Pair of Pairs

[ovyyus]

Jim, agreement on all points, however, the statement about, "scratching noises" is, I believe, a quote attributable to the vivid imagination of Frank Edwards - and therefore suspect at best.

[jim_mich]

Thanks Bill. It is sooo easy to pick up information that is not authentic. If the "scratching noises" are bogus then are there any witness statements describing noises from the early wheels?

[Sevich]

I'm on the side that scratching noises are authentic and was something he (Bessler) could'nt control.

On Bills website http://www.orffyre.com there is I believe only one design that could be the real deal if a lot more work was put into it, and that design is MT20

[bluesgtr44]

Bill, Jim...I am at work now and cannot quote it, but he does mention about the scratching noises in one of his books. It's where he is ranting about the detractors and says that someone even thought he had a cat in there because of the scratching noises.


Steve

[ken_behrendt]

Wow! This thread engendered a lot of interesting points since my last post wherein I admitted I made a wrong assumption in the original 6/21/06 derivation of what I am calling "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion". Let me, as briefly as possible, address some of these points:


James wrote:

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!

The reason I tried to derive a new law of motion was in order to explain how an overbalanced gravity wheel would work before the fact. For many years I was bothered by the assertion of orthodox physics that weights moving around a closed path could not output any energy and therefore a "gravity wheel", overbalanced or otherwise, could not be a source of "free" energy.

Now, with this new law of motion, I feel that I can offer a description of how weights moving in a closed circle could output some gravitational potential energy (or, according to relativity theory, mass-energy) with each wheel rotation. No, this mathematical approach will not give us the design of Bessler's secret wheel mechanism, but I consider it a preferable way of describing what is happening, energetically, within an overbalanced wheel, than merely saying that it must turn because it is chronically imbalanced or that it has a net torque or other such simplistic answers. Already, the new law has indicated that such a wheel is not truly perpetual, but, rather, must, after a great expanse of time, come to a halt when it extracts the last erg of energy from its driving weights.

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?

Actually, it seemed to me that the "pair of pairs" theme of this thread had, more or less, run its course and it was no longer attracting new ideas. I posted my concepts about a 4th law of motion here because they seemed to me to somewhat fit in with the subject of the chronic maintenance of imbalance within an overbalanced wheel and I thought it might be of interest to a wider readership than would see it down in my member's only "...Updates" thread in the Community Buzz forum. On second thought now, I think it probably would have been better if I had started a separate thread for it.

The reason for the "new fresh update" is obvious. My first derivation was inadvertently flawed and I do not like to leave readers with information which is not as accurate as I can provide. The flaw, thankfully, was minor, but still required an official correction to prevent future mistaken understandings of the new law that I am proposing.



Fletcher wrote:

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.

That is quite true! But, the reader should realize that Bessler's 4th Law of Motion is not concerned with the actual mechanism involved that maintains an overbalanced wheel's chronic imbalance. That mechanism, when it is found, will be best understood and described by the inventor and not by any new law of motion.

However, regardless of what the final successful mechanism proves to be, if the wheel is chronically overbalanced and uses gravity, then its energy output will, I am very firmly convinced, only be understandable in terms of a new law of motion. Is the one I have derived that new law? Well, I have done much thinking about this matter and I can not see any possible alternative ways of rationalizing the energy output of such a wheel unless one is willing to accept that energy can magically be created out of nothing which is a clear violation of one of the most fundamental principles of 20th century science...The Law of Mass / Energy Conservation.



Ralph wrote:

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.

While it true that there are many possible definitions of what Bessler meant by the weights applying their force at right angles to the axle, I think the simplest explanation is that he was just stating that the CG of the rotating array of weights was chronically maintained to one side of the axle. It may not have been directly horizontal to the axle either, but may have been down below the axle a bit.

From page 295 of AP, we learn:

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.

On the surface, it sounds like Bessler is describing a pair of diametrically opposed weights...that is, just two weights. However, in reality, we do not know how many "separate pieces of lead" were in each member or weight shifting mechanism of the opposed pair. Currently, I am exploring designs that put four weights in each mechanism, only two of which are "active" at any instant.



Steve...

I, too, recall reading about the "scratching" noises emanating from Bessler's earlier one-directional wheels. Those wheels were very thin and, I think, we previously came to the conclusion that the space within the Gera wheel was actually less than two inches wide. That's a tight space within which to fit weighted levers that are undergoing continuous shifting. Most likely, the scratching sounds were due to the rubbing of the swinging weighted levers against the interior surfaces of the veneer of wooden slats that Bessler used to conceal the drum's internal mechanisms.


