The secret of extracting free energy from gravity ...

[axel]

You have the concept. Increasing the time over which the force acts increases the energy of the system.

It usually takes me longer to push my lawnmower up a hill on the property, but it's still the same distance traveled.

Axel

[jim_mich]

Bessler said, "The upper weight is how it gets its power and push".

Ummm... This is not quite what Bessler said. See below...

http://www.besslerwheel.com/writings/da ... phans.html

Note: The following is one of many possible translation of the old German text, the details are disputed.
Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum
Johann Bessler, Kassel, 1719, pp. 16-23
Provided by Al Bacon
Translation by Ted of Chicago

The internal structure of this drum (or wheel) consists of weights arranged according to several a priori, that is, scientifically demonstrable, laws of mechanical perpetual motion. After the wheel completes a single rotation, or after a single force is applied to the wheel, the motion drives the wheel unceasingly. As long as the wheel's whole structure does not change, the wheel continues its revolutions without any further assistance from external motive power. Other automatic machines, such as clockwork, springs, and hoisting weights, necessarily require an external restoring force.

The upper weight is not attached to an external mechanism, nor does it rely on external moving bodies by means of whose weight revolutions continue as long as the cords or chains on which they hang permit. As long as it remains outside the center of gravity, this upper weight incessantly exercises universal motion from which the essential constituent parts of the machine receive power and push. These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium (or point of rest) for themselves but incessantly seek with their admirably fast swing to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside and are proportional to the size of the housing.

Below is the same thing translated differently...

The Triumphant Orffyrean
Perpetual Motion
Written by Johann Bessler, also known as
Orffyreus.
Translated and published by
John Collins
Copyright © 2005 John Collins

The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights (page 20) applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely – that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity – without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation – such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other ‘automatics’ – e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding.

For this concept, my ‘principle of excess weight’, is NOT just an external appendage, an ‘added-on device’ which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cords or chains, from which it depends, permit. NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed (page 21) in a structure or framework, and coordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.

Each translator must first try to decide the meaning of the original text and then the translator must re-word that meaning into the current language. Then the current reader must try to understand what the translator was trying to say. In the process Bessler's actual original meaning can at times get scrambled. This is specially true if the translator or reader injects some small personal concept into the translation. Yet when the original meaning is hidden by Bessler's secrecy it might be an advantage at times to inject personal concepts so as to see if some particular wording makes more sense than another, while still remaining true to the actual words that were written.

Only after a wheel is found to work will we be able to go back and say, "This is what Bessler was really trying to say."

[ovyyus]

Bessler said, "The upper weight is how it gets its power and push".

That's not what Bessler said.

Axel, why such constant desperation for a new book from John when you clearly can't quote from what he's already published? Perhaps you haven't read the publications already available to you? That seems fairly odd.

[axel]

Ovyyus wrote, "That's not what he said."

Ovyyus, it's called paraphrasing.
It is what he said.

"this upper weight incessantly exercises universal motion from which the essential constituent parts of the machine receive power and push.

What you are doing is quibbling.

[ovyyus]

Ah, paraphrasing. But what did Bessler actually say?

Axel, why did you decide to paraphrase Al Bacon's translation rather than the one from John Collins' publication? I guess you haven't read John's existing publications afterall. Maybe you should read the books already made available to you by John before constantly whining about how inconvenient it is for you to have to wait for a new publication. Quibbling indeed - lmao

[greendoor]

Greendoor .. if a 1 kg mass can ride the rim down to 6 o'cl & then detach from the heavy flywheel then use the momentum of the flywheel to lift the 1 kg mass up to its starting potential & height again with surplus, what's stopping the 1 kg mass from staying attached to the rim at 6 o'cl & riding it up to the same vertical height it started from - it doesn't - gravity applies the same accelerating force to the 1 kg mass on the momentum induced upswing phase & that acceleration due to gravity robs the flywheel of all its gained momentum [not counting any frictional losses] - since the vertical height lifted to gain Pe is the relevant point & no consideration is given in physics to the path it takes to get there then detaching the 1 kg mass & lifting it independently of the flywheel but using the momentum of the flywheel via gearing or leverage is of no advantage imo.

Hi Fletcher - you are probably right - but the numbers look interesting.

I would like to know at what point the maths & logic falls apart. If indeed it does.

I really expect the maths to confirm unity - but it didn't, by some margin.

So probably the maths is wrong - i've tried to point out the assumptions made where things could get hairy.

This is where Pequaide is leaps ahead, with his experiments that he says confirm this line of thought.

[Fletcher]

I would say Greendoor that there is a reasonably easy way to test the theory - pequaide says that if there is big difference in mass between the driver weight attached to the rim & the flywheel then the flywheel should be able to lift the drive weight to a higher starting potential ?

I say the flywheel velocity is affected by two things - the distribution of the mass i.e. more mass nearer the axle [like a coin] gives greater rotational Ke & more mass nearer the rim [like a washer] gives a greater proportion of translational Ke - both types sum to total Ke - this means that the wheel has momentum for sure - but the test is if it can raise that driver weight higher than it started & it can't while riding the rim.

