Would JC contradict me ?

[ovyyus]

Ruggerdk, I would have thought that previous discussion on the subject might be both relevant and interesting. Sorry, I thought wrong.

[WaltzCee]

I don't find it very interesting to hear that what we are discussing have[sic] been discussed before.

regards
ruggero ;-)[/list]

It isn't interesting at all. It's probably less interesting to listen to the same thing being hashed over for the umpteenth time.

I'm not persuaded the loads were actually a key component of Bessler's wheel. I do recall someone mentioning them working as a governor. That makes perfect sense to me.

As a matter of civility one should consider previous discussions. If one were to research the matter before hand they could appear to have some sense. An alternative would be to research the matter once someone pointed it out.

Enough of this nonsense though. Kick that dead horse some more, ruggerodk! Gang gaff gailey!!

Walter

[rlortie]

Yu all come back now yu hear! will all do this again with the next bunch of 'newbies'

[John Collins]

JC: You just nailed it perfectly. I totally agree on your view...except from the angled pin (please look at the close up below showing the layering at the pivot point...PS: can you could provide a high resolution closeup for details, please?).

ruggerodk, I thought that you were referring to the angles on the top of the stampers, and not, what I called, the mis-aligned arms. I was aware of their faulty 'layering'. I could post a high resolution of a close up of the details but there are plenty of good resolutions of that drawing around and it is not difficult to make out the detail.

JC

[ruggerodk]

Ruggerdk, I would have thought that previous discussion on the subject might be both relevant and interesting. Sorry, I thought wrong.

It isn't interesting at all. It's probably less interesting to listen to the same thing being hashed over for the umpteenth time.
.......
As a matter of civility one should consider previous discussions. If one were to research the matter before hand they could appear to have some sense. An alternative would be to research the matter once someone pointed it out.

I believe that's the privilege of becoming a wise governor;-)

One could paraphrase Bessler's own word: "I found the solution the same place where others - without success - have been looking before me!"

And remember that help is allways appreciated...especially when this forum has got more than 1700 topics with more than 35000 posts. A keyword or link in the right direction from experienced enthusiasts would definately save any 'newbee' a good piece of time.

Though...I also do know that age can do unpleasant things to memory.

ruggerodk, I thought that you were referring to the angles on the top of the stampers, and not, what I called, the mis-aligned arms. I was aware of their faulty 'layering'. I could post a high resolution of a close up of the details but there are plenty of good resolutions of that drawing around and it is not difficult to make out the detail.

Is the stampers connected to the angled arms by some kind of U-Joints?

And Yes, a link to a high resolution close up would be appreciated, thanks.
Regards
ruggero ;-)

[ovyyus]

Rugerdko, the ability to search out data is vital to any research and made all the more accessible by the wonders of the modern search engine. IMO, a person doesn't have enough time to repeat history's failings and expect to get anywhere. I could be wrong ;)

BTW, when Bessler said he found the solution where other's had looked, I think he was simply referring to the long-sought overbalanced wheel. Bessler's solution was to apply a legitimate energy source where other's had not.

[WaltzCee]

a few thoughts

I believe that's the privilege of becoming a wise governor;-)


Though...I also do know that age can do unpleasant things to memory.

ruggero ;-)

Mechanical governors aren't subject to privilege. The point was as the wheel was loaded it would slow allowing the energy or motion causing the rotation to keep pace. There are limits.

There's no arguing with experience. Sorry to hear it's unpleasant. I went on memory and misquoted the Gaelic.

Gang aft aglay

so there you go.

I'll give you some motherly advice. Rather than suggest ideas that have already been considered add something new to the mix. For instance offer some idea how a load might be a key component.

so there you go, sonny. Take it for what it's worth.


Walter

[nicbordeaux]

Waltzcee wrote: I'll give you some motherly advice. Rather than suggest ideas that have already been considered add something new to the mix. For instance offer some idea how a load might be a key component.

I guess that message wasn't meant for me, but Motherly advice is always welcome, it's generally well meant, and if Walt want's to adopt me, that's OK but there might be some legal issues :)

The way a load would a key component would be if the wheel was fraudulent (hissing from the peanut gallery ?) and the whole thing worked as a clock type device. You could not take one load in isolation and say "that one is the mover", it would be a series of energy interactions and transfers with the loss as small and as drawn out as posible.

In the case of a working wheel, a load could act to store energy from less needed harnessed gravity at a given point of rotation, and feed it back at the critical moment.

Pure loose speculation of course. Still, a tank full of water with a connection operating both ways be it pure mechanical drive or else is interesting, and something I'm working on in various forms (meaning my shop now contains fish tanks withou fish, and two sliced in half immersion heater tanks.

The principle ? Several. The most likely is setting up wave pattern in the tank via the "main" or apparant device, then using the wave energy back to the main device.

It won't be a wheel (it possibly could be) , and to anybody wanting to perform this sort of test, you need a load of old newspaper and a good mop.

[jim_mich]

The way a load would a key component would be if the wheel was fraudulent (hissing from the peanut gallery ?) and the whole thing worked as a clock type device.

For all you newbee members, way back when the forum first started we had a young member by the name of Jonathan. This young man was a whiz at mathematical calculations and logic. Jonathan did a calculation based upon Wagner's Bratenwender (turn spit wind up mechanism) that proved that it was more or less impossible to power Bessler's wheel using a geared type of windup mechanism. He based it upon the breaking strength of steel chain and the room available inside the wheel for the chain to wrap. He determined (using math) that the force needed on the chain to turn the wheel per the known data would more than break the chain.

