My Original Idea

[Bessler007]

Hello Fletcher,

There are many people looking for perpetual motion in part using gravity but expect to find some energy source to move the weights to accomplish this. They accept the concept that energy is conserved. That philosophy comes in part from Parmenides of Elea (5th century BC)

He concluded that "Is" could not have "come into being" because "nothing comes from nothing." Existence is necessarily eternal.

There is a serious problem with this philosophy. An eternal past gives a present reality of a nuclear winter given the 2nd Law is true. We can't know precisely how long it would take for entropy to take its course but we can know 'forever' should be adequate for all motion to have ceased.

But now to the point of energy. Energy is a human construct that is defined mathematically. People use math or instruments of math to figure out where to place mass on a wheel. Energy is simply the mathematical expression of that mass as it moves.

There are two ways to examine a part of the movement of the mass in a wheel. One would be to construct it measuring forces along the way but there is another method some seem to have a disdain for. That is to take a cheap ream of paper and a sharp pencil and do those calculations. I can't understand why either method isn't acceptable.

So now to your valid question, 'why hasn't it been crunched into existence since then?' I think the answer is:

No one has figured out the mechanics of moving mass in a rotation such that energy isn't conserved.

You can never know about these things but I doubt there is a clean, simple proof like the Pythagorean theory for perpetual motion.

yep - but, imo there's just the odd fly or two in that particular ointment winkle - like said earlier & not so quietly thought by many of us here - why hasn't it been crunched into existence since then ?
....

[Fletcher]

i don't disagree with the possibilities you spoke off

on the other hand it could be the method may not be obscure at all but quite common and used in everyday life but for other purposes that do not readily lend it's self visually or mentally to PPM usage and that could be the reason he was so careful to give so little useable information

Exactly ! That's been my feeling for quite a while - he also said [paraphrased] that 'one word could give it all away so he had to be vigilant about what he said' - if one word could 'give it away' then by reasonable deduction we can assume that the Prime Mover principle is an every day occurence, very common - also he did not suggest that the one word would give it away to 'learned men only' but the implication seems that even the common man in the street would understand once they had something to focus their attention on & see in a new light.

after all the principal is shown in MT he said it was and i believe him

it seems to me that MT shows principles that might be classified as common knowledge

He implied you might 'look for movement & find it' by combining elements of more than one drawing - imo, he is suggesting the Prime Mover, which is the second leg of the quinella after you realize that OOB wheels are the main overbalancing principle but are useless on their own.

Most of the drawings are OOB wheels using common leverage in various guises which makes them seem more complicated than they probably are, so yes they would be common mechanical arrangements or common knowledge as you put it.

The challenge is to pull all the symbolism of the toy page parts into a cohesive mechanical arrangement that includes a Prime Mover principle !

just a question for my own curiosity

are there any drawings in MT that you do not understand

if the answer to the question is no i'm thinking the answer to the riddle is a common every day principal

on the other hand if the answer is yes i'm thinking the answer to the riddle is a common every day principal

There are many I don't understand - the main ones that get me scratching my head are the ones that seem incomplete or woefully simplistic like MT's 131; 135; 137 for example - there is no mechanical method to them, so I concluded that perhaps they represent lines of force development or something completely different that I haven't been able to fathom - as a rule I don't spend much time studying the MT series as there are to many difficulties in studying every design thru to its logical conclusion [I am not an engineer after all, so I'd probably quickly get out of my depth on some of them, & be guessing] - principles are easy enough to spot at a glance in most cases.

