Would JC contradict me ?

[ruggerodk]

IMO, a person doesn't have enough time to repeat history's failings and expect to get anywhere. I could be wrong ;)

Why, you think he's got enough time to fight with a bad functioning/failing search engine, fighting with possible keywords in another language etc, instead of expecting some help from the ones stating to know exactly where to find the info, but who refers to keep the 'secret' to themself.. ?

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.

You just don't know the faint of what I'm talking about, do you....it might be my bad english (but I doubt it).

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.

Loss of memory by people getting old, is allways unpleasant from the people around them.
Privilege of older people is to give back their wisdom and experience to the young upcoming 'newbees'...while they still can.

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.

Advice given by someone who wants all for nothing (with the direct purpose of getting something back for free), are never considered a value...except by the advisor.
I'm proud to say: that's not the nature of my mother of choice...;-)

regards
ruggero ;-)[/quote]

[nicbordeaux]

Hey Ruggero, it's not worth getting excited about. I respect your views and understanding of matters, many other people do to :)

Most of the arguments here arise from misunderstanding, trying to explain a concept in words is hard. OK, there are a few people who don't like the rise of the "newbie Powah" and all the brilliant ideas, it's like you walk into a retirement home and start wanting to change things, some people get grumpy. You want to know the solution ? Any people you find offensive, put them on your ignore list. That way they cease to exist. Pfft... disapeared. Wiped out :)

[WaltzCee]

The bosses thoughts, not mine.

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.

Loss of memory by people getting old, is allways unpleasant from the people around them.
Privilege of older people is to give back their wisdom and experience to the young upcoming 'newbees'...while they still can.

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.

Advice given by someone who wants all for nothing (with the direct purpose of getting something back for free), are never considered a value...except by the advisor.
I'm proud to say: that's not the nature of my mother of choice...;-)

regards
ruggero ;-)

Isn't that special. :)

Walter

[WaltzCee]

some more thoughts

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.

A flywheel would be the most efficient way to do this.

as ovyyus pointed out in response to "That is: The machinery shown was not the result but the reason, not the driven but the driver!",

"Highly unlikely given the wheel was also demonstrated with no loads attached."

However if there's something the young and astute notice in these pictures with loads I'd say work on the idea. Go with it and leave the slow witted in your dust. :)

Walter

[ruggerodk]

Hey Ruggero, it's not worth getting excited about. I respect your views and understanding of matters, many other people do to :)

Thanks, I really appreciate your support and attitude Nic, you are absolutely right: I'm not excited...I'm having great fun ;-D
ruggero ;-)

[ruggerodk]

Nic: What do you make of these strange arrangements from the Merseburg wheel?

Why are there 2 columns with a cross-pin holding the upper pin (the pin from where the pendulum rod are 'hanging') on one side....and only one column on the other?

Why is that said pin so long? Does the pendulum need sooooo much space?

Why are the pendulum bob inside the 2 columns?

Are the pendulum fixed angled to the pin?

Are the pendulum sliding on the pin?

Are the top weights (the beam with a weight on each side) actually rotating?

Does this beam rest on the upper pin?

regards
ruggero ;-)

[WaltzCee]

a few more thoughts, not mine

There should be plenty of keywords in this passage for an earnest student to search.

Hi All

Those documents have been available online for months! That's the trouble with not visiting here very often these days, I lose touch with what's going on in the community, sorry about that! There's another Bessler related document on that site also; I'll look for the link and post here later.

I've translated "Neue Nachricht" and I'll make the translation available on my website, which I'm hoping to launch soon but I'm moving house so there may be further delays.

The document is a short pamphlet announcing the successful test-run of Bessler's Weissenstein wheel and also challenges anyone still doubting the validity of the wheel to a bet of 10000 Reichsthalers (~£2300 which when calculated in £s today using the retail price index is ~£300000).

The title page says:

New information of the curious and successful test-run of the newly constructed Orffyrean perpetual motion machine, in castle Weissenstein at Kassel, which lasted 8 whole weeks since the 12th of November last year (1717) to the present year (1718), and which took place in one of His Serene Royal Highness the Landgrave of Hessen-Kassel's rooms which he, as a world famous extremely wise patron of the mechanic Mr. Orffyre, granted for this purpose, and also, as soon as the perpetual motion machine started to run, closed and sealed it, and thereafter guards were stationed outside; excellently made with great pleasure of the Landgrave Serene Royal Highness and all art/craft-lovers, so that now those who, from doubts of the validity of the perpetual motion machine at various times rather scornfully offered a wager of 1000 Reichsthalers, will be offered a wager of 10000 Reichsthalers against 10000 Reichsthalers.

Leipzig, in the thoroughfare of the town hall, in the Contoir-calendar shop, year 1718.

The last line is informing of where to obtain a copy of the pamphlet, and later on it also mentions that a description and copperplate engraving of the Merseburg wheel are available there also. 'Contoir' is french for 'cabinet' or 'counter', and I found the following description of a 'Contoir-Calender':

"These are single sheets of whole and half pieces of paper, which can be hung conveniently on the wall or on a door. The months stand in 12 columns beside each other, and under them are the eclipses and phases of the moon."