Later I did calculations for a simple geared windup dropping weight and found that when using dropping weight to power the wheel there was not enough room inside the wheel to accommodate the size of weight needed and the distance that it needed to drop for the wheel to perform as it did.

When all data is analyzed it become rather apparent that only a real honest to goodness perpetual motion device could have powered Bessler's Wheel. Such a device must use either gravity or motion to cause a gain of motion. Gravity's conservative nature pretty much rules it out as a perpetual energy source. This leaves motion as the most logical source of energy to power Bessler's Wheel.

Bessler plainly stated that the weights in his wheel gained force by their motion.

[John Collins]

Such a device must use either gravity or motion to cause a gain of motion. Gravity's conservative nature pretty much rules it out as a perpetual energy source. This leaves motion as the most logical source of energy to power Bessler's Wheel.

Bessler plainly stated that the weights in his wheel gained force by their motion.

I agree Jim, that the weights must swing harder/faster as the wheel accelerates, but how do you think spontaneous rotation would start? Maybe a weight has to fall which can either provide imbalance leading to rotation, or it might just be the falling of the weight which starts the motion.

Bessler also said:-

"from them [the weights], is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium".

I think that looks like imbalance to start it.

JC

[nicbordeaux]

Jim, the mention of "fraud" was just to be comprehensive in laying out the possibilites, in no way a propsition that bessler was a fraud. The second point is the one of interest to me. Oh, and BTW, I may be a "newbie", but I am a fully certified nutter who has spent most of his life attempting -and sometimes succeeding- in finding ways around the impossible. Not necessarily mechanical (often business), but some degree of mechanical things certainly, so i'm not without knowledge and understanding of things which revolve, clunk, wheeze, creak or else :)

As to JC, IMMO a state of perpetual imbalance, as I've stated repeatedly here, is a posibility; and the most likely candidate for a wheel. Perpetual imbalance of certain components of a system, not the system as a "whole". the actual wheel as seen from outside would be a "whole".

[Fletcher]

And ... combining those pertinent thoughts & observations, for the one-way wheels, it would mean that the initial drive weight [the one causing initial imbalance & torque in the entire wheel] was pre-set into advantageous position by hand i.e placing the weight or spinning the wheel then stopping it forcibly & tieing it down - then the wheel was released & each driver weight in turn [if more than one] would go to that torque position i.e. they followed prescribed paths - clearly the imbalance caused the starting rotation & the ensuing continuing rotation was as result of further imbalance but that was all secondary to setting up the conditions.

Since gravity is conservative & can not be an energy source that can replenish its potential [after losses are accounted for] without aid, then it was aided, to replenish its potential - that energy came from the use & exploitation of the dynamic condition once the wheel was rotating - that motion was harnessed cleverly to lift weights into position to cause further imbalance or a state of dog chasing its tail, never achieving equilibrium.

The two-way wheels were in balance until given motion by hand spinning - then they either caused imbalance or the force generator that was used in the one-way wheels was used in this instance to cause torque directly, by-passing the imbalance & weights necessity of the previous wheels.

The source of energy to cover losses [including loads] & restore potential once dynamic is the question - this energy source could be legitimate [as in clever use of a differential e.g thermal, like a stirling engine] or it could be considered illegitimate, i.e. unusual, unrecognized, untapped, even today not exploited to do work but readily would be if the scientific community saw the possibilities - that would mean an energy source able to do work & replenish mechanical potential which seems to contradict CoE theorem, or does it ?

There are few options - one is the Cf route, as championed by jim_mich, if it can be shown to be non-conservative & can produce useable sustainable energy production for work - the other possibility is using the legitimate ambient conditions surrounding the wheel as an entropy energy sink, as championed by ovyyus - the advantage of the energy sink theory is that it remains firmly in the realms of CoE theorem [which underpins & predicates many physics theories] & invokes no new physics - whilst this may seem logical & less complex, even mundane, it is no less problematic in finding a workable solution to those that have tried - there may be other forces & energy available in a dynamic wheel that are both contexturally legitimate & untapped at the same time.

[Ben]

Boy, is Fletcher ever back. Hope you had a nice trip Fletcher.

[KAS]

Gravity's conservative nature pretty much rules it out as a perpetual energy source.

Jim, If this is true, Besslers wheel simply could not work (period).

Aren't we all really trying to prove that gravity is indeed, an energy source?

Kas

[Fletcher]

Aliens didn't abduct me ;7) - and I had a good trip.

Jim, If this is true, Besslers wheel simply could not work (period).

Aren't we all really trying to prove that gravity is indeed, an energy source?

Kas

Kas .. gravity can do work in one direction providing something else lifts the weight to give it height [potential energy of position] - in that myopic sense it can be considered an energy source but I'd say that thought was entirely misleading & misdirected - put that dropping weight into a rotating environment & add some air friction losses & it can't reach its starting height [however it got there] - get the rotating weight to do some work like moving a lever & it looses even more potential of position.

Some here are attempting to show that in certain circumstances gravity is not always conservative - this has never been demonstrated, though thousands upon thousands have tried.

Others here are looking for the energy to regain full potential of position & do work, then gravity provides the torque to turn a wheel or beam.

So, no, I'm not trying to prove that gravity is an 'energy source' though others might insist it is - it can obviously be half the quinella but without the second leg where the energy was 'put in' against gravity, plus some, then no new perspective is gained - if you were to experimentally prove that gravity weren't conservative then it could be rightly called a legitimate energy source & that could be demonstrated by rebounding a weight to higher than it started - gravity is an inverse square field that gives motion to masses causing them to accelerate towards each other [classic newtonian view] - it takes exactly what it gives (period) !