The Bessler Curse

[AgingYoung]

Ken,

I have wm2d on my machine and also a link in my signature for it. I prefer something I can put my hands on. I also don't like the idea of having all of my thoughts online. It might be paranoia but online computers are venerable. I have another computer that I think the cpu has fried. I'm thinking about replacing it and loading wm2d on it and keeping it off line. But I still like something I can handle. Also there are things that I do that I'm sure you can't describe with wm2d.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

Below is part of a post I made at the randi site:

1. 80.......10%
2. 90.......10%
3. 91.......18%
4. 95.......36%
5. 100.......50%
6. 110.......72%

I'll try and describe what I've measured and maybe someone that's good at math can give me their assessment of what it means. There is a center of gravity between the two weights (marbles) when they're closest to the center. As the weights rotate around the axis clockwise when they arrive at 80 degrees that center of gravity is displaced away from the center 10% of the original distance. There's no significant change in the cog until 91 degrees where the difference doubles. Then at 110 degrees the difference doubles again.

After considerable thought about the above mechanism I just don't think it has the means to continue to rotate. I've shelved that idea for the time being yet from it evolved something even more interesting. When I finish this build I'll post the details of it.

A. Gene Young

[ken_behrendt]

Gene...

Yes, a nice clear sketch would help a lot. But, it seems, like myself, you are trying to find a mechanism that will maintain the CG of a pair or opposed weights on one side of the axle during 180&#176: of CW rotation. That's good. But, I've found that it is critical that the CG of the opposed pair return exactly to the axle of the wheel at the end of that 180° of rotation.


ken

[AgingYoung]

Ken,

That mechanism I was considering looked promising because of the speed that the center of gravity was moving to cause an imbalance yet that is also the problem. When it's moving there is no torque to speak of. The rotation as the cog's shift to increase leverage and when they shift back to reset is about 180 degrees. What I essentially did was take a perfectly balanced wheel and create an out of balanced yet heavy on the bottom wheel. :)

I just finished a torque analysis on the new mechanism I'm considering and it seems that I've managed to do the same thing again. A single mechanism isn't viable yet I'm going to toy around with the idea of combining four of them. Maybe I can make a very heavy on the bottom wheel. I love the frustration.

Gene

[wheelrite]

I note in 'ted of chicagos' translation of Besslers wheel description that the high speed of the 'swing' is noted ,as it is in yours.
quote..."for themselves but incessantly seek with their admirably fast swing to..."
seems curious that he is maybe saying faster than the normal fall due to gravity.... a clue?
have a good new year all.
J

[AgingYoung]

Ken,

This is some pretty good news. A little while ago (Monday, December 19th @ 12:08am) I was looking at an interesting idea but I couldn't see how to get the weights where I wanted them. It seems that this mechanism that I'm looking at with a slight modification can cause it. Gravity shifts it and resets it. I need 4 weights and only 2 mechanisms. The average torque (the last I figured it) amounts to 15% of the total weight. I think that the average force of a moment arm from 0 to180 degrees is 63.6% of the weight. The rms power of a sine wave is 70.7% The idea is that :

There needs to exist a resultant action of an action and a reaction having a greater angular force than the sum of the angular forces they orbit.

I just might have nailed it. The wheel is top heavy at 0 degrees and when it approaches 180 degrees shifts to make the top top heavy again. This is looking very good.

Wheelrite,

I read your reference to Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum. It does make a lot of sense to me but that's just now. I could change my mind. :)

Gene

[ken_behrendt]

Gene...

What you are vaguely describing sounds somewhat similar to MT41 and 42 to me. Both of those are supposed to cause a sudden vertical shift in their internal weights so that the device (more of a panel that flips end over end rather than a rotating wheel) will suddenly become topheavy and undergo a 180° rotation. However, I have studied those designs carefully and they are unworkable. I hope you have a variation on them that overcomes the internal counter torques they create in operation.


ken

[AgingYoung]

Ken,

No, it's a whole 'nother monster.

Gene

ps edit: Ken, I have every intention of remaining vague.

[AgingYoung]

Below is a current post I made at randi.

When I was in 8th grade (iirc) in introductory physical science (ips) I learned that 'matter and energy can't be created nor destroyed; they can only be changed in form.' Everyone should have learned that. What I didn't know at the time and only recently learned was that it was Hermann Helmholtz's idea. Hermann's thought about the conservative nature of energy was that you can't get something from nothing but more importantly it was a philosophical assertion. He made this assertion based on the idea that there is a cause for everything and if there's not as much of a result as you'd expect from a cause you've lost some effort thru friction or some other sort of loss. His perspective was 'what you see is what there is.'

