Thoughts on MT143

[LustInBlack]

Maybe this has been already said but . . .


I'm wondering how I should interpret MT143 ..

2 Ideas I have thought :

1) I believe, Bessler found a way to make a lighter weight (Left arms) heavier than a heavy weight (Right), by Lighter I mean, a weight with a leverage ratio lighter .

2) Maybe, this "balance" is supposed to keep a wheel that would be connected to it, in a state of perpetual imbalance . .

Simulation of a simple parallelogram balance, justify my first assumption ..

If so, a mecanism could be build using that to keep the weights lighter on the left side of the wheel and heavier on the right side at all time ..

If 2) then we could take an idea that balanced and it would work under those conditions . ..



Bessler was a strange man . .

[ken_behrendt]

In my opinion MT143 is supposed to represent a perpetually rocking type of perpetual motion machine. That is, as one side rose, it's weights, via the gears between their levers, would swing farther from the center support post while the weights on the descending side would swing closer to the support column.

Apparently, Bessler either thought that this would actually work in practice or he was using it as an example of what would not work. I hope it was the latter, because it is well know that such a device will not rock continuously. It behaves exactly like a simple beam balance used in a laboratory. Such a balance, like MT143, will remain balance regardless of where on its two pans two weights of equal mass are placed.


ken

[Oystein]

He was even more right on than that !

In the original drawings he has written :

Demonstration in Equliberium !!

That said, there still may be a clue to a mechanical configuration / movement as the first page suggests..

Best
Oystein

[Paul]

To me this design (MT143) is the most powerful clue.. but it is hard to apply it in the right manner.
It could be that Bessler found the way of "transmitting" part of the weight (of a weight) in another point of the wheel(or wheels, two?) or to the fulcrum, therefore subtracting part of the weight from the point where the weight is really placed, but only for few degrees. This would provide a kind of "step propulsion" to the wheel.
If this short and light unsettling is repeated in circle on all the weights (one of every couple) then the "propulsion" is continuos.
Maybe this mechanics (MT143) serves to highlight the possibility of unbalancing part of a system without unbalancing other parts of the system

Paul

[Vic Hays]

Such a balance, like MT143, will remain balance regardless of where on its two pans two weights of equal mass are placed.

ken

Do you suppose that is the clue? Could the CG be shifted and yet remain balanced for part of a revolution.

[ken_behrendt]

Vic asked:

Could the CG be shifted and yet remain balanced for part of a revolution.

That would be impossible if you are talking about the composite CG of all of the weights within a wheel's drum.

I believe that one must consider the weights / mechanisms within a wheel's drum to be arranged into opposed pairs, each of which has its own CG. The CG's of each opposed pair would start out at the center of the wheel's axle, move out onto the descending side of the wheel, and, finally, begin the process of "climbing" back to the center of the axle again.

Since the opposed mechanisms are identical, the above process must be completed within 180° of wheel rotation.

When one then considers the composite CG for three or four opposed pairs of mechanisms, it will remain perpetually suspended somewhere on the descending side of the wheel as the individual opposed pair CG's "orbit" about it. Result...perpetual motion.

As far as MT143 is concerned, I do not think it has anything to do with how Bessler's wheels worked. Bessler probably included it because he wanted to show how deceptive the design of an allegedly overbalanced system could be. That is, just because something looks unbalanced does not necessarily mean that it is.


ken

[LustInBlack]

A bit off-topic, but, did Bessler said that minor modifications of balancing wheels would make them out-of-balance perpetually!?

Just need a confirmation there .. .

[Michael]

LustInBlack he never said that.

[ken_behrendt]

LIB...

There are only two or three passages in the known Bessler literature where Bessler "says" how his wheels worked. There is, of course, the famous line from DT about "...certain disposed weights, once in rotation, remain out of the center of gravity..." (I'm writing this from memory) that everyone is familiar with. I assume that by "center of gravity" he is referring to the center of the wheel's axle where the CG of all of the weights would be IF none of them were shifted from what I call their "neutral" positions.

Bessler seems to be "saying" that his wheels worked by being chronically overbalanced and nothing more...


ken