The Clockwork approach

[Fletcher]

And what about this one:

"The wheel's own inner force must come into being, without external momentum being applied". - pg 362

He is saying there was such a thing exist, as the wheel's own inner force.

It would be a very mad way of referring to an OOB wheel, don't you think? It is simply not that, he referring to something else. We just can't get it. And otherwise he is quite right: We can't get something from nothing!

I assume this inner force came into being when his wheels begin to rotate. The motion itself generated, while the mechanism controlled and made use of it.

The only question is: What was it, and how it can be done?

That's it in a nut shell Greg - the wheel stood still until given an impressed force of momentum [for his two-way wheels] - his one way wheels [tied off] were released & after they had motion the Prime Mover force generated/grew [it was a dynamic force] - this force came from within the wheels & was not a result of any outside application of force from any means such as hanging weights that lost potential energy or wound springs that required winding, or any external help that required the physical input of energy to reset the system.

When the wheel was in dynamic mode the Prime Mover force could generate, be used & regenerate itself [only while the wheel was in motion] - it was alive, vis a vis, he breathed life into an inanimate object so it could, once started, continue forever or until the parts wore out or broke - he was saying it was more than an OOB wheel, though that was his preferred overbalancing method to give asymmetric torque, which he could then use to do useful work !

BUT .. it all hinged on coupling his Prime Mover [dynamic - probably squared force] to an OOB wheel to give the OU necessary to overcome ordinary system losses & do some work.

It is no secret that I think it is AL & I believe that Scott thinks so as well - the poll on Bessler's Prime Mover force seems to support that we are firmly in the minority there ;)

N.B. I try to keep my comments & interpretations as general/unbiased as I am able, whilst attempting to logically explain my positions - sometimes my objectivity can get a little pushed to one side because of what I think I can see - hence, I am building a superior overbalanced wheel & experimenting with an AL Prime Mover, to be coupled/incorporated into it, to prove my design & theory without going on 'ad nauseum' about a theory that has no facts to substantiate my confidence in it - we will see if I have addressed all the 'apparent show stoppers' [challenges] that taming AL presents, in the build & experimentation process !

[Gregory]

Different values of masses falling at the same rate require different forces to stop them.

Bessler007,
Yes, I meant this, but not in this meaning. The point is the why.
A 20 pound mass has 20x as great downward force in the gravity field as an 1 pound mass has. So, if it really has 20x as great downward force acting on it (and it has), then what makes it fall with the same rate? One would think it must fall with much greater rate & speed... So why not?

This is what I am referring to. And this "force" which makes the 20 pound mass to fall with the same rate, have to be used to achieve success, I think. But it have to be used in reverse, so in the opposite direction as nature does...

It is no secret that I think it is AL & I believe that Scot thinks so as well - the poll on Bessler's Prime Mover force seems to support that we are firmly in the minority there ;)

Hey Fletcher, looks like we speak the same... And yes, we are the minority just like Bessler himself was. I have no problem with this, as it is the natural way usually these things work...

Btw, what is the abbreviation AL mean? 8|

[Stewart]

Hi Pete

What about this from the clues.

"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain." - pg 295

This quote isn't quite right as I've mentioned here before. Making a pound weight rise as 4 ounces fall or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall is easy to do with a simple lever. However, Bessler actually says (from AP part 1 chapter 43):

Der wird ein grosser Künstler heissen/
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kan schmeissen/
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt/
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. &c.

He will be called a great craftsman,
who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high,
and if one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c.

This makes more sense as it is describing something a simple lever can not achieve because of the force-distance trade-off, and it is obvious that if we could achieve this we should be able to make a perpetual mobile as Bessler goes on to say.

The second quote you have given from AP chapter 21 part 2 is also an interesting one and Bessler ties what he says there back to your first quote and the rest of chapter 43. I'll go over both these chapters you've quoted from in more detail hopefully soon.

When looking for things that might be able to achieve what Bessler describes in the first quote, the closest thing I've come up with so far was the centrifugal lift...

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 7568#37568

I still have some designs for wheels that use gravity, CF and springs that I'm waiting to test - I'll post the results here when I eventually finish the testing.

