What was Bessler’s most powerful machine design?

[killemaces]

It must have been a perpetuual down hill......but how?

Simple and kids play with it in the streets:)

[ovyyus]

Did Bessler say that kids "play with it"?

[John Collins]

It may have been a swing, as per 'kiiking'.

JC

[Ealadha]

Maybe a string puppet .

[FunWithGravity2]

Maybe IT was a principle and not a toy at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLqDpPecbs8

I wouldn't think we would need to argue an invetion date on that simple principle.

[Fletcher]

Either way, it would appear that it can be easily recongnised and understood by anyone. The fundamental it was said to be immediately obvious. I wonder how this statement might apply to an it that is a complex spinning mechanism or an obscure/mysterious thermodynamic effect?

The Laws of Thermodynamics say Energy of a system can only be increased by doing work on it or adding heat energy.

Bessler did not invent the Laws of Thermodynamics BUT he would have known that a system that had work done on it could output useful energy i.e. Output Work.

So, he/we are left with two practical options.

1. pre-load Energy into the system to give it back again - one possibility is to use stored Potential - we can easily do that today.

2. have a thermal gradient created from the dynamics of a moving wheel that was exploited to do useful work output [N.B. I doubt anyone, including Bessler, could pre-visualize a self generating thermal gradient from observation of a moving mechanical device].


Making the link between a device capable of creating a thermal gradient inside a spinning mechanism, & also being easily & immediately recognisable seems a huge conundrum.


Clearly Bessler experimented with structural devices & arrangements inside his wheels - perhaps that produced the desired OU, if you don't believe he did option 1. - that means once set in motion it was able to output more energy than it consumed, & use the excess to do work i.e. excess impetus.

This is my theory : today we also would immediately recognise this common physical device - BUT - even today we likely don't understand the full potential or physics & math behind such a device - we understand a only a portion of its Newtonian abilities & outcomes [leverage], otherwise we'd know its OU potential already & be using it for FE production - that means we have not recognised, identified & broken out the thermal gradient effect & OU potential created by its use - IOW's, we don't understand it even though we think we do, but we have adequate approximations of the physics & math to explain its current uses sub OU today.

An answer will be found by delving deeply into the math & physics of certain types of mechanical devices.

And ... the device once set in motion will have a work output capacity greater than the Pe it started with, which will be proved by experimentation when used in a unique way.

[jim_mich]

So, he/we are left with two practical options.

1. pre-load Energy into the system to give it back again - one possibility is to used stored Potential - we can easily do that today.

2. have a thermal gradient created from the dynamics of a moving wheel that was exploited to do useful work output.

I think we should include a third option. Change only one word in option two.

3. have a motion gradient created from the dynamics of a moving wheel that was exploited to do useful work output.

The Laws of Thermodynamics say Energy of a system can only be increased by doing work on it or adding heat energy.

These thermodynamic laws concern the conversion of heat into motion and motion into heat. These laws fall short concerning conversion of motion into motion, which is the requirement for Bessler's wheel that gains force by its motion. I propose that the thermodynamic laws do not apply to the energy increase of Bessler's PM wheel.

An answer will be found by delving deeply into the math & physics of certain types of mechanical devices.

I agree, though I think we disagree as to the mechanical devices in question.

And ... the device once set in motion will have a work output capacity greater than the Pe it started with, which will be proved by experimentation when used in a unique way.

Again I agree, though I think that no PE is needed to start with, but rather that motion/momentum begets increased motion/momentum/force when the right mechanical arrangement is used. Using Pe seems to indicate gravity as being a part of the equation. I think gravity is totally optional and not a necessary component.

[Fletcher]

That's the beauty of a discussion board Jim - we can present theories & propose footnotes to existing Laws or make up new ones.

I've tried to keep within the framework of existing & accepted Laws & suggest an exception that steps outside Newtonian mechanics but inside the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Yours would overturn Newton, & Thermodynamics IINM ?

For all of us with alternative theories it is beholding on us to prove the case by rigorous experiments, & that includes me.

Let's hope that it doesn't take too long.

[ovyyus]

Fletcher, Jim, let's say Bessler's wheel was driven by a system of weights that, somehow, increased energy as a result of inertial gain or free energy heat input. The question still remains, how could anyone, a carpenters boy included, immediately recognise and understand such a mysterious principle of operation? Who could so easily recognise and understand some previously unseen and unknown energy gain from inertia or free energy heat!

Either of these solutions would certainly represent revolutionary scientific breakthroughs - both then and now. Bessler and Karl could easily have claimed as much if that were indeed the case. Instead, they preferred to beat around the bush with teasing comments about how immediately understandable it was to anyone after looking inside the wheel. Something is not right.

[Fletcher]

snip ... If you mean the carpenter's apprentice quote, that comes from a letter from Baron Fischer to Dr. Desaguliers...

"Son altesse qui possede parfaitement les mathématiques, m'assure que cette machine est si facile qu'un garcon de menuisier la sauroit comprendre, & la faire après avoir vu le dedans de cette Rouë, & qu'il n'auroit pas exposé son nom en donnant des attestations, s'il n'avoit pas eu connaisance de la machine."

["His highness who possesses [a perfect understanding of] mathematics, assures me that this machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy [apprentice] could understand it, & make it after having seen the inside of this wheel, & that he would not have exposed his name in giving the attestations if he had not had full knowledge of the machine."]

