Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher it makes sense that on the working wheel the weights had to lift fast.

Bessler also said that they did, so that confirms it.

It takes more energy to move something fast but that does not mean the energy has to be wasted so in my opinion this is of no consequence as long as the mechanism conserves the energy.

With the experiments I have been doing just lately there is a growing notion in my mind that there is something quite simple at work here.

When I conducted these experiments with this lever idea I was finding it very intriguing in a few ways so I will list them here.

1) The lever acted quickly.
2) Any energy that was supplied by the spring was just quickly converted to GPE
3) Because of the ramp the weight that would normally go down went up.

At the moment there is two main things that I am thinking about and one of them (the second) has to relate to where you are taking this train of thought in my opinion.

The first is that this idea of a ramp of sorts may have featured on besslers wheel.

The second is that springs may well turn out to be what powers the prime mover.

The reason I am thinking this is because of what a spring represents.

In effect a spring is just an energy storage device.

It has the ability to store the force of gravity and then use it at a later date and we can think about it like a battery or a capacitor.

One thing that strikes me about this is the orientation of the spring.

On a wheel you would not expect the orientation of the spring to remain the same and when it comes to storing the gravitational force this is good because when gravity is pressing vertically it will do a better job of compressing the spring.

Aside from anything else Bessler told us that his wheel contained springs.

Could his wheel have worked without them?

If not then my guess is that the springs stored the force of gravity then effectively provided the power to keep the wheel turning.

Basically I’m just thinking out loud so if its a dumb idea forget I said it.

Graham

[johannesbender]

Fletcher.
If the wheel rpm was around 50 , if you imagine the lift distances being something like that in MT13 it is more acceptable than for example a distance from 6 to 12 - when you consider the time it needs to happen in (even though equally still considered an impossibility).

A longer distance would require more speed as mentioned , Work done = f * displacement ,so less displacement = less work - for the same mass needing less speed to reach its climb such as mt13 i suppose .

[Fletcher]

Hope you don’t mind ChatGPT following along Fletcher. If you do just say so; obvious I can just run it in the background for myself.

No probs with it cross-checking me dax .. it may well be able to explain things clearer than I can ;7)

Working thru the other posts and will reply when I can ..

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher, it makes sense that on the working wheel the weights had to lift fast.

Bessler also said that they did, so that confirms it.

Hey Graham .. everything is relative ( to its FOR ) - so when you say a working wheel ( say at 50 rpm ) then sure, to an outside observer any weight lifted and given GPE must be lifted 'fast' as seen standing beside it - lifted much 'slower' when it just begins to accelerate from a stopped position - however, whatever KE the weight has at whatever wheel rpm you choose when the lift begins is only added to when the weight is lifted i.e. relativity holds across all rpms .. so talking about a fast or slow lift can only relate to the FOR as viewed from inside the wheel imo .. i.e. B. does not qualify his statements to either an about to be released or fully revolving wheel, or any rpm in-between ..

It takes more energy to move something fast but that does not mean the energy has to be wasted so in my opinion - this is of no consequence as long as the mechanism conserves the energy.

True - as we know Work Done ( WD ) is force x displacement / distance => give a weight just a little force ( just above 'g' for instance ) and it will raise up very slowly and it will have next to no velocity and KE - but upon reaching its destination height it will have GPE gain and the WD is almost identical - so to lift a weight like lightening or in a flash means more WD is done and much energy is retained as velocity and KE when it arrives - in which case, as we are saying, that KE should be recovered/conserved as elastic potential energy etc etc, ideally, but not necessarily ..

However, we get ahead of ourselves ..

The thing is that B. said in AP his weights were lifted in a flash / suddenly ( in MT he suggests lightening fast ) .. he also says something else closely related ..

JC's AP pg 295 ..

He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly (tinhead .. without much effort) throw a heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c. translated by members Stewart & Tinhead

... The second is that springs may well turn out to be what powers the prime mover.

The reason I am thinking this is because of what a spring represents.

In effect a spring is just an energy storage device.

It has the ability to store the force of gravity and then use it at a later date and we can think about it like a battery or a capacitor.

One thing that strikes me about this is the orientation of the spring.

