2 rlortie

[erick]

"In a machine such as mine, on the other hand, the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device, iwthout which its framework is just any old heap of material, which has completely lost its essence. To cause the machine to stop requires the application of a greater external force, and can be accomplished without difficulty whenver one requesres it, e.g. for the machine's longer conservation. Such a cessation can also occur through the wearing out or breaking of the machine's part. The first is a "moral accident", the second a "material accident." As an example of the ideas I am discussin, consider the case of two samall metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, thier FORM consists in thier regulare sphericity. But we find, placed in a furnace, on loses its shape quicker than the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to bothe - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference."

Hi Steve,

I think in this paragraph Bessler is just talking about the fact certain materials are better suited for the building of a wheel that is meant to run perpetually. In the paragraph he makes a distinction between a moral accident, when someone decides to manually "turn off" the wheel and a material accident when the materials that make up the wheel fail causing its motion to cease. IMO when he talks about the difference between how quickly a lead sphere will melt in a furnace as compared one of steel he is simply pointing out that certain materials are better suited for the construction of a PMM.

My 2c.

E

[path_finder]

IMHO there is no chemical process at the time of Bessler able to generate a strong force enough for more than four weeks.
The carbide lamp of the miners has been discovered much more later (the acetylene gas has been discovered by the British chemist Edmund Davy in 1836). Its direct application for lighting will not intervene that later after the development of the manufacturing process of carbide in an arc furnace in 1892 by a French chemist H. Moissan(excerpt from http://www.acethylene.com/indexus.htm).
And in any case the produced pressure would not have been sufficient.
The only reason to keep any chemical process could be the welding of the torsion bars, like the 'thermite' for the rails See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_la_pirotechnia
But our friend AB_Hammer is much more expert in this matter than me.

I regret to insist, but the idea to use a spiral spring (accumulating some energy for the starting step) is not stupid.
So far I still believe the Bessler wheels have been monitored by a mechanism based on the centrifugal force, like Jim_Mich explained many times.
But this mechanism needed a minimum of rotational speed for beginning to be effective.
Two compressed and locked spiral springs in opposition give an excellent resting position. Then you have just to unlock this one in relation with the selected direction, keeping the other one compressed. When decelerating the wheel, the inner mechanism allow the compression of the unlocked spiral spring with the accumulated kinetic energy until the rest position.
It was exactly this way used in Paris during the World Fair of 1899 for the displayed wheel (with the exception this wheel had a small motor inside).

[path_finder]

In relation with another post on the chemical processes at the time of Bessler (here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6191#86191) there is a remaining question: instead to use a 'thermite' process (dangerous and at high temperature) why do not use some glass for the welding of the torsion bars?.
It works well (even today), see here: http://glassian.org/insulator.html

[bluesgtr44]

"In a machine such as mine, on the other hand, the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device, iwthout which its framework is just any old heap of material, which has completely lost its essence. To cause the machine to stop requires the application of a greater external force, and can be accomplished without difficulty whenver one requesres it, e.g. for the machine's longer conservation. Such a cessation can also occur through the wearing out or breaking of the machine's part. The first is a "moral accident", the second a "material accident." As an example of the ideas I am discussin, consider the case of two samall metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, thier FORM consists in thier regulare sphericity. But we find, placed in a furnace, on loses its shape quicker than the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to bothe - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference."

Hi Steve,

I think in this paragraph Bessler is just talking about the fact certain materials are better suited for the building of a wheel that is meant to run perpetually. In the paragraph he makes a distinction between a moral accident, when someone decides to manually "turn off" the wheel and a material accident when the materials that make up the wheel fail causing its motion to cease. IMO when he talks about the difference between how quickly a lead sphere will melt in a furnace as compared one of steel he is simply pointing out that certain materials are better suited for the construction of a PMM.

My 2c.

E

No doubt in my mind Erick....thus why I wrote this.

This is the only thing I can recall that has any reference to melting and it was only to explain the reasoning or cause of why any device here on earth cannot be "perpetual" in the perfect sense...i.e., run forever and ever.

What he was addressing here was the concept of "perpetuity". The wagers that were offered to him by the three stooges (Wagner, Gartner and Borlach) were leading towards perpetuity being "forever", and Bessler is simply trying to point out that we have no material here on earth that we know of that does not wear over time.

He is simply making the point that a machine that uses elements considered more durable would be able to simply last a long time.