The next section of the pamphlet is just general babble about the previous wheels at Gera, Draschwitz and Merseburg and talks of Bessler's slanderous enemies and questions what they will say now that his new wheel has been successfully tested under the supervision of Karl etc.

The next section is more general talk and goes on to tell of how Bessler perfected his Weissenstein wheel in August 1717 and that many high ranking people came to see it; it tells of how Karl supervised the test-run which began on 12th November 1717 and lasted 8 weeks, twice as long as was originally requested. It goes on to give some information about the wheel which it says is pretty much the same as the Merseburg wheel, but lists some differences etc:

Concerning the composition of the machine along with its action, it is currently the same externally, and arranged almost the same throughout as the perpetual motion machine displayed at Merseburg, because it has to be put in a room, so a diameter greater than 12 feet is not permitted; only this is to mention in the current machine, that it

1 ? is half a foot thicker than the Merseburg wheel, and one and a half feet more in profile.
2 ? the axle is 6 foot long and 8 inches in section.
3 ? the large heavy stampers, made of solid oak, stand against the wall and are lifted with lifting-battens.
4 ? on each side a pendulum is again present, which give the work an even yet somewhat slower motion, but can, as was often seen, be taken down and away.
5 ? so also again, as in Merseburg, a heavier box full of stones outside of the castle will, through a pull, be wound very high up and pulled in to the window by the machine.
6 ? all doubts of external pulls are now obviously thereby removed, and so forth

Number 6 I think is referring to the fact that the bearings were open for inspection and it could be clearly seen that there were no cords pulling the wheel from another room as was alleged by Bessler's enemies.

It then goes on to talk about how bets of 1000 Reichsthalers on the authenticity of Bessler's wheel had been scornfully offered in the past and that now the bet would be accepted but the stakes raised to 10000 Reichsthalers against 10000 Reichsthalers. It then outlines what constitutes a perpetual motion machine for the purposes of the bet (the usual description as seen in other Bessler documents), and says Bessler's wheel meets all of them. It makes one caveat and that is that the speed of the wheel varies depending on the construction and lists revolutions of 10, 20, 30, 60 & 100 times a minute. It ends by saying if anyone wants further information then write to Bessler at Weissenstein castle or contact post-master Renner in Kassel.

The postscript sarcastically asks where and when Wagner's promised spit-jack perpetual motion machine will be available.

That's the gist of the document anyway. Now what I wanted to talk about was the pendulums but, seeing how this post has ended up being bigger than I expected, I'll do so in my next post.

All the best
Stewart

The next point Stewart made was:

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:41 am

In "Neue Nachricht" (NN) it says:

4 ? on each side a pendulum is again present, which give the work an even yet somewhat slower motion, but can, as was often seen, be taken down and away.

I think this is the clearest description of the pendulums and their use, even though they are described quite well in GB. Here it says they cause an even motion and slow the wheel. It also makes it clear that they could and were removed as witnessed by visitors, and so were not part of the prime mover but definitely existed. Perhaps the pendulums were only attached when there was no other load (stampers,water-screw,winch) to slow it down and conserve the wear of its parts. As far as I'm aware there is no mention of pendulums on any of the uni-directional wheels; could it be that the bi-directional (Merseburg & Kassel) wheels' mechanisms caused an uneven rotation and adding the pendulums alleviated this? or are they just for speed regulation? I just wondered what everyone else thought now in light of this information.

Stewart

It's hard to imagine any load being a part of the mechanism. I emboldened and enlarged the relevant parts because I'm sure you younuns are doing it to such an extent you're borderline blind. :)

Walter

[Ed]

Why, you think he's got enough time to fight with a bad functioning/failing search engine, fighting with possible keywords in another language etc, instead of expecting some help from the ones stating to know exactly where to find the info, but who refers to keep the 'secret' to themself.. ?

This is nonsense!

Nic: What do you make of these strange arrangements from the Merseburg wheel?

Why are there 2 columns with a cross-pin holding the upper pin (the pin from where the pendulum rod are 'hanging') on one side....and only one column on the other?

Why is that said pin so long? Does the pendulum need sooooo much space?

Why are the pendulum bob inside the 2 columns?

Are the pendulum fixed angled to the pin?

Are the pendulum sliding on the pin?

Are the top weights (the beam with a weight on each side) actually rotating?

Does this beam rest on the upper pin?

You can't claim bad English or not knowing keywords as the reason you can't find things on this forum. I used only words you used in your post to find this post of Stewart's

So here's what you do...

Go to Advanced Search and enter the following into the 'Search for Keywords' field:

Code: Select all

merseburg pendulum* pin*

That's it. Now you (and hopefully more others) can fish too!

[KAS]

Kas .. gravity can do work in one direction providing something else lifts the weight to give it height [potential energy of position

That's my point Fletch, there is nothing else!

I believe that Jim is right in thinking that CF contributed to the running of Bessler's system. The CF influence was probably needed to provide additional energy once conservation of rotation was established,
but, and it's a big BUT, His wheel only needed to be rotated a half a turn to start. at that speed, its oveunity cannot be put down to CF or any other theoretical influence.

