Why Gravity wheels don't violate the laws of Physics

[DrWhat]

I think I have finally realised too what he did. Only recently did I think of this. I don't have the exact construction though, and the proof is only if it can be built to work.

Regretfully I am announcing that my last wheels failed (like many others) although their construction and principles were totally unique. I am somewhat disappointed but I was prepared for this. I spent 7 months on these!!

There is in fact a way to make it easier for shifting weights to return to their original height and I achieved this to some extent, but not enough to reach a total rotation. I think I should have tested the principle first before building a huge wheel. Still it was fun! I achieved it by instead improving balance and creating internal force within the wheel and using this internal force to lean on a frame outside of the wheel. So the internal power of the wheel could rotate a wheel that stayed much more balanced and hence was easier to rotate.

I will show you all the design one day but not yet. Still it does not lead to the Bessler solution.

I will ponder more and then work on the new idea.

[DrWhat]

I also want one of you to tell me where Bessler refers to a PENTAGRAM. I know where the clue lies. I am not sure it's relevance to the design of the wheel. The clue is somewhere obvious (text), and not in an obscure place.

Your time starts....NOW!

[ovyyus]

Bessler refers to the 'pantograph' in a version of the MT text. Obviously not the same as a pentagram... or is it? :D

[jim_mich]

John,

If you, "physically moved the weights out at the right moment and back again at the right moment," (I assume you mean sideways out and not upwards out) then science says it will not turn a wheel. I can mathematically show the reason why this is so. It involves the Cosine of the angle from the wheel center to the weight center. If you want the weight to turn the wheel then there are certain possible types of movements that the weights must do.

If the weight moves outward on the wheel then for this method to work the weight must not only move outward it must also move upward. When it moves back inward it will need to also move upward. Moving upward requires adding energy.

Another possibility is for the weights to move forward and rearward around the wheel. They would then spend more time on the falling side than on the rising side. The weights would need to rise on the falling side and fall on the rising side all without causing back torque. This also requires adding energy.

A third possibility is simply a combination of the above two, such as Bessler shows in MT when weights swing out on levers.

The bottom line is that for gravity to cause the wheel to turn the weights must fall while they turn the wheel, then rise more or less by themselves, which requires some extra force from somewhere.

It is during this weight rising/moving stage that the weights must gain force/energy to lift themselves upward. Bessler said it. We must understand it. It is a simple concept. It applies to air, gravity, CF, or whatever your current pet theory is. If gravity is involved to turn the wheel then the weights must gain energy (be lifted) during the time that they move, for they cannot gain any energy when they aren't moving about on the wheel. They can't gain energy while they are exerting their weight force against the wheel.

So the second bottom line is how to make the weights rise when they move? Gravity only makes weights fall. We must make them rise. Making weights rise requires energy from somewhere. We must figure out where that somewhere is. Everything we know and understand about gravity says that it cannot be the somewhere that supplies the extra energy. If gravity is the source of the extra energy then there must be some aspect of how gravity works that we don't understand. We don't need to understand what gravity is or what the cause of gravity. But we do need to understand how it works.

In order to get extra energy from gravity, then gravity must work differently than how we understand it to work. This is the problem with trying to make gravity the source of the extra energy of a Bessler wheel.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Jim,
you must gravity allow to do work, up and out, and one is arranging the other. Not with fix axles. See the picture, only one example of x possibilities. Two cylindrical weights connected with a spring. If the distance of the outer wheels is too short, one of outer wheels is turned. Both will turn !! It is an mechanical oscillation system. It is like catch the fall.

the future has begun

Georg

[graham]

Hi Bill,re that long question of yours.

It could be that when Karl saw the inner workings of the wheel and proclaimed that it was surprising that no one had thought of this before, he just felt it wasn't worth buying a secret he already knew.
He probably realized that once the invention became public knowledge everyone would be making them since it was so simple that a carpenters boy could make it.So there would be nothing in it for him.