On a wheel you would not expect the orientation of the spring to remain the same and when it comes to storing the gravitational force this is good because when gravity is pressing vertically it will do a better job of compressing the spring.

Aside from anything else Bessler told us that his wheel contained springs.

Could his wheel have worked without them?

If not then my guess is that the springs stored the force of gravity then effectively provided the power to keep the wheel turning.

The short answer Graham is that springs store KE as elastic PE from interaction with a moving mass and release elastic PE again back to KE .. and as most of us have found out the hard way, they are conservative and always have to eventually be reset .. however if you can beat that then you have a viable answer for the Prime Mover ..

Personally I think springs perhaps were used as part of latching devices but imo were not the Prime Mover structure or its modus operandi ..

[Fletcher]

Fletcher. If the wheel rpm was around 50 , if you imagine the lift distances being something like that in MT13 it is more acceptable than for example a distance from 6 to 12 - when you consider the time it needs to happen in (even though equally still considered an impossibility).

A longer distance would require more speed as mentioned , Work done = f * displacement , so less displacement = less work - for the same mass needing less speed to reach its climb such as mt13 i suppose.

Hey jb .. no doubt about it - the more the vertical height to be lifted ( say 11 to 12 vs say 6 to 12 ) then the weight must travel faster and faster for that distance in the time dictated by the working RPM, and the radius the weights are at .. it only worked in my teleporting sim because it was "instantaneous" 'lifting' from 6 to 12 .. however it rams home the point across all these subjects - the indisputable "fact" that his wheels had a massive acceleration from the get-go, accelerating up to working RPM in just 1 to 2 turns - the inescapable conclusion being that they had a massive positive torque from overbalancing weights .. which I will address shortly in relation to the messaging of MT15, etc etc ..

[johannesbender]

Fletcher. If the wheel rpm was around 50 , if you imagine the lift distances being something like that in MT13 it is more acceptable than for example a distance from 6 to 12 - when you consider the time it needs to happen in (even though equally still considered an impossibility).

A longer distance would require more speed as mentioned , Work done = f * displacement , so less displacement = less work - for the same mass needing less speed to reach its climb such as mt13 i suppose.

Hey jb .. no doubt about it - the more the vertical height to be lifted ( say 11 to 12 vs say 6 to 12 ) then the weight must travel faster and faster for that distance in the time dictated by the working RPM, and the radius the weights are at .. it only worked in my teleporting sim because it was "instantaneous" 'lifting' from 6 to 12 .. however it rams home the point across all these subjects - the indisputable "fact" that his wheels had a massive acceleration from the get-go, accelerating up to working RPM in just 1 to 2 turns - the inescapable conclusion being that they had a massive positive torque from overbalancing weights .. which I will address shortly in relation to the messaging of MT15, etc etc ..

Yes and then we have those exceptions that move from 6 to 12 like the marble machine type elevator lifters of 48 49 which appears to reduce the lift distance further , for example the distance the top "marble" needs to climb to dump on to the wheel , however its a total mass of all the balls on the lifter and each's lift distance to be considered for the lift equation , and here the speed of balls being fed is insufficient due to the MA..

[daxwc]

Fletcher: The short answer Graham is that springs store KE as elastic PE from interaction with a moving mass and release elastic PE again back to KE .. and as most of us have found out the hard way, they are conservative and always have to eventually be reset .. however if you can beat that then you have a viable answer for the Prime Mover ..

Personally I think springs perhaps were used as part of latching devices but imo were not the Prime Mover structure or its modus operandi ..

Ummm… I wasn’t referring to coil spring but a leaf spring or a whip.

ChatGPT: You’re onto something interesting! If part of the energy could be stored slowly over time—such as by compressing a spring gradually—then it could indeed require less force at any given moment and could potentially make the whole process feel more efficient.
This way, the energy needed to "launch" the weight is gathered slowly, and when the moment comes, the stored energy in the spring releases quickly, providing the necessary force to lift the weight in one burst. It’s like a bow and arrow: you can pull the bowstring back slowly, storing potential energy, and then release it all at once to accelerate the arrow very quickly. Here’s how this setup could affect Fletcher’s points:

1. Energy Storage: Gradual compression of the spring over time doesn’t need high force or power all at once, which could reduce the “felt” energy demand. Instead of requiring a large burst of energy upfront (like in a fast, direct lift), you accumulate energy incrementally.