It has to be using gravity as a source of energy.

What else is there? Leverage perhaps! but even that would need to contradict Newton's 3rd law to be successful.

Kas

[winkle]

Flecther wrote

[/quote]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.
[quote]

the good the bad and the ugly of gravity

at least we know it exist

to be dismissive of gravity as a power source may be premature while in the pursuit of the most elusive of goals perpetual motion

also not demonstrated in the same time frame

just curious considering all the designs to date has anyone beat gravity's capabilities with any other power source up to this point in time

a stout spin with a strong arm does not count

[jim_mich]

but, and it's a big BUT, His wheel only needed to be rotated a half a turn to start. at that speed, its oveunity cannot be put down to CF or any other theoretical influence.

An why not??? Why do you dismiss CF? ANY and ALL rotation causes CF.

[KAS]

Its just a gut feeling Jim; there's not enough speed.

It appears that the overbalance of a weight was required to get the thing moving where it gently accelerated to a constant speed.

How could have CF influenced it at such a slow speed?

Kas

[DrWhat]

An example of a mechanism.

The weights are essentially all locked in place.

The wheel is given a spin. The black weight at 3 o'clock is released and due to cf swings out to the periphery. In doing so it bangs into the red weight, causing it to swing towards the axle. The black weight remains locked at 3 o'clock once the collision occurs.

So we have weights swapping places, placed one against the other. An the wheel remains balanced during the initial spin.

Just an example of a precursor to a final design.

[greendoor]

but, and it's a big BUT, His wheel only needed to be rotated a half a turn to start. at that speed, its oveunity cannot be put down to CF or any other theoretical influence.

An why not??? Why do you dismiss CF? ANY and ALL rotation causes CF.

Jim - I am inclined to dismiss CF because it is a pseudo-force.

If we believe in General Relativity (and I have to admit I have my doubts). then consider this ...

Relativists must insist that all motion is relative - not just linear motion, but rotational motion as well. IF that is true, then the velocity of any rotating mass is arbitrary, depending on the reference inertial frame we choose to use.

So if we engineer a rotating wheel, a relativist would say that it is perfectly valid to say that the wheel is stationary, and the universe is rotating around that wheel.

We are told that every force has an equal and opposite reaction, so the force that accelerated the wheel into rotation would have equally rotated the universe into counter-rotation.

In terms of general relativity - there is no absolute reference frame. Therefore, we can take any mass that is NOT accelerating, and declare that this is stationary, and other objects have velocity (or not) relative to that object.

Playing along - surely this must extend to rotating mass systems. Therefore if your rotating wheel can be considered to be at rest, in at least one inertial reference frame, then how can it have CF or CP? Conventional physics declares CF to be a pseudo force ...

Personally - I think this is crap. If we spin a mass around on a force-gauge, we can measure the force of CP or CF. Does that force ever change or go away, even if we choose to view this system from a different reference frame? IMO, velocity may be relative, but CF isn't ...

Which is obviously heretical - but I just can't swallow the current consensus opinion.

A space-station can be rotated to create fake gravity. But in space, aren't we taught that velocity is relative? So isn't a space station at fixed rotation actually 'at rest'?

Doesn't the existence of CF require an absolute reference frame? (I have my own beliefs, but i'm just trying to play along with the know-it-all scientists).

[nicbordeaux]

Ruggero, you have me now interested in the actual bessler wheel as opposed to the more general concept of "free energy", now I'm going to need to take some people on to help me and will probably never complete anything :)

I will search for a much higher res pic of that, call on a friend who is phd in history of art and is well versed in drawing technique from the period, and on the wife who is a teacher of art.

So for the moment I can't propose any answers except that there is a system where energy is transferred both ways, pendulum to wheel and vice versa; that it appears to be an eccentric setup, viz my post on using a "V" cut as a axle "bearing" and having the axle solid to wheel with one of "V" supports and axle having shape which would induce lateral travel and/or rise. Much the same, but sharper/shorter, than having a axle cunningly bent on one side of wheel. So, same type of action is on the pendular setup. Most intriguing :)

Nick

ps : why is the pendulum rod shown as straight at top and "torsaded" or twisted near bob ? Likewise, why is the the crossbar also torsaded ? It's rope ? Or twisted metal ? In either case that could mean that the pendulum assembly traverses, which is the beginning of an answer to one of your questions...


pps: Ruggero, why pick on me ? What did I do to you ? I am probably the least qualified guy on this forum to answer questions :) Are you being paid by JC so I have to buy his book ?

Nic: What do you make of these strange arrangements from the Merseburg wheel?

Why are there 2 columns with a cross-pin holding the upper pin (the pin from where the pendulum rod are 'hanging') on one side....and only one column on the other?

Why is that said pin so long? Does the pendulum need sooooo much space?

Why are the pendulum bob inside the 2 columns?

Are the pendulum fixed angled to the pin?

Are the pendulum sliding on the pin?

Are the top weights (the beam with a weight on each side) actually rotating?

Does this beam rest on the upper pin?

regards
ruggero ;-)