What was Bessler’s most powerful machine design?

[ovyyus]

Jim, an IC engine is another example of complex applications based on simple energy source principles. The energy source is simple, obvious, and easy to understand.

Yes, applications are complex and take a long time to develop. In the case of the steam engine the energy source principle (fire heats water into steam) was understood centuries before a mechanical application was developed. In the case of a nuclear reactor the basic energy source principle (fusion heats water into steam), once again, was understood well before development of the complex applications to harness it.

The pattern is always the same: first understand and demonstrate a simple principle, then develop complex applications to harness it. It is never the other way around.

How could Bessler, or anyone, ever be expected to develop an engine before first observing, understanding and demonstrating the simple energy source principle which moves it?

Karl said he was surprised that no one had developed a similar machine before Bessler. IMO, Bessler's energy source principle was already well understood by Karl and no surprise at all, even if the application was simple and ingeneous.

[jim_mich]

Bill asked:

How could Bessler, or anyone, ever be expected to develop an engine before first observing, understanding and demonstrating the simple energy source principle which moves it?

I do not think Bessler understood beforehand. I believe that Bessler simply "stumbled" upon a mechanism that worked while he was exhaustively searching for an OOB gravity driven mechanism. Once he observed his first wheel barely self-rotate, only then did he realize his dream. From there it required some trial and error testing to get it to work a little better. Only after observing his wheel actually working did he come to understand how and why it worked and was then able make a continually balanced wheel able to work in either direction driven the pure impetus of his principle of perpetual motion.

[Fletcher]

Ditto.

For I put together the very first device which could [spontaneously - not correct in translation] revolve a little.

I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile." - pg 271

I think Bessler tried everything he could think of, not necessarily understanding everything about each attempt, otherwise he would not have bothered trying over & over - one day something he tried worked, albeit weakly, he made the right choice - he was overjoyed that something could restore its potential after losses - that was improved & refined - that formed the basis of his principle of PM - it does not mean that he understood the math or energy source in any great detail IMO, but it worked.

N.B. 'choice' indicates a level of uncertainty, or insufficient information or experience.

[ovyyus]

Bessler describes a genuine process of discovery and development:

1. Fruitless years attempting the classic overbalanced wheel...
2. Discovers a real energy source...
3. Invests time and resources searching for a way to harness it...
4. Finally builds something that turns a little...
5. Invests time and resources perfecting it...
6. Public demonstration of a working "true PM" in the form of the classic overbalanced wheel...
7. Offers the secret to anyone for a large sum of cash...

After step 2 success was inevitable.

[jim_mich]

Bessler describes a genuine process of discovery and development:

1. Fruitless years attempting the classic overbalanced wheel...
2. Discovers a real energy source...
3. Invests time and resources searching for a way to harness it...
4. Finally builds something that turns a little...
5. Invests time and resources perfecting it...
6. Public demonstration of a working "true PM" in the form of the classic overbalanced wheel...
7. Offers the secret to anyone for a large sum of cash...

After step 2 success was inevitable.

Where does Bessler describe steps two and three? For some reason I do not remember reading about him discovering a real energy source. Nor do I remember him writing about his attempts to harness a real energy source. I do remember reading about his attempts and numerous failures trying to harness gravity by using OOB wheels. Then he finally discovers a wheel that self-rotates. And at the time he thinks it's powered by gravity. But obviously he was wrong about it being powered by OOB weight and thus by gravity, for he goes on to build a balanced self-rotating wheel. We all know that gravity cannot rotate a balanced wheel. Ultimately Bessler admits that it is the motion of weights that powers his wheels.

So when did Bessler realize that the energy source was motion of weights rather than gravity?

Did the discovery of a real energy source happen before Bessler built his first working wheel, and then he worked at harnessing it and only after knowing why it works was he able to build his working wheel, as Bill says?

Or did Bessler first discover a mechanism that worked and after finally seeing one of his wheels actually work he eventually learned why this real energy source works as it does?

So which came first, the principle, or the working wheel?

I think Bessler saw subtle glimpses of the principle of perpetual motion in action with some of his attempts at building OOB wheels. I think this led him to build his first working wheel. Bessler was then smart enough to recognize the principle and only after watching his first working wheel actually run did he come to fully understand why such a mechanism works as it does.

[path_finder]

1. Fruitless years attempting the classic overbalanced wheel...
2. Discovers a real energy source...

IMHO this energy source is just the centrifugal force, discovered and explained by Christian Huyghens (death: 1695 july 8th).
Nothing particular.
The Coriolis acceleration was not really known at the Bessler time (Coriolis birthday: 1792 may 21th, and the Foucault pendulum experiment: 1851)
The academicians of Firenze made the observation near 1660 of the pendulum oscillation plane, but they were ignorant on the reason of this displacement.

All of these points are not new, and have been discussed here many times.
There is no need for an extraordinary quest, nor any additional source of exogenical energy.

The rule is clear:
1. A single prime-mover based on the gravity cannot be the solution
2. The centrifugal energy is sufficient. The problem is to favorize it in priority.
3. First let's eliminate the gravity vertical force.
With a vertical wheel this can be done by a perfectly balanced wheel (on a static point of view)
With an horizontal wheel it is more easy.
4. Center the main COG
5. Adapt a mechanism wich increases the distance of this COG from the center of the wheel with the rotation speed (on a spiral path)
6. Include some springs for limit the speed (like the Watt governor)
At the step 5 you win...

[justsomeone]

Path_finder said:

The rule is clear:
1. A single prime-mover based on the gravity cannot be the solution



I say: No, this rule is not clear!

