Forget it

[raj]

As far as I know Bessler's wheel does not EXIST.

If it did exist, it is dead, buried and vanished from the surface of the earth and human knowledge.

Perpetual motion wheel is not waiting for Bessler's wheel replication. It is waiting for someone to come up with a NEW invention.

If it is at all possible.

Raj

[jim_mich]

My response is: So who cares whether its identical to Bessler's, he is long dead and gone, sure I am willing to give credit for inciting us to find a self-sustaining machine. But to stand up and say "it is just like his" is bull!

Ralph

I really should not have to make a disclaimer that what I write is just my opinion, but some insist that I do. So... this is my opinion...

Bessler's wheel involves one, and only one simple principle. The mechanism can be built in hundreds, possibly thousands, of different ways.

The principle is in the motions of the weight masses. And the motion does not involve rising and falling of weight mass. That is the principle wrongly attributed by Wagner to Bessler's wheel. The one and only principle is where weights move as Bessler stated in AP (translation by John Collins, et al.):

"I'd like, at this point, to give a brief description of it. So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time."

Note that where this has been translated as, "These come in pairs, ", the original German text reads as:

German: Der sind nun immer zwei und zwei;
English: Which be now always two and two;

The "now" indicates that at some time previous to "now" the number of weights might not have been "zwei und zwei" i.e., "two and two". The one-way wheels used only two weights per mechanism. What happens if you take a mechanism with two weights, which doesn't balance, and add a second equal mechanism (i.e., the other two weights) and position the added mechanism at half a turn different. Then you connect the first two weights to the added second two weights so that as the first two weights move then the second two weights also move. Even while each pair of weights still move inward and outward as before, the wheel remains always balanced. Rotating the wheel in reverse causes the weights to loose force if they swing or move while the wheel rotates in reverse. And so they soon stop moving and simply coast along with the wheel. When a duplicate reversed wheel is added, then the wheel works either way.

The early wheels that always ended up OOB when brought to a stop (inertia swung the weights OOB as the wheel was being stopped) is "now" always balanced. And so the "now" always balanced "zwei und zwei" weighted mechanism can be rotated in reverse without causing reverse rotation problems. The weights "Which be now always two and two" still rotate the wheel by Bessler's principle of gaining force from the motions of two weights, and not by being OOB. The OOB of the early wheels when at rest made them seem to be rotated by gravity. But if you fully understand gravity, then you understand why gravity cannot be the source of the rotating force.

This is my opinion. It is based upon both knowledge and facts.

[daxwc]

So then, a work of this kind of
craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces
of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up
an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle.
Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing
places all the time. (This principle is in fact the one that Wagner
said he owed to me - but I was quite wrongly implicated, as I'd
never informed anyone about the matter.)

Here is the quote a little farther; Jim as you can see it doesn't matter what Bessler was trying to say as he doesn't take ownership of this principle. It is in fact Wagner's perception of the principle of how a wheel is powered.

So just take the whole quote and throw it away.

.

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich,

I will not deny the unproven statement that Bessler's wheel involves one simple principle, or the possibility of it being built in various ways.

IMO I agree that the principle is in the weight masses which can be deduced to "mass=weight=gravity"... My design pursuit also agrees with your "principle being in the motion of the weight masses, I am particularly fond of the word "masses". I also agree that the required motion does not involve rising of weight mass, but falling with the embodiment to my thinking is inevitable, how else does one induce rotary motion.

I agree with the phrase; "A work of this kind of craftsmanship has at its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead"... Yes! one can use lead, but many pieces can also attribute to other physical forms of mass and size which Bessler does not reveal. He does however speak of it in AP. a "pair" may be made up of separate solid mass, or as a define/confined amount of mass.

One must highly consider the terminology of; "As one them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle". That which is near the axle must be in a symmetrical relationship with the same amount of weight or mass added to that which is in an outer position. If not, you are stuck with the "height for width" which we all know to well!

