Pair of Pairs

[jim_mich]

I'm out of here.

Good-bye everyone. It's been fun.

Last one out please lock the door.

[ovyyus]

Don't go Jim. You can't let the superstitious god-peddlers win!

May I suggest you speak to Scott about moving your thread to a forum area that gives you some editorial control over crap off-topic posts. There's more than one way to beat off these useless blood suckers ;)

[Paul]

Hi. Without offence for no one! I feel disconcerted indeed. I wonder how in 2006 still listening to certain speeches about complex superstition forms is possible. Guys open your eyes! I hope that this affirmation of mine will not cost the ban to me....but sorry I cannot resist to that.

Paul

[primemignonite]

As to the recent worry rather crudely expressed, regarding the supposedly de-graded pristineness of the Jim Mich's original thread, didn't the response from KB pretty much put the cap onto the original question?

I thought so, so what's all the grousing about coming from The Peanut Gallery?

Just in case it was forgotten from before, here it is once again:

Jim asked:

Regarding Bessler wheels we've heard the term "weights work in pairs". Where does this phrase originate?

The exact reference can be found in AP on pages 295 - 296 where Bessler writes:

IÂ’d like, at this point, to give a brief description of it. So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as 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.

To me, it is clear that Bessler is telling the reader that the "pair" involves matched mechanisms that are diametrically opposed from each other or located 180° from each other around the wheel. Thus, a wheel containing 8 such mechanisms would have them arranged into four opposed pairs, each at an angular interval of 45° from its two nearest neighboring opposed pairs.

We are further told by Bessler that the weight(s) in one of the opposed pair's mechanisms is moved outward toward the rim of the wheel while the weight(s) in the other mechanism is moved inward toward the axle of the wheel. Obviously, it was the imbalance of this that provided the torque that accelerated the wheels.

We are not, I think, however, told how many weights were in each of the two opposed mechanisms that made up each opposed pair of mechanisms. I've variously tried three, two, and, recently, only one weight in each of the mechanisms that made up an opposed pair of such mechanisms.

Now, I am convinced that the "magic" number is TWO weights per mechanism. I show my latest approach to this whole problem with the design for the "Carpenter's Boy's Wheel" over in my "...Updates" thread in the Community Buzz forum.


ken

This answer seems to me to be as complete, elegant and as solid as could possibly be.

Threads DO have a habit of forming interesting tributaries, and don't always naturally maintain the original thrust of what first gave rise to them, from beginning to end. How could this fact have been missed? I hear 'blah, blah, blah' belly aching about this or that thread being defiled, or similar nonsense.

Just as it is with conversations, original topics have a way of morphing into peripheral ones. So what?

Honestly, I think there are way too many who are just bored cross-eyed, having run plum out of ideas for wheel movements. Not to worry though; perhaps the solution is close-at-hand.

As to Bessler(II), I haven't a clue as to who he is or what is up with him. I find it interesting as a minor mystery, but WHERE is it to go from here? Who knows? Maybe it's not Mitch revivified, or perhaps so. I for one, at least, am a bit curious.

James (CIC, BesslerWheel)

[ken_behrendt]

Well, I'm up very early again today, only this time instead of just insomnia, I'm somewhat ill from a serving of under ripe blueberries that accidentally got into my food supply. As a result, I've had this yucky weird taste in the back of my mouth that I can not get rid of since yesterday afternoon and my bowels do not quite feel right.

Unripe berries can be high in compounds called saponins which can give one a "soapy" taste in his mouth and irritate his gastro-intestinal tract. It's getting so I'm not only afraid to try a food I've never previously eaten, but, now, even stuff I routinely eat may be harmful when the supplier changes! I attribute this all to the ongoing deterioration of the quality of the products we use as the capitalists chase ever higher profit levels!



I've looked at this thread and noticed that an attempt is being made to inject religion into it. I've seen this pattern surface in other threads when the topic being discussed was somewhat complex or things slowed down and people were groping for anything to say to keep the thread going.

I think the message we are supposed to get is that the secret of perpetual motion was actually given to the original Bessler by God, but that it was not supposed to be released until the "end times" which, of course, is supposed to be in the years immediately ahead of our present time. Only then will some lucky mobilist receive the dream (or "vision") that reveals the secret and the resulting successful replication of Bessler's wheels will then somehow save the "righteous" remnant of humanity before the armies of the Anti-Christ exterminate it. This belief is used by some to rationalize why, whenever Bessler seemed to find a buyer for his invention, something would go wrong and he would not be able to sell it. Why, it was just Divine Providence intervening to prevent the sale...is that not obvious to everyone?

