Inertia against gravity...

[path_finder]

Dear Steve (bluesgtr44),
I don't know your ball with sand and air. Could you please give me a link to look for.
I did not said that the Bessler weights include some sand and air.
I have just suggested that the internal structure of the weights was much more complex than a simple weight of barbells.
Let me take just an example: if I paint in black a powerball, so long you will not have this ball in your hand, you cannot discover what is inside.
See the video here for the comprehension of what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znGNmZ8Z92o.
By the way I NEVER SAID THAT THE BESSLER WHEEL INCLUDED A SUCH AS MECHANISM!...
I want just show that a single eyes view is not sufficient for a full description.

[ovyyus]

Bessler opened his wheel and removed eight weights each time he left (widness testimony)

path_finder, your statement is NOT witness testimony.

[path_finder]

The references can be found from several places, per example from the excellent ovyyus web site:
http://www.orffyre.com/quotes.html

(9th paragraph)
"Several such weights, wrapped in his handkerchief, he let us weigh in our hands to estimate their weight. They were judged to be about four pounds each, and their shape was definitely cylindrical"(referring to Christian Wolff, letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715).

And a little bit later:
"At every turn of the wheel can be heard the sound of about eight weights, which fall gently on the side towards which the wheel turns".
(letter from Joseph Fischer to J.T. Desaguliers, 1721)

And almost at the end of the page:
"Before translocating the wheel, the Inventor who was performing the test for the officially appointed Commissioners, took out the weights and permitted one of them to be touched, wrapped in a handkerchief. He did not allow the weight to be touched on the end, but lengthwise, it felt cylindrical and not very thick"
(letter from Christian Wolff to Johann Daniel Schumacher, 3rd July, 1722).

Und endlich für meine deutschen Freunden, aus dem Buch 'Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum' (seite 20)
(es wird von dem Web Zentrum der Göttigen Staat und Universität Buchhandlung 'www.sub.uni-goettingen.de' hergestellt):
"so lange es die Schnuren oder Ketten woran sie hângen permittieren: sondern es sind diese Gewichte selbst das Perpetuum Mobile
Translated by me in (poor) english:
"so long permitted by the cords or chains where they are hanged, these weights are themselves the perpetuum mobile"

I can't understand why some people continue to believe that there were NO WEIGHTS in BW.
We can't every day restart the full circle by the negation of the few fundamentals we are disposing.

Nota bene:
I want to precise just that if Bessler used commonly eight weights, the same principle can be applied to any number of weights.
Nevertheless the most efficient ratio number/torque can be obtained with THREE weights, like in the flowerbowl.

[ovyyus]

path_finder, never did a witness state that Bessler removed eight weights from his wheel.

Taking several eyewitness reports made by different people at different times about different wheels and then fabricating them into one statement does not make for witness testimony.

[LustInBlack]

Nevertheless the most efficient ratio number/torque can be obtained with THREE weights, like in the flowerbowl.

With what mechanism!?

Looks like you are overlooking the fact that NOBODY knows what is inside this wheel..

NOTHING can tell you that it's possible using his configuration to tie weights end to end, or back to back or anything.. In fact, his weights are probably on a handle or in rotation or falling or swinging or on a pendulum ..

You would destroy the intended effect by attaching anything on these weights..

So no matter what, it doesn't make sense.

[Stewart]

Hi path_finder

I don't think anyone can deny the fact that the wheel contained weights - there's plenty of evidence to confirm it, but that's not the issue we have with your statement. You stated that witnesses saw eight weights being removed from the wheel and this is something we have never heard before, but it would seem you made this up. Just be careful to quote accurately in future as newcomers to the site who are not so familiar with the quotes may well waste valuable time on these red-herrings! I've been enjoying your posts but it would be a real shame if you turned into one of those people who twist the facts and quotes to suit their theories. You mention the quote of "about eight weights" being heard falling per rotation of the wheel - this does not necessarily mean that there are exactly eight weights inside the wheel.

