Most important clue?!

[martin]

Hey all,

finaly red whole Apologia poetica and how I really wished to get me a little bit further it demotivated me the big way :). As I red how much of an insane strugle and cracking he was gettin thru to finaly find out solution (which even did came in dream) it made me think that nobody will be able to find solution unles went thru the same years of struggle and hard working.

From reading the book I did realized one important thing and its that, that maybe the most important clue of all is:

Quote:
But I would just like to add this friendly little note of caution:- A
great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a
heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise
as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort
that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his
hard work shall be all in vain. He can rack his brains and work his
fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding
extra weights here and there.

You all know that clue but I only recently started to think a bit differently. To me it looks Bessler is stating, "Dont even try to build a wheel till you didnt puzzled out this problem!" .. if you does so you will be able to make a wheel but without it its worthles to even try to build any as the true prime mover have nothing in comon with wheel. For me its clearly stating that prime mover could be transformed to wheel but you should find it without rotating wheel itself. Swinging weights is first important note which incline some kind of pendelum like mechanism is working there.

All in all I think we must think first how really it is with that clue about lifting heavy weight... why heavy? ..just stating lifting weights it self should be enough. He is especialy saying heavy weight and am sure it is not without a purpose. Saying heavy weight to to fly upwards is soo imposible looking, there should be reason for whole statment.

I might by wrong but .... I did find recently one leverage paradox which I wasnt even thinking about.

It fits with statment where Bessler said, that Wagner thinks that all things have to gravitate only downards. To my this is something he would like not to say at all as this is clearly stating these weight have ability thru their weight to lift up in some really not usual way.

As Karl stated about the fact he was suprised nobody done it before. I think he was looking on comon thing maybe soo known that was that what suprised him, that it was only a bit differently used in different maner.

Finaly I can say I was one of the hard believers gravity isnt the main player here but thru some testing am changing my mind completly.

Just my point of view.

Martin

[path_finder]

Dear Martin,
This is the reason why i did not take to much interest in the Bessler clues.
I'm not confident at all in words written with the explicit purpose to confuse the reader (like Bessler).
The only efficient way is:
- start from scratch (forget all old ideas)
- apply strictly the theory (the law of conservation, etc.)
- find the optimal path (see again my old topic:http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... f1f9a07f14)
and try to reach the theorical objectives using step by step some very simple methods.
Verify at each step that your idea is still in conformity with the theory.
Abandon an idea only after a complete review.
Don't believe that God will help you, even if, after finding the solution, it's not forbidden to thank him.
Don't hope to be part of the 'illuminati' or other 'contacted' groups.
Most of the discoveries have been made rarely by chance (the apple was here at the right moment when Newton was thinking about the gravity).
They are often a concomitant succession of a lot of steps found by different persons, and there are a lot of examples of inventions 'in the air of the time', found simultaneously by several inventors (phonograph, radio, cinematograph, etc.)
On my opinion, there are more than a dozen of contemporary people, having already discovered ONE of the solutions for the gravitic engine.

[genmurphy]

Hi Martin,

What Bessler says here make perfect sense if the lighter weight is covering a bigger distance down than the heavy weight up.

Let's take an example:
The light weight is 1Kg
The heavy weight is 4Kg

If the light weight is descending 40 cm down while the heavy weight is going 10 cm up, well, there is nothing magical here... He is just using lever principle. That's all.

Genmurphy.

[martin]

Hey Path_finder,

thx for the interest, from the begining as I found interest in Bessler I didnt even know there are any drawings or clues. I started to think about it from the point 0. It didnt changed a lot from there. I began to be interested in clues more and more once some of my ideas started to fit in.

I will disagree in one thing with you ...and that is that clues are worthless becouse am sure Bessler wanted to get confirmation once wheel is built that it was him who done done it first.

Am only expressing my tought about current progress which start to show some unpredicted results. At one point I realized one paradox which works but not at condition it could be now used ... but it reflects some clues.

I dont take clues as soemthing to start from but as something to look after if you get to the point it start to give sense and there is somethin familiar. I personaly am sure that working wheel once builded will reflect most of the clues from AP.

But I got to far form the point of the post which was "Heavy weight to fly upwards"

Wanted to know what you think about possibility of this in any just a little bit possible way.

[path_finder]

Dear Martin,
in my recent post here
(http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... d3854b58a2)
I show how a single weight can lift-up the whole wheel.
As genmurphy said: it's just a question of lever...

[martin]

genmurphy:

no offence but this is soo basic thing it would be just useles to even mention it even for Bessler , am just trying to think really out of box ... I dont see the way this principle could work as many genuine bessler wheels didnt. I am aprticlary interested about gravitating only downards statment which Bessler said to Wagner.

Path finder:

thx for link but I cant seem to understand the point of it. It doesnt matter really that you can lift heavy object as its basic thing for levers, problem is to repeat it. And thats the point where I dont see this to work. For me direction of just playing with positionin weights on levers is dead end (As proved all the time). It could be used for turning the wheel but no prime mover there. But i have to say am not really fully understanding your concept ... it just didnt hit me yet.

This whole lever thing is so basic guys its clearly logical mechanism that works for ages and is learnt in basic.

Anyway thx for interest.

[Stewart]

What Bessler says here make perfect sense if the lighter weight is covering a bigger distance down than the heavy weight up.

