Bessler's idea solved

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Path_finder, Chris, Wheelrite,

Wheelrite wrote this,

Most likely for smoothing and speed regulation, stampers attached (demonstating usefull work being done) give a snatching motion, pendulums cancel this out somewhat, belt or rope 'whips' or strains/breaks and pendulums cancel this out somewhat again, also the irregular forces 'to-ing and fro-ing' may upset or damage the internal working parts that actually provide the drive. I think most people here conclude that.
Jon

What I wanted to see was mechanisms that use Pendulums without springs and use as the above quote, as most people here conclude that, so I would love to see some examples to help me work out why bessler was using pendulums if not to regulate springs.

Big thanks Path_finder, it was lovely to see some mechanical art.

Edit, the reason I am interested is this, it may have been possible for Bessler to use springs as energy accumulators to drive the wheel, by accumulating the energy with a slower release would overcome timing problems so the springs could be rewound at any time in the cycle by falling weights or levers, I see a lot of similaritys with Hydraulics energy transfers.

Regards Trevor

[path_finder]

Apart the question about the purpose of these pendula, another interesting question is:
Why they seem to disappear in the latest versions?
Were these two pendulas included in the new wheels or have they been replaced by another mechanism? Were they absolutely a mandatory?

[satanspawn]

But on the other hand perpetual motion is supposed to be impossible according to modern science.

Jim - perpetual motion IS impossible. The mere fact you speak as if it isn't betrays your lack of scientific understanding. Bessler built one cool contraption but it was NOT a perpetual motion machine.

The conservation laws are particularly robust. Noether's theorem states that any conservation law can be derived from a corresponding continuous symmetry. In other words, so long as the laws of physics (not simply the current understanding of them, but the actual laws, which may still be undiscovered) and the various physical constants remain invariant over time — so long as the laws of the universe are fixed — then the conservation laws must be true, in the sense that they follow from the presupposition using mathematical logic. To put it the other way around: if perpetual motion or "overunity" machines were possible, then most of what we believe to be true about physics, mathematics, or both would have to be false.

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

[AB Hammer]

satanspawn

The way science now has deemed the phrase of "perpetual motion", meaning forever. This is saying that it is in the same realm as God. This is ludicrous and is distorted. Now! will a runner be called perpetual motion? I couldn't care less what science calls it. But what I would call it is a fantastic thing to behold. 8-)

Alan

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

But on the other hand perpetual motion is supposed to be impossible according to modern science.

Jim - perpetual motion IS impossible. The mere fact you speak as if it isn't betrays your lack of scientific understanding. Bessler built one cool contraption but it was NOT a perpetual motion machine.

The conservation laws are particularly robust. Noether's theorem states that any conservation law can be derived from a corresponding continuous symmetry. In other words, so long as the laws of physics (not simply the current understanding of them, but the actual laws, which may still be undiscovered) and the various physical constants remain invariant over time — so long as the laws of the universe are fixed — then the conservation laws must be true, in the sense that they follow from the presupposition using mathematical logic. To put it the other way around: if perpetual motion or "overunity" machines were possible, then most of what we believe to be true about physics, mathematics, or both would have to be false.

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

Hi Satanspawn,

I keep saying this in the hope people will see it as the truth, a gravity wheel would comply with the energy laws as it would have a legitimate energy input (Gravity) just as hydro power uses gravity, there would be system loses to friction and heat so it could never be over unity, most of my designs need a downward pull on both sides of the wheel, science says a gravity wheel would contravene the energy laws, and I say where would it??? energy is converted in my designs.

Gravity wheels are possible and that is a fact, and this is why I am so positive about them, even though I have built many failed attempts I know I can build a working gravity wheel and I am now doing so, can they be cost effective is the big question, but I know the answer and that is yes I have one design with a pay back in just 4 years.

Some people here think I am deluded, well better that than negative and not knowing what I am talking about.

Its good to have a rant now and again as most here would agree.

Regards Trevor

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Apart the question about the purpose of these pendula, another interesting question is:
Why they seem to disappear in the latest versions?
Were these two pendulas included in the new wheels or have they been replaced by another mechanism? Were they absolutely a mandatory?

They could have been moved in side ( flat disc pendulums have been sugested in the forum before ) because of the clockwork smears, I thought Bessler admitted using springs?

Regards Trevor

[jim_mich]

satanspawn,

Start with a system of a rotating wheel and and a tethered weight. Let centrifugal force spontaneously accelerate the weight outward-forward. Momentum is conserved while kinetic energy is increased. This is based on current physics laws and formulas. The kinetic energy of the system is NOT conserved but increased, quite contrary to the concept of conservation of energy and entropy.

