A Motion Machine

[Unbalanced]

Fletcher Wrote:

IMO something else in addition to gravity's influence on weights was employed to quickly hoist weights at the appropriate time to reset the systems Potential Energy & torque compliment - IOW's the system was an overbalance principle augmented by additional energy to reposition weights to continue the overbalance - that force could have been direct in its application or indirect, such as to load a spring to quickly lift a weight, upon release - what 'loaded' the spring is the mystery as gravity can not load it enough, on its own.

If this were indeed the case, then the next logical assumption or rather question might be, why use weights in an overbalance configuration at all? Why not use this same "additional energy" to just lend impetus to an enormous flywheel?

Lifting weights only to drop them again is a zero sum scenario.

[Fletcher]

Quite right - but he wanted to solve the traditional OOB PPM problem - there was some kudos & monetary gain to be had from that alone.

If this were indeed the case, then the next logical assumption or rather question might be, why use weights in an overbalance configuration at all?

Why not use this same "additional energy" to just lend impetus to an enormous flywheel?

Lifting weights only to drop them again is a zero sum scenario.

Continue to search the wiki clues pages Curtis - IIRC there is a quote of him making some wheels with weights, others without, which would seem to support the contention that zero sum weights aren't required, at least in later wheels using a different principle of torque & rotation than from mass shifting.

In fact, the mere fact that his later wheels didn't need restraining when stationary, but once given impetus [i.e. given momentum or Rotational KE] accelerated, suggests one possibility, that there was no further 'traditional OOB' required, IMO.

[Unbalanced]

Well put and thanks Fletcher. In fact the wheel I am currently building does not use weights in the traditional sense.

I am focusing more on the concept of continuous instability.

[Unbalanced]

Dp

[rasselasss]

I really appreciate the comments,as a "newbe"i too have followed "bessler's"suggestion of weights,overbalance,etc....i'm not asking anyone "to abandon all hope"or projects ongoing...please engage these thoughts without malice or in any way derogatory intention...the nature of what we are trying to achieve in itself goes" against the wind"....i have read the blogs of this forum...the "eureka"(myself included)exclamations and examined the hundreds of years of like minded intelligent people attempts to achieve success were others have failed..and still no solution....What i am asking is "take a step back"to the numerous intelligent members here ....could the solution be staring us in the face ,are we are looking in the wrong direction?....i don't know but its worthy of thought/ discredit by debate.

[daanopperman]

rasselass ,

If 6 people sat at a table , they can move 720 times before everybody is in his starting chair , that is the gross problem that we have , hundreds of untested and tried variations .
I am one who believe that there is small input's that causes a great output , we have just not learned enough .
Bessler fiddled around with pneumatics , and I think it needs to be looked at more , for you have atmospheric pressure , and a bellows can supply a vacuum . If two weights is interconnected inside a tube(pistons in a cylinder ) via a rod with diafragmes covering the tube ends and the interconnection goes past the weights connected to the diafragmes , atmospheric pressure will assist in moving the weights around .
Sound , if a length of tube is held at the right spot and struck , it will reverbarate for a long time with much energy in the form of waves .
Electrons , it is very easy to strip electrons from the right material , but the static it produce have a magnetic effect on other materials , two close pieces of plastic a foot square have a huge force to use .( The Apollogia sign looks to me like a Van der Graaf generator , but it also looks like a compressor and a vacuum generator in one , and if Bessler had yellow ink instead of white , it might even have been Nuclear .)
If you have two plates close to each other and you inject a shot of compressed air in between them , they will close like a vice at high speed , again it is atmospheric pressure doing the work .
So we need to look at something that is easy to generate , which we may use to shift a weight a little , to cause oob , but it may also be used as on a crank to apply force directly on the axel .

[Fletcher]

.... could the solution be staring us in the face, are we are looking in the wrong direction ?.... i don't know but its worthy of thought.

Bessler found his solution to 'True' PM in nature, he says so numerously.

