The Laws of Perpetual Motion

[jim_mich]

1) weights must not be allowed to reach their resting point.

Not quite right.

when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight,

Not being allowed to reach a resting point is different than never obtaining equilibrium or the punctum quietus.

2)weights must be arranged so that their direction of swing is always preceded by their point of attachment.

I've never seen such a Bessler quote. Do you mean the following?

in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move.

[Unbalanced]

Mass in unhindered motion

I apologize these are definitions not laws.

Chris I am missing the mark. A law isn't a "method" or a definition. Perhaps we won't be able to write the laws until the method is discovered but I think a lot of posters here have come close.

[Andyb]

Hi all,i always try and keep things simple,i say try, because i my self go off into what i consider to to be the better cleverer approach,only latter do i discover that i could have done it much simpler ha this is life .Bessler left clues ,i believe the most important clues are these,1 nothing ever finds a point of rest ,if it does then the negative torque weight factor can not be overcome,2when you can cause a 1/4 lb to lift a lb then you have it,3 the wheels power is proportional to the o/d,this is a very important clue.Any how just to get you all thinking seeing as you love it so much look at the etching in Johns book ,i have looked at it until i have nearly gone mad,at the top of the B theirs the bells 9 in all with 2 and six being struck,combine this with Besslers 1and 7 being 1 oclock and 7 oclock ,and i believe your on the right path,straight to the loony bin ,no all joking apart a nine section wheel creates the best potential i have seen so far ,all the best Andy

[Unbalanced]

Andyb writes:

look at the etching in Johns book ,i have looked at it until i have nearly gone mad,at the top of the B theirs the bells

If anyone has a copy of this etching and if it is in the public domain, would you please post it here. My copy of a Mystery Solved? is deep in storage.

[christo4_99]

let me explain then why i have interpreted what Bessler said this way...he said the weight both seek and are kept from reaching their punctus quietus or resting point.to me this means they are swinging with their point of attachment ahead of them but never are allowed to achieve the vertical position underneath the point of attachment.on the descent this means to me that the weights are being led to the outer rim by a poa that is closer to the rim and on ascent are inverted and still being led the same direction but now closer to the axle.i have taken what information is available and added my own flavor to it.Bessler said that the weights are arranged so that they never stop moving,never become balanced,seek their punctus quietus(literally place of rest),and in doing so take turns driving on the axle from a vertical position.i must admit that i cannot get my mind around the two weights coming together because in their opposite and horizontal positions @ 9 and 3 o'clock in order to come together,or even at 12 and 6 o'clock vertically respectively the wheel would have to be without an axle.

[Unbalanced]

christo4_99 Wrote:

he said the weight both seek and are kept from reaching their punctus quietus or resting point.to me this means they are swinging with their point of attachment ahead of them but never are allowed to achieve the vertical position underneath the point of attachment.on the descent this means to me that the weights are being led to the outer rim by a poa that is closer to the rim and on ascent are inverted and still being led the same direction but now closer to the axle.

Re: your earlier post: Excuse us for correcting you Chris but it is important to us in this pursuit to work from what scant quotations we have to work with. Whenever a hitherto unknown statement attributed to Bessler arises it attracts immediate attention.

I have thought a lot about what you have written and I believe your description of a configuration wherein the pendulums "are swinging with their point of attachment ahead of them" at all times, is a valid manifestation of Bessler's description:

"when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight,"

I think you should run with this line of thinking and start experimenting and laying awake thinking about it.

I recommend you not limit your design criteria by attempting to anticipate
in advance, the best amount of arc travel allowed your weights but rather design to where the rotation of the wheel allows your pendulums to travel in excess of 180º per oscillation or transfers the excess to rotation.

[christo4_99]

forgive me for my reckless elaboration but i come from a Zen based school of thought where once the point is taken the specific words that are used have a secondary place in the mind compared to the images which they summon.i am not sure that i don't notice a hint of sarcasm in the last few words of your post.of course,correct me if i'm wrong.
moving on...i have often wondered how a weight that is spent it it's ascent could somehow continue to drive the rotation of the wheel in some way because to me sometimes it seems,this would be key to making a wheel continue to revolve indefinitely.

[Unbalanced]

No, not meant as sarcasm more of a warning.

i have often wondered how a weight that is spent it it's ascent could somehow continue to drive the rotation of the wheel in some way because to me sometimes it seems,this would be key to making a wheel continue to revolve indefinitely.

"Greed is an evil root"
extract small quantities of PE repeatedly
Indeed it is the crux.

[christo4_99]

a weighted ball rolling up hill is a valid description of this train of thought,when the ball reaches the top of the hill the weight is underneath it,now the ball itself and not the weight becomes the principle part.i came up with a very cool design for a wheel based on this concept but i never built it although i did animate it with blender.the weights traveled in almost straight lines while the wheel"and everything else" revolved around them.also when the weight is at the bottom it is at the top and vice versa...seeming to preserve the potential energy...but still pretty complicated to build and find
out.
P.S. there was something else to this design i forgot to mention...there is a point where the upper weights can be dropped into the lower "ball" and affectively this creates a situation in which ALL of the weights are on the ascending side of the wheel.

[Unbalanced]

christo4_99:

still pretty complicated to build and find out.

This is best posted under a new thread centered on your design and thoughts on it. A picture would be worth many words.

[christo4_99]

[christo4_99]

and seeing as i hijacked this thread i will now contribute something.take this as you will but my belief is that Bessler,instead of avoiding friction at all costs as we are so accustomed to in our designs,embraced it and used it to his advantage.So,putting it into words:friction is to be avoided in various parts such as bearings which would hinder the movement of the wheel but as far as it may contribute to the overbalance,it should be employed.

[Bill_Mothershead]

weights are being led to the outer rim by a poa that is closer to the rim

I didn't quite follow what you were saying.

What is a "poa' ?

[christo4_99]

point of attachment

[AldenPark]

Energy Can Be Created and Destroyed. If we consider that a charge continually emits a huge flux of discrete electric fields at the speed of light, then when one of those charges is absorbed by another charge, then the kinetic energy of that charge is often changed. Kinetic energy is often either created or destroyed in the absorption process. There is no actual physical entity of a potential energy. Potential energy (along with "conservation" of energy) is often a matter of convenience to "explain" what often "seems" to be going on with the actual physical absorption of the electric fields. Any so called physical law that says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed is just plain wrong. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are doomed to failure because of this. AEP - 9 Apr 2011

Gravity Is Simple. Gravity could be simply explained as the condition of two discrete electric fields coming from opposite charges that happen to be traveling together. Gravity is much weaker than ordinary electric forces since their exact formation and exact absorption would be quite unlikely. They could travel together through anything until conditions are eventually just right so that they are both attractively absorbed, though not quite simultaneously. That slight timing difference (during absorption) creates a Bessler principle of fundamental opposite charges rotating about a horizontal axis acquiring rotational kinetic energy from the two-part graviton. The higher charge rotating about their common center could keep rotating in a circle about their common center before it attractively absorbs its electric field. The faster the initial rotation means the more rotational kinetic energy is acquired in the process. Friction can cause the acquired rotational kinetic energy (and any rotational kinetic energy previously existing) to be wasted. AEP - 9 Apr 2011

Laws. Almost all the normal physical laws are incorrect. No system can keep out energetic gravitons. See http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/GravitySummaryNews.txt for more detailed discussion of these things. The Bessler principle might be considered as a correct "law" of perpetual motion. AEP - 9 Apr 2011