The Solution To Bessler's Wheel

[jim_mich]

I agree, I believe Bessler's phenomenon (principle) caused weights to be lifted against gravity, but only in his early wheels.

It is very probable that gravity could be bypassed and so the motion/movement that lifts the weight might/could be used directly to push the wheel forward instead of just lifting the weights. It seems very logical that Bessler's early wheels may have used weights lifted that then turned the wheels. This was probably somewhat of a carry over from Bessler's searching fo an unbalanced wheel. Then as Bessler learned more about his principle he may have soon realized that he could use the principle to directly push the wheel. Thus his later wheels were always balanced gravity wise, while being unbalanced torque wise when rotating.

[ovyyus]

Jim, are you suggesting that Bessler employed a different principle in his one-direction and two-direction wheels?

[jim_mich]

No, I think Bessler used a same principle to cause an unbalanced force in all wheels.

I think Bessler's principle causes an unbalanced force. The unbalanced force can then be used to either lift weights or to push the wheel around.

[queezy]

I have been reading a lot of posts here on a lot of ideas concerning Bessler's wheel. Some even pointed to videos on youtube. It was interesting to see the various versions of an elliptical weight path, a version of the 'swastika' design and several others that I have passed through on my journey. I have decided that either I am not really crazy or, at least, I have a lot of company. The jury is still out on which is an accurate statement.

I had never seen the Harmony or Apology wheel, whatever it is called but, having read many other posts, I was struck by the fact that it is divided into quadrants. Three are whole but the fourth is divided into 30 degree segments evenly separating the other three. I recall a comment about a specific reference to quadrants and their importance in his design. Could he have used only three? As I say, I may be just going mad!

Regardless, thanks for the therapy!

[ovyyus]

Jim - yes, an energy source used to lift weights against gravity could probably be applied in any direction.

However, I tend to think it's more likely that Bessler's wheels were all driven by simple weight overbalance rather than by some form of reaction force. Is there any MT illustration which shows a reaction driven wheel?

[AB Hammer]

Well instead of mad scientist we are mad inventors Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

The wheel on the stand goes round and round Ha! Ha! Ha!

[evgwheel]

Not knocking Bessler, but all (almost all) those MT’s are not a sign of brilliance.
I think we covered most of them before we know about Bessler, and some of them are too silly to even think about. Have I now been sacrilegious?
What do we do after the secret has been released? what other mad invention can we think of to pursue? It has to be something (almost) impossible.

[jim_mich]

Bill,

MT18 looks like it's designed to drive by impact of weights against stops on the wheel. A few others also have weights that would impact stops when the weights reach the end of their movement.

[DrWhat]

My question now is, were the sounds the wheels made fake, a distraction, or were they the actual sounds made by the mechanisms used to drive the wheel. Alden Park seems to think they were fake.

Also, a comment more for Stewart: I cannot think where now, but of course some accounts indicate that the wheels were 'lightly pushed" (or perhaps pulled) with two fingers, yet someone (was it Wagner?) said that a "vigorous" pull or something similar was used to make the first weight drop. Why the contradictory comments?

Also I harp back to the thickness of the earlier wheels including the early bidirectionals. Such narrowness implies either mechanisms in one single plane (ie I can't see chains etc being used) or no mechanisms, just weights along paths.

Just some thoughts.

Damian (no, not the omen, the saint!)

[Jon J Hutton]

Jim you said

No, I think Bessler used a same principle to cause an unbalanced force in all wheels.

So what do you think Bessler meant by

Note: The Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise because it worked on quite different principles. - pg 352 ....Thank you John Collins

JJH

I think one of the problems with the clues is, we are not sure what wheel each of the clues is refering to.

Evgwheel.

Which designs were you refering to that are silly.

[ovyyus]

MT18 looks like it's designed to drive by impact of weights against stops on the wheel. A few others also have weights that would impact stops when the weights reach the end of their movement.

IMO, the rim stops in MT18 are there to prevent the weights from passing beyond that point, I doubt they were intended to act as a means of transferring momentum from weight to wheel. Most impacts are very lossy in terms of energy transfer (vibration, heat, noise, etc).

MT52... I will only say the following: no wheel is moved through strong blows, for paddles would sooner dash it into 1000 pieces, and it would be utterly destroyed with bullets, as is sufficiently known.

Bessler didn't seem to advise impact as a means of driving the wheel.

That's a good point Jon, Bessler also stated that he could make wheels that operated on different principles, such as weights, fluid, etc. Perhaps he makes the distinction between design principles of the overbalancing mechanism (MT is a presentation of different overbalance design principles) and his fundamental underlying PM principle which, when applied, makes them all work. Bessler's PM principle must, by definition, involve an energy source.

[DrWhat]

Ovyyus, Bessler says "strong blows", not "blows". And then why the knocking sounds in his wheel, 8 per revolution?

I agree with your MT18 comment above.

Jon, "worked on quite different principles" is quite a profound statement by Bessler. It implies completely different. Now how could there be 2 ways to do what we are trying to do, and why change completely. Were his later wheels stronger? Of course not. We know the bidirectionals were weaker but they were needed to prove a point.

I think the bidirectionals were simply demonstration wheels, and to me he would be going back to his one way wheels to do useful work.

[Jon J Hutton]

Interesting he did twice what we have been trying for nearly 300 years to do only once...... I think I will start a new topic on "Why I think bessler was telling the truth. or Why I believe Bessler did it

JJH

[jim_mich]

Yes, impacting weights will destroy a wheel.

There is a very simple method available to change impact into impulse. Simply have the moving weight impact against a spring. The spring absorbs the impact and dispenses a more controlled impulse. The difference between impact and impulse is time duration. As Bill says, "impacts are very lossy in terms of energy transfer." Impulses are much better in terms of energy transfer.




The two different principles that Bessler talks about were an unbalanced wheel principle and a balanced wheel principle. But the method that caused both wheel types to work was an energy principle that involved movement of weights.

[evgwheel]

Jon
You asked “Which designs were you referring to that are silly�
MT 116 jumps out of the box! But there are many others, His Archimedes screws MT’s do not make much sense.
The belief is that he left things out of every drawing, even if you can accept that fact, adding anything except an external engine will not make most of them work.

Scenario: If any member redraw one of those MT’s without saying or you knowing that that was an MT, you would dismiss it as a no-goer, Why are we so kind and forgiving to Bessler?