Such beliefs, of course, deny the decade of blood, sweat, and tears that Bessler had to invest to wrench the secret of a working overbalanced wheel from Mother Nature. Are we supposed to believe that all of that work was irrelevant and that he could have just relaxed and went about a normal existence until the night of the fateful dream came along? I don't think so!




Anyway, the real reason I am posting at the moment is because I must now proclaim loudly, "Mia culpa, mia culpa, mia maxima CULPA!!!"

Why would I want to say this?

Well, it happened! Just a few hours ago, I decided to review my early morning, June 21st, derivation of what I call "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" and discovered, to my chagrin, that it was in error! Serves me right for working on a math problem while simultaneously watching a movie with Sophia Loren in it...just too much distraction!

What was my error? In my original derivation, I obtained the average vertical velocity of the weights in a running overbalanced gravity wheel by taking the simple arithmetical average of the maximum vertical ascent velocity of a weight and the maximum vertical descent velocity of a weight. While my mathematical manipulations (mostly simple algebra) were correct, the assumption I made was wrong. The average of the maximum vertical ascent and descent velocities of the rotating weights in such a wheel will not give one the average vertical velocity of the weights!

The problem, which I did not see on 6/21/06, is that the vertical velocity components of the weights inside of an overbalanced wheel with a CG offset from the wheel's axle by distance d actually vary sinusoidally in value as the weights move around the axle. Because of this type of variation, one must use what is known as the rms or "root mean square" value of the maximum vertical ascent velocity and of the maximum vertical descent velocity to obtain their actual average values and then take the simple sum of these two values to obtain the average vertical velocity of a weight in an overbalanced wheel.

However, on the bright side, while correcting the previously given expressions for this error does change the values predicted by Bessler's 4th Law of Motion and those of the expressions derived from it, the newly corrected expressions do not change the basic implication of the new law of motion which is that the average vertical velocity of the weights in an overbalanced wheel is always negative or downward in direction.

To obtain the rms value of a sinusoidally varying value, we need only multiply the maximum value at the peak (or trough) of the curve by (√2)/2 which has a numerical value of 0.7071067.

Here are the correct derivations of Bessler's 4th Law of Motion and its associated expressions which I just completed. The new form of the 4th Law should now give the actual average vertical velocity of a weight in the overbalanced wheel. Notice that it is identical to the original equation, but now there is an extra factor of √2 in it that will increase the magnitude of the predicted average vertical descent velocity by a factor of 1.4142136 or about an increase of 41% for what the previous, in error, 4th Law of Motion would have predicted.

Vaver = Vmaxasc + Vmaxdes = [(√2)/2]2π(r-d)ωcosφ + (- [(√2)/2]2π(r+d)ω)cosφ)

Vaver = (√2)πω(r - d - r - d)cosφ

Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ


This now, hopefully, is finally the correct expression for Bessler's 4th Law of Motion. Since I decided to include the "discovery" date of the new law of motion into my signature, I have also corrected the form given there and changed the discovery date from 6/21/06 to 7/6/06.

With this revised expression it is now also necessary to modify all of the expressions that were derived from the original erroneous expression for the new law of motion. As the reader who has studied my previous few posts in this thread will realize, that means that we must then correct the expressions for the change in gravitational potential energy of the weights per wheel rotation, ΔPEgrav, the constant power output of the wheel, P, the change in mass of the weights' mass M during a single rotation, ΔM, the total number of rotations required to extract all of the mass energy from the weights, Σ, and, finally, the time, T, to complete all of the required wheel rotations in order to extract all of the mass energy of the weights.

These modified expressions become:

ΔPEgrav = - 2(√2)πMgdcosφ

P = - 2(√2)πMgdωcosφ

ΔM = -4(√2)πMgdcosφ/c²

Σ = c²/4(√2)πgdcosφ

T = c²/4(√2)πgdωcosφ


There...let these corrected expressions now be chiseled into granite for all eternity (well, maybe just carved into softer marble in case there's another glitch in the derivation that requires correction! But, I think this is unlikely).



For those readers who followed the hypothetical Problem I solved for the Kassel wheel a few posts ago, these corrections will increase the quantity of mass lost by the weights of the two-directional wheel's driving component one-directional wheel by a factor of √2 or 1.4142136 so that for each wheel rotation in either direction, the driving component's weights will experience a mass change (which is a decrease) of - 2.859653 x 10¯¹² grams rather than the previous value of - 2.02208 x 10¯¹² grams. So we see that the driving component one-directional wheel's weights now lose a total of almost 3 picograms per wheel rotation.