2. Controlled Launch: Once you release the stored energy, the spring can produce a fast lift. The idea is that the kinetic energy provided by the spring at the moment of release still has to match the gravitational potential energy required to reach the target height. However, since you’re “charging” the spring slowly, the force needed at any moment is lower.

3. Counterintuitive Benefit: So while a slow lift might indeed seem to cost less energy, using a spring to accumulate energy slowly could let you achieve the fast lift without requiring an immediate high force. This makes it feel like the total energy demand is spread out, potentially making the process more manageable.

This kind of mechanism is often used in mechanical clocks, crossbows, and even in nature (e.g., mantis shrimp strikes) to store up energy over a long time and release it rapidly. So, yes, charging a spring slowly is a clever workaround to achieve high acceleration without the immediate energy cost.

But that isn’t the direction of the thread so let’s move on to your musings. 8)

[daxwc]

Roxaway59 wrote: It takes more energy to move something fast but that does not mean the energy has to be wasted so in my opinion - this is of no consequence as long as the mechanism conserves the energy.

A fast rise or impulse can really help if you're working with a system where inertia can be transferred, such as on a rotatable or free-moving object. Imagine, for instance, that you're free-falling along with a heavy box. If you suddenly jump off the box with a strong impulse, you're not only moving yourself but also giving the box a change in momentum. This shift conserves the system's total energy and momentum but redistributes it, affecting both you and the box differently because of your different masses.

[daxwc]

ChatGPT: "The concept of 'inertia time lag' is especially relevant when dealing with rotatable or free-moving objects. Objects with significant inertia naturally resist changes in motion, meaning gradual forces might not shift them effectively in a short time. But with a fast impulse, you can bypass this time lag, forcing the object to respond more immediately. The energy and momentum are conserved across the system, but the impulse temporarily overcomes the object's natural resistance to motion.

In fact, this principle is often used in space maneuvers. For example, if you need to reorient a spacecraft with a heavy rotational inertia, a quick, sharp burst from a thruster can achieve a change in orientation faster and more effectively than a slow, sustained push. This impulse briefly “jumps over” the usual inertia resistance, allowing for a quicker shift in position or rotation without wasting energy."

This analogy with spacecraft maneuvers helps show how a fast impulse is beneficial for handling inertia-laden systems, where quick responses are essential but large inertia otherwise resists change.

[daxwc]

On the other side of the coin:

ChatGPT: Yes, exactly! The reason you can push off the box and change your momentum mid-fall is directly because the box has more mass—and consequently more inertia—than you. The reason a fast rise or impulse is effective here is because you’re interacting with something much more massive and inertial than yourself. Imagine you and a heavy box are free-falling together. If you give a quick push off the box, you’re effectively transferring momentum between you and the box. Since the box has much more mass and inertia, it won’t react as strongly to the push, meaning it experiences only a small change in velocity. You, on the other hand, with less mass and inertia, will experience a much larger shift in momentum and speed."

Comment: "This scenario is a great example of leveraging inertia differences. Since the box’s inertia resists the change, your push causes a relatively small shift for the box but a significant change for you, due to the differences in mass. In physics terms, this kind of impulse allows you to use the box as a 'reaction mass,' letting you adjust your momentum mid-fall. Systems with big inertia, like spacecraft or machinery, use similar principles with quick bursts to achieve changes, working against large masses to create controlled shifts in position or speed."

So in a rotating frame of reference (wheel) the counter back torque can be in the same direction as rotation.

[Roxaway59]

Thanks Dax I know that some of these points have been brought up on this topic before but its good to get these reminders.

Its kind of similar to the pulling of a table cloth with a tea set on it.

You pull it slow and everything breaks. You pull it fast and things stay where they are because the weight of the tea set helps it to stay where it is.

In both cases you are trying to do the same thing but the speed at which you approach it means two very different outcomes.

At the moment I am experimenting with springs and in a while I will post examples of what I was talking about.

