Are you optimistic ?

[rlortie]

If a mass effected by gravity seeks to place its COG at the lowest point of rest. Which we have objective reason to believe it will!

If that point of rest was put into motion by the weight seeking said point of rest, and if the mass in unable to find or catch up to it, would we not have have perpetual motion? Or a fitting description of a gravity powered machine?

If Adam did not have a pecker, where would we be?

Point being: If you sometimes look at things in opposition to the normal thinking you may surprise yourself!

Ralph

[winkle]

If solving Bessler's wheel relied on proving that gravity/inertia is non-conservative - which would be contrary to every reliable observation and measurement ever taken

that statement seems to apply to Bessler's wheel in general


there's that pesky if word again

[AB Hammer]

Yes!! I am optimistic. I have been at it almost 4 months. My very first wheel, on its 3rd alteration turned on its own 3 1/2 turns without help. I have tried no less that 11 wheels and have learned allot, as well a developing testing grids for idea drawings to help eliminating non workers before time waisted. So yes I am very very optimistic that one of us or a groop of us will build one soon.

[Bessler007]

...
An energy source external to Bessler's wheel is not incompatible with a 17th Century definition of PM - if that energy source appeared free and inexhaustible....

It would be incompatible with Dirks' from the the 19th century (1861) or Bessler's own claim from the 18th century (1712) of being 'self moving' and that 'long sought after perpetual motion'.

I'm not sure how a meaning from the 17th century would have any relevance to Bessler's 18th century wheel. I wouldn't mind reviewing some definition if you have a source.

[ovyyus]

Oops, I meant Bessler's 18th Century definition of PM :)

It would be incompatible with Dirks' from the the 19th century (1861) or Bessler's own claim from the 18th century (1712) of being 'self moving' and that 'long sought after perpetual motion'.

Dirk's 19th C definition of PM doesn't seem relevant to what Bessler might have believed 150 years prior. I don't see why Bessler shouldn't claim his wheel as self-moving, it was. I aslo don't see why Bessler shouldn't claim that he solved the long sought after PM when, by applying a free PM energy source to existing overbalanced wheel designs, he was able to find a solution where everyone had already searched and failed. Given the already well demonstrated physical properties of gravity and inertia, I think finding and harnessing a legitimate free energy source it is the only viable solution path.

I've mentioned this before, James Cox is an example of an inventor (19th C) who thought he had created perpetual motion. He harnessed his clockwork to barometric changes. His definition of PM obviously encompassed the use of free environmental energy. What was Bessler's definition of PM, could it have been similar to Cox's? Bessler seemed to think his definintion (and application) of PM might be subject to dispute, hence his strict purchase plan. Why?

If (that word again) Bessler had invented a wheel driven purely by gravity/inertia then it would have blown everyone's socks off (then and now) and he would have been very confident that the buyer would be well satisfied with their purchase - no matter how simple his design solution. Bessler didn't seem confident in that respect at all.

IMO, there are too many factors that point to Bessler's solution being far less remarkable than some choose to believe. Karl, rather than buying the invention for himself and going down in history as the man who introduced 'true gravity PM' to the world, seemed to say as much after seeing inside the wheel.

[murilo]

''Mobile per se...''
I'm in this branch for more than 45 years and I'm not optimist...
I'm sure!!!
regs.
Murilo

[Bessler007]

Citing Dirk's definition points to the constant understanding of perpetual motion deriving from 'within' the device.

From the 1913 Webster we can see the understanding of a perpetual motion machine deriving it's power from within itself is a constant theme from Bessler to then.

Perpetual motion (Mech.), an incessant motion conceived to
be attainable by a machine supplying its own motive forces
independently of any action from without. According to the
law of conservation of energy, such perpetual motion is
impossible, and no device has yet been built that is
capable of perpetual motion.
[1913 Webster +PJC]

.

I've mentioned this before, James Cox is an example of an inventor (19th C) who thought he had created perpetual motion. He harnessed his clockwork to barometric changes. His definition of PM obviously encompassed the use of free environmental energy.

Well crank inventors aren't the most reliable source of what accepted meanings of technical terms are. Dictionaries aren't an acceptable source of technical meaning either. Then there's Bessler's claim the motive power of his machine comes from within it or the weights are the cause, not some external source of energy.

Is there some published definition from the period that would point to when the meaning came to be 'internal to the device'? That was Bessler's claim.

[Bessler007]

Todays Dictionary Definition :

Perpetual Motion : n the hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated machine without the introduction of energy from an external force. [underlining mine]

....

Hello Fletcher,

What dictionary from today mentions the idea of the introduction of the energy being from an 'external force'? I've looked at several and can't find that point. There would have to be some difference in forces for energy to exist. This doesn't seem to be a well thought out meaning.

That is one of the problems of finding meanings of technical terms from the authors of dictionaries.

[Bessler007]

ovyyus,

If Cox thought his barometric clock answered the question of the long sought after perpetual motion and knew the source driving it was external barometric pressure then I'd have to concede you are right, Bessler might have thought he too found the answer to the long sought after perpetual motion with some external source of energy.

But if that were true then why wouldn't Bessler consider a water wheel to be the answer? Makes no sense.

The pictorial history of pmm's show wheels supposedly running by gravity. That was what di Vinci was looking at. I can appreciate your right to an opinion but I was looking more for a fact.

[coylo]

Fletcher wrote....

Perpetual Motion : n the hypothetical continuous operation of an isolated machine without the introduction of energy from an external force. [underlining mine]

Graham .. why I say it seems a consensus has arrived at the over-balance wheel is because for ages everyone has argued back & forth about Bessler's writing obviously describing the weight shifting towards & away from the axle, which is clearly an OOB wheel, while at the same time Bessler says he learned the hard way by trial & error [experimentation] that that route was fruitless - it seems people have a hard time accepting the juxtaposition or contradiction of this, at least in the sense of a gravity only solution where gravity is conservative.