IN MY WORDS:
As its basis of motion, many pieces of mass exchange places that go on, changing places all the time. My present design has a mass exchange of many pieces making up pairs every 10.285 degrees of rotation, These "many pieces" do not require lifting as they revolve around a rotating basis. The weights do in a sense get lifted, but not by leverage, ropes or pulleys as one might imagine. There may or may not be springs, but if used it will not be in the manner one might expect.

Always "two and two" may be considered as the necessary minimum, but I see no reason why this cannot be expanded upon with multiple pairs in static mode making up a desired amount of degrees of the machines circumference.

To change a uni-directional wheel to bi-directional, I disagree with the belief that two pair of mechanisms must be employed. Thus negating the rest of your above explanation. All one needs to do in order to change direction is move that which orientates direction 180 degrees either internally or externally. Such a device can also allow variation of torque output and stopping and starting the machine. Note that Bessler's wheel depiction show what appears to be a lever penetrating the axle. Some believe this was for manually stopping the wheel, with a twelve foot diameter wheel, I have a problem excepting this belief.

Bessler stated that he could make his machines more powerful by either increasing the size, weight, or ganging them. I agree, and believe his demonstration wheels were limited for maneuverability of transport and transition of supports. The report that "he" removed it from its support columns and lifted it into another supporting set, by himself is a little hard to accept.

My build being half the diameter (six feet) requires two ceiling mounted come-a-longs to pick it from the floor. This is "Tare Weight", without weights being added which implies "Curb weight"

This is my opinion based on what I have physically built and improvised upon.

Ralph

EDIT: Daxwic beat me to posting, he makes a good point!

[rlortie]

I will add that my design as stated makes an internal transition of paired weights every 10.285 degrees. that calculated into 360 degrees amounts to 35 pair.

Bessler stated that his machine would barely run with one crossbar, my design utilizes 35 such "crossbars". The number "5" or variations thereof seem to be relevant to some.

Ralph

[cloud camper]

The principle is in the motions of the weight masses. And the motion does not involve rising and falling of weight mass.

But if you fully understand gravity, then you understand why gravity cannot be the source of the rotating force.

This is my opinion. It is based upon both knowledge and facts.

I was really getting worried that Mr Randall had finally discovered his long term error after perusing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force and now realizes that weight motions cannot power anything except his perpetual confusion on the dynamics of rotating systems.

But in a huge sigh of relief, we see that once again Randall is bound and determined to remain ignorant of even extremely simple Physics 101 processes. I really look forward to delivering a weekly physics refresher on exactly why weight motions cannot power a wheel.

The exact source of Randall's confusion lies in the simple process of extending a weight to a larger radius in an unpowered rotating wheel. According to Randall's entertaining but false ideas, the extending weight is performing work that adds to the total energy.

But according to actual boring physics laws which Randall has shown no interest in, the extending weight actually requires energy from the system. This should be obvious as the weight initially close to the hub has a low circular velocity.

As the weight extends in a spiral path, it must then be accelerated as it is moving to a larger radius where all other point masses are traveling at a much higher circular velocity. Acceleration of any mass then requires energy from the system and does not produce energy. This of course slows the wheel instead of speeding it up as can be observed with any spinning ice skater.

As the arms are retracted the skater speeds up. But as the arms are extended again, the skater slows down. See how simple physics is!

So in Randall's home made VB "Proven Runner" program, he has simply got the sign backwards on the work supposedly done by the extending weight. Of course we will now show an impressive gain!

But since Randall has 8 years of perpetual BS invested in his "motion" theories without a single build to verify his ignorant nonsense, we can only surmise Randall is incurably delusional.

If one fully understands Physics 101, then you understand why motion cannot be the source of the rotating force.

This is my opinion. It is based upon both knowledge and facts.

[eccentrically1]

if you're going to use the ice skater analogy with jim's example, you have to give the ice skater 4 arms. when 2 arms extend, 2 arms would retract simultaneously, so she wouldn't speed up or slow down, she would maintain the same speed all the time.
that is a fact, not my opinion. based on knowledge of 4 armed skaters.