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

IMHO there is no chemical process at the time of Bessler able to generate a strong force enough for more than four weeks.
The carbide lamp of the miners has been discovered much more later (the acetylene gas has been discovered by the British chemist Edmund Davy in 1836). Its direct application for lighting will not intervene that later after the development of the manufacturing process of carbide in an arc furnace in 1892 by a French chemist H. Moissan(excerpt from http://www.acethylene.com/indexus.htm).
And in any case the produced pressure would not have been sufficient.
The only reason to keep any chemical process could be the welding of the torsion bars, like the 'thermite' for the rails See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_la_pirotechnia
But our friend AB_Hammer is much more expert in this matter than me.

I regret to insist, but the idea to use a spiral spring (accumulating some energy for the starting step) is not stupid.
So far I still believe the Bessler wheels have been monitored by a mechanism based on the centrifugal force, like Jim_Mich explained many times.
But this mechanism needed a minimum of rotational speed for beginning to be effective.
Two compressed and locked spiral springs in opposition give an excellent resting position. Then you have just to unlock this one in relation with the selected direction, keeping the other one compressed. When decelerating the wheel, the inner mechanism allow the compression of the unlocked spiral spring with the accumulated kinetic energy until the rest position.
It was exactly this way used in Paris during the World Fair of 1899 for the displayed wheel (with the exception this wheel had a small motor inside).

I also fail to see any indication what-so-ever of chemicals being used here in any sense that I would apply. If he used them in any way, I would think it would have been in the metalurgy process of building the thing.

I also think that having a spring loaded assembly could be used to maintain that pressure needed for starting the wheel. I admit that my applications of this are mainly following along the concept of Jim's and that is what got me to thinking of this to begin with. His concept would need something to get it going. And I also think it makes sense in those one directional wheels that had to be tied off if one were thinking that CF was somehow harnessed to drive the device after the initial "kick". I haven't been able to devise any use of a spring loaded device to drive itself. Some other force would have to take over to reach the level's Bessler achieved.


Steve

[jim_mich]

It is my thinking that Bessler's one way wheels became pre-loaded each time they were stopped from rotating. The very act of stopping the wheel resulted in the weight swinging/moving forward to a maximum out-of-balance condition. Thus Bessler needed to tie the wheel in this OOB condition. The OOB condition then starts the wheel to rotating and if it were not for the PM principle it would simply accelerate for about half a turn and then decelerate for the remainder of about a half turn. But instead the wheel accelerates and then the weights move/swing and do their PM thing and the wheel gets pushed forward enough to get over the top. But long before a full turn happens the second weights move/swing and do their PM thing and again the wheel gets a push. Soon the wheel is rotating at the maximum speed with which the weights can move/swing thus the wheel is at is optimum speed.

So, IMO there is no wind-up springs to start the wheel. If the wheel were to be allowed to rotate slowly backwards then there would be a very small position where the one-way wheels would be at rest. There is one account where one of the one-way wheels was observed to have stopped turning, and Bessler said maybe something rubbed inside. He then gave it a push and it started right up again. This would seem to indicate that it was not totally OOB all the time.

I've talk before about latency. Most all gravity designs require one weight to fall thus lifting another weight upward. But the falling of the first weight always happens too late to make any real difference. This is where CF comes into play. A combination of wheel rotating and a weight falling makes the weight move faster than the wheel. This results in the weight experiencing increased CF, which is used to lift weights back upward sooner rather than being too late to help.

Of course much of this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

[DrWhat]

Nice thoughts Jim.

I firmly believe there is no point in looking at static positions of weights to "see" an overbalance configuration. And we know by now static overbalance is not the answer.

It all comes down to a movement of those weights. The path the weights take when in motion.

Any static designs are a waste of time. Even Bessler states to look for a MOVEMENT. The path is everything in my mind.

Damian

[ovyyus]

Any static designs are a waste of time...

I certainly disagree. With an actual real power source at your disposal any number of 'static OB designs' become practical.

[Alexioco]

It is my thinking that Bessler's one way wheels became pre-loaded each time they were stopped from rotating. The very act of stopping the wheel resulted in the weight swinging/moving forward to a maximum out-of-balance condition. Thus Bessler needed to tie the wheel in this OOB condition. The OOB condition then starts the wheel to rotating and if it were not for the PM principle it would simply accelerate for about half a turn and then decelerate for the remainder of about a half turn. But instead the wheel accelerates and then the weights move/swing and do their PM thing and the wheel gets pushed forward enough to get over the top. But long before a full turn happens the second weights move/swing and do their PM thing and again the wheel gets a push. Soon the wheel is rotating at the maximum speed with which the weights can move/swing thus the wheel is at is optimum speed.