Well, I'm happy to report that I am, for the moment, satisfied with my formulation of Bessler's 4th Law of Motion and can now begin to return to my major research interest...trying to find a simple, weight/lever/spring type mechanism which will chronically maintain the CG of a rotating system of such mechanisms on the descending side of a one-directional wheel.



ken

[John Collins]

Orffyreus found that he had more than his share of those whose sole motivations were grudges born of hatred and envy. While all this was going on he continued to treat the sick successfully, and this too caused comment. Some suggested that the wheel contained a dog or a cat, because of the scratching noise which came from within. But at the top of Orffyreus' list of dislikes were those who alleged that he was a wizard, a hangman's apprentice or a follower of Dr. Faust - perhaps he had imprisoned a genie in the wheel - and worst of all, since he was having so much success with the sick, he must have signed a pact with Death himself.

Copied and pasted from my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"

John Collins

[Wheeler]

Ken
Writing long paragraphs of words will not make you look good!!!!!!


Basic physics is not something new or a wonderful discovery from you.

If you need to write things just to see them on a screen, do it without posting.
Just type on the screen and then turn the computer off.
That way you will not look like you are trying to create some new physics law.
It would be one thing if you found the Besslers design, but to make up that you know it is a law is slightly immature.

If you are using CokaCola's system of advertising,(saturation) I think it will not work in the physics community.

Weight on one side of a wheel or axis is not a Bessler law.

However if I am completely confused, I ask for you to completely excuse me.

[Fletcher]

Covering all bases there Wheeler :) Chronically imbalanced, asymmetrical torque etc are terms I'm quite happy to continue using because they describe the 'condition' that is required. This we all inherently know without venturing further into pure speculative territory.

So far Ken has come up with a mathematical expression which basically says, if you know the path the weights took then you can deuce there rotational center & visa versa. The velocity of the weights is another matter however because using the chronically imbalanced description we know that the weight should move closer to the axle one side of the wheel relative to the other side. In order to move closer they must slow down moving less distance per arc compared to the other side, so relative to the axle (the entire wheels physical center of rotation) their apparent velocities change. Note this is not relative to the newly determined center found by Ken's expressions but the physical center of rotation being the wheels axle, so nothing new there imo. Also note that the term average velocity could mean a weight stops & starts many times i.e. many fast accelerations & decelerations or one relatively long slow acceleration followed by a long slow deceleration which then brings into question the entire rest mass kinetic energy relationship when objects accelerate & decelerate differently, so its not particularly helpful as Ken suggests.

James .. I was in reply simply suggesting that once the principle is found & demonstrated by the inventor then a bunch of accountants will be able to balance the physics & maths books to tell you & I & probably the inventor where we all went wrong & how to tweak it further. They won't be rewriting any laws any time soon or inventing new ones either imo.

[primemignonite]

Dear Wheeler,

Your advisements to Ken Behrendt struck me with considerable Besslerian force, as well as massive amounts of humor.

If I may, I will just insert a few little ditty comments?:

Ken
Writing long paragraphs of words will not make you look good!!!!!! I for one believe that he already looks good, and really has not much need for any more. What he attempts to express is necessarily complex, and therefore requires much scroll space in order to do it.

Basic physics is not something new or a wonderful discovery from you. Acceptable as true on it's face, I think, and believe Ken Behrendt might agree as well. Of course, I could be wrong about that.

If you need to write things just to see them on a screen, do it without posting. I think this one, Wheeler, might stand as good advice to all of us, especially myself.

Just type on the screen and then turn the computer off. Of course, but I would suggest a slightly different procedure: that he type on THE KEYBOARD, SEE IT on the screen, THEN turn off his computer, in that order.

That way you will not look like you are trying to create some new physics law. But he IS, so how could he avoid looking like that's what he's doing, and, why would he want to? With the definition for PM being as it is presently accepted by main stream physics, there will by necessity have to be something, somewhere THAT GIVES, and it will NOT be the reality sitting upon the bench, merrily demonstrating itself away! With it's grand advent - Bessler's re-discovered Wheel aspinning - some place in physics IS GOING TO TAKE A BEATING! I don't know where that will be; Newton's world, or the little physician's rickity, axiom-based domain, but whichever the case may be, we can bet on it, allow big odds, and come out all-to the-better in the wager. Ken Behrendt does what he does so that we, on this side of main-stream physics, will not be taken by surprise. Naturally, I cannot speak for him, but I believe this to be a fair statement.