Graham

[Fletcher]

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

@ thx4 .. I'm under the pump here so will get to your questions over the next few days hopefully - they are important questions and to do you justice I have to find and update some old pictures in my files to fully describe what I believe MT15 shows ..

MT Digital Copy .. No. 15 This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensions are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the external ends.

@fletcher 2 things if you can answer me.

What is a special weight?

Hi thx4 .. circling back to your good questions .. in the context of what B. has written in the notes beside MT15 ! - there he says that the cross-pull tensioners are longer ( than in MT14 ) and have an additional special weight at the ends ( of the rigid sliding poles ) .. there is nothing "special" about either the additional sliding poles or the end weights on the ends of the poles - they are "special" in his context because they greatly add to the overbalance factor which is very clearly on display, and mentioned ..

Here is the full MT15 comment again ..

MT Digital Copy .. No. 15 This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensions are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the external ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight.

2007 MT Hard Copy .. No. 15. This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensioners are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the outer ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the overbalance.

The notion of a motor is disturbing, as described here, it would be an addition to, an addition to what? Because if you have a movement that continually resets itself, it's the motor. There can be no creation of energy, so how would you describe what's going on?

Quite so .. with the addition of the Prime Mover 'source' ( which he says can't be seen or deduced from the woodcut ) he strongly suggests that he expects the wheel would revolve of its own accord ( indefinitely, until its parts wore out and it broke down ) - i.e. it would be entirely self-contained, and self-moving, i.e. from the moment it was released to revolve it would accelerate up to its natural stabilized RPM and "gain" in momentum and RKE - this would happen with no 'visible' external energy source ( or visible external momentum ) supplied to the wheel - thus, as you say, it would be a complete 'fuel-less' motor ready and able to do external Work .. but it requires the addition of the Prime Mover to make it a self-moving fuel-less generator / motor ..

At this point it is probably worth reviewing what a Prime Mover is ..

A Prime Mover is the unit that first converts an energy source into a mechanical force .. it is the entity that produces an effect or is responsible for events or results. Other terms for Prime Mover are - first cause, causal agent, cause.

Generally a Prime Mover is described as an initial source of motive power (such as a windmill, waterwheel, turbine, or internal combustion engine) designed to receive and modify force and motion as supplied by some natural source and apply them to drive machinery - in anatomy, the prime mover is the muscle that's mainly responsible for whatever movement you're doing - in engineering, the prime mover is a machine that converts other forms of energy (like chemical or heat etc) into movement.

Asking ChatGPT .. In 18th-century Germany what is a prime mover ?

Ans .. in 18th-century Germany, the term "prime mover" (or primus motor in Latin) had philosophical and scientific meanings, often linked to metaphysics and physics.

1. Philosophical Meaning: Rooted in Aristotelian philosophy, the "prime mover" refers to the "first cause" or an initial, uncaused force that set all motion in the universe in motion. Enlightenment thinkers and German philosophers such as Leibniz and Kant explored concepts of causality and the nature of the universe, debating whether there was a single, divine origin of motion and existence. In theological terms, the prime mover was sometimes associated with God as the ultimate initiator of the cosmos.

2. Scientific and Mechanical Meaning: With the rise of mechanical sciences, the term also began to describe any device that converts natural energy (like wind, water, or steam) into mechanical power, driving machinery. In German industrial and scientific contexts, "prime mover" would thus signify the initial source of energy or engine that powers a system, such as water wheels or early steam engines, which became foundational in pre-industrial technology and the later Industrial Revolution.

In both senses, the prime mover was seen as a crucial source of initiation, whether of physical motion or metaphysical existence.

Since MT15 is a picture of a mechanical device ( in action ) then I consider the overlaying context and take the meaning for Prime Mover as firstly a physical action / motion, and secondly because of his beliefs an underlying context of Gods initiation ..

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

Coffee break - pics and further thoughts on MT15 to follow ..

[Fletcher]

What is MT15 showing, and saying ?

It is my belief that MT15 is a very clear 'ideal' demonstration of what superior-weight or excess-weight / preponderance would look like ..