So, IMO there is no wind-up springs to start the wheel. If the wheel were to be allowed to rotate slowly backwards then there would be a very small position where the one-way wheels would be at rest. There is one account where one of the one-way wheels was observed to have stopped turning, and Bessler said maybe something rubbed inside. He then gave it a push and it started right up again. This would seem to indicate that it was not totally OOB all the time.

I've talk before about latency. Most all gravity designs require one weight to fall thus lifting another weight upward. But the falling of the first weight always happens too late to make any real difference. This is where CF comes into play. A combination of wheel rotating and a weight falling makes the weight move faster than the wheel. This results in the weight experiencing increased CF, which is used to lift weights back upward sooner rather than being too late to help.

Of course much of this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

Jim,

Where exactly does it mention this? I would like to read it.

Alex

[jim_mich]

From: The Now Fully Exposed Perpetual and Intrinsic Motion Machine, by Christian Wagner, Mathematician, Leipzig, 1716

XII.
Additionally, I must refer to a case which happened shortly before the Christmas holidays of 1715. At that time a certain person was viewing the machine which had been proceeding constantly and rapidly for a while when it slowed down gradually until it finally came to a standstill. At this point the person asked: "What does this mean?" In his anxiety, Orffyreus could think of no reply other than: "The wheel rubbed against something." This was a barefaced lie, for not the slightest rubbing had been hitherto noted; rather, as soon as he gave the wheel a push, it was running again. No fragile part of the wheel had broken (Reason: he did not reach into the wheel to repair a defect.) Much less could it have rubbed against something, as he alleged (the wheel would have had to have been situated differently in the trunnion seats), rather its movement had simply failed him. From this it is clearly shown that the great, alleged 70-pound force depends not on the internal motive principle or the superior force of the weights but on the movement of the wheel because although the wheel was complete, it was never powerful enough to bring its own bulk back to its previous speed.

XIII.
The true cause of the interruption in the movement may well have been that at the time the cold had congealed and thickened the olive oil and grease, thus hindering and halting the internal workings which were otherwise strong enough to drive the wheel.

Wagner said that the wheel, "slowed down gradually", which seems to differ from all other accounts. I know that Wagner's accounting of some things are different from other people's accounting of the same things. It seems that Wagner had the habit of embellishing and twisting things to suit his own agenda. Thus, my opinion is that the wheel was probably found to be stationary and not turning, but that it did NOT slow and stop by itself. This happened at a time when Bessler was allowing many people to start and stop the machine. It is my belief that one of these people stopped the wheel and then turned the wheel backwards when Bessler was not looking. In doing so the weights no longer had their initial OOB, and thus the wheel sat idle. Bessler's solution was to simply give the wheel a push and this reset the weights. This wheel was assumed to be OOB all the time.

If the wheel was driven by OOB of weights (gravity) then the wheel should have always rotated no matter what. Because it was observed to have stopped leads me to think that his one way wheels were driven by CF and not by gravity.

[ovyyus]

Jim, Wagner's report about the Christmas holidays of 1715 would have been a description of the Merseburg bi-direction wheel in operation. There was obviously no forwards or backwards with the Merseburg wheel, therefore I think we can probably accept Wagner's report as it stands ie; the wheel, for whatever reason, slowed down gradually until it stopped.

It seems that Wagner had the habit of embellishing and twisting things to suit his own agenda.

Indeed. Don't we all.

[Reticon]

That is really nice food for thought Jim. Ooops, forgot to reload my browser before asking a dumb question.

[wheelrite]

Isnt Bessler fairly insistent on springs somewere in the scheme? He talks of shooting/twanging/snatching , sounds like a possible spring loaded element? and may give the possibility to move weights faster than gravity alone?
Regards
Jon

[path_finder]

An interesting idea for the conversion of the centrifugal energy into potential energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9RtZfsuXg
Note the lever allowing the missing lift-up of the pendulum, and the spring acting with the weight like an oscillator.

[Fletcher]

P_F .. the Phun simulation is plan view i.e. looking down on a horizontal plane.

So the mass rotates horizontally & pulls the piston mass horizontally - it does no work against gravity & no Pe is created - all that is overcome are the system losses & the inertia of the piston mass moving sideways.

It changes elliptical rotational movement into linear but the Input Energy is greater than the Output Energy.

Peaucellier linkages & Watts linkages etc do the same i.e rotational into linear & the other way around - 'squares' etc inside organs also change direction of a force & can be used to make rotary into linear movement.