That means he was able to observe some perhaps routine force not recognized for its potential application & output that he could manipulate to use inside his wheels - that force found in nature, in its 'natural habitat' so to speak, may bare very little obvious resemblance to the mechanical way he used it - that would take extreme lateral thinking [as JB says], otherwise someone else would also have recognized its potential & developed it.

It could be like looking at a Chiwawa & a Irish Wolf Hound - you might not think they were the same species but they are, just different in appearance.

I have no doubt the solution is staring us in the face - Karl says he was surprised no one else had thought of it, so he recognized it immediately - so should we if we saw a self sustaining gravity wheel that we could examine as he did.

I also have no doubt the great majority of mobilists are playing in a different sand pit than the one Bessler played in to find his solution - he said that he found it where others had looked [i.e. the OOB gravity wheel principle] & also said that OOB was a waste of effort & time as he learned the hard way - to reconcile these two apparent divergent comments it would seem that a gravity only solution to an OOB wheel is impossible but a 'gravity' wheel can be built if gravity force is supplemented by another restorative aiding force.

JMO's.

[Unbalanced]

Always on the money Fletcher.

I see that the IKiribati have bought a significant parcel in your neighborhood, preparing for the eventuality of their nation slipping beneath the waves. Can't remember meeting one I didn't like and I have met a great many.

If we are to stand back and re-examine what we have to work with, I would advise focusing in on all of the possible meanings to the following quote:

"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain." - pg 295

Solve to this and you have solved the mystery.

We most often think this means dropping a pound of lead to make four pounds of lead rise,

Think outside the box...

edited: because I'm in a hurry out the door and forgot half of what I wanted to write.

[jim_mich]

I also have no doubt the great majority of mobilists are playing in a different sand pit than the one Bessler played in to find his solution - he said that he found it where others had looked [i.e. the OOB gravity wheel principle] & also said that OOB was a waste of effort & time as he learned the hard way - to reconcile these two apparent divergent comments it would seem that a gravity only solution to an OOB wheel is impossible but a 'gravity' wheel can be built if gravity force is supplemented by another restorative aiding force.

Bessler never exactly explained what he meant by "found it where others had looked". Others look at trying to force gravity into turning their wheels by moving weights in and out on a wheel. Bessler said his solution uses weights moving in and out on a rotating wheel, which is where others looked.

It is my belief that his weights moved in and out so as to manipulate momentum rather than to harness gravity. After the weights gained energy from their motions, he used the energy to lift weights OOB in his early wheels. He used the impulse of the moving weights against the wheel to push it forward in his later balanced wheels.

Also, Bessler never said that his wheel was a "gravity wheel". He said it gained its force from moving weights. He said it was a perpetual motion wheel. The closest he came to saying it was a gravity wheel was when he said "as from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity;" which could be referring to the early unbalanced wheels.

Many other witnesses called it a gravity wheel. Just because a wheel is driven by weights does not make it a gravity wheel. Weights are also needed to produce momentum and CF.

Everybody calls Bessler's wheel a 'gravity wheel', but Bessler always called it a perpetual motion wheel. He never said it was driven or powered by gravity. He said the weights gained force from their motions. So it should be called a 'motion wheel'.

So why does everyone keep calling it a gravity wheel???

[eccentrically1]

snip - to reconcile these two apparent divergent comments it would seem that a gravity only solution to an OOB wheel is impossible but a 'gravity' wheel can be built if gravity force is supplemented by another restorative aiding force.

Do you mean supplemented by a form of energy?
A "restorative force" would still need to be supplemented by a form of energy in a closed system such as a drum on an axle.

The statements can only be reconciled if the energy is identified.

[eccentrically1]

So why does everyone keep calling it a gravity wheel???

I thought because it needed gravity to (at least) get started?

Does it matter what we call it?

Any energy the weights have was given to them when Bessler first places them in the wheel. Once they drop, they give it back. Their "momentum" can't create energy.