It would be one thing if you found the Besslers design, but to make up that you know it is a law is slightly immature. [Wheeler, may I take it that you meant 'premature' instead of what you wrote? It is necessarily speculative and before-the-fact, and is well worth doing and a hell of a lot of fun to watch the progress of, and perhaps, even, will prove to be of practical utility. About that last, however, we'll just have to wait and see.]

If you are using CokaCola's system of advertising,(saturation) I think it will not work in the physics community. [Axiomatic.]

Weight on one side of a wheel or axis is not a Bessler law. [?]

However if I am completely confused, I ask for you to completely excuse me. [!]

Kind Regards,

James

[jim_mich]

Ken has saturation posting down to a science. I'd prefer he keep his bogus theories and looonnng comments on his own thread. Just my opinion, nothing personal except that I think Ken is very long winded and opinionated. I tire from reading his long posts and seldom read them anymore. Kind of like the boy that cries wolf all the time. If you want people to listen to what you have to say then speak seldom, speak with intelligence, and use few words.

[ovyyus]

Thanks Bill. It is sooo easy to pick up information that is not authentic...

...and so easy to get it wrong the other way too - it seems that I've blamed Frank one time too many :P The scratching noise quote is indeed from John's book. Sorry for the bum-steer.

[Wheeler]

James
Taking Jim_Michs advice on too much words can be a bit much, I think you have made so good points.
I am most likely wrong on most of what I am wondering about, but
I just do not understand yet.
Ken writes long hand and we all see it.
I comb my hair too much, but not to many see me doing it.

It's just that Ken puts it on the world wide web, so we all get to see what he writes.
As you may know I have much respect for Ken, even if he may not post exactly what I want to read in a way I want it said.

[rlortie]

While it true that there are many possible definitions of what Bessler meant by the weights applying their force at right angles to the axle, I think the simplest explanation is that he was just stating that the CG of the rotating array of weights was chronically maintained to one side of the axle. It may not have been directly horizontal to the axle either, but may have been down below the axle a bit.

Ken, for starters I would definitely and immediately remove the term "chronically" from your above statement. Everything is rotating and the CG need not be maintained to one side of the axle.

With my present design the CG can be above the axis to the right of it and below it, even to the point of above and below on the ascending side. It is how that force is directed or pivoted that makes for continuous turning. By pivot I am referring to all three classes of lever/fulcrum. I am sure that you have studied these three physical attributes, We are not required to always have a fulcrum in the middle of the wheel.

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

Gentlemen...

I do apologize if my posts seem a bit on the long side. However, I guess this is to be expected when someone has something to say and wants to convey it as accurately as possible. In general, when giving descriptions, it's better to use more words than less. Often in my own writings I will describe the same principle more than once and use different language each time so that the reader will see the same principle from two slightly different vantage points. That tends to promote understanding.

I have dwelled upon this matter of the existence of a 4th law of motion because it is something that occurred to me soon after I got involved in the "quest". On the one hand, I was convinced that Bessler's inventions were genuine and used weights moving about a closed path within the wheel. Yet, on the other hand, my physics teachers kept telling me that weights moving about a closed path in a gravity field would experience zero net change in gravitational potential energy. So, I then realized that either Bessler was a fraudster and the teachers were right or Bessler was for real and the teachers were wrong. Bessler finally won out in my mind and I realized that my teachers were WRONG! But, they were only wrong because they were unaware of a new law of motion that Bessler's wheels demonstrated.

I have wondered about that law for decades and, only recently, began to make a serious attempt to formulate it. I really thought that its announcement would be greeted with greater enthusiasm, especially on a Discussion Board dedicated to all things Bessler related. Actually, quite the opposite seems to have happened. I have been accused of fabricating pseudoscience and even wasting people's time. And, all of this for merely trying to rationalize how a genuine working overbalanced gravity wheel could obtain the energy that it outputted to itself and its environment!

Anyway, I have settled the matter of Bessler's 4th Law of Motion for the time being and intend to shortly return to just trying to find the mechanism he used which, I am firmly convinced, demonstrates this new law of motion. However, I am well aware that in deriving the expression for the new law, in order to keep the mathematics as simple as possible (and even then I made an error!), I had to make certain assumptions.