[wheelrite]

A few notes, purely my own thoughts/opinions, I do not know if a 'perpetual motion/gravity wheel' call it what you will, is possible or not, but I feel its likely it is.
External pendulums: I think they have a clue purpose as well as a slight mechanical benefit, because the mechanical benefit is slight and not ultimately required they were dispensed with, after they had served the purpose ie getting witnessed and drawn/recorded as cast iron proof (for the future) of Besslers invention.
Springs: I think he said they were needed or included in his wheel. Complex, high performance/very long/very fine/high quality etc. springs I do not think were available to him, for a number of reasons: metal quality and 'blends', poor quality control on steels, poor heat treatment control, inclusions, thinning, etc. etc. Modern springs have the benefit of manufacture using computor control and inspection, metallurgy, CMM's, ultrasound, precision grinding, heat treatment accurate to tenths of a degree, etc, etc,. I personally think the most likely spring type used is a simple 'blade' type.
Much is unknown, solid know laws of physics do change or get scrapped as we learn more, we still do not understand the gravity link with electromagnetics and magnetism etc etc. but we know they are. So I see plenty of opportunity to have a scientist or believer/none beleiver or whoever, eat a hat...So when I see a bald statement like 'thats not possible' or 'its against the laws of whatever' I just see a lack of imagination or appreciation of possibilities, and its a turn off.
Jim_mich's fact, that is the 4:1 ratio increase re: CF, is the only unusual (to me) factiod I know that IS known(yet not fully understood or agreed on..) , and demonstrable, and has a very likely part in the wheel.
Lastly these words are choosen only reasonably carefully, they do not warrant much further scrutiny, I wont involve in small points, ping pong replies, correcting anyones anything...etc.
Regards
Jon

[Ealadha]

To put it the other way around: if perpetual motion or "overunity" machines were possible, then most of what we believe to be true about physics, mathematics, or both would have to be false.

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

I do believe that physics has been hoaxed , they want to sell their oil , coal and gas , so of course the sciences would have been hoaxed .

[Tarsier79]

a gravity wheel would comply with the energy laws as it would have a legitimate energy input (Gravity)

My belief exactly.

[KAS]

Trevor wrote

"I keep saying this in the hope people will see it as the truth, a gravity wheel would comply with the energy laws as it would have a legitimate energy input (Gravity) just as hydro power uses gravity, there would be system loses to friction and heat so it could never be over unity, most of my designs need a downward pull on both sides of the wheel, science says a gravity wheel would contravene the energy laws, and I say where would it??? energy is converted in my designs.

Trevor, I don't believe we can compare gravity perpetual motion with hydro power. OU has to be gravity powered where as Hydro energy is not gravity powered, it is solar powered. Gravity is just a component in its production.

and therein lies the problem

There are no gravity powered systems on earth today and that's a sad fact.
That is, until someone (maybe one of us) disproves the idea that gravity is a conservative force.

All gravity assisted systems around today are really solar powered with the exception of hydro serge systems. These are huge hydro power plants that rely on off peak electricity to pump water from a lower sump to a higher resovoir (usually over night) and release it through a turbine at peak demand times. However, more energy is required to charge these systems that they get out of them.

Just think! On the day a gravity OU device is discovered, it will start a count down clock to decommission all known methods of energy production that we know today; and also, this next sentence makes the hairs on my neck stand up. He/she can declare that Galileo and Newton (gods of discovery) were wrong.

Kas

[erick]

Ah... but isn't solar energy created by gravity after all? The fusion reactions that power the sun are caused by its immense gravity....

E

[KAS]

Yes erick, You are right, but I am talking about gravitational forces relevant to our own scale.
It could be said that tidal turbines are also gravity powered, using gravity from the the lunar orbit. But when it come down to terrestrial gravity, only Bessler achieved it IMO. I know no other systems.

Kas

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Kas,

I have also said in a post, if there is no gravity there is no anything.

Anyway back to subject, water is weightless with out gravity so what do you think the percentage of work done by gravity is in hydro power?

The laws state that energy can be converted not created, because gravity has potential energy that can become kinetic energy, energy can be converted thus no laws of true physics would be broken if a working gravity wheel is built.

Regards Trevor

[james kelly]

THERE are a great number of gravity operated machines today! { NOW} Even more than in the time of the pharohs. THINK man, THINK!