[Fletcher]

I think Jim that most here default to calling it a gravity wheel for a couple of reasons - one is a certain casualness borne from familiarity, another is the quote you highlighted (so long as they remain out of the center of gravity) which suggests always overbalanced, therefore always with torque - the last maybe that JC constantly uses the term & is adamant that JB's wheels were a gravity only solution [& that carries a lot of sway].

Most would agree I suspect that JB's first wheels [the one-way ones in particular] did likely have weights that shifted into overbalance, or at least that the gravity force component was real & inescapable for the operation of these early derivatives - so to call them generic gravity wheels that used overbalance would not seem unreasonable.

Others, like yourself [me included] see the gravity parameter as only part of the solution, & not the important part - we prefer to call them motion wheels or dynamic wheels or some such - we differentiate because we are equally adamant that another force was required & also that Bessler never directly called his 'true' PMM's gravity PMM's, which is large cause for suspicion that they weren't gravity PMM's - he did call them intrinsic motion machines which doesn't single out gravity as the only motive force.

Curtis ..

Here is some input from a friend of mine in NZ - he is a German national.

He is commenting on Stewart's accurate translation & the nuances - it bares only a passing resemblance to the meaning & intent of the quote you posted & has been discussed many times - I suggest you factor in what Stewart & Rainer say into your thinking to widen the scope.

Bessler actually says (from AP part 1 chapter 43):

Der wird ein grosser Künstler heissen/
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kan schmeissen/
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt/
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. &c.

He will be called a great craftsman,
who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high,
and if one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c.

Hi Stewart, love your translation, thought I might add my thoughts to it.

Künstler = craftsman, artist, skilled person.

easily/lightly = in the german context it is along the lines of "without much effort".

I also agree with the use of "throw" and "shoot" (as in shoot an arrow).

Good work mate :)

Just one thing I would like to highlight, in regard to the 1 quarter down and 4 quarters up, I think it is quite important that he is not using any units ...

Could be a 'thinking trap' , 1st thing coming up to mind is the vertical up/down, but it could mean anything. Maybe the circumference of a wheel?

IMO JB seems to be saying that PE can be increased above the PE lost of causing a rapid ascent of a heavy mass so that there is a Net PE gain.

.................


Yes, I know of the 5000 acre Anglican Church Property in the West of Vanua Levu - I know some of the trustees & did a report on syndicated forestry potential for the property re leveraging sale opportunities, for them 18 months ago to help them out - they decided to continue to try & sell it as a going concern - beautiful coastal property.

People from Kiribati settled on a Fiji island called Rabi [Rambi] generations ago - the Kiribati govt now wants to buy this particular land - publicly the Fiji govt is saying that they want it to grow vegetables etc to send back to Kiribati but I suspect the intent is to eventually reestablish there - they will become good citizens & tax payers.

[Fletcher]

snip - to reconcile these two apparent divergent comments it would seem that a gravity only solution to an OOB wheel is impossible but a 'gravity' wheel can be built if gravity force is supplemented by another restorative aiding force.

Do you mean supplemented by a form of energy?

A "restorative force" would still need to be supplemented by a form of energy in a closed system such as a drum on an axle.

The statements can only be reconciled if the energy is identified.

Yes, as I & a few others have been saying for a few years or more.

Energy enters the apparent closed system & gives rise to an extra force inside the wheel.

There are two choices.

1. the energy is pre-stored inside the wheel & replenished periodically by Bessler's intervention.

2. the energy is manifest internally on demand & is self replenishing as long as the wheel turns, so needs no intervention - this would be intrinsic motion machine or possibly a 'true PMM' depending on what you call 'true'.

[eccentrically1]

I think the first three wheels were the first choice, because they weren't given endurance tests.
The last wheel had to be the second choice if there was no intervention detected.

[justsomeone]

Quote from Fletcher :

& also said that OOB was a waste of effort & time as he learned the hard way -

I don't think that is an accurate statement Fletcher. He never said OOB wheels were a waste of time and effort. He said moving a weight " a little closer to the axle " may be a waste of time. I believe he moved his weights
( in his gravity powered wheel ;) ) more than a little. JMHO