You will note that MT's 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 also show the exaggerated overbalance factor of a runner, as do MT's 37 and 38 for example ..

n.b.1 Wubbly and myself have simmed many of these MT's ( Wubbly has many excellent video's on YouTube of them ) - I can tell you categorically that the lever-weights ( lw ) CANNOT get into the positions shown, even when forceably turned with a motor input i.e. the pics suggest the system COM/COG is positioned higher than physically can be achieved without a Prime Mover addition - this is because the top lws are already pulled upwards earlier than can be rightly expected ( with no Prime Mover ) !

n.b.2 with 100% certainty, and 0% doubt, we know that B. says his runners are turned, and self-sustain the rotation, by a excess of torque on the down-going side of the wheel ( they simply must 'gain' ) - we all know the quotes where he says weights are the PM itself and go in and out and must stay out of the center of gravity, thus can not find the balance position - he looked and found it where everybody else had looked etc etc .. there is no doubt they are overbalanced wheels ..

Clearly it takes the addition of the Prime Mover 'apparatus' to allow these early lift and shifts to happen, and raise the system COM/COG as deduced in these woodcuts .. acutely and dramatically exampled in MT15 where he combines 3 weight shifting and lifting methods into one wheel .. they show, and he says, the figure shows the superior weight / overbalance - in MT15 the lws are lifted and in turn pull up the associated cross-tensioners with their weights, which in turn also pull up the sliding rigid poles with end weights - demonstrating a potential superior weight / excess weight configuration of a 'true' mechanical overbalanced wheel ..

However .. the overbalancing weight systems can not lift and shift early as shown without the addition of the Prime Movers influence - "cause and effect" - the Prime Mover is the 'instrument' that causes the upper lws to lift early and gain GPE - once in lifted position it is easy to see that the wheel will have sustained overbalance / superior weight ( there is no mystery in the overbalancing ) ..

** Getting the mechanical application to lift the lws to gain GPE without a substantial energy penalty is the all-important question and the secret mechanics to his PM Principle imo .. **

If lws can be lifted early to gain GPE at no energy cost, or low / heavily discounted energy cost, then we would have a self-sustaining revolving wheel, AND a RAPID Acceleration to working RPM .. all MT15 shows us is the overbalancing weights already in the "ideal" overbalancing positions ( sans Prime Mover instrument ) - you will note that MT14 shows the lws lifted at the top into best position, while MT15 shows the lws lifted at both top and bottom simultaneously ..

** And the Prime Mover "instrument" ( application / apparatus ) is an "Active" mechanical intervention imo that is NOT based on Law of Levers technologies which will always zero-sum out Effort and Load MA dynamics .. **

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

** So we are tasked with looking for a different mechanical technology that causes the lws to lift and gain GPE thus effecting the excess ( asymmetric ) - torque and sustainable overbalancing of a runner - this discounted lift happens with little effort / lightly, and suddenly, imo .. **

To do that we would be advised imo to think critically about the static situation of a pre-loaded one-way wheel ready to go from any position, and a two-way wheel that needed an initial directional impetus before it could become dynamic and accelerate and gain its momentum / RKE - above all the extraordinary Acceleration of his runners ..

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

[thx4]

Merci Fletcher pour ce travail très impressionnant, il n'empêche que je vais quand même commander du bois pour cet hiver 🙂

Ce que je vois, (j'ai repris ton image), il y a plusieurs systèmes imbriqués.
Une version centrale que j'assimile à MT13 et une version extérieure, qui est très différente qui se rapprocherait de MT 135
C'est à dire que la roue roule dans la roue.
Si ces deux systèmes peuvent s'imbriquer, pourquoi pas. C'est complexe a imaginer, mais pas impossible.


Thanks Fletcher for this very impressive work, I'm still going to order some wood for this winter 🙂

What I see, (I took your image), there are several nested systems.
A central version that I liken to MT13 and an outer version, which is very different and would be closer to MT 135.
In other words, the wheel rolls within the wheel.
If these two systems can fit together, why not? It's complex to imagine, but not impossible.

[thx4]

Sur cette image : MT135= 8 tiges et MT13= 15 bras qui basculent, ce n'est pas un hasard.

In this image: MT135= 8 rods and MT13= 15 tilting arms, this is no coincidence.