The only conclusions I have drawn are, as I said earlier, that there is a rough progression of thinking [a pattern of development] that shows basic OOB wheels [the foundation of his wheels], hammer/impact wheels, then he accessorizes his OOB wheels with springs, storksbills, hydraulics, pneumatics, perhaps pendulums etc, in an attempt to supplement gravity to find continuous overbalance - to me the message is clear - find the Prime Mover to assist an OOB wheel !

oh and as to the hint of a math proof, another question

until the principle is known does that hint have any real value

it is my understanding that once understood everything has a math proof

a wheel is used to lower an elevator would the same math be used for a wheel to move a car or drive a PPM wheel

i am just asking, of what use is it to hint at a math proof if there is no clue as to how or what to apply math to

Any 'hints' that he may have given only have value in retrospect once the principle for the Prime Mover is found - it still makes you wonder what math he might have been referring to though so from that point of view it is worth some speculation, as an example, Bill thinks it is to do with thermal energy, jim_mich thinks it is to do with CF's & inertia & I think it is to do with AL - it might be something to do with pendulums for all I know but the interesting thing is that Bessler said [paraphrased] that 'the weights themselves were the PM principle" - I interpret that to mean that he is talking about the shifting of weights overbalance aspect of his OOB wheels & not the Prime Mover, about which he would not breath a word.

EDIT : yes, imo once the wheel is understood the math will fall out of it easily !

[Fletcher]

There are many people looking for perpetual motion in part using gravity but expect to find some energy source to move the weights to accomplish this. They accept the concept that energy is conserved.

There is a serious problem with this philosophy. We can't know precisely how long it would take for entropy to take its course but we can know 'forever' should be adequate for all motion to have ceased.

No problem with it at all - those, like me, that believe that conservation of energy will hold true at the 'local' level, accept that the sun drives all circulation & energy systems here on earth, so the earth is not a closed system in that regard & entropy still happens - this leaves the door wide open for Bessler's wheels to be a natural part of the thermal/solar cycle where the energy for work produced by the wheel has the appearance of PM [at face value] & appears to be coming from an isolated closed system [the wheel with gravity as the only actor] but in fact is being replenished ultimately by the sun & its downstream effects, so to speak.

Outside the 'local' domain of earth the entropy continues, as you would expect.

But now to the point of energy. Energy is a human construct that is defined mathematically. People use math or instruments of math to figure out where to place mass on a wheel. Energy is simply the mathematical expression of that mass as it moves.

There are two ways to examine a part of the movement of the mass in a wheel. One would be to construct it measuring forces along the way but there is another method some seem to have a disdain for. That is to take a cheap ream of paper and a sharp pencil and do those calculations. I can't understand why either method isn't acceptable.

So now to your valid question, 'why hasn't it been crunched into existence since then?' I think the answer is:

No one has figured out the mechanics of moving mass in a rotation such that energy isn't conserved.

You can never know about these things but I doubt there is a clean, simple proof like the Pythagorean theory for perpetual motion.

Of course they are both acceptable - the question is how reliable & how repeatable the predictive qualities are - whether you build & test or you scribble a math proof out, both are valid, but one has a greater degree of reliability & confidence than the other - just take the competing [& incomplete] theories of string theory, quantum mechanics, relativity etc, they are at best math approximations but none on their own is the complete theory of everything, the unified theory, so their predictive qualities are limited to certain circumstances, which means while good, they are not indisputable 'proof', like a real wheel build is.

No one has figured out how to break the conservation laws [of energy & linear & angular momentum] precisely because it is a basic tenet of math & physics - if you think about what the definition of PM says in relation to a Bessler wheel [paraphrased], that once started turning it can accelerate & then have energy for work bled off it, without going below a certain sustainable RPM, then you quickly realize in the context of the classical PM definition that this, boiled down, means it gives out more energy than it uses, the classical OU definition - clearly in an isolated system, this is nonsense, however in an open system this is possible.

Once people realize it could happen in an open natural system then the energy & force dots can be connected & so the math can be put in place to explain it rationally, like a Pythagorean Theorem.

[Bessler007]

Fletcher,

You could say that once a gravity powered solar and/or aerodynamic wheel once found will have an explanation in the language of mathematics (which is of course rational or logical) yet my point was there won't be a proof that has the simplicity and beauty of most proofs for the Pythagorean theory.

The mathematical description of that sort of wheel will make use of multiple calculations of hypotenuses in order to find the resultant force of gravity and any other sort of energy that's doing this prime moving as they both alter torque.