For example, I made the assumption that the eccentric orbit of the rotating weights inside of an overbalanced gravity wheel would be a perfect circle. Well, what happens if it is not a circle, but, say, an ellipse? Would the expression I derived still be valid? To determine this will require a far more complicated derivation than the one I previously performed. In particular, I will need to set up an expression that gives the vertical velocity component of an orbiting weight as a function of the rotational orientation of the wheel that carries it and the eccentricity of the weight's orbit. That will probably be a foot long expression with a lot of trigonometric terms in it and it will then have to be differentiated. Well, if I can find the time, I'll get out one of my old calculus books, blow the dust off of it, and see if I can set up the problem and solve it. It would be nice to have a form of the 4th Law of Motion that could be applied to find the average vertical velocity of the weights in any type of overbalanced wheel regardless of the orbital shape of its weights.



Fletcher wrote:

Also note that the term average velocity could mean a weight stops & starts many times i.e. many fast accelerations & decelerations or one relatively long slow acceleration followed by a long slow deceleration which then brings into question the entire rest mass kinetic energy relationship when objects accelerate & decelerate differently, so its not particularly helpful as Ken suggests.

The overbalanced gravity wheels I envision would have relatively smooth shifting of the their weights toward and away from the wheel's axle during wheel rotation. But, the weights would only accelerate and decelerate at once per wheel rotation according my view.


James wrote:

With the definition for PM being as it is presently accepted by main stream physics, there will by necessity have to be something, somewhere THAT GIVES, and it will NOT be the reality sitting upon the bench, merrily demonstrating itself away! With it's grand advent - Bessler's re-discovered Wheel aspinning - some place in physics IS GOING TO TAKE A BEATING!

Yes, just as soon as an undeniably genuine working overbalanced gravity wheel is demonstrated (at least in this century!) the whole world of science is going to sit up and take notice. The first thing they will do is try to rationalize from where the energy it outputs is coming. They most definitely will not just shrug if all off by saying that, obviously, the device is violating the Law of Mass / Energy Conservation. No way that will happen!

And, I predict right here and now, that their next move will be to, as I have already done, suggest that there is additional law of motion at work that CAN allow weights moving in a closed path in a gravity field to continously lose gravitational potential energy (and the mass that accounts for it) which then shows up as an increase in the kinetic energy of the wheel, some of which can be drained off to perform useful external work. I have no doubt that they will find a precise version of the 4th Law of Motion in a matter or weeks. But, the bottom line is that they will reach the same conclusion that I already have (even if my simple derivation proves not to be that accurate) which is that the weights inside of a rotating overbalanced gravity wheel have an average vertical velocity that is always downward as so they must continuously lose gravitational potential energy even though they move in a closed orbit within the wheel.


Ralph wrote:

Ken, for starters I would definitely and immediately remove the term "chronically" from your above statement. Everything is rotating and the CG need not be maintained to one side of the axle.

Well, Ralph, I do not want to remove the word "chronically" because I can not see how an overbalanced wheel could continously rotate in one direction unless its internal mechanisms did manage to somehow maintain the CG of the weights on one side of the wheel at all times.

In my view of Bessler's one-directional wheels, I envision the CG to be "floating" at a location that is as close to a horizontal line passing through the wheel's axle as possible which, of course, is due to the action of the wheel's weight shifting mechanisms for any orientation of the wheel. Then, as the wheel begins to rotate, the build up of CF begins to interfere with the shifting process and the CG then drops to a location closer to the dreaded punctum quietus (the CG's of all of my designs spend all of their time there!) as wheel rotation rate increases and torque and power output decrease.


Well, I shall make no further presentation of what I am calling "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion" unless I can come up with a more general expression for it. So, for the moment, I am going with the one that I have attached to my signature.



ken

[Techstuf]

Besslerrevealed,

If you are as Hays suggests you may believe, then let ME ask YOU as follows:

For a single cycle configuration, by means of WHAT NUMBER of weights is the torque produced, and the same as to the counter torque?

If you answer incorrectly, I will know who you truly ARE NOT!

You should know this and without any hesitation, IF ye truly be he . . .

James

Be he....who holds a key? That fits the lock to a fraternity? To succeed in passing such test.....


Is he then initiated to belong with the 'best'?



YAHWEH bless all 'fraternities' and 'secret societies' in Yahshua Jesus Christ,


This day.



No King but King Jesus.