a certain context - if the force going down is greater than the force going upwards etc ..

[Fletcher]

Because => it goes without saying but I'll say it anyway ..

In a weight circulating wheel that constantly rotates, the vertical distance down a weight goes is the same vertical distance it goes up to restore Net GPE each revolution - therefore,, since the distance is the same the Force on the weight each side of the axle must be different !!

i.e. how he caused the weights to lightly climb back up ( paraphrased ) ..

[preoccupied]

It's possible that if my LOL work around attempt is right, that energy might be taken from the trajectory of the gravitational body. If gravity were gained from G-forces from an platform moving in one direction and a successful gravity wheel were rotating because of this g-force, it might change slightly the trajectory or straight line of the moving platform through space. So the effects on Earth might be small forces changing the trajectory of the planet, this would be risky if it's used in large amounts if it takes us out of the goldilocks zone rotation path around the sun. I use a catch that is not rotating and it might push a little against the catch changing the trajectory of the planet by that much. So there might be a loss of energy in order to change the direction of the gravitational body, or it changes the direction of the gravitational body in space without losing energy. But every time something changes direction there is a pause and energy is needed to changes its direction. So my guess is that extra gravity is spent to move the wheel and as a side effect trajectory is changed also on the planet.

[johannesbender]

Facts are , Bessler wrote weights go in and out (we know this concept) , he wrote one side is heavy and the other light (we know this concept) , and we know this would give torque because of gravity (this is accepted) , we understand he wrote it should have overbalance and not be wound up and move on its own (that is his definition of PM).

However it is the lifting of the weights that is the issue because that requires the extra energy that none knows where to get it or how to get it , this is the grey area , the veil hangs dark and mysteriously in front of this , this is what Bessler does NOT tell and what he protects (his principle for which without none can be PM) : For now, everyone may still wonder, By what deeds this weight goes towards the center, And that one shoots up (lifting) , he said for now i wont tell you by what methods the weights are moved and lifted back up .

The fact that he did not tell where that energy comes from or how it is implemented , to lift the weights back , leaves a grey area to look in to , especially since his definition of PM excludes the how and from where and what source that energy is coming from .

[Trev]

I'm with Fletcher and dax, gravity wasn't the fuel - the same as it's not the fuel for my hydro-electric generator which is powering my computer to write this post, but without gravity neither would work.

[Robinhood46]

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.

There's the hole in the argument right there RH - a common misconception that like an annual weed keeps popping up in the garden every year ..

I'm not too sure how that makes a hole in the argument Fletcher.
I would have thought that most of us, at one moment or another, have tried finding a different explanation as to how it worked, a source of energy, or a force, different than gravity.
The force of gravity being misconceived as energy, is only valid if we are talking about gravity, not any other eventual explanation as to how Bessler managed to find success, where everyone else, ourselves included, have failed miserably.

Maybe this common misconception is where we need to look?
We mustn't forget that we can run out of fuel, using energy, applying a force to a brick wall, without doing any work. Although we would have transferred stored energy into heat.

I still think gravity is what makes Bessler's wheel turn. We are going to have to find out what bit of physics we've got wrong, and not invent a new branch of physics. My opinion, obviously.

[thx4]

La gravité c'est l'oxygène d'un coureur de 100 m, le moteur du coureur, se sont ses muscles ou l'oxygène... ?

Si joint une petite vidéo pour vous et un grand pas pour moi... 🙂
Le dispositif est un balancier devenu rotatif, couplé à un disque d'inertie, Le disque d'inertie est un tout petit peu plus lourd que le balancier rotatif, Il pèse 1.6 Kg, une bille fait 100 gr, un gros écrou fait 50 gr,
Il tourne 3 fois plus vite. (108/36 dents), pour ceux qui veulent faire une simulation.
Deux solutions immédiates, augmenter la vitesse ou le poids ou peut être les deux pour augmenter le gain.
Petite vue d'ensemble : https://youtu.be/_rJfRDtf9Y8
Expérience : https://youtu.be/nzxOhFAvdMI

Gravity is the oxygen of a 100-meter runner. Is the runner's engine his muscles or his oxygen? ?

If attached a small video for you and a big step for me... 🙂
The device is a balance wheel that has become rotating, coupled to an inertia disc, The inertia disc is a tiny bit heavier than the rotating balance wheel, It weighs 1.6 Kg, a ball is 100 gr, a large nut is 50 gr,
It rotates 3 times faster (108/36 teeth), for those who want to run a simulation.
Two immediate solutions: increase the speed or the weight, or perhaps both, to increase the gain.
Quick overview: https://youtu.be/_rJfRDtf9Y8
Experiment: https://youtu.be/nzxOhFAvdMI

[johannesbender]

La gravité c'est l'oxygène d'un coureur de 100 m, le moteur du coureur, se sont ses muscles ou l'oxygène... ?
Gravity is the oxygen of a 100-meter runner. Is the runner's engine his muscles or his oxygen? ?

Energy , "Even the things we eat do not lose their elemental influence - for it spreads itself through every limb and sinew of our bodies." , we eat food and drink so our bodies can convert it to energy , the muscles cant work without its energy .

[thx4]

There are squadron leaders on this forum MRD

[Sam Peppiatt]

jb, what I'm learning is, if the force(s) are continuous the weights sort of never change positions, that way they never have to be lifted back up. Which means the lifting problem goes away-----------Sam

Do you see what I mean? If they never fall, they never have to be lifted.

[Fletcher]

Facts are , Bessler wrote weights go in and out (we know this concept) , he wrote one side is heavy and the other light (we know this concept) , and we know this would give torque because of gravity (this is accepted) , we understand he wrote it should have overbalance and not be wound up and move on its own (that is his definition of PM).

However it is the lifting of the weights that is the issue because that requires the extra energy that none knows where to get it or how to get it , this is the grey area , the veil hangs dark and mysteriously in front of this , this is what Bessler does NOT tell and what he protects (his principle for which without none can be PM) : For now, everyone may still wonder, By what deeds this weight goes towards the center, And that one shoots up (lifting) , he said for now i wont tell you by what methods the weights are moved and lifted back up .

The fact that he did not tell where that energy comes from or how it is implemented , to lift the weights back , leaves a grey area to look in to , especially since his definition of PM excludes the how and from where and what source that energy is coming from .

Well simplified and summed up jb ..

... We know that in 'passive' weight shifting overbalancing systems the weights must be lifted again by the wheels own inertia/momentum to restore system GPE - and, all that momentum gained after the outward shift has created torque is then washed off entirely in the process of the carrier wheel lifting that weight back up to position to go again ( the rinse and repeat recycling sequence ) - there is no wheel residual "gain" or momentum/RKE left over, it is ALL USED UP ! - zero sum ...

By deduction, and B's. own words you summarized above, somehow he managed to find an 'active' mechanical method to "discount the energy cost of the LIFT" ( the LOLs workaround imo ) so that the weights could be recycled, BUT also the carrier wheel had a residual 'leftover' momentum/RKE i.e. it "gained/accelerated" ..

And I like others believe the Toys Page is the key to the castle - the mechanical clues/symbology to this 'active' Prime Mover technology that allowed the discounted cost of lifting, imo ..

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
you have it all wrong; pertaining to Bessler's wheel that is. I agree with jb, the problem is trying to re-lift the weights. One way to avoid that, is NOT to lift them. And, the only way to do that is not to let them fall in the first place. Lifting problem solved! That's the key to it.

The scientists are mistaken, right? So, you have to quit thinking like one of them-----------------Sam

ETA, It also eliminates the so called zero sum problem.