Graham

[Michael]

Well John .. the devils in the detail as we all seem to agree with our designs - you have gravity as the prime mover where two weights influence each other into a position of continuous OOB for the wheel & gravity also provides the shifting force - I'll come back to that.

Jim sees the prime mover as CF/inertial leverage to cause the weights to be overbalanced.

Bill sees the prime mover as a thermal mechanism that causes the wheel weights to continuously overbalance.

I see the prime mover as Aerodynamic Lift that causes the secondary weights into a position of overbalance & springs restore the weights to their original positions.

Well Fletcher you might be counting me in that mix. I thought I'd put all this behind me but there's an experiment I want to run. I'll know in a day or two.

[Michael]

Long question: ...centuries of experiments all support the currently held view that gravity acts as a conservative force. Enter Bessler with a wheel that's supposed to contradict every experiment and scientific observation made up to that time. He shows his secret to Karl, Karl publically agree's that it's a PMM and states that it's surprisingly simple. A great man of wealth and knowledge and nobility doesn't seem to want his name forever etched into history as the man who introduced "True PM" to the World. A true gravity driven wheel would have been, still would be, the greatest discovery imaginable. It would arguably change everything we know about physics. Yet Karl actually didn't pay the relatively small sum asked by Bessler and etch his name forever in history. Karl must have known how the wheel worked. Yet he appeared fairly disinterested, beyond promoting it's curiosity to would-be buyers. What did Karl know about Bessler's secret that caused him to not act on what would have been the opportunity of a lifetime?

Thanks Bill. A point which I always thougt worthy of attention.

It could be that when Karl saw the inner workings of the wheel and proclaimed that it was surprising that no one had thought of this before, he just felt it wasn't worth buying a secret he already knew.

Graham I think the important part of Bills argument is why would Karl risk letting it fall into obscurity then? Then - now it would still be the greatest achievement. Another question which might be linked to this argument - or not, is why didn't Karl veto the trial? If it is like Bill is suggesting then it makes some sense why he didn't care enough to protect Bessler's reputation, doesn't it?

John, are there any transcripts of the trial?

[bluesgtr44]

Trial? As far as I knew, he was never even charged....


Steve

[John Collins]

I'm working on this at the moment Michael. As Steve says there was no trial but there were questions which were initiated by Bessler's dead wife's mother and the maid and her sister. They were working to their own agenda and seem to have been trying to grab a slice of Bessler's life style by blackmailing him. The arrest mentioned on the front of the MT seems to relate to a different, later, episode and appears to be connected to companies being run by Bessler for Karl.

It seems that they were determined to drag his name through the mud and there is some evidence that they were working with the advice of Gartner. I have an excellent contact in Germany who has been providing much-needed translations of several documents and he says that he has seen a 60 page refutation of the maid's accusations. Clearly this is a valuable document and I am hopeful that I will get a resume of it. This however will take several months and will probably not help us in our quest but as a piece of history it is priceless.

John

[Fletcher]

However, in the specific case of Bessler, I think there is good reason to suspect that his secret didn't violate any currently accepted laws of Physics - as would be the case if it was gravity powered.

Long question: ...centuries of experiments all support the currently held view that gravity acts as a conservative force. Enter Bessler with a wheel that's supposed to contradict every experiment and scientific observation made up to that time.

I'd agree with you Bill. Bessler made reference to finding the answer in nature - his wheels obviously worked as described so by inference they obeyed the natural laws - he also didn't stand on a soap box & proclaim to all & sundry [including Newton, Wagner of Gartner] that he had found a way to circumvent accepted Physics of the time either. If he had of, it would have been easy for him to simply describe his wheel as true PM & proclaim his genius by saying that he had great observational skills & from that had deduced a new fundamental physical law to be written into the text books after his wheel was sold - none would have been any the wiser about what that new physical law might have been or which direction to look in - he didn't do that & write himself into the text books, for good reason that there was nothing new !