Except that's not what he says, and what he actually says is the lighter weight moves less than the heavier. Here are his actual words followed by my translation:

Der wird ein grosser Künstler heissen/
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kan schmeissen/
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt/
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. &c.
Wer dieses auß kan speculiren/
Wird bald den Lauff perpetuiren/
Wer aber dieses noch nicht weiß/
Da ist vergebens aller Fleiß/

He/One shall be called a great craftsman,
who can easily/lightly throw up a heavy thing,
and when one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds up four quarters. &c.
Who of this can speculate,
will soon the motion perpetuate,
who however [does] not yet know this,
all that industry is in vain,

(The speculate/perpetuate lines I've left like that as a reminder that AP is rhyming poetry - it doesn't happen very often in AP when you can also rhyme the English translation of a couplet. However, to read better I would write it: "Whoever can think of this will soon perpetuate the motion.")

It does seem to be an important clue as Martin says, and we've discussed it many times here and I'm not sure I've got much more to add now. It certainly doesn't sound like he is talking about a simple lever - after all why on earth would he say a great craftsman is someone who can use a simple lever - that would make any village idiot a great craftsman! However, lifting a heavier weight with a lighter one further than the lighter one moves as he describes is a bit more impressive.

Stewart

[Fletcher]

However, lifting a heavier weight with a lighter one further than the lighter one moves as he describes is a bit more impressive.

An example of classic understatement & dry English humour ! LOL Stewart.

[greendoor]

Martin - I came to the same conclusion a long time ago, and that was when I made the most progress and found what I believe to be the fundamental source of gravity power.

I've often mentioned here that in Apologia, Bessler mentions several principles before he gets to the line "A wheel appears, but is it a wheel ...". I truely believe that you need to grasp how and where this excess power comes from before you can think about a wheel (I try to avoid the word 'energy' for reasons that become clear when you know the principle).

Bessler wasn't talking about a lever. I actually think the style of his writing about this comment is rather similar to what the Marquis of Worcester stated. I'm guessing Bessler was very inspired by the Marquis, as a legendary inventor of the steam engine and demonstrator of a running gravity wheel in the tower of london no less. (You can lose your head in there ... nobody would try to demonstrate a fraud or non-runner wheel in the tower of London ...). The little doggerel poems are similar to Bessler, and the Marguis wrote something along these same lines about lifting 4 with 1 etc.

Gravesend was smart enough to realise that mathematically it is possible, and he gave the clue away for free.

I've been studying a lot of the classical perpetual motion machines, and the arrogant way they were all dismissed. Classical "disinformation" at work, I suspect.

NONE of the debunkers dare explore the real principle - I believe if they did, they could not hide from the truth. So they just attack the conventional non-runners.

[Fletcher]

hmm .. the marquis's wheel was a non runner, IIRC !

[ovyyus]

Fletcher, you must be a 'disinformation agent' to say such a thing! Illuminati perhaps? ;)

[Bill_Mothershead]

This just came up in this topic...so trying to educate myself.

A quick Google search comes up with this:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/people/people.htm

[No picture of wheel]

Edward Somerset, Sixth Earl and Second Marquis of Worcester (1601-1667) published in 1663 Century of Names and Scantlings of Such Inventions as at Present I Can Call to Mind Have Tried and Perfected usually refered to as A Century of Inventions. Somerset was a prominent public figure who was interested in science, mechanics and mathematics and made useful suggestions and improvements for them, especially for the use of steam as a motive power. He has some claim to being the inventor of the steam engine.

In the 56th article of his book, he describes a perpetual motion wheel. The original book edition of A Century of Inventions gives no image of the described machine. [The image which is frequently published as Somerset's overbalanced wheel was published later, by Desaguliers, and dates from 1720]. The sketch reveals nothing, for it shows no more than a large enclosed wheel with a relatively small axle, to which a rope is wrapped in order to lift weights and perform other mechanical work. Somerset's description revals these facts:

To provide and make that all the weights of the descending side of a wheel, shall be perpetually farther from the center, than those of the mounting side, and yet equal in number and heft to one side as the other. A most incredible thing, if not seen; but tried before the late King (of blessed memory) in the Tower by my directions, two extraordinary ambassadors accompanying his Majesty, and the Duke of Richmond, and Duke of Hamilton, with most of the Court attending him. The wheel was fourteen feet over, and had forty weights of fifty pounds apiece. Sir William Balfore, then Lieutenant of the Tower, can justify it, with several others. They all saw, that no sooner these great weights passed the diameter line of the lower side, but they hung a foot farther from the center; nor no sooner passed the diameter line of the upper side, but they hung a foot nearer. Be pleased to judge of the consequence.

Could anyone post a URL for more information...a picture would be nice.

Fletcher...you are quick to say it is a non-runner...
so what exactly is IT that is not-running?
Are we sure that the picture/diagram is what is described above?

[jim_mich]

See: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... =1937#1937 or http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=203

See: http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/ ... chap1.html Scroll way down to the bottom to article 56.

[path_finder]

The Aldo Costa wheel works.
http://nseo.com/aldocosta
A lot of contradictors continue to negate.
Since 1717 the human behaviour has not been really increased..

[iacob alex]

Hi !

Aldo Costa's wheel is an impressive performance,a real "monumental PM".
In my opinion,any discussion about the functionability of this accomplishment,can come to an end...if the wheel has no more than two spokes/arms, only.

Try to jump down from 1m,than from 10m ...so to "feel" physics .

I agree with not so many members of this forum,that the time factor points out the real power of gravity fall.

All the Best! / Alex