A blueprint of Bessler's wheel question

[Fletcher]

Drebbel's PM spherical rotating flask on YouTube - worth a look then judge for yourself how it might be viewed as PM or if Drebbel fully explained it to the king etc & whether that in fact mattered.

The point is, that the agent was considered internal, it was still considered true PM [at the time] - Bessler included it in his book in the section headed "To Those Who Do Not Believe" - i.e. do not believe in the possibility of PM, so he must have considered/believed it true PM.

I'm not sure about whether Bogehold is telling Bessler to be less vague but more of an admission that he & others didn't fully understand Drebbel's engine - he takes a bob each way by saying it might be true PM or involve some trickery - he bangs on about squaring the circle as a deflection, a more worthy pursuit than PM for great minds, though hardly has greater implications - Bessler includes the squaring the circle geometry in his wheel pictures as a reminder that he is amongst the elite class of thinkers & achievers & deserving to be there - there may be additional geometry involved revealed from the squaring process in the pictures.

Bessler obviously thought any engine [ever lasting motion machine] that used either internal or external agents that didn't need to be physically replenished with fuel [input energy] brought to it constituted true PM & that's why he included it in his book - the interesting thing is he never actually said so out loud, so to speak - scared to open that can of worms perhaps ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6Z2-4Jv_jE

Hmmm...

After Drebbel’s letter which is inside Valentinus letter, he says this about Drebbel:

Hence I shall give a warning to all lovers of this art, and demonstrate to them a better way.

As far as Drebelius is concerned, it seems to me that we cannot
be sure quite what he had in mind; whether he wished to keep
some things from becoming common knowledge, or even
conceal some of them from the KING himself. And, despite
much searching among the writings of industrious scholars, I do
not know whether in truth he really discovered and perfected the art of PERPETUAL MOTION; this must remain uncertain to us.

Nevertheless, His High Eminence Cardinal Perronius, once listed, amongst the store of lost inventions, these six which, he said, clever men might wish to investigate; viz: -

1) The Squaring of the Circle,
2) The Doubling of the Cube,
3) The Preparation of the Philosopher’s Stone,
4) Divination through Astrology,
5) Magic and
6) Perpetual Motion.

PG 256 DT Valentinus Bögehold

When I read this Fletcher is he not actually telling Bessler not to ride the grey area and be clear where perpetual motion is coming from?

After the above quote, Valentinus goes on for pages on The Squaring of the Circle... why?

From Jc’s DT http://www.free-energy.co.uk/

Insufficient time at the moment - will edit as I'm able.

This post from Mr Tim's thread some time ago > General Discussion > PM found in 1612

A snippet from an e-mail list I'm on, with an interesting comment about the definition of PM back then and now:

Quote:
(...) You mention looking up Drebbel in the book. Unfortunately the references to him are incomplete and inaccurate. The first reference on page 95, about his claims for perpetual motion, are compliled from his patent of 1597 and his letter to James when he wanted out of Prague in 1613. The patent is misquoted in that he never said "1000 years", but actually up to 100 years, if the clockwork did not wear out:

"Ende t'ander een horelogie oft uuyrwyser twelcken den tijt van vijftich, LX, jae hondert oft meer jaeren achter den anderen sal mogen gebruycken, sonder opwinden oft yet anders daertoe te doen, soo lange de raden oft 't ander gaende werck niet versleten en zijn".

You can see the part, "fifty, sixty, nay, one hundred years..."

I could be wrong, but I never came across "a thousand". But the important point is not the time he claimed, but what passed as perpetual motion at the time.

If a machine operated off natural and permanent sources of heat,
temperature, air pressure, etc., then it was "perpetual", and was not
classified differently than the impossible version, with no outside power.

Curiously, I ran across the same problem with my youtube video of his
device, when several watchers chastised me for calling it such... that it
was thermodynamic, etc. They did not read the discription I included, which explains this. So today, as in the time of Carrington's book, such a claim is treated with dirision, when the modern definition is wrongly applied.

Furthermore (...)

[Fletcher]

...what he doesn't rule out is thermal - he explicitly talks about wind, water & wound up springs to give potential to the system received from an external source - he does not mention thermal input - this may be a oversight or just wasn't on his radar at the time.

I agree. What if the action of Bessler's mechanism caused an airflow to separate into hot and cold, which was then harnessed to do work by lifting weights? Heat was still largely a mystery in Bessler's time, even if it was known how to expand wagon wheel rims in a fire. Is it conceivable that Bessler noticed some small and unseen thermal effect while studying and building organs, which he then developed to some practical degree? In this scenario the action of his wheel would have appeared exactly like it was wholly internal and the energy source would have been a mystery.