I think a mathematical description of a working wheel is obviously possible but that description isn't a proof. It will merely be an accounting of the forces.

It's an obvious given the wheel isn't a closed system. The wheel doesn't create its own gravity.

This is a very interesting statement:

No one has figured out how to break the conservation laws [of energy & linear & angular momentum] precisely because it is a basic tenet of math & physics.

Mathematics is a tool of physics and makes no point about the laws of conservation. Physicists attempt to explain all of reality but as you noted they aren't quite there yet. The idea that nothing comes from nothing is problematic because it leads to the conclusion the universe is eternal. That idea conflicts with the Big Bang in addition to the 2nd law. Considering those conflicts it might be wise to reconsider the premise. In any event in as much as there are those obvious conflicts something can't be true.

Most engineers make use of math but for some reason pm searchers abhor it. My point was that makes no sense.

Of course they are both acceptable - the question is how reliable & how repeatable the predictive qualities are - whether you build & test or you scribble a math proof out, ...

If you scribble out the accounting of the forces it should predict the same result as many times as you scribble it.

I do agree a wheel is the ultimate proof. You can't fool reality. :)

[Fletcher]

Well I agree that math is an accounting problem ;) - without going overboard about this - if we assume that gravity is indeed conservative [no net gain in potential energy of a mass after it has acted on by gravity] then we can look at two possible scenarios.

One : that Besslers wheel was an isolated system - in which case what was the motive force if gravity is the only player ? - that's why I believe many PM gravity wheel seekers believe there must be a way that gravity isn't conservative all the time, so that would leave 'wiggle room' in the closed system - some argue that gravity is an open system but that is another story.

Two : that Besslers wheels operated in an open system drawing its energy from the environment in some way - now gravity can stay conservative at all times [which is the observational evidence to date].

Either way, if it turns out to be a cobbling together of forces from more than one source & is an open system then the forensic accounting in the form of math should be relatively straight forward [probably beyond me].

If it turns out to be that gravity is not always conservative or that there is another facet to inertia etc that can allow mass to have a greater potential energy than it started with, then I will be wrong & the mathematicians will dine out on it for years as they sweep aside the inventor & make the theory their own in an attempt to explain it ;)

P.S. these days I prefer to think about what I'm searching for as Free Energy [FE] rather than OU or PM [as Bessler called it] as that more closely fits with the conservation of energy law that I think will hold true & if it is found to be an open environmental topped up energy system then it would hopefully be free in that sense.

[rlortie]

Rather than discuss or debate math, I prefer to believe that gravity is not always conservative. It is in normal sense that we except it, but it can move a mass upward.

I had a science teacher in the eighth grade who was well known for his parlor tricks to captivate his students. One day as the class came to order and everyone was seated, He began his trick for the day.

First a couple of text books were laid upon his desk. He then placed a board on the edge of the books to form an inclined plane. Next came a 3 pound coffee can. he laid it at the bottom of the inclined plane, and the can rolled upwards approximately 8 linear inches. This of course was near half the circumference of the can. Vertically the can had lifted what appeared to be half its diameter.

A lasting impression on an eighth grader!

The answer is obvious, he had a weight taped to the inside of the can, when he set it down on the board the weight was positioned at the top. To achieve equilibrium or balance the total mass had to raise.

With this in mind, a six inch wheel can raise itself 3 inches while traveling nine. This is a rough estimate, I will leave the math details to those that prevail! But what if the incline plane abruptly ends as the weight hits bottom, how far will inertia continue to carry the can forward?

Most engineers make use of math but for some reason pm searchers abhor it. My point was that makes no sense

I gleefully jump up and say; I fit that description!

Ralph

[Clarkie]

I'm with you on this one Ralph.

Pete.

[Bessler007]

Hello Fletcher,

When I was young I was fishing with my father and all of a sudden I asked him, 'what was that?' He told me to shush, I was scaring the fish, then asked, 'what was what?' I told him I was sitting here minding my own business when all of a sudden the story of us fishing in this spot a year ago started playing like a video for me. The story reminded me we were fishing in this exact spot and we didn't catch a thing until we moved over there under those trees.' He told me not to worry about it. I only had a thought. It wouldn't hurt me.