This will then increase the predicted constant power output of the Kassel wheel when it is running at its maximum terminal rotation rate of 26 rpm to:

P = - 55.6855 watts

from its previous calculated value of P = - 39.3756 watts.

And, obviously, if more mass is lost per wheel rotation, then less total number of rotations, Σ, and time, T, will be required to extract all of the mass-energy of the driving component one-directional wheel's weights. The corrected total number of rotations and time now works out to:

Σ = 2.0303086 x 10^16 rotations

rather than the previously calculated 2.87129 x 10^16 rotations which can now be completed in only:

T = 1.4847 x 10^9 years

instead of the previously calculated 2.0997 x 10^9 years


So, we see from all of this that each of the component one-directional wheels inside of the Kassel wheel would still power the wheel in one direction for a very long time. And, the increased minimum power output of the wheel indicates that the maximum power output, which might be two or three times higher, could now be anywhere from about 100 watts to 150 watts.

That light bulb the wheel could light just got brighter!



Anyway, for those of you are still struggling to grasp the implications of the newly revised (and, hopefully, final) version of Bessler's 4th Law of Motion, I have attached a cute sketch below that compares the average vertical motion of a man on an elevator with the average vertical motion of the weights inside of a rotating overbalanced gravity wheel as "Mr. Gravity" sees them.

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so perhaps this sketch will make the new law of motion clearer for the non-mathematical reader.


I've gotta go now, have a quick breakfast (no blueberries!), and try to grab some ZZZZZZZ's.

Ciao, everybody.



ken

[primemignonite]

Without any doubt whatever, I believe, when a working, turning, amazing device is placed before KB, it will be HE who will be best qualified to tell us EXACTLY how and why it works . . . AFTER-THE-FACT!

His consistently displayed abilities leave us all well behind him, groveling helplessly and pathetically in the dust. (About this can there be ANY doubt?)

HOWEVER . . . those obvious truths now having been stated flat-out, I think the pertinent question naturally becomes: JUST HOW is the interior Besslerian mechanism to be deduced, or even induced, from all that admittedly impressive equationing and theorizing?

This answer, too, is obvious.

The problem is, gentlemen, that NOTHING-YET-TURNS! The eight hundred pound gorilla named 'Reality', who sits squarely in the middle of all our consciousness', is this sad, authentic fact.

Also, all of the railing against Bible thumping, or on the other hand, those who quote from Holy Scripture when and where it is positively impertinent to do so, are not going to cause our so-longed-for result to materialize. Not at all.

No, 'bored' and 'run out of ideas' is mostly what I see prevailing, thus my salute to the new German member for his exceeding enthusiasm, displayed so cleanly and spontaneously. (You missed it?)

And, this constant striving, literal gut-busting, to dismiss the religious/mystical aspect of Bessler, his Wheel and his existence, is just what it is: picking and choosing a new secularized, sanitized, NWO-acceptable Bessler, one that is most comportable with tragically given-into wills, and rampant self-worship. (As IF we were worth it!)

These supposed formulae for progress are not going to get anyone anything or to anywhere, but directly into The Endless Land of Troubles and Disappointment - the correctness of this assertion we SHALL all be living the future results of, or rather, the lack of them.

Also, having now been lured by ever-festering nonsense and excess into creating yet another 'rant', do allow me take the rare opportunity, if you will, to add this: WHY do none object to the constant boorish health reports of KBs, regularly regurgitated at various times and places for our entertainment(?), on a practically daily basis?

And now, HERE, on the very "Pairs of Pairs" thread supposedly so desecrated by variant, spontaneous discussions, we are now treated to YET ANOTHER, brand new fresh update of it! Why?

I don't mean to be a big crab and I don't like doing it, but gees, let's do try to grab hold of some novel truth for a change? Shall we?

James (CIC, BesslerWheel)

P.S. If and when KB condescends to address me DIRECTLY, which he has studiously taken care to never do from day one, then it will continue to be "KB", or somesuch lesser, in my references to him. That's what it means and why I do it. Thought you all might like to know about that just for fun.

"Whacking the hornets' nest; raising the wind."

[bluesgtr44]

Man oh man....what happened in here? I think I'll go back to my stupid little street and stay there for awhile.


Steve

[rlortie]

Steve,

Due to the fact that I would rather be on your street, I would not call it stupid!