Bessler would surely have known that after his secret was revealed it would be scrutinized and studied extensively, and that perhaps it's true energy source would eventually be defined. What if it was eventually determined that it wasn't a 'true PM' afterall? Of course, his honour would be intact because it would be seen that he acted in good faith but, perhaps most importantly, by then his money would be well secured.

I was hunting around yesterday & came across this again Bill - something I'm sure we've discussed before & you've probably considered - a link to how to make a vortex thermal separator [vortex tube] - it might meet some of your requirements ? - I'm fairly certain that it doesn't break CoE theorem however that predicates all Bernoulli Laws [venturi] & Gas Laws & that might be required to get a wheel to overcome losses & do work.

On the other hand, if the cold air separated was to go thru a heat exchanger & draw heat from the ambient air from entropy then there would be energy continually entering & replenishing the system - perhaps like a heat pump works today ?

Would fit nicely into Bessler's experience with organs & cylindrical pipes & air flow etc.

http://www.airtxinternational.com/how-d ... e-work.htm

[daxwc]

Fletcher quotes:

Bessler includes the squaring the circle geometry in his wheel pictures as a reminder that he is amongst the elite class of thinkers & achievers & deserving to be there - there may be additional geometry involved revealed from the squaring process in the pictures.

I think your most likely right Fletcher. In my mind, I had the odds at 80% that’s all there is in the drawings is a way to construct a “Squaring of the Circle� geometry. In fact Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz thought he had a solution to “Squaring of the Circle� and it could be this very construction on the drawing, if Bessler never had one himself. Some solutions to “Squaring of the Circle� are very close and errors are only noticed over vast areas. If anybody has Liebniz’s construction please present it, I would be very interested in find the whole construction there.

That leaves me with a 20% chance that MAJOR wheel clues are also included. I say major meaning I have no doubt small clues were left. Why I feel this is due to the pentagrams found mostly, but also because of some number sequences and usage of the golden ratio. I am fairly convinced fig 3 and figure 4 were meant to form the vesica-pisces, so it brings in to question why, if it is just a construction of “Squaring of the Circle� that it be hidden so well as to avoid accidental finding.

Bessler obviously thought any engine [ever lasting motion machine] that used either internal or external agents that didn't need to be physically replenished with fuel [input energy] brought to it constituted true PM & that's why he included it in his book - the interesting thing is he never actually said so out loud, so to speak - scared to open that can of worms perhaps ?

I also agree totally with this statement Fletcher. I am going to go out on a limb and give you my opinion that is not backed by any hard facts as to Bessler himself, but I think he was confused as where the wheel was getting its energy from exactly. In his time scientists were confusing four things that being temperature, atmospheric pressure, gravity and Earth-Moon barycentre. If I desgned a wheel that ran off of any of the above or combination of, I would also claim I had a Perpetual Motion machine. On the flip side, I don’t see getting anywhere near the power needed with any of those, other then gravity if it was somehow released.

[Fletcher]

I agree dax - those agent sources seem particularly weak compared to his demonstrations - we know he thought supplementary sources were true PM because he included reference to Drebbel's engine in his book for those that did NOT believe - I would have called it PM too, under the definition of the time.

One conclusion is that he discovered a vastly more efficient way to use one [or combination as you say] of those sources that produced higher torque & power levels.

Another conclusion is that he found another completely different supplementary source - that seems unlikely else we'd have rediscovered it & be using it by now in one form or another & recognised its potential.

I don't believe he found a way to fool gravity or any artifact of gravity including inertial effects, but you know that ;7)

Perhaps squaring the circle served two purposes for him - to stamp his mark as we've speculated & secondly to show something in the residual geometry & that was why he didn't want an accidental finding ?!

[ovyyus]

I was hunting around yesterday & came across this again Bill - something I'm sure we've discussed before & you've probably considered - a link to how to make a vortex thermal separator [vortex tube] - it might meet some of your requirements ? - I'm fairly certain that it doesn't break CoE theorem however that predicates all Bernoulli Laws [venturi] & Gas Laws & that might be required to get a wheel to overcome losses & do work.

Yes, I looked into this long ago and am sure we discussed it. The vortex tube device clearly demonstrates how easy it is to effect thermal separation in a gas with very simple mechanical movement. IMO, Bessler found a way to amplify just such a thermal effect, perhaps initially small, and gain the breakthrough additional force in his mechanism.