He shows his secret to Karl, Karl publically agree's that it's a PMM and states that it's surprisingly simple. A great man of wealth and knowledge and nobility doesn't seem to want his name forever etched into history as the man who introduced "True PM" to the World.

A true gravity driven wheel would have been, still would be, the greatest discovery imaginable. It would arguably change everything we know about physics. Yet Karl actually didn't pay the relatively small sum asked by Bessler and etch his name forever in history. Karl must have known how the wheel worked. Yet he appeared fairly disinterested, beyond promoting it's curiosity to would-be buyers.

What did Karl know about Bessler's secret that caused him to not act on what would have been the opportunity of a lifetime?

Karl was an educated man of science & commerce. In fact to ensure his fiefdom prospered & his leadership remained intact he would have been looking for & exploiting any economic advantage he could muster. Add to that that he had a major hand in brokering peace initiatives & presumably trade deals in his part of Europe, then his reaction to Bessler 'True PM' economic opportunity is even more surprising imo.

Since, as you have previously said, the price was no more than his annual spend on his mistress [even if he did have tax problems] you start to get the feeling all was not well in Kassel with Bessler's big opportunity. I can only conclude that Karl was not particularly interested in the device for a couple of reasons ... similar problems to today I might add !

1. the power potential to do work was seriously limited therefore when stacked up against alternatives of the time there would be no or little competitive advantage in mass producing the wheel & taking it to market.

2. there was no practical way to protect his investment as it was so simple to understand [once known] that anyone with patience & some resources could build their own.

3. there was no new intellectual information particular to the device i.e. its principle for the Prime Mover could be found readily observable in nature, every day - although perhaps not so obvious as how birds, bats, insects & kites fly or windmills turn, as an example in my case - nevertheless the basic operating principle was intuitively well known even if Bessler had found a unique way to employ it to 'breath life' into a machine.

Also curious is that Peter the Great was modernizing Russia & was prepared to buy Bessler's wheel on his terms. You would have thought that Karl would jump at the chance to join in with Bessler & leverage his own investment for future generations of little Karls, whether it be Peter of someone else ? He didn't do it because of the reasons above ! IMO.

[Michael]

Look forward to seeing it John.

[graham]

John, in your research of Bessler did you come across any accounts of the type of character Karl posessed?
It might shed a little more light on the reason he didn't do more to make sure that this invention didn't remain a secret.
Maybe money wasn't a factor at all.

I wonder if Bessler had chosen NOT to show Karl the inner workings of his wheel things might have turned out differently.

Had he not seen the secret HE might have been driven to pay Besslers price just to satisfy his curiosity.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Hi Bill. While I concede that your words 'in a closed path, falling weights gain no more energy than is used to lift thems' are correct, I cannot escape the conclusion that there is more to this than meets the eye. If I physically moved the weights out at the right moment and back again at the right moment, the wheel overbalances so all we have to do is find a way of getting the wheel to do this without intervention from any human source!!!!!!!

I remain convinced that gravity can also provide this additional input. I accept your comment Fletch that this has not been achieved to date but I have an idea how this can be done - the principle I gleaned from Bessler's publications.

Hi John .. I am not casting aspersions but I can't help wondering whether the 12 [& counting] references to Besslers mechs you have found described in the encoding are not simply multiple descriptions of the same OOB system that used gravity to turn the wheel ?

Or .. do you think they show the actual Prime Mover method of application to shift weights & achieve continuous overbalance ?

[John Collins]

Both Fletch. The same information appears many many times (more than 12 now). In addition there are a number of other reasons for the inclusion of this clue which is leading me by the nose into other areas also encoded. As Bessler says, the clues are depicted in more than one drawing, and they show something along the lines I described earlier which does show the method of application to shift weights & achieve continuous overbalance?

I suspect you have an inkling yourself of that method?

John