I reckon he may have been referring to the school of thought behind every failed classic OoB wheel design, displayed in his very own MT.
All those swingers trading height for width etc. This was the 'route' that 'was fruitless' IMHO.
What was needed was to go back to the drawing board with a radical new approach to .....
...an imbalanced torque driven OoB wheel. Which is what I 'believe' he achieved. This would adhere to Jim's classical PM definition. I tend to lean more to this mere 'hunch', than Bill's highly plausible alternative.
This is how my stubborn, ignorant mind has settled this issue of those two contradictory statements.

[wikiwheel]

I believe Bessler was not a crook or fraud.
Bessler's feat will be duplicated one day, but probably by the wrong person.

I FEEL progress is being made here.

I believe the wheel was run by two systems. Number One, the prime mover, operated by impulse and didn't create any back torque. And Number Two, was overbalanced due to the influence of system one.

Mik

[winkle]

is it known weather gravity moves or not ?

with gravity being everywhere all the time could it with any certainty be said that the gravity being used by a gravity wheel was an out side source of energy

i am asking about being replenished from out side the wheel

not asking for guesses just if the answer is known

[daxwc]

Well, I for one am sure bessler succeeded. The problem is when designing or building you realize there is millions of possibilities.

Probably hundreds of believing people were looking for the answer 400 years ago, now only a handful and a dozen cynics... when will it be rediscovered? When people make honest efforts to make it happen... to do that you have to believe... which requires you just admit your a crank.

I might be unique in that I think the prime mover could rotate by itself. The secondary system was just to amplify using gravity the effect and maybe let it rotate both directions (my latest theory... next month it might change 8))) . The prime move was a simple system, the second design of wheels was more complicated and bessler made sure everybody was keeped their attention diverted on the secondary weights.

[Stewart]

I'm still very optimistic that we'll work out how Bessler's wheels worked, but I'm just not sure how long it will take! I still don't feel that I've even started my wheel experimentation properly yet, as I'm still in the information gathering stage of my research really. Even so I have done a lot of building and experimenting over the years with different concepts based on my Bessler research at that point or just my own ideas. However, I've still got a fair amount of research & translating to do before I'm satisfied that I've got all the available clues and then once I've organised all that information properly it should make it easier to piece together how Bessler's wheels worked. Of course whenever I discover something new and interesting, I can't help but try and make something out of it in the workshop, and it's the excitement of this constant discovery and learning process that keeps me going! Circumstances have often meant that it's not always been possible for me to experiment & build as much as I'd like, but there's always plenty of work to be done with translations etc. and that keeps me occupied during those times.

A turning point for me was teaming up with Ed, and we've made more progress working together than we would have apart. If you're able to team up with someone I would strongly recommend it as it really helps to talk to someone like-minded and bounce ideas around. I know there are others who have teamed up this way and have also said it works well, such as Fletcher & Rainer, and Ralph & Preston.

As a forum I think progress has been slow, with most people investigating their own ideas and drawing from those that others post too, but very rarely are we able to form a consensus on aspects of Bessler's wheel. I think this is mainly due to the fact that there are conflicting and inaccurate translations and a lack of any organisation of the information. I've been trying to help in this regard by creating a website that consolidates and organises everything we know. Hopefully people will be able to start benefitting from this soon.

Fletcher, why do you say this:
Quote:
its only recently that it seems to be generally accepted that he even used an over-balanced wheel at all, so that's progress.

I also always thought this was obvious even without reading Bessler state as much. However, fairly recently it became clear that some people didn't think this was the case and were actually misleading others into thinking that Bessler said his wheels weren't overbalanced. Fletcher & I attempted to rectify the situation, and in the process it seemed the majority of the people who responded agreed the wheel turned because it was out of balance. It became obvious though that the main reason for doubting that the wheel was overbalanced was:

Graham .. why I say it seems a consensus has arrived at the over-balance wheel is because for ages everyone has argued back & forth about Bessler's writing obviously describing the weight shifting towards & away from the axle, which is clearly an OOB wheel, while at the same time Bessler says he learned the hard way by trial & error [experimentation] that that route was fruitless

However, Bessler doesn't actually say that, but rather:

because many a mobile maker thinks,
if their things just guide themselves
out a little further here
than there, o! so it will just run;
I have experienced this myself
with sheer effort for many years,
until the true saying struck me:
everyone becomes wise with harm. &c. [everyone learns through bitter experience. &c.]

The key thing here is 'guide themselves'. Think of the ball-wheels of the early MT figures for a prime example of what he means. Any wheel that is expected to be overbalanced and remain in that state through the self-movement of that overbalance weight will not work. There has to be something else that helps to maintain the overbalance. Once you've accepted that you're half way there! (NOTE: this doesn't rule out the use of balls as overbalance weight, just that they won't work on their own).

Stewart

[Stewart]

On the subject of PM definitions, here is what 'sGravesande had to say in a tract written shortly after his examination of Bessler's Kassel wheel:

"In mechanics one calls 'perpetual motion', a machine whose principle of movement does not depend on any outside agent, & whose movement never stops as long as the materials do not wear themselves out.
One sees by this definition, that a clock, which would wind itself by the wind; by the changes that moisture & dryness, or cold & heat, produce in certain bodies; or finally by the changes in the weight of the atmosphere, would not be a perpetual motion. However it would not be difficult to construct a clock, which could not stop other than by some breakdown in its parts; but it would be the outside agents which would make the machine move."

My full translation of this tract is available to read in my forum.

Gravity was not considered to fall into the category of an outside agent back then, even though today it clearly does, hence Bessler's wheel would not be a true PM today.

Stewart