[Fletcher]

In that we'd be in total agreement Bill - just finding the actual method or how to amplify it sufficiently is a bit of a scorcher.

Might have to start a few experiments along those lines.

[bystander]

I just wanted to go back to the original question. As an outsider to your forum I have only read a few of the discussion posts but “justsomeone’s� question interested me. “I firmly believe anyone with experience studying gravity wheels or with a mechanical or engineering background would be able to view a blueprint of Bessler's wheel and KNOW without a doubt it would be a runner!
Even if it wasn't titled " Besslers wheel "
They ( you ) would not need to build to know it would work.
Am I wrong?�

My answer would be YES. If Bessler had even drawn the actual principles to his machine it would have been obvious to anyone who viewed the drawing. Bessler did however hide the truth right in front over everyone as any good magician would. He did not lie when he described his machine he just stated the working parts as you expected to hear them as everyone already has a vision of how the machine must work. It works exactly as he described if only you could look past what you have already decided on.

[Fletcher]

And you know this bystander because ... A. you actually know how his wheels worked or ... B. you are a good study of human nature so you feel this is likely to have happened ... C. this is what you'd have done if you had of been Bessler ?

P.S. I think we would all know pretty much how it worked on viewing the blueprints - whether we would know it to be a 'runner' is another question but perhaps we'd see the potential for it to be !

[bystander]

Fletcher,
I was simply answering “justsomeone’s� question.

[daxwc]

bystander quote:

“I firmly believe anyone with experience studying gravity wheels or with a mechanical or engineering background would be able to view a blueprint of Bessler's wheel and KNOW without a doubt it would be a runner!

I agree only because Bessler said you would know by looking, not because the engineering on the blueprint would be self evident. Take Bechers perpetual motion machine, not one person on this form gave a guess as to what concept drives it, never mind whether it would run. I will post it again. Why? Because of Besslers comment he found perpetual motion in places other people with true understanding had looked. Bessler did not stumble on perpetual motion, he studied it and everybody who tried and said they had it.

Do you see? These foolish ravings of my enemies will be held up
to total ridicule by all intelligent people, who, with true
understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different
from that in which I eventually found it. pg 356 AP

[Fletcher]

Fair enough - you'd know without a doubt that it was a runner & would not need to build it.

That means that there was no new or unknown physics or mechanics involved - simply a new combination of familiar stuff not previously tried until Bessler - but wait, no mechanics or current physics allows for the possibility of PM from gravity alone so combining currently known stuff shouldn't give that result obvious or not, unless there was an energy source added to the equation which we would instantly recognise.

A hypothetical example : as james the old fox once said, uranium powered.

[jim_mich]

With a vortex tube you start with moving air. The motion of the air causes CF. The CF causes the air to self-separate or self-sort into warmer air and colder air. This is kind of like a Maxwell's Demon. The air gets sorted molecule by molecule according to its KE.

If a simple vortex tube can self-sort the KE of air then why is it that Bill doubts me when I talk about using CF to self-separate weights into faster moving weights with greater KE and a slower moving weights with lesser KE? If one weight spontainiosly speeds up (due to CF) to twice as fast while another weight slows down to almost a stop (thus conservation of momentum) then the KE of the two weights almost doubles. Then the extra KE is harnessed and the cycle repeats.

So would one know if it was a runner without building it? I think it would be very difficult for most to recognize why it would work, for it is not driven by gravity.

[daxwc]

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi293.htm

He created a form of alchemy that fathered the phlogiston theory. It was Becher who started the progression of ideas that led to modern thermodynamics.

[Fletcher]

dax .. JJ Becher - I don't have the digital version of John's book DT so perhaps you can provide the detail - in it it says that Becher was well after Drebbel - it also says that Becher says he invented physical or mechanical PM "using the effect of water continually beating against a machine"

I would hazard a guess & say that might be true providing the water started from a height & flowed down hill to exit the machine at some point, else it could be a drinking bird scenario [evaporation & condensation] but I can't make out the picture you supplied to see how it might have worked ?

[ovyyus]

Might have to start a few experiments along those lines.

That's just what Bessler might have said! :D

With most PM enthusiasts madly searching for improbable mechanical gravity/inertia/mass 'arrangements', it might be no surprise that this path appears largely unexplored. Yet potential thermo-mechanical concepts appear in MT. Perhaps it's coincidence that Bessler's accompanying commentary notes abruptly end just as images of bellows and wind driven mechanisms begin? I wonder how he would have described them.