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi All,

I think that Bessler did not need to worry about the energy side of thing’s, he only needed to know that there was a downward pull on each side of the wheel, his experimental knowledge would have help him to see how the downward pull effects on weights and there positions would balance, so he only needed to move weights to a out of balance position using less force than the rotary force that the out of balance wheel would produce.

If Bessler had a understanding of our known physics there is more than a good chance that he would not of bothered to look at such things, PM do not be silly! I find that on reflection the maths models used to day are flawed at the basic level, so I tend to use Bessler’s Maths, wherein can the force created by the imbalance of the wheel be more than the force needed to reset the weights if the answer is yes then you have a out of balance wheel in force or weight ( A Runner).

If the Earths gravitational force is a conservative force then all planets gravitational forces must all so be conservative forces and as such the Universe should have ground to a holt years ago! You can argue that in space there is no friction if you want, but the pull of gravity travels through space and at any time there must be conservative pull between our planets but still the rotation of the planets have not been conserved! I as someone who thinks logically am not taken in by this conservative Bull Shit, and I am very surprised that a lot of people are taken in, it must be like religion wherein more people will follow the religion taught to them than change there religion, where I was taught to follow what you believe to be right!

A conservative force will conserve mechanical energy and not its own, I smell something!

In answer to the thread topic, the wheel with the greatest torque, but not all the facts are available.

Regards, Trevor

[rlortie]

justsomeone,

Why stop with just #1?

1. A single prime-mover based on the gravity cannot be the solution

And why not, evertyhing relies on gravity as a prime mover. Even an internal combustion engine requires gravity for aspiration.

2. The centrifugal energy is sufficient. The problem is to favorize it in priority.

How do you expect to achieve centrifugal energy without gravity providing mass as the prime mover?

3. First let's eliminate the gravity vertical force.
With a vertical wheel this can be done by a perfectly balanced wheel (on a static point of view)With an horizontal wheel it is more easy.

All static wheels including a pendulum are perfectly balanced when in a static mode. If they were not balanced (dictated by gravity) they would be in motion seeking said static point of rest. Even a horizontal wheel with the slightest of deviation in its axis support, such as bearing play, it will still seek it balance or keel point.

4. Center the main COG

Center the center of gravity? This one I do not understand! The nearest thing to the center of gravity would be the core of the sun. Even it is not true center as it is effected on a galactic scale.

5. Adapt a mechanism wich increases the distance of this COG from the center of the wheel with the rotation speed (on a spiral path)

Increasing the distance of the COG of a disk or wheel from its center of axis is once again relying on gravity as the prime mover.

6. Include some springs for limit the speed (like the Watt governor)
At the step 5 you win...

Even a 'Watt' governor would be useless if it were not for gravity playing a prime role. It is gravity employed upon the mass to create Cf which lifts the rotating arms/mass and returns them. The springs only limit the amount of lift or increase in radius (Cp).

I agree with John and others who believe gravity in one manner or an other is the potential point, or parent by succession, leading to the prime mover.

Ralph

[path_finder]

Dear riortie,

Your misunderstanding of all above points is coming from your confusion between two things:
- the vertical force of gravity field, attracting all static masses to the center of the earth (commonly named 'the weight')
- the centrifugal force coming from a rotation of any excentered mass by a vortex effect in this same field (in fact the centripetal force forbidding its tangential escape)

What I was suggesting was:
- to forget the first phenomenon (the weight, the vertical force)
- let rotate the COG for gaining an energy from the centrifugal force (but NOT from the vertical force).

This principle is working already with the 'inertial engines' (but this time in a straight line)
With your above assumptions how can you explain this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 071720512#
where obviously the vertical force of the gravity is irrelevant.

In addition I don't see any reason why we cannot start with a centered COG, and then after the start to modify the position of this COG until a maximum.
Remember a Watt governor can work without gravity: just with a single spring fighting against the CF.
But nobody is perfect and perhaps I missed something.

[jim_mich]

path_finder

This video is currently not available.
Please try again later.

[rlortie]

Path,

It is true that no one is perfect; even the word is derived by the consensus of many by what is acceptable by the majority. To be imperfect simply means you do not go with the flow. It is the imperfect that are first scoffed at and then admired when there ideas become reality.

I do not by choice wish to be 'perfect' it restrains one to think inside the box which is limited by social acceptance.

IMO it is going to take imperfect thinking, outside the so called 'box' to solve Bessler's enigma.

Ralph

[path_finder]

Dear Jim_Mich,
My video is a compressed file (suffixed .mpeg) which is a suffix normally NOT supported by the file attachment procedure in this forum, but nevertheless it DOES work and all my previous files have been accepted.
In addition I tried do not overpass 1 megabyte size (about 977Ko)
For some reason this time the upload has not been made correctly. I don(t know why.
But I suspect the need for a servicing intervention from Scott, in view to validate this video (this feature has been available in the past).
I will investigate to find an alternative way or format.

[rlortie]

Jim,

The video is available, it opened for me. If you cannot open it, you are not missing much. Here is the gist of the contents.

Thornson Inertial Engine
00:46 - 4 years ago
This clip submitted by Dr. Gennady Shipov demonstrates the Thornson Inertial Engine - an off-center rotator design shown propelling a canoo through a swimming pool during testing by Brandson R. Thornson. The Thornson drive is one of many mechanical-implementations inertial propulsion concepts, and this clip appears to support proponents claims about its workability...

A Google search for 'Thornson Drive' will provide many links, including Wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive

Ralph

[jim_mich]

After a fourth try the YouTube video finally loaded and played, instead of the YouTube web site giving me the error message.