Bessler's Second possible secret of Genuis

[Michael]

The little bit I can give out.

I believe there are two main principles involved. The first is the interconnected principle which I briefly covered. The Second is what Bessler of course refers to as the ability to use 1/4 weight moving 1/4 to raise a full weight a full amount (paraphrased).
I think he used a double pendulum to do this. Close to nine years ago I was experimenting with my third "hopeful" perpetual motion device. With my setup I was able to do just that, get a weight to turn a full rotation, actually it ended up having over four times the amount of kinetic energy it normally would have had, with my setup. I did this long before I even knew what a double pendulum was or had read Bessler's quotes. In fact I didn't even think that this was possibly what Bessler was refering to until within the past year. His statements fit it.
I have built this model numerous times after that first initial time, the rebuilds were to try and make it work in different ways, and because it's actually neat to look at its motion. I hit an impass at first and couldn't fathom how to get over it. Now I know.
I've been working mentally on a model that is based on M.T. 16. I've done the math and everything looks good, and if it works in the way I hope it would look something like this.
On a twelve foot, four inch wheel using 1 pound of weight at 1 full revolution, there will be a potential gain of 1 pound over 16 inches. If you increased the weight to 16 pounds, or increased the setup from eight pendulum placements to sixteen pendulum placements at eight pound weights, the potential from one revolution would be 16 pounds over 16 inches, or 64 pounds over 4 inches. Given that Bessler's demonstrations lifted 70 pounds on an approximate 4 inch axel, you can see this number is very close, so increase the eight pound weights to 10 pounds or twelve, or the 16 pounds to 20.

I can make statements on Bessler's wheel based on this.
The thickness of Bessler's last wheel accounts for pendulum weight increase for the weight lifting demonstration.
Bessler's first wheels were the puriest.
Bessler wasn't as craftly, or as sneeky as some would think. The mechanisms are simple, the reason it hasn't been found is because no one has bothered to look at it in this way.
It is important that the wheels keep a consistent speed.

The inner wheel looks something like this.

Multiple specially configured double pendulums.
These pendulums are placed on an inner rim of the wheel, which is set fixed to the main axel, and thus the main wheel.
A good model to look at is M.T. 16
These pendulums are configured with each other to go off at a certain place within the wheels rotation.
Just how they drive the wheel, I won't say at the moment. If you look at some of the information I've given, and research Bessler's quotes you'll be able to easily enough figure it out.

If anyone has any questions go for it.

Michael

[Trev]

Hi Michael, That sounds interesting, can you give us a diagram of the double pendulum mechanism your refering to?

[scott]

...can you give us a diagram of the double pendulum mechanism your refering to?

I'm pretty sure Michael is talking about something like this: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~plynch/Swingin ... dulum.html

Note: There is a link to this and many other mechanics applets on the links page.

-Scott

[Jonathan]

I have a question, could you just tell us what your idea is instead of dibbling out these little hints? I don't mean to be mean, I just hate knowing that there is something to know but not being able to know it. Also, I don't get the point, if you want us to know, you'd just tell us; if you don't want us to know, you'd say nothing; but why would you say enough to say something and yet not enough to say anything?
On another note, I'll just tell you what the secret of perpetual motion is: design better.

[rlortie]

I believe that M.T. 16 is flawed in the print. It is obvious that the inner weight at approx. 10 o'clock is not descending down and out on the "yin-yang" vein. it appears to be hanging diagonal off its suspension point.

Ralph

[Gravmaster2000]

I played with the sim for awhile-marveled how chaotic it is. It got my brain flowing....picture this:A wheel with 4 double pendulums on it. the outer weights rod is spring-loaded to the inner rod, with enough spring power to lift the outer weight up if at the top (or nearly enough) When the outer rod crosses the inner, the spring is nulled out (think of a cam)
OK, let it fall CW from the top; it acts pretty rigid, due to the spring. When it gets to straight down, STOP the inner arm, just for a moment. The outer arm will swing in (violently!!), loading the spring. When it gets as far 'in' as it can, lock it down (Stopping the arm is a bad idea, I know-i am assuming all the energy is conserved in a spring or something) now since the arm is shorter, the remaining weight energy can get them back up? At the top, the lock is released and the outer weight swings CW up, throwing the arm down again. EH??? That has GOT to be close....
BTW...My idea has nothing to do with pendulums, and more with overlapping falls-found a second simple,stupid way to make a weight fall without lifting it up in the normal sense.

[graham]

Johathan said

why would you say enough to say something and yet not enough to say anything?

J B was good at that wasn't he? He said he was a master at hiding behind words.
We would do well not to follow too closely in the masters footsteps.

Graham

[Ed]

Also, I don't get the point, if you want us to know, you'd just tell us; if you don't want us to know, you'd say nothing; but why would you say enough to say something and yet not enough to say anything?

I don't want to say anything bad about Michael because he hasn't made any wild claims (as far as I know) and he has added value to this forum, but your right, he has done this an awful lot. My only conclusion is he either A) gets real excited thinking he really has solved it and can't resist the "look at me" attention grabbing; B) is trying to draw out someone who really does know the answer and make them say something; C) he really doesn't know anything either but when someone else does find the answer he will point back to these threads to say he knew about it then.

Several times he as said himself that he is posting because he thinks others are getting close to his ideas and he gives me the impression he is always working "under the gun". To this I would say a big CHILL OUT. Don't put so much stress on yourself.