I told him it was a wonderful feeling having a thought and I was probably going to do it more often. He replied, 'finally.' I asked him, 'what?' and he said, 'never mind. Let's move over there and catch some fish.'

The language of mathematics is difficult to learn but the difficulty isn't insurmountable. The more exercise one does the stronger their sense of what is happening becomes. I think it's useful exercise. It not only helps the understanding of the attempts at a wheel but if success happens it increases the possibility the mathematicians will invite you to dinner.

.... & the mathematicians will dine out on it for years as they sweep aside the inventor & make the theory their own in an attempt to explain it ;)....

I think within reasonable limits the more details available to examine the better the prospects of success. That is of course within reason. The language of mathematics has a graphical representation and some of the greatest mathematicians examined the pictures first.

I know some prefer blissful ignorance but my thought is I would like to know what's going on as much as I can.

[Fletcher]

The answer is obvious, he had a weight taped to the inside of the can, when he set it down on the board the weight was positioned at the top. To achieve equilibrium or balance the total mass had to raise.

Yes, I could imagine that demonstration capturing the imagination of an 8th grader :) In the interests of accuracy, the can rolled up the incline & the center of mass did not rise [the cylinder did], but actually lost potential energy & moved to a lower height, which was the illusion.

With this in mind, a six inch wheel can raise itself 3 inches while traveling nine. This is a rough estimate, I will leave the math details to those that prevail! But what if the incline plane abruptly ends as the weight hits bottom, how far will inertia continue to carry the can forward? Ralph

Not far at all - it depends on the gradient climbed - the can will move slow if it is steeper, not being able to build much speed & momentum - at its maximum height achieved [where the CoM is lowest] any momentum rolling the can across a flat surface will be immediately opposed by the mass inside the can now being on the ascending side of the cylinder & causing it to rock back & keel.

P.S. I understand the sentiment of the story but you may have to find another way to demonstrate that gravity can be non conservative ;)

[winkle]

007

I know some prefer blissful ignorance but my thought is I would like to know what's going on as much as I can.

what a beautiful sentiment

but i suppose the mathematicians have remained just as ignorant about this as the rest us for over three hundred years

unless they have a big secret their not telling

[Bessler007]

Physicists using the tool or language of mathematics have looked at countless examples of table top perpetual motion machines in exacting detail. Their conclusion, so far, is the rotational energy as masses fall equals the energy needed to restore the weights to where they came from.

You could bet your bottom dollar if any physicist any where in the world or at any time found an example of perpetual motion at the visible level it would be a major news item.

On the other hand most pm seekers have a feelin' deep in their bones their idea is a gonna turn. :)

You could look at it this way. A redneck hillbilly goes to his bank with a sack of pennies to add to his account in order to get a promotional item the bank is giving away for a minimum deposit. He loads the counter up with his pennies saying, 'see here Mr. Bankerman, eyes gut twenty dollars of pennies'.

After the bankerman, physicist, counts the pennies he tells the hillbilly there is only $17.58.

That's the difference between having a feeling or knowing precisely. You don't get the promotional item. You're out maybe a free toaster.

In the case of a perpetual motion machine, the uneducated go to the expense of building, feeling it will turn when they might have had a better understanding of the exact details of the idea with a few pieces of paper and a free pencil. They would need some form of education either formal or informal. Education is expensive but ignorance will eat your lunch.

The education of experience gives the test before the lecture. I could give you countless pithy sayings about the value of knowing vs. ignorance but it seems your mind is made up. It is after all your mind.

The details of mass, force, energy and power are human constructs with mathematical expression. It makes no sense to me to have a fellin' as to what the energies are when they're precisely knowable.

[Gregory]

In the case of a perpetual motion machine, the uneducated go to the expense of building, feeling it will turn when they might have had a better understanding of the exact details of the idea with a few pieces of paper and a free pencil. They would need some form of education either formal or informal. Education is expensive but ignorance will eat your lunch.