Hermann considered everything he looked at with this bias. I noticed that he wasn't above saying when he was wrong and if he honestly felt he was mistaken he would say as much. I'd say he was an honorable person. If he were aware of the manhattan project he would have been the first to amend his law of the conservation of energy to include matter. With all his curiosity and ability though Hermann wasn't looking for an answer contrary to his philosophical bent. He would consider things and explain them mathematically with the precision of an accountant and show that it was all there; the forces added up.

If Hermann instead looked at the idea of how can you get more force than is actually there he might have been able to solve this riddle. In a circuit with electromotive force (caused by some energy) you have a difference of potential that you put components in line with and 'power the circuit' (with that difference). Perhaps the circuit of mass as it orbits with its various and different momentary forces acting in the field of gravity can produce a gradient or difference of forces that can be applied to sustain its orbit; that is to power its rotation.

If you don't imagine something is possible and you're reasonably intelligent you won't waste your time looking to accomplish it. Yet if you're reasonably intelligent you should always know that there maybe things that you haven't considered. Skepticism isn't a denial of anything that differs from your perspective. Every intelligent person has their skepticisms.

Below are some thoughts I had as I was reading thru the thread. I was wondering where you went Simon. :) AGeneYoung@yahoo.com

Please don't waste our time by coming back in a few months saying you've almost got it working, with just a "few bugs" to work out. That's the standard operating procedure for PM "inventors".

...I have no control over what you do with your time.

Ok but in this case there is no pushing the laws of physics.

...the laws of physics aren't immutable; they're our best understanding of the world we live in.

I've come to hate such phrases as "Thinking outside the box"

...a favorite one frame cartoon (I haven't drawn it yet) is an x-ray picture of a cat with 2 mice in it's stomach. The one mouse says to the other, 'we need to think outside the cat.'

The basic principles of the universe (as we know them) will stand tall no matter how much we rally at them, shout "It's unfair" or try to sneak past them to the fire exit will always be there.

...In that thought the key point is 'as we know them.' It's possible we don't know everything. I know it's remote yet still it's possible.

[ken_behrendt]

I've done much thinking about the subject of perpetual motion over the years and I think it really comes down to the issue of whether or not it is possible to build a mechanism that will maintain the CG of a system of rotating weights on one side of their axis or rotation despite the rotation itself. If this is possible, then a working gravity wheel is possible. Obviously, if one believes that Bessler's wheels were genuine (I do), then one must believe that this is also possible.

One really does not have to consider any other issues in the matter such as conservation of energy, changes in gravitational potential energy, or any of the "laws" of motion. All that one needs to do is find that mechanism that can create and maintain the necessary imbalance.

My recent research is now focused on the use of single weight, self shifting mechanisms to achieve this unsual effect. They seem to be the simplest approach to the problem, yet, even so, the mechanisms can be very tricky to work with and test. Another problem I'm noticing is that such mechanisms can not be found in any of the catalogs of mechanical mechanisms. Why? Well, apparently, they serve no useful function individually. But, put 8 of them around the circumference of a wheel and the situation can change dramatically.

Well, Gene, I wish you could give us all of the details of what you are working on so that maybe we could assist you with some suggestions to improve its performance, but, obviously, you have opted to remain secretive at this time. That is, of course, your perogative. I hope, however, in the event that your design is a failure, that you can then share it with the board. At a minimum, it would inform others as to what does not work. At a maximum, it might give someone else an idea for a device that might work.

This whole issue of disclosure on the board is a touchy one. When I first arrived here, I, too, was very secretive and only gave out vague hints as to what I thought my design might do. However, I realized that my secrecy was not really in my best interest in the long run. Yes, it might allow me to more easily patent a device IF it worked. But, I feel my new open approach, especially since I do not intend to try to patent the device, will probably be the best one to follow for me. IF I find something that works, then it will guarantee that, unlike Bessler, the design will not just be lost forever, but can be used a foundation for a new science of self powered devices.


ken

[AgingYoung]

Ken,

One really does not have to consider any other issues in the matter such as conservation of energy, changes in gravitational potential energy, or any of the "laws" of motion. All that one needs to do is find that mechanism that can create and maintain the necessary imbalance.

A mechanism that can cause this imbalance is going to have to do it in some manner. That force has to come from somewhere. I think it's important as much as you can to understand all the forces in play so that you can imagine how you might cause the imbalance. It would be good also to understand what you've done. I think before you can learn from a build you have to understand (as well as you can) what was happening in it.

In the build I just finished what was happening was that the imbalance didn't occur soon enough to add any significant torque; what torque that was added was more than consumed as the weights headed up from 180 degrees. That build is so close to what I'm now looking at I'd rather not talk about the details of it. I did have a question if I may.

