A blueprint of Bessler's wheel question

[greendoor]

That's a brilliant quotation from Buckminster Fuller - it was too long for my signature, so I had to truncate it a bit:;

Thanks Scott for those quotations that randomly come up - they are very inspirational.

[erick]

BTW, Karl said that anyone could understand Bessler's wheel after glimpsing inside the wheel. That might suggest a blueprint would also result in understanding.

Agreed x1000.

[justsomeone]

I bring this up again for those who think they have the answer.

How would you answer this question?

I still say yes, without a doubt, you could tell if it was a runner.

[martin]

While I do believeI found "lifter" it took me a lot of time to get some knowlage of how this simple leverage operate. But at the end it was only a drawn concept what made me to believe it is it. And only with this concept I would be able to make you think the same.

Telling this I also know that the only way to be sure, is device built to proof the theory. Without it it is only a theory even it would look more or less believable. It took ages while test was done, and people relized its not true that heavy weight falls faster than the lighter one, even theory in it self was so believable.

Just my 2 cents

Martin

[FunWithGravity2]

I do not think you would know it to be a runner. I am almost certian. A few months back while taking a break from the prime mover i was working with concepts for the secondary OOB system. I created a mech that would start at 12 and make a complete revolution and almost make the second. It was not intended to be a prime mover in any such way.

I spoke of it briefly on my thread and did not have any interest, most said that i was probably starting out slightly higher than i was ending up and this must be accounting for why i was getting it to carry through to the second revolution.

I assumed that after looking at my design and then listening to feedback of possible ways to accomplish the task that i must be doing what it was assumed i was, so i moved along and did not do much other than record the device and have it witnessed, just because you never know.

Well during the holidays i wanted to get back to researching viable secondary OOB systems for the wheel. So right back to the previous example. I wanted to change as many variables as i could and see what i could change and still get positive results. Also to see if i could learn any more about why it was doing what it was doing.

Well the first thing i learned was, it was not ending up lower, the COG of the mechs weight was actually higher as it crossed 11 than when it was at 1. So i was way offin assuming. I made a quick assumption as to what i saw happening and changed my mind about what it was doing. Yes to all, i know exactly where the COG is this time, pivotts and all accounted for.

After lunch i went back out and tried it again and low and behold i saw something different, I was now seeing how far past TDC i could release and get it to pulse past a full revolution. A completely diferent set of possible reasons for it to work now seemed to enter my head.

It is very simple, and not at all related to my Prime mover so i have been having the same dilemna as Chad recently. Show the damn thing and get some feedback or stare at it cluelessly and hope i know what i am doing.

THE POINT

Based upon what we know about our designs, What is happening here would be impossible. You just have to see it. But it is so simple that you would think me a fool. If you drew it on paper and asked me or anyone here what it would do. The obvious answer would be, make almost a full rotation and then oscilate to the bottom. Anyone who thinks they would immediately recognize working plans would be wrong IMHO.

I also think that most have seen the prime motive force that is required to make an OOB wheel work and have not recognised it for what it is. I stand with good company when i say this since Bessler himself says it is where you have all looked. Did he mean where we have all looked for it? or where we all must have looked? And if it is where we all must have looked but not when looking,then where could it be that he could make such an obvious statement knowing all would have looked their. And i am not suggesting the "do you not understand" picture, way to obvious.


Crazy dave

[justsomeone]

Clues from the Apologia Poetica:

"All the wise ones were looking for the same principle (of 'excess weight') that I have described, and they sought it in things that were already familiar to them." - pg 366
"They sought to bring a wheel into a state of motion, such that, without the need for winding, its innate virtue would keep it revolving as long as its materials might last." - pg 366
"by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it." - pg 367


IMHO All he is saying is he found a connecting principle that works at creating an over balance wheel. An over balance wheel like many before
that keeps the weights close to the axle on one side and near the perimeter on the other.

[FunWithGravity2]

Orville and Wilbur,

Looked where everyone else had, but saw it differently. Many were experimenting with the mechanical flapping or pusshing of air. Obviously today we get it, but put yourself in the shoes of someone 150 years ago. If you were shown a cutaway of the wing, you would look at orville and wilbur and laugh at their rigid structure and call them idiots. if they did'nt show you a picture but just told you they were going to cause air to take a longer path across and object thereby creating lift under the object, we would look at them like Alden park and call them crazy. Nothing was obvious or understood and they HAD working models to look and study. BIRDS.

You asked for Opinions, and that is what mine is. I stand by my belief that you would not recognize it as a working principle if you saw it. Obviously your design leads you to believe otherwise. Until the wheel spins in public we are all just offering speculation and opinions.