In a letter from 'sGravesande to Newton, 'sGravesande also says he was assured by Karl that there was no chance of fraud and that the machine was very simple.

Bill .. something isn't right - Karl says it is simple that a carpenter' boy could understand it, & make it after seeing inside the wheel - he also says that there is no chance of fraud & that the machine was very simple.

Bessler calls it intrinsic motion, a true PPM & it Karl seems to agree, who is a man of mathematics.

Many who would look inside any simple mechanical device would 'think they understand it' - they could follow the familiar parts & actions, remember them & duplicate the build & get similar results to what they were shown, but there are shallow & deeper levels of 'understanding' - everyone would admit to 'understanding' how simple things work because they see it working, so it must work, & be understandable.

That doesn't mean they are cognisant of how & why it works, just that it is familiar, IMO.

[jim_mich]

Bill, I think there are two different types of understanding involved here. One is an understanding of how to build such a wheel. This is the understanding need by an apprentice. The other is an understanding of the principle of why it gains energy. This is the understanding that has kept anyone from re-discovering it.

[ovyyus]

Fletcher, Jim, when was the last time you encountered an engine design whose mechanical application was easier to understand than the principle of it's energy source? Eg; I couldn't easily understand and build a steam engine, yet it's fundamental principle is easily understood by anyone: fire heats water into steam. Fundamental principles are usually easy to demonstrate and understand, whereas machine applications of those principles are usually complex and bewildering.

What you're suggesting about Bessler's machine - that his engine application was easier to understand than the energy principle upon which it is based - seems very unlikely.

[daxwc]

I agree with you Bill and look at the people involved in the accounts list. Include Karl as well and it is an amazing mechanical demonstration by Bessler.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/accounts.html


One hair-brained theory that I was working on was that Bessler was using a state phase change brought about by impact that drew energy out of the air... not exactly easy to understand. But maybe unless the real process was linked to an everyday experience that we no long have to do.




A quick quoted overview of the science of the day.

René Descartes (31 Mar. 1596-11 Feb. 1650), named Cartesius, stated that the "overall sum of all products of quantitas materiae and velocity in the world is constant." Cf. Michal, p. 85. Although Descartes came closer to the principle of conservation of energy, his opinion about force caused great confusion and quarreling between scholars

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1 July 1646-14 Nov. 1716) did not accept Descartes' theory. He argued: "If a mass of 1 pound falls 4 yard, it gains such »force« that allows to move it up again to the same height. If a mass of 4 pound drops by 1 yard, it gains a »force« to lift it again to 1 yard. 1 pound lifting 4 yard must be the same as lifting 4 pounds for 1 yard

's Gravesande (27 Sep. 1688-28 Feb. 1742) was one of the scientists who was honestly convinced that the construction of a perpetual motion machine is possible. He lived at the hayday of the PMM delusion
One of the reasons for the opinion that a PMM is possible was Descartes' theory that a falling body wins force on its way. From our point of understanding, this is a confusion of force and impulse. But under the assumption that Descartes was right, it could be proved that a PMM was possible. s' Gravesande followed this opinion, until he learned of Newton's gravitational law. Newton could also show that Descartes' theory of force was based on a misunderstanding.

The theory of gravitation proved to be a very powerful concept. Unfortunately, 's Gravesande had examined Bessler's machine and already written a positive scientific essay. As the fraud was uncovered, 's Gravesande escaped into flimsy excuses. In fact, he was no more convinced of the creation of perpetual motion by human hands. Let's say, in the mechanical area. As far as (Al)chemy was concerned, he still expected unknown possibilities to reach that aim.

Maxwell (13 June 1831 -5 Nov. 1879) is widely known for his famous equations. But Maxwell did not only work in the area of magnetism and electrodynamics, but also made research in the field of thermodynamics. Here he laid a solid theoretical foundation based on refined mathematical methods. Maxwell is the inventor of the famous Gedankenexperiment to construct a PMM of the second kind; a PMM which does not contradict the law of energy conservation. Known as Maxwellian Demon, it became part of the history of modern science.

tks

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, Jim, when was the last time you encountered an engine design whose mechanical application was easier to understand than the principle of it's energy source?

Eg; I couldn't easily understand and build a steam engine, yet it's fundamental principle is easily understood by anyone: fire heats water into steam. Fundamental principles are usually easy to demonstrate and understand, whereas machine applications of those principles are usually complex and bewildering.

What you're suggesting about Bessler's machine - that his engine application was easier to understand than the energy principle upon which it is based - seems very unlikely.

When I was about the age of a carpenter's boy I first saw a nuclear reactor in text books & saw how the application works to produce electricity, heat is released to drive a turbine - much later I learned about atoms & how fusion energy principle could occur & liberate that heat to drive the engine, & I understood it better.

[jim_mich]

- that his engine application was more simple than the energy principle upon which it is based -

This may be exactly why the principle has been so elusive. The mechanism is simple but the reasoning behind it is somewhat complex. Once the principle is understood, then it will also seem quite simple.

For instance, if I were to show a drawing of an internal combustion engine, then one might be able to build it. But without an understanding of a number of underlying principles that make an IC engine work, one would have a very difficult time understanding why it works. We only understand why IC engines work because they are common devices and we are taught in school why they work. Why do you think that IC and steam engines were not build many centuries before they became common? The reason was the knowledge and principles of how and why such things work was lacking. Such knowledge took time to develop.