The current mechanism I'm working on has gravity actuated shifting and with that can spin from zero degrees with no push to 315 degrees (1/2 way between 10 and 11 o'clock.) Is that significant?

One of the reasons I post at Randi is that I'm trying to understand what is meant by perpetual motion. It seems that it's a pretty established concept and a gravity powered wheel fits the criteria. Gravity is either a force or an acceleration depending on your view (newtonian or einsteinian) and not a power source. If you could make a wheel turn by gravity you would win the contest and a million dollars. Way cool. That sure would help the trading account. :) Even if the wheel wouldn't produce significant power it would make an interesting desk trinket. That has to be worth a little.

Gene

[ken_behrendt]

Gene states:

One of the reasons I post at Randi is that I'm trying to understand what is meant by perpetual motion.

There is much debate as to what is meant by the term "perpetual motion".

If one just restricts the definition to motion, then every atom in the universe can be considered to be a submicroscopic perpetual motion machine as its electrons endlessly orbit its nucleus.

However, I do not think that expanding the definition to include energy production by just saying that a perpetual motion machine "creates" energy is logical. IF one accepts the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (I do), then one can not create energy...it must come from some source.

So, my definition of a perpetual motion machine would be a device which has the ability to extract energy from some unconventional and unseen source in excess of what it dissipates in its own operation so as to be able to perform external work in the machine's environment.

I think that, by this definition, Bessler's wheels would qualify as genuine perpetual motion machines.

So, what was the "unconventional and unseen" source of energy that his wheels extracted their outputted energy from? My best hypothesis (i.e., guess) is that any mechanism that maintains the CG of a set of weights off center in a rotating wheel automtically forces the weights in the wheel to convert a tiny portion of their intrinsic rest masses directly into kinetic energy to power the wheel.

In other words, in a very real sense, Bessler's wheels were nuclear powered! Incredible? Of course, but so too has been every revolutionary discovery in science in the last 400 years or so.


ken

[jim_mich]

Ken,
Once again I must respectfully state that I think your idea that Bessler's wheel converted mass into energy is HOG WASH. I think your hang up on that idea will forever cloud your mind and keep you from seeing clearly. I think you are grasping at a ridiculous concept.

Just my opinions.

[Jonathan]

IMHO the hog wash is a symptom of his clouded mind.

[ken_behrendt]

Jim and Jonathan...

Thank you for your "respectful" opinions...

Actually, I have done much thinking about this matter of where the energy must come from in a working gravity wheel and I keep returning to the same conclusion...it must come from the rest masses of the weights themselves.

However, I am well aware that if one moves a weight in a closed path of any shape then the loss of rest mass it experiences due to all of its vertical drops must exactly equal its gain in rest mass due to all of its vertical rises. Thus, the weight can not lose any net rest mass in this process which would show up as a net increase in the kinetic energy of the weight. This would seem to make the whole concept of a working gravity wheel an impossibility.

Yet, if Bessler did produce such a wheel (and I am sure he did), then the above restriction could not have applied to that wheel.

When we consider something simple, say like the movement of a lever which has two equal weights at both ends, but has its pivot to one side of the center of the lever where the CG of the weights is located, then we have no trouble understanding why the lever rotates.

In this simple situation, the end of the lever farther from the pivot drops while the other end rises. The weight at the farther end of the lever from its pivot will actually drop a farther distance than the weight at the other end rises and the dropping weight will lose more rest mass than the rising weight regains. Result, the system can output energy and the kinetic energy of the lever increases as does its velocity of rotation. Of course, this process will quickly come to a halt when the CG of the weights swings to a position below the pivot.

So, now I am wondering if this simple example of a swinging lever does not also apply to a working gravity wheel! In such a wheel, the weights on the descending side can be considered to be dropping slightly more than the weights on the ascending side rise. As a result, the wheel can, with every rotation, convert a small amount of its weights rest masses into a small amount of kinetic energy that will add to the wheel's total rotational energy and increase its speed.

Of course, the objection to this is that, regardless of what shifting in the weights is taking place on the descending side of the wheel, the weights still have to move around a closed path which, as I pointed out earlier, conventional physics says can not result in the net conversion of any of the rest masses of the weights into kinetic energy.

The only way out of this predicament that I can see is that, somehow, because the CG of the wheel's weights is constantly maintained to one side of the wheel's axle, the system behaves just like that example of the swinging lever that I mentioned. Perhaps it is the constant asymmetry of the system that allows it to do this. In other words, a rotating gravity wheel must act like a swinging lever whose CG never falls below the axle.

Well, someday, when we finally achieve a working gravity wheel, I suspect that someone will come up with a brilliant mathematical analysis showing how very logical its operation really is. But, for now, I am just going to concentrate on finding that mechanism that keeps the CG on one side of the wheel's axle during rotation...


ken