All the best
Stewart

[Fletcher]

Greg .. AL = Aerodynamic Lift - FYI, AL is the lift generated by an aerofoil shape - a modern day general purpose aerofoil has a best Lift to Drag ratio of about 24 : 1 - this means that the Coefficient of Lift is proportional by the square to the air velocity; the Coefficient of Drag is made up of two parts; the Form [or Frontal] Drag which also goes up by the square of the air velocity & the Induced Drag which goes down with increased air velocity, so an aerofoil is most efficient [highest L:D ratio] at an optimal speed, depending on what trade-offs you want between speed & lift capability, which is built into the design specs.

As an aside, I have always failed to find a satisfactory explanation for Besslers AP pie shaped drawing "do you still not understand" [see below] - if you squint your eyes so you don't look for detail & just take in the shapes then it could easily be representative of windmill aerofoils - visually anecdotal I know, but it was one of the first visual clues he showed when he published AP & no doubt at the time he thought that a sale of his wheel was imminent & so his secret would not have to be kept for long - I should think he would have wanted to show one of his 'best & clearest' clues early in the piece to help establish 'a priori' before the sale & before the idea was perhaps stolen from him - this proved foundationless & he released other verbal clues in later publications but nothing like the specific visual AP drawing again - as you know MT was never completed & published until JC set to it recently.

[Bessler007]

Hello Gregory,

If 5 equal masses are falling they each have an equal force at any given moment of their fall. Their force in a fall isn't the cause of their falling. It is the result of their falling.

If the 4 masses on the right were connected they would have 4 times the force as the mass on the left. There is nothing in their connection that should cause them to fall any faster.

Different values of masses falling at the same rate require different forces to stop them.

Bessler007,
Yes, I meant this, but not in this meaning. The point is the why.
A 20 pound mass has 20x as great downward force in the gravity field as an 1 pound mass has. So, if it really has 20x as great downward force acting on it (and it has), then what makes it fall with the same rate? One would think it must fall with much greater rate & speed... So why not?

.....

[Tinhead]

Bessler actually says (from AP part 1 chapter 43):

Der wird ein grosser Künstler heissen/
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kan schmeissen/
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt/
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. &c.

He will be called a great craftsman,
who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high,
and if one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c.

Hi Stewart,
love your translation, thought I might add my thoughts to it.

Künstler = craftsman, artist, skilled person
easily/lightly = in the german context it is along the lines of "without much effort"
I also aggree with the use of "throw" and "shoot" (as in shoot an arrow).
Good work mate :)

Just one thing I would like to highlight, in regard to the 1 quarter down and 4 quarters up, I think it is quite important that he is not using any units ...
Could be a 'thinking trap' , 1st thing comming up to mind is the vertical up/down, but it could mean anything. Maybe the circumference of a wheel?

Just my 2 cents.
Rainer

[P-Motion]

Ya know, he is talking about something specific.
It's called a Trebuchet.

Hi Pete

What about this from the clues.

"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain." - pg 295

This quote isn't quite right as I've mentioned here before. Making a pound weight rise as 4 ounces fall or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall is easy to do with a simple lever. However, Bessler actually says (from AP part 1 chapter 43):

Der wird ein grosser Künstler heissen/
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kan schmeissen/
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt/
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. &c.

He will be called a great craftsman,
who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high,
and if one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c.

This makes more sense as it is describing something a simple lever can not achieve because of the force-distance trade-off, and it is obvious that if we could achieve this we should be able to make a perpetual mobile as Bessler goes on to say.

The second quote you have given from AP chapter 21 part 2 is also an interesting one and Bessler ties what he says there back to your first quote and the rest of chapter 43. I'll go over both these chapters you've quoted from in more detail hopefully soon.

When looking for things that might be able to achieve what Bessler describes in the first quote, the closest thing I've come up with so far was the centrifugal lift...

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 7568#37568

I still have some designs for wheels that use gravity, CF and springs that I'm waiting to test - I'll post the results here when I eventually finish the testing.

All the best
Stewart

[Bessler007]

Gregory,

Here are the results of a simulation that winds up the system cog. For me it seems breaking the known laws of physics is the rule, not the exception using wm2d.

I don't know if I'm finding the bugs in working model or if it is actually pointing to that elusive energy we're all looking for.

[Stewart]

Hi Rainer

Many thanks for your post; I really appreciate you taking the time to help me with my translations, and it's nice to have them backed up by a native German. I agree that it is important to note that no units are provided when he talks about quarters.

I'll be posting more AP and DT translations and info in my private forum here hopefully soon (hectic week, so it might not be until next week) and I'd really appreciate your input on them.