If you have no objections I will see you there. With a second thought the rest of this members's thoughts are best deleted.________________________!

I respectfully ask jim_mich to leave the light on and the door unlocked as I am still interested in pairs, and "pairs of pairs". I find the topic to my liking and befitting my present design work.

Ralph

[james kelly]

I STILL think that many in here belong on the funny farm.

[primemignonite]

THREE POSTS so far in response to what I wrote on this page, but none have responded to, asked about nor commented upon, the various serious issues addressed.

Why only juvenilia?

James

[Fletcher]

Without any doubt whatever, I believe, when a working, turning, amazing device is placed before KB, it will be HE who will be best qualified to tell us EXACTLY how and why it works . . . AFTER-THE-FACT!

Gee .. I thought the most qualified to tell us how it works would be the person who logically thought it through, constructed it to working prototype stage & then showed the wheel to us. Perhaps he will need help explaining the blatantly obvious though, or perhaps he's such a moron that it's sure to be just dumb luck that he stumbled across an answer at all, do you suppose ?

The smart money says he'll be more than able to explain its principle of operation (without any help) so that everyone "gets it". Of course with only 5 minutes of contemplative analysis many will probably rush in with various improvements of "this or that" that could make it more efficient, more powerful, weigh less, take up less space etc etc.

Then the slide rules will whizz & the jewish piano's truly hum, but they can only be slaves to expressions of physics & math, to prove something after the fact, not forecast it in advance, without the imagination to wield them.

[primemignonite]

Fletcher,

What I meant to get across was that Behrendt would then be able to reconcile his own theories, as well as the Laws of Thermodynamics, to the testable, experienceable reality sitting upon his bench.

I know that if I were to evolve the thing, for instance, that I would not be qualified to do that.

Although I would certainly know how it operated mechanically, for reasons as you state, I certainly would not know how it does so with regard to the Thermodynamical Laws nor the supposed "4th Law of Motion" of Behrendt's. I am confident that Behrendt would.

(Also, Jonathan would too, as well as a few others trained in classical physics and able to sling the trig and calculus. Such things are WAY beyond my abilities, but then THEY are not instrument mechanics either.)

That's basically what I tried to say there.

James

[rlortie]

Fletch and James,

Now you are getting to the point!

IMO it is obvious that a working wheel will never be acomplished by the armchair philosopher. It will take hands on application with disregard to laws and theorys.

It does not take a high IQ to figure out if one side is heavier than the other that it is going to move. Nor does it take a graduate to conceive the same results by simply keeping the fulcrum point of a leaver in mechanical transition.

It appears that Bessler's simple but descriptive words, the weights are at a right angle to the axis does not register with those who think about physics and related laws. I have seen very few designs fitting his description.

Ralph

[Sevich]

Jim_Mitch...

rlortie wrote

the weights are at right angle to the axis

Axis meaning a straight line through the center of a circle leaving two equal parts? .....and axis meaning the center of a wheel or circle ?

Bessler's "right angle to the axis" can be interperated in many different ways......is'nt this true?

I'm currently working on a mechanism that uses each pendulum to create 2 internal shifts......one is the "bang" noise to the 4oclock position, and the other is the lifting of the whole internal to one side, thereby creating rotation. 4 pendulums are used with single weights attached to the ends. Still working on a solution to connect all 4 pendulums in a (Jim_Mitch's) pair of pairs arangement so as to exert the maximum weight pressure .....(hopeful)?

[jim_mich]

Yes, its true that "right angles to the axis" can be interpreted in many different ways! Does it mean tangent to the wheel? A tangent is always at a right angle to a circle and it touches the circle at only one point on an outer edge. OR does right angle mean radial as in a wheel spoke? Was Bessler talking about how the pair of weights are connected to each other with right angled levers OR was he possibly talking about the way the weights move at right angles to the wheel? The later might suggest that one weight of the pair moves tangentially while the other moves radially. Additionally we have the question of placement locations of the weights and interconnectivity. And how and where do the springs come into play? And what was the bumping that caused the banging noise? Was this noise ONLY caused by the external hammer mill or was it comming from inside the wheel? The earlier wheels had "scatching" niose coming from inside the wheel with no mention of banging or other noise. I believe Bessler metioned trying to quiet the internal noises with felt which was an organ and piano builders trick used to keep things quiet.

So the right angle statement does not seem to give me much guidance as to a design. To me it only suggests that one weight moves in a different (right angle) direction than the other weight.