Stewart

[Jiggawatts]

It's a pitty people rely on little facts remains after hundred of years. What you are thinking is if the besslerwheel right infront of your eyes, then you have the ability to duplicate it. You set yourself inferior to the wheel. You do not believe that you can ever be better than
Bessler and understand the wheel yourself. The downfall is that you're being control by what you so call "facts" which transfer down hundred of years. If people twisted that fact a few hundred of years ago, you would have no chance ever with your attitude. How could you gamble your belief and protect what you are not witness.

People said "seeing is believing". That is just plain wrong. It's "believing is seeing".

[path_finder]

Dear Stewart,
Thanks for your attention in my posts.
It seems to me that this forum has no intent to be proselytic for one particular theory declared as more 'orthodox' than another by a small group, even the most competent and serious. The newcomers are free to think was they want and to give attention (or reticence) to what they accept to read. The wasted time is left at the disposal of the surfers.

Nevertheless your comment about the eight weights is pertinent, but this IS NOT MY THEORY.
There are a lot of references reporting this fact.
Professor Alfred Evert mentions eight weights in the URL: http://www.evert.de/eft786e.htm(paragraph 'Bessler's conception')
Jan Rutowski reports the Bessler words: "Eight heavy weights in the machine represent eight planets of the solar system
Kenneth W. Behrendt mentions this fact in his web page: http://cosmicvault.tripod.com/page06.html

Even inside the book of John Collins "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?", you can see the page 201 here:
http://books.google.fr/books?id=FPnchUM ... #PPA201,M1
it's WRITTEN BLACK ON WHITE.

Were you can be true, is the possibility of different number of weights in the various versions of the wheel, and may be, twelve or more in the latest (biggest).

[LustInBlack]

path_finder,

That's why I don't search perpetual motion anymore on google, you get random theories of random people that are more or less credible.. They are generally random dreams and fantasy, not credible sources..

You can follow your path, that is not the question, it's just that you are bending facts a little.. And, when I said, it is not necessarily weights, I meant, it's not necessarily weights alone, they are arranged in particular ways on mechanisms, this is the unknown, and this is what cannot be deduced with any theory..

[bluesgtr44]

Dear Steve (bluesgtr44),
I don't know your ball with sand and air. Could you please give me a link to look for.
I did not said that the Bessler weights include some sand and air.

I apologize if it seemed I insinuated that you had said that there was air and sand in the weights. It was just coincidental that I read your post about that and I had just recently seen this with my nephews. I don't know where my wife bought this ball, I'll see if I can get that from her and then let you know.

The reference to the 8 weights was from what the witness heard, not observed. The witness assumed there were 8 weights because he heard 8 knocks/taps/hits.....per rotation. It could have been one weight performing this 8 times per rotation....we really don't know. I do find the theory of something inside the weights an interesting approach and look forward to your posts on this.


Steve

[Fletcher]

Hey pathfinder .. consider that Bessler also says that [paraphrased] he didn't need weights in his wheels, to throw the cat amongst the pigeons ?!

So, he uses weights in some wheels & the descriptions he gives are literal & accurate representations of OOB [out of balance] wheels, where the torque is produced by the imbalance of the CoG to the side of the CoR [center of rotation] or axle.

So imo, possibly he found a force or energy source [the Prime Mover ?] that he could 'cobble to/supplement with' an ordinary 'tried & failed' OOB system that we are all so familiar with & know don't work on their own - N.B. you just can't reposition those dang weights to give continuous OOB without the mechanism finding its PQ [punctum quietus] or keel position or more literally, it's balanced position, where the CoG is directly below the CoR - this is the common failing of ALL OOB systems that rely solely on gravity to shift weights & no one has managed to show by experimentation that we should expect anything different ! i.e. OOB here is only the first act of a two act play, imo.

This raises whole new thoughts & anxieties about the laws of thermodynamics, energy conservation & entropy, but then any wheel that could self sustain itself & do external work must be replenishing its own potential each revolution & have some energy left over for applied work, so must be drawing its energy from somewhere else to still fit within the realm of thermodynamics ?!