I hope I am wrong about this, but it is weird behavior and leaves one to try to imagine what he is up to.

Maybe he is related to Houdini and like to keep people guessing! :-)

[Michael]

Hi Trev. That's a big question. I'd rather not for now but if you experiment a little you'll probably find it. The nice thing about Bessler was he opened some doors by way of his comments so your not forever walking around blind.

Michael

[Michael]

Come on Jonathan, you can't really be serious by asking this are you? I doubt most people here have given out what they REALLY know, except by way of small hints. What I've actually given out is alot. In time when I've progressed a little further, or if someone has something notable so say about it I'll say more.
By the way I find this offensive;
>but why would you say enough to say something and yet not enough to say anything?

I've said just enough for anyone SERIOUS enough to find what I am talking about, or to ask meaningful questions.
Want to know why I haven't said everything? I, and others, view the members on this board as in a kind of benign (except for a notable few, which is another reason why I won't say everything yet) competition. This comment was stated to me by someone else and I am in full agreement of it. Maybe you should be asking other people why they don't give out anything at all Jonathan. Still, I am willing to have discourse on this subject, I'll state what I can.

Michael

[Michael]

Your sort of doing that though aren't you ssmith because you forgot D, I might know what I am talking about.
Do me a favor will you, don't post out leading comments. It potentially makes both of us look bad. You because your following the same route you are against, and me because you are insinuating I am misleading. I don't deceive people, that should be more than apparent by now, by the information I've posted and the stance I've taken in certain matters, before others I might add. If you suspect me, expose me by asking the right questions. Make me do some work.

>Several times he as said himself that he is posting because he thinks others are getting close to his ideas and he gives me the impression he is always working "under the gun". To this I would say a big CHILL OUT. Don't put so much stress on yourself.

As far as I know I have only said this to a few people, over a long time period in private. Yes it's true, but the actual fact of the matter is mechanics share common elements, so there have been times when I've read something of someone else and it's been really close to what I am doing. In the end it turned out that it wasn't close, or we both had common elements and went on serperate paths.
No I haven't done this alot in the past, except with one particular idea, the water one, so I find this comment equally offensive.

Look guys ask questions if you want but don't turn this into something mean. I am a hard worker and I only really respect people who are the same. If you don't want to have a meaningful discourse then enough said.

Michael

[Michael]

Hi Ralph,

I've also noted the "flaw" in M.T. 16. perhaps it is purposeful.
The design I am talking about does not look like M.T. 16 in all capacities, except for the pendula placements. This also fits the quote, there was an inner cylinder that resembles a grindstone.

Michael

[Michael]

By the way Graham, I've noticed you've said this alot in the past.

>J B was good at that wasn't he? He said he was a master at hiding behind words.
We would do well not to follow too closely in the masters footsteps.

I've never seen these comments by Bessler, but then again I don't have all of the books on him. Can you show where he said this and in what book, page, etc. becaue I don't think he was the trickster others think he was, I don't think he needed to be.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I said I didn't mean to be mean, sorry to upset you. I too am for discussion, but unlike you I think I actually am discussing. Look at my post count, when I have something to say, it is said! Of course, those things said are rarely ideas of my own, so in this respect you are saying more than me. But I control my excitement and say nothing, and instead use that time to build and test and do math. Within 12 hours the idea is disproven, there is nothing to say, and I'm glad I don't have to report the disappointing conclusion.
I bet you have given out a lot, but from your view you can't see as easily as us how many ways it can be taken.

[Fletcher]

Here in essence is what I said in a pm to Mike some time ago. It was contained in a general discussion about ideas & their evolution. It has to be taken in context & not treated in isolation. It is not meant to offend, nor suggest wholesale subtifuge, nor level criticism & is only my observation & opinion at the time. I post it to aid understanding of his statement about "benign competition".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ "I think this board does not quite operate in real time. What I mean is that we all dip into it daily for entertainment, inspiration, whatever. As JC said recently, there will be a lot of lurkers who read everything but say nothing. They are a little parasitic but harmless. I'm sure some think they have the ultimate solution to O/U; FE; Bessler's Wheel but because they never open up here they never get to test their theory's. I don't think they really want to - it might be to disappointing."

"Others like you, me, nearly everyone else, work on an idea first then post to the board when our progress slows to a halt or is stalled. I think we are fairly representive of everybody out there. We only release designs, clues etc when we have no further personal interest in retaining them for ourselves. That's human nature.

I call it COOPERTITION (cooperation with competition). I think that is a natural balancing act we instinctively do when you are part of a community as we are - you want to give back, so you do but not usually the moment you think of something. We are all benevolent community minded Bessler fans who individually want to succeed but also want the group to progress from our efforts aswell."

"There is nothing wrong with holding things close to the chest. We all do it because we are instinctively competitive. imo, where it goes wrong is when people take from the board but don't give back or conversely "stand on the shoulders of giants" but then fail to acknowledge others work in progressing their own when they make a break through. That's an ego & immaturity thing !"

"The end result is that for those of us with design ideas this daily discussion board is always behind the times mostly recording past thinking which has already moved on. For those of us who are active participants it's a kind of game of leap frog. We have an idea, we run with it, we give it to the board, the board evaluates, assimmilates, sometimes gives feed-back on it, we have an advanced idea etc." ]