The easiest way to test it would be to have a cam lobe on the flywheel rim that compressed a firing pin arrangement [like a pin ball bolt & spring or a rifle firing pin] & the flywheel loaded the firing pin & came to a stop giving up all its momentum to the spring, which in turn is released & fires underneath a 1 kg weight on a vertical slide - if what he thinks is correct it should go into orbit & would be a great lifting test to see if there was indeed excess force available - I just don't see it though & coincidently this was the same basis as one of Eskimo Quinn's theories ?!

[greendoor]

Thanks Fletcher - totally agree with the point about mass closer to the axle not reaching the same velocity. That's why Pequaide always mentions that the flywheel must concentrate the mass in the rim (like a bicycle wheel). I'm thinking along the lines of a yo-yo, where the diameter where the cord is wound is half way between the axle and the perimeter - so the bulk of the mass is actually going to have a higher velocity than the cord.

To be honest - i'm not thinking of this scheme as working at all in 180 degrees of rotation. I'm thinking more along the lines of a gravity powered clock with no escape mechanism. If the weight can take a long time to fall, while the flywheel gradually accelerates faster and faster ... what is the limit to the velocity that could be achieved?

The basic limit I can see is that the weight eventually reaches the bottom. So the slower it falls the better. The slower it falls, the greater the proportion of g force is diverted into accelerating the flywheel.

If G force is a constant acceleration (unlike a spring which uncoils and is spent), then won't the weight and flywheel keep accelerating?

That's what I was trying to calculate with the maths ...

It would be interesting to make a flywheel, and use a strain-gauge to see what actual forces were in the cords.

[pequaide]

Fletcher; you disengage the mass from the flywheel at 6 o’clock, and give all the momentum to the overbalanced mass. The flywheel does not need to be returned to 12 o’clock, it is balanced. The separated mass can spend its time or momentum lifting itself. It does not need to lift the flywheel. The same quantity of momentum that returns the flywheel and overbalanced mass to 12 o’clock can send the overbalanced mass alone far past 12 o’clock.

[pequaide]

The experimental verification needed is the cylinder and spheres machines or the yo-yo de-spin device. But of which prove that you can detach the overbalance mass and give it all the motion of the flywheel. Newton said that that motion will be linear Newtonian momentum, which my experiments verify.

[jim_mich]

There is a radius value for every wheel that is the center of the rotational mass for that wheel. That is to say, if all of the mass of the wheel were to be squeezed into a very thin cylinder having no wall thickness but having a particular radius, the wheel and the cylinder would act the same. This radius is called 'radius of gyration'. When calculating rotational inertia of any rotating object, this radius of gyration must be used, for all other values will give incorrect results.

If a dropping weight rotates a wheel by unwinding a cord on a pulley, the dropping force is being leveraged up or down unless the pulley radius is exactly matched to the radius of gyration.

You can even use such an arrangement to back figure the actual radius of gyration.

[Fletcher]

Radius of Gyration N.B. Gyration is another term for Rotation.

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

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

Looking for Jim's excellent explanation of Center of Gyration he once posted on the discussion board - I think it came from his machinists quick reference handbook ? Can't find anything in HyperPhysics at this stage.

Edit :

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... tion#22713

Contained in a general discussion thread called 'Center of Gyration' - worth a closer read - thanks Jim !

Edit :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

scroll down the page thru the conservation laws.

[pequaide]

Fletcher: a one kilogram pendulum bob moving 10 meters per second has 10 units of momentum, and it will rise 5.096 meters. If this one kilogram mass collides with 9 kilograms at rest, the 10 kilogram combination will have a velocity of 1 meter per second and it can rise only .05096 meters. So there is a huge difference between connected and disconnected. The one kilogram mass moving 1 m/sec in a nine kilogram flywheel at 6 o’clock will rise .5096 meters. Place all the momentum of the flywheel in the overbalanced mass and it will rise 10 meters.

NASA said they stopped a 1,420 kg rocket from spinning by giving all the motion to only 3 kilograms. Is the Law of Conservation of Momentum some how no longer applicable if you move from large to small instead of small to large? Are not physical events supposed to be reversible? We know what happens when 3 kilograms collides with a 1420 kilogram object; linear Newtonian momentum is conserved. So do you expect a different Law to apply when it unwraps on the end of a line? One Law in and another Law out?

You can not disprove what NASA did by conducting another experiment. NASA’s experiment has been repeated in the laboratory. You can only challenge the conclusions of NASA and or those that have repeated the experiment.

Springs are not the same as gravity, the force of gravity is uniform over the entire distance that the force is applied, Springs apply greater force as they are compressed (or extended) greater distances. It is apples and oranges.

[Michael]

I see your point pequaide but I don't think your taking into account the large "length"of gravity. If you had a spring that went as far up into orbit as gravity and only used it to move an object a matter of a few feet it would look the same. And liquids show a gradient value to gravity - like a spring has. I realize it has to do with outside pressure but gravity determines where things sit.

[Fletcher]

Ok pequaide .. I'm going to find the time in the next few days to go over your thread again & try & keep an open mind.

I read the link to the nasa rigid yo-yo & stretch yo-yo that george bailey provided on your thread - it looked like a case of two different variations of deploying weights on extendable arms to slow the rotation by conserving angular momentum [much like an ice skater spinning does] - the trick was that once the space-crafts spin rate was slowed the arms/ropes/springs & weights were cut loose/detached ?

I wasn't seeing a miracle there.