But I digress - my point - he says he doesn't even need weights so that might imply that the first act OOB system isn't strictly required & that the prime mover could also self sustain itself if engineered cleverly i.e. be OU - this makes sense as 'the horse must come before the cart', to borrow a hackneyed phrase that Bessler also uses himself in MT - but, in order for there to be no requirement for 'true' weights in his wheels [eight or whatever] then there must be two conditions met & one assumes this was an evolutionary process - 1. the prime mover mech itself changes its own CoM [center of mass] thus displacing the CoG of the wheel proper to the side of the axle N.B. still a type of OOB wheel or 2. the prime mover generates a useful force that drives the wheel directly, once the wheel is dynamic, & so negates the need for the first act altogether.

So whether eight or three or twelve IMO I suspect the weights were the side show & second billing to the main attraction ;7)

[path_finder]

Dear Fletcher,
I agree completely with your explanation, except for one point: you need some weights anywhere.
Indeed if the used field is gravitic, the only way to apply this field to some place and/or extract any action from this field, is a weight.
May be there is another field (correlated with?) we don't know well today.
I agree with you because this is a necessary but not sufficient condition: you need an extra complementary action in addition to the gravitic field
As described in another topic this additional action can be very various:
I gave few examples:
- geometry of the inner of the weight
- water or mercury at the bottom of the wheel
- 'maxwell daemon' mechanism
- internal rotating masses
- virtual hamster (theo jansen mechanism)
- etc..
(I filled a long list across the years)
This is the combinazione of these both effects (gravity field AND additional action) wich can explain the success of Bessler, without to deny the principles of the newtonian physic.
I don't know wich one has been used by Bessler, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of alternative solutions.
For me Bessler is only one (perhaps two if you take in account the mono/bi-directional designs) solution.
He must be considered as a contributor, not as a final target itself, even if his story is emblematic.
By the way some other experiments are also interesting (Asa Jackson wheel, the Buzzsaw wheel, per example).
For my personal experience I discovered the flowerbowl in 2002 and decided to reconstruct his design by retro-engineering (like what happened for the Antikythera mechanism).
Only after this step I found the existence of Bessler and his wheel. It was just for me a confirmation of my researches.
I don't know the exact design used by Bessler but the solution used 5.000 years B.C. in the Indus river valley appeared to have some similarities with the description made about BW. I'm not particularly interested to know what Bessler did exactly (even if I'm interested by intellectual curiosity).
I'm much more interested to know why Tesla did NOT finalized his gravitic engine.

[path_finder]

(For confirmation of my assumptions here above)
Some gravitic border effects are not yet explained. This is the case here with the geometry of the masses.
The turtles refusing to go counterwise, depending their mutual orientation:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=AcQMoZr_x7Q
(jump directly to time 1:17)

[ovyyus]

Well said Fletcher. If we remove all weights from an embodiment of Bessler's working principle, which he implied was possible, then we are left with an energy machine that does not employ gravity or inertia anywhere in its design.

Bessler sought financial reward and fame in a working solution to the ages old problem of the PM OOB wheel, not the principle which powered that solution. If, upon rediscovery of Bessler's secret, it turns out that gravity is the red-herring then most of us might feel like fools. Perhaps that explains why Bessler was so paranoid about a potential buyer snatching back their money after seeing inside his wheel?

Dropping the cart completely will leave us with only the horse. Therefore Bessler's secret was all about the type of horse, not the type of cart.

[path_finder]

Another additional effect wich could be useful: the geometry of the weights.
Example: the gravitational engine from DERFLA:
This is an example of tentative for combine the gravity field and an external effect, in this case a specific geometry of the weights: wich are half hollow cylinders (see the picture http://picasaweb.google.com/sellier.bru ... 2963860466)
Unfortunately this machine don't work because the various COG are moving in 2D (in a single plane). It MUST be a 3D (volumetric) animation, as Tesla explained.
It's the same error than in the Würtz engine.