right angles

[ovyyus]

His last two wheels were balanced. Gravity cannot drive a balanced wheel.

Bessler's last two wheels were balanced when stationary. Gravity drives a hamster wheel, yet a hamster wheel is balanced when the hamster is stationary.

[Stewart]

Hi Richard

I think, like most people, you hear the word 'vortex' and think there's some elaborate phenomenon behind that word that Bessler is refering to, when it's actually just refering to the fact that the weights revolve on a vertical plane around a horizontal axis.

"...and in addition in their wonderful quick flight, according to the proportion of both their own and their housing's size, must also move and drive other loads applied from outside at the shaft or axle/axis of their vertical vortex."

That quote comes from a paragraph were Bessler is talking about the inside of his wheel and specifically the overbalancing weights that turn it. It's a very basic description of the nature of the weights and how they, with their housing (the wheel), rotate around a horizontal axis and can drive other loads that are applied to the axle (rope winch, stampers, water-screw etc). It tells us nothing we don't already know or can't glean from the woodcut images of the wheel and other statements made by Bessler, and I agree you're unlikely to figure out the secret of the wheel from that paragraph alone.

Stewart

[Stewart]

Hi Jim

You are making an assumption that gravity drove the wheel. His last two wheels were balanced. Gravity cannot drive a balanced wheel.

I'm not making an assumption, I know that Bessler's wheel is turned by an imbalance of weight within it because I've read his many statements that tell us that. Also, he doesn't have to specifically use the word 'gravity' to be indirectly referring to it when he talks about weights and overbalance etc.

It seems to me you're the one making an assumption that his wheel isn't an overbalanced one and turned by gravity just because his later wheels were balanced at rest.

Stewart

[rlortie]

wheels were balanced at rest

Five little nit-picky words that a physicist would jump on! A wheel or pendulum is said to be balanced only when at rest. So, was Bessler's bi-directional wheels balanced at rest and thrown into an OB state when an impetus was applied.

I put my bet on the latter, they were balanced when at rest and once started could not find that which they sought, which was balance! And without gravity why would they seek?

Ralph

[Stewart]

Just to clarify - when I say balanced at rest I mean a wheel in complete balance, not keeled (pendulum) and therefore balanced eitherside of the vertical only. 'sGravesande turned the wheel slowly around several times and established this fact. It was only when he gave it a bit more of a shove that the wheel then became out of balance.

Stewart

[daxwc]

Stewart:

I'm not making an assumption, I know that Bessler's wheel is turned by an imbalance of weight within it because I've read his many statements that tell us that.

First, your making the assumption he is telling the truth.

Second, he states the weight imbalance is cause by his principle.

There is no proof.

[daxwc]

Ralph:

I put my bet on the latter, they were balanced when at rest and once started could not find that which they sought, which was balance! And without gravity why would they seek?

Exactly Ralph, since that is what he tells you, but we don’t know without a doubt that no extra energy was added. All we do know is that the test made it seem like everything was contained within the wheel.

[Stewart]

First, your making the assumption he is telling the truth.

Yes daxwc, that goes without saying! But I should have perhaps begun by saying "for the purpose of this discussion I'm assuming Bessler is telling the truth". But lets face it, we're all wasting our time if he wasn't.

I don't get your second point, as again I think that's a pretty obvious statement that I'm not disputing with anything I've said?

Stewart

[rlortie]

I lay my faith not in Bessler's words but that of the eyewitnesses who wrote they could not find fault.

The only path of assumption that I see is whether to accept the word of the fop's or write it off as a multi participant collaborated hoax. If so it would be the scam of the 18th century.

Ralph

[Stewart]

Yes, there's always the possibility that it was an elaborate hoax, but until we uncover absolute proof that it was or wasn't, I'm currently swaying more towards the genuine side based on the current available information.

Stewart

[rlortie]

Stewart,

I agree with you! It is hard to accept that such prestigious parties and their peers would all participate in a hoax unless the outcome was political motivated, I do not see that here.

My assumption is that Bessler did indeed build a machine capable of using so called 'conservative' gravity as a power source.

Ralph

[daxwc]

Probably obvious, but I am somewhere in the middle. My opinion is that it was contained in the wheel, but have I have my doubts it was PM, most likely just IM. That being said I don’t believe it was an all out hoax, but that Bessler knew there was going to be a debate after he released it, because he knew gravity wasn’t the source of energy. There is no harm in debating the issue to see if anything was overlooked.