Dave

[justsomeone]

I asked for opinions and certainly respect yours.

[silverfox]

Assuming that you knew that what you were looking at was actually a plan for a working PM device, I think that the logic behind it would eventually reveal itself and become apparent to you. After that, it would be imposible to see it any other way.

If you didn't actually know that up front, however, I don't think you'd have the vaguest idea of either what it was nor what it was for beyond being a some kind of construct that represented a very specific geometric form and with no more interest or significance to it than that.

In short I don't think you'd bother to give it a second glance or a second though much less consider that could have any relationship at all to PM.

[DrWhat]

Interestingly enough Bessler indicates that initially it would barely move, that more cross-arms were needed.
This does seem to indicate perhaps that the discovery is not obvious and that some initial trial and error is needed.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

I would say that 79% would not have a clue!

[Fletcher]

Dr .. I believe Bessler said something to the effect that it 'revolved spontaneously a little' - I have mentioned this before & find it a curious thing to say - spontaneously, a little - anything can move spontaneously if OOB but then it reaches the PQ point that we all know too well - so what could he mean, spontaneously a little - well, it could mean that while not OU it could swing higher than might be predicted with known physics - he later developed & optimized the action & eventually achieved self sustaining OU that did not return to the PQ - IMO.

P.S. I don't think 'spontaneously a little' means one cross-arm barely revolving but the translation might be misconstrued, or not as the case may be !

[daxwc]

Fletcher quote:

could mean that while not OU it could swing higher than might be predicted with known physics - he later developed & optimized the action & eventually achieved self sustaining OU that did not return to the PQ

I think your exactly right Fletcher. He says so in my interpetation of MT 25, probably along the lines of he made something straight that needed to be curved due to latency.

No. 25. This is similar to the previous model except that it is drawn
somewhat differently and with longer rods; there is something
misleading about the diagram, because the folding rods should not
project so far out but must bend further inward. There is more to this
than one might think. Mark my words.

[silverfox]

Well Doc...

There has to be some correlation between the size and weight of the whole apparatus and the heft and distribution of any weights needed to constantly propel it.

You'd need to experiment to discover what the most ideal or optimum relationship for that was. From there, of course you'd have some reasonable guidelines for any smaller or larger versions you wanted to build along the very same lines.

I don't doubt for a moment that Bessler knew exactly why his device should and would work right from the very outset. That's a very different proposition from simply trying to make something work without genuinely understanding the fundamental principle the device you're trying to construct is actually intended to physically demonstrate.

Now to build any working PM device you must first know what PM itself is, and the circumstances in which it already, albeit invisibly, exists throughout the universe, before you can possibly construct some reasonable physical approximation of that.

That is what Bessler himself did, and it is what anyone must do if they have any real intention of ever creating such a device themselves.

Needless to say that topic which is of the most paramount importance is conspicuously missing in this forum. Everyone thinks they either have or are going to find that all-essential little bit of information and no one actually wants to divulge any of their real thoughts about that for fear of someone else stealing their thunder, so to speak.

That attitude alone is enough to prevent anyone who might actually have found and be entriely willing to share it from ever doing so for no other reason than that; and perhaps be given to thinking that either the time isn't right or ripe for it yet and any resulting devices would only be selfishly abused and muisused in a world that is even more notorious for doing just that with virtually everything at this point in time than it was even in poor old Bessler's day.

That, of course, was Bessler's very own delemma, and why he ultimately concluded that people simply weren't worthy enough for him to bestow the particular information on them, nor in the final analysis that he himself was worthy enough to present it to them in some form or fashion that would somehow inspire or elevate them to some level where they could genuinely be worthy of it.

He could never win the battle with his own vanity and ego in that regard despite how much it clearly plagued and constantly bedeviled him aferwards.

He obviously felt contrite enough about that to formally and publicly apologise for it but even there the battle that was still raging on within him couldn't help but turn even that into something of a back-handed gesture he couldn't resist gloating about to some extent even as he did.

So we are stuck with a work in progress that hasn't progressed an inch in almost three hundred years because we ourselves haven't really progressed an inch in terms of changing our own vain and selfish attitudes.

And that of course is another topic that is just as conspicuously avoided like the very plague around here too...hmmm?

[John Collins]

Needless to say that topic which is of the most paramount importance is conspicuously missing in this forum

And that of course is another topic that is just as conspicuously avoided like the very plague around here too...

I didn't get either of those topics, silverfox. Could you elucidate in less than 50 words?

JC