Bessler's use of Gravity

[Clarkie]

Winkle,
John and I are doing our own things, John is using the historic information for guidance and I am using my ingenuity and the historic facts as a check list.

Yes, I am going down the path described in the "Swinging weight" thread, but, as I told Steve, I'm not prepared to compromise the patent process and I don't want to talk in riddles.

Please ask your questions and I will answer what I feel comfortable with.

Pete.

[winkle]

i'm making a list and i'm checking it twice so you better be good and you better not cry cause Santa is coming to town

John

Pete

Jim

Wheeler

Ralph and James

Fletcher and Rainer

have i missed anyone


i'm not sure James should be on this list

he clams to already have a working wheel thats as strong as a bull

elephant and twice as dangerous



i either don't have a clue about Mr. Besslers wheel or i am just to modest to add my name


John will you're wheel have a pendulum as is seen on some of Mr. Besslers wheels

if so or not do you know the purpose of them

if you're wheel works do you think there will be more than one method of building it

Pete i ask the same questions of you

[bluesgtr44]

DT...pg. 360-361...John Collins pub.

"...My wheel is the true device, and is indeed, per se, a genuine Perpetuum Mobile. None better will ever be found upon this earth, for with the principle that I alone possess, there can be no real perpetual motion. Whoever seeks another method is deceiving himself, for my device does not need winding; it runs according to "preponderance", and truns everything else along with it; so long as its material shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord. On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be. That which hitherto has been impossible, was bouchsafed to me to discover."

...think about it...


Steve

[Wheeler]

have i missed anyone

I thought no one would ever ask!:)

I am working on my wheel, that will be gravity run.
It may not be what Bessler did, but it will use gravity.

[Clarkie]

Winkle,
I think the pendulums in the drawings are part of the internal workings of the wheel but they don't act as pendulums.

IMO there will only be one principal but there could be variations with the build.

The riddle to solve is the 1lb falling 4' lifting 4lb 1', solve that are you have cracked it.

In theory I have but I need to prove it to myself before I believe it.

Pete.

[John Collins]

Winkle. Hmmmmm - not really a pendulum. Yes I think I know why they are there, and yes I'm sure there will be other ways to build the wheel, in fact I think Bessler used two different methods.

John Collins

[Clarkie]

John,
I agree with the build variation but do you agree that there is only one principle as to how/why it works?

If it works :-)

Pete.

[John Collins]

Hi Clarkie,

Yes I agree there's only one principle behind a successful version of it.

JC.

[Clarkie]

John,
If we get there before our American cousins shall we have the parade in London? Or maybe put it on display at Warwick Castle.

What do you think?

Pete.

[winkle]

Pete

luck with proving you're theory


and Wheeler makes eight

Wheeler better get it in gear there are 7 ahead of you

luck to you also

over 300 members and only 8 think they have a working idea worth building

somebody must be holding out

[Fletcher]

... it runs according to "preponderance", and turns everything else along with it; .. snip .. it will revolve of its own accord.

On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be.

Hi Steve .. It might pay to show that there are two possible interpretations of what preponderance could mean in this circumstance.

The Penguin English Dictionary :

preponerant adj preponderance noun.

1. occurring in greater number or quantity.

2. having superior weight, force, or influence.

It would seem that it could be taken literally to mean a greater number of weights (geographically) on one side of the wheel or it could mean leverage giving rise to asymmetric torque on one side of a wheel.

The first instance of greater numbers (therefore CoG displacement) implies greater torque on one side of the wheel & is the path that Ken is pursuing. In the second instance, it is not necessarily a prerequisite that greater torque means greater numbers on the same side. They could be mutually exclusive.

What we can say is that what ever principle he used it did result in asymmetric torque generation & an unstable wheel.

[Tinhead]

The riddle to solve is the 1lb falling 4' lifting 4lb 1', solve that are you have cracked it.

Pete.

It's not really my day (week), not feeling well. No worries, I spare you the details ;)

Just ... what Bessler said, wasn't it more along the lines:
1/4 drops a 1/4 and flings up 4/4 by 4/4 .... ?

Too lazy to look it up right now, but I'm pretty sure that's what he said.
I mean ... 1lb down by 4' , lifting 4lb up by 1' ... that's not really a riddle ... that's just normal leverage.

Cheers,
Rainer

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Fletch...that quote from DT, I draw no conclusions from this that would lead me to believe that it has to be on one side. It is just another avenue to think about.

Keeping it on one side would make sense as far as the ability not only to sustain motion...but to also perform work. It would definitely have to be tied off and could reach 40-50 rpm's in a couple of revolutions. Now, getting there is another story....but, I'm workin' on it!


Steve

[Fletcher]

Yeah Steve. I think most would assume a greater amount of weight (ala GoG) on one side & this may well be true. My own personal belief is that out of ordinary materials & leverage he managed to create a torque imbalance. i.e. the CoG is not the overriding & paramount consideration.

I think JB used the words somewhere "excess of impetus", that may not necessarily mean an excess of weight in a one to one relationship. Perhaps 1:4 or something else. I'm working on it too.

[ken_behrendt]

Steve...

Thanks for quoting from DT:

Whoever seeks another method is deceiving himself, for my device does not need winding; it runs according to "preponderance", and truns everything else along with it; so long as its material shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord. On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be.

To me "preponderance" implies that the CG of his one-directional wheel was chronically maintained on the descending side. It does not mean that all of the weights were on the descending side.

Bessler had a verse in AP that suggests that his wheels did not have a normal rim. From this it is logical to assume that the weights were distributed symmetrically around the drum's circumference. To get the CG of those weights to stay only on the wheel's descending side would have required each subgrouping of them to have a separate mechanism that would automatically them shift away from the axle on the wheel's descending side and then back again toward the wheel's axle on the ascending side. It's got to be just that simple.

As one of Bessler's wheels rotated, one must imagine this magic mechanism to, itself, be rotating through 360°. It would then have shifted its weight(s) in response to its changing orientation in the Earth's gravity field. And, most likely, this process would have been impeded as the CF acting on the weight(s) increased with increasing wheel rotation rate.

My advice to mobilists trying to re-discover Bessler's lost secret it to keep it as simple as possible and use the above concept as a quide.


ken