Could science today really be so far off that they missed a complete squared force which could be drawn off gravity?

[preoccupied]

I tried to think of how my math could be wrong because I shouldn't get an easy solution like I did. I realized that the angle of the arm facing the lever impacted how much Force there is too. So I added both angles together and did 1/Cos(angles) to find the force. I'm pretty much guessing on how to calculate the math.
20% less lever on one side does NOT overbalance by calculating this way.

35% less lever on one side does overbalance.

In the beginning of the lift,
F=Cos30=.866 Cos60=.5 .5+.866=1.366, 1/1.366=.732
T=F(.732)*R(1)=.732
( .732 )
F=Cos45=.707 .707+.707=1., 1/.707=1.414, 1/1.414=.707
T=F(.707)*R(.65)=.45955
( .45955 )

At the end of the lift,
F =Cos20.7=.935 Cos24.298=.911, .935+.911=1.846, 1/1.846=.541
T=F(.541)*R(1)=.541
( .541 )
F=Cos30=.866 Cos120=.5, .866+.5=1.366, 1/1.366=.732
T=F(.732)*R(.65) = .4758
( .4758 )

If the Radial distance from the axle in the calculations were changed to the distance from the center of the wheel then the calculations would look like this:

In the beginning of the lift,
F = Cos30=.866 Cos60=.5 .5+.866=1.366, 1/1.366=.732
T = F(.732)*R(1)=.732
( .732 )
F = Cos45=.707 .707+.707=1., 1/.707=1.414, 1/1.414=.707
T = F(.707)*R(.65)=.45955
( .45955 )

At the end of the lift,
F =Cos20.7=.935 Cos24.298=.911, .935+.911=1.846, 1/1.846=.541
T=F(.541)*R(.707)=.382
( .382 )
F=Cos30=.866 Cos120=.5, .866+.5=1.366, 1/1.366=.732
T=F(.732)*R(.459)=.3359
( .3359 )

I don't think anybody is showing the same enthusiasm as I am about my idea because nobody has offered to help with my calculation error. I have been following the general trend of trying to find a way to out lever gravity since I've posted here and as that is a very unpopular method to try to overbalance because the math is very solid against it and I posted many previous miscalculations on other lever oriented ideas my idea here might look like it's just simply wrong at first sight so I can see how it could be being ignored. And I don't think all ideas deserve anybody's attention. If it's not an interesting idea it's not an interesting idea. My math will always be wrong without someone else correcting me because the only reason I'm interested in this forum is because the story is intriguing and I have absolutely no physics knowledge and not very much math that I can still remember. I'm surprised I have any green dots because when I started posting here I very stubbornly thought I knew the answer because of how things appeared to me but it was merely animation deception. I mean I have pretty much been an obstinate ignorant guy with difficult to understand animation. I'm a NOOB! And I have to admit that it's embarrassing. If I could undo many of my posts I would because it makes me look super ignorant. I've gotten to a point in this post that my idea has been an extraneous topic like as if I were some kind of a troll. I know trolls have flooded this forum with useless material of proposed "successful" ideas that aren't explained good and I think I've unintentionally become a troll because of my many miscalculations.

I think by all that I have heard so far about the "force is applied at right angles to the axis" that my guess that the axis is the x-axis is probably not what Bessler meant. I thought on this idea by making special angles to try to get maximum distance lifted with the same energy. 35% less lever on one side is about the most efficient amount of difference there can be bringing the weight just the slightest bit above where it reloads on the other side.

[DrWhat]

I believe that the manual IMPETUS that was applied to the wheel was somehow stored and reused endlessly to get the weights past the tipping point.

[path_finder]

Just to clarify - when I say balanced at rest I mean a wheel in complete balance, not keeled (pendulum) and therefore balanced eitherside of the vertical only. 'sGravesande turned the wheel slowly around several times and established this fact. It was only when he gave it a bit more of a shove that the wheel then became out of balance.

I agree with you Stewart: IMHO the JB wheel was balanced (whatever the position, and not only at the rest point.
Most of the failed attempts today are coming from this statical point of view, searching at any price the overbalance although it is not needed.
Then I agree with Ralph: IMHO, in the bidirectional version of the wheel, the start impulse purpose was to preload a certain mechanism, which itself (thanks the centrifugal force) kept its actuation, assuming the permanent excentricity of the COG during the rotation. Then so long you are saving this excentricity for the COG, you need nothing else (the weight of the main wheel is sufficient).