The education of experience gives the test before the lecture. I could give you countless pithy sayings about the value of knowing vs. ignorance but it seems your mind is made up. It is after all your mind.

The details of mass, force, energy and power are human constructs with mathematical expression. It makes no sense to me to have a fellin' as to what the energies are when they're precisely knowable.

Hi Bessler007!

It's a good thing that you are here to defend the powers of mathematics!
I said more times that I think maths never serve up the answer for this mystery and I preserve my opinion, but the same time I can admit that mathematics is useful, offers great powers for those who can use it, and well has its place in the picture...

In the other hand, I think the answer is hiding at none side. Extremities always miss the final truth. The key to Bessler's wheel can only be found somewhere between the Ten Ton Hammer and the Integral Equations... So it is better to both have that madman’s feelin’ and scientist’s knowledge for those forces, and all the other.

Perpetual motion wouldn't be just a "normal" invention like any other. It is more likely will be a scientific invention, which is more than just engineering or mathematics, however includes both. But there is still another different aspect of the thing. You know, "mystery is the greatest joy of the human hearth" And what's about that much of wheel of life and similar symbols in almost every kind of religion? Everything has a reason...

Through the last hundred or thousand of years P.M. wasn't just maths or physics. It was also considered an Art by many, and not just an art like any other, but one of the greatest thing can ever be imagined. Supposedly the artist have to be a mathematician & scientist, and the mathematician have to be too an artist to get the right viewpoint to see it through the right way. It asks for a great diversity of viewpoints together in one person to find a path.

So let's draw the character and personality of the man who will possible "invent" this "wheel of life".
Bessler was:

- A mechanic / engineer
- A philosopher
- An artist (poet)
- A (dilettante) mathematician / scientist
- A religious man
- A worker / organ builder
- A learner of medicine
...and more...

So he was close to a Renaissance man, and more likely he was one.
Try to find a similar personality... Maybe Leonardo Da Vinci is the most obvious example, but we can find similar patterns in the character of other famous people like Einstein, etc.

I am of the opinion that this kind of character & personality is an essence for this kind of discovery, so it is really not the question of one single piece or the other... It only matters when all the pieces come together. A wide variety of different viewpoints inside one single person's mind...

Do you know such a person anywhere today?

[Gregory]

And here is a quote with Bessler's words, from John Collins DT:

"I believe that even those who are not ignorant, should they attempt to use pure REASON alone to achieve their ends will, all of them, suffer from the same noted madness, and that thus their great chance of fame will be missed. " - pg 264

[rlortie]

Laziness is the mother of invention and is used by the ignorant and the educated. Why do manual labor if you can invent something or some way to lighten the burden.

IMO the educated is also the man of reason. educated reasoning says that a gravity wheel or PM is impossible. His math says it is impossible. His background in physics says it is impossible.

So I ask you; What are his chances of discovering such a machine.

I agree with the above quote. When I enter my shop to work on a design I leave my reasoning behind. The only thing I enter with is the skills and knowledge to fabricate and lot of "what if" attitude!

Ralph

[winkle]

007 wrote

That's the difference between having a feeling or knowing precisely. You don't get the promotional item. You're out maybe a free toaster.

In the case of a perpetual motion machine, the uneducated go to the expense of building, feeling it will turn when they might have had a better understanding of the exact details of the idea with a few pieces of paper and a free pencil. They would need some form of education either formal or informal. Education is expensive but ignorance will eat your lunch.

just because a man is ignorant in one or more areas does not mean he is ignorant in all areas and you should be very glad of that

perhaps you should consider before you start picking at folks

or not as you chose

some waste their time with pencil and paper

some find other avenues to waste their time

so far all have wasted their time looking for PPM

but one thing is for sure not any of us would be here if we didn't have time to wast

however i do appreciate you're advise on how to better waste my time

i will consider you're thought's before i probably don't take you're advise

perhaps we will know the kind of man able to invent PPM after he has done so and shared that information with the rest of us

unless for some reason he decides to carry that info into his grave like Mr. Bessler