Thanks again...
All the best
Stewart

[Bessler007]

If a mass rotates in a rotation being held constant wrt the force of gravity it will make it to the bottom quicker than a mass held constant and forced to rotate against gravity. You can force equal masses with equal pendulum lengths to rotate downward at different rates.

With the powerful yet mystical mathematical tool of trigonometry I keep tabs on the blue circle to see if it was where it was suppose to be at the appropriate moments. It seemed to behave itself. ...this time. :)

One would think it must fall with much greater rate & speed... So why not?

[P-Motion]

Gregory,
It would be as Einstein described, space is warped. Scientists have tried finding gravity waves, but they might be so small that they affect matter on a very low level.

Different values of masses falling at the same rate require different forces to stop them.

Bessler007,
Yes, I meant this, but not in this meaning. The point is the why.
A 20 pound mass has 20x as great downward force in the gravity field as an 1 pound mass has. So, if it really has 20x as great downward force acting on it (and it has), then what makes it fall with the same rate? One would think it must fall with much greater rate & speed... So why not?

This is what I am referring to. And this "force" which makes the 20 pound mass to fall with the same rate, have to be used to achieve success, I think. But it have to be used in reverse, so in the opposite direction as nature does...

It is no secret that I think it is AL & I believe that Scot thinks so as well - the poll on Bessler's Prime Mover force seems to support that we are firmly in the minority there ;)

Hey Fletcher, looks like we speak the same... And yes, we are the minority just like Bessler himself was. I have no problem with this, as it is the natural way usually these things work...

Btw, what is the abbreviation AL mean? 8|

[Gregory]

Greg .. AL = Aerodynamic Lift - FYI, AL is the lift generated by an aerofoil shape - a modern day general purpose aerofoil has a best Lift to Drag ratio of about 24 : 1 - this means that the Coefficient of Lift is proportional by the square to the air velocity; the Coefficient of Drag is made up of two parts; the Form [or Frontal] Drag which also goes up by the square of the air velocity & the Induced Drag which goes down with increased air velocity, so an aerofoil is most efficient [highest L:D ratio] at an optimal speed, depending on what trade-offs you want between speed & lift capability, which is built into the design specs.

Hi Fletcher,

Thanks for the explanation!
It is a very interesting idea to combine aerodynamics with the wheel research. I also thought about aerodynamics sometimes, but it isn't my path I think.

Otherwise, if anyone can generate enough lifting force by any means, and can control the force to act periodically for lifting weights, then Bessler's wheel may become very possible.

Anyway, all the bests with the AL experiments!
I like the idea, and there are some hint to it in MT, I think.

[Gregory]

If the 4 masses on the right were connected they would have 4 times the force as the mass on the left. There is nothing in their connection that should cause them to fall any faster.

Oh, no! There is something in their connection, which would cause them to fall faster!
And this is Newton's law of universal gravitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_gravitation

Clearly states that the gravitational attraction is directly proportional to the masses of the objects. So, the greater the mass, the greater the attraction force.

Then what the hell makes two different amount of mass to fall with the same rate?

I surprised you don't get it guys...
The only thing which makes them to fall equally is their inertial property, which is also directly proportional to the mass. Greater amount of masses has greater amount of inertia (resistance for acceleration), so it compensates for the gravitational acceleration, and this is why all the material objects MUST fall with the exact same rate and speed.

I tried to point in this direction, and only tested the reactions & understandings. Well, maybe the problem was with my poor expressions & phrasing...

[Gregory]

Bessler007,

Your CoG winding graph looks cool. It's a pity that the cog drops after, and the wave height becomes greater... Doesn't it stop? (that would be interesting)

[rlortie]

Gregory,

The only thing which makes them to fall equally is their inertial property, which is also directly proportional to the mass. Greater amount of masses has greater amount of inertia (resistance for acceleration), so it compensates for the gravitational acceleration, and this is why all the material objects MUST fall with the exact same rate and speed.

You must admit, that to a layman such as myself, this is hard to grasp even though it is a proven fact!

Please disregard air resistance:
I have a 10" solid steel ball weighing say 100 pounds. Another 10" hollow ball that weighs 1.5 pounds. It is hard to comprehend that they both fall at the same speed and rate of acceleration. There physical mass is identical, their density of mass is quite different.

To my thinking, that which nullifies the obvious gradient between the two is the force of gravity itself. So I presume that something dropped at sea level will accelerate faster than something drop from say the summit of Mount Everest?

As to what property gravity holds that makes this scenario possible is way beyond my comprehension.

Ralph