[rlortie]

Cloud camper wrote:

"I really look forward to delivering a weekly physics refresher on exactly why weight motions cannot power a wheel".

I caution you that "weight motions" does not always apply to weights that are being lifted. There are other ways of deriving motion, "surface boundaries" being one of them.

As the weight extends in a spiral path, it must then be accelerated as it is moving to a larger radius where all other point masses are traveling at a much higher velocity. Acceleration of any mass then requires energy from the system and does not produce energy. This of course slows the wheel instead of speeding it up as can be observed with any spinning ice skater.

I agree with your above explanation of weights being extended, But what if we look at nature and the natural movement of mass on a molecular level. We need not move it to a larger radius, but rather displace it as it is already there. what got it there? The lack of voids and centrifugal force or centripetal force maintaining it there.

The skater is holding weights in both hands, he or she does not pull or extend their arms but drop ones of the two weights. What is your physics 101 answer to what will and why will it happen? Do not concern yourself or respond about gaining the weight back, that will be addressed at a later date.

Put another way: I have a horizontal axis symmetrical balanced beam or crossbar with balanced weights, it is turning at X rpm. One of the weights breaks free and takes off at the known tangent that Cf follows. What reaction does this place on the remaining weight, crossbar and axis?

Ralph

[nicbordeaux]

Well, I know that nobody is going to even remotely understand this, but why should they... In the meantime, it quite nicely shows the dynamics od a composite pendulum. From my "crossbar" I have an OB Wheel, and Under the crossbar, a weight on some fishing line. Quite nice how the weight in spite of being on a supple link takes up the DP behavior. BTW peq, if you look at your velocity transfer stuff on this device, you'll be able to measure things very precisely, the energy or call it velocity if you wish, circulates in a most visible and measurable way. I'll settle for " a series of transitions from pe to ke and back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKV1EKsxZJY

Edit : whatever you do, don't go using this device with a large dia wheel (without the pendulum ball) to try flinging tethered golfballs or else. It is downright dangerous.

[jim_mich]

if you're going to use the ice skater analogy with jim's example, you have to give the ice skater 4 arms. when 2 arms extend, 2 arms would retract simultaneously, so she wouldn't speed up or slow down, she would maintain the same speed all the time.
that is a fact, not my opinion. based on knowledge of 4 armed skaters.

Congratulations! You are almost right! There would be a slight variation of speed. The radius of gyration of such an ice-skater would be slightly different when all four arms are half-way out compared to when two are outward and two are inward. (Its a physics thing which I'll not bore you with.)

If only clod camper was a tenth as intelligent as he thinks he is. Clod camper keeps harping about outwardly moving weights causing the wheel to slow down. But clod camper is blowing ignorant smoke. It is obvious clod camper does not understand many things.

[eccentrically1]

too slight variation to notice i bet, right?

to pump a wheel, weights would have to change their own moment of inertia.
that's a physics thing which i'll not bore you with.

just so everyone knows i'm not blowing smoke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFJ-JnVSfiQ

can it be scaled up to 12 feet? hmm.

[jim_mich]

too slight variation to notice i bet, right?

No. It is noticeable.

Of course like everything in physics, it is the details that determine results. If the skater's body was zero mass, and the arms half way out were at 10 units, and then two arms extend out to 15 and two retract to 5 (the motions are equal) then the rotation speed would slow down by 20 percent, which would be noticeable. The radius of gyration with both arms at 10 units would be 10 units. The radius of gyration with arms at 5 units and 15 units would be 12.5 units radius. In other words the spinning four armed skater would spin the same speed when all the weight of her/his arms were at 12.5 unit radius as previous with arms at the extreme positions. Thus the final RPM verses initial RPM would be 10 ÷ 12.5 = 0.80 (80%), a difference of 20%. This would be noticeable.

Since the skater's body weight can not be zero, it must be calculated in also. And the weight distribution (aka radius of gyration) of the body weight also needs to be known. If the skater's body weight was infinite then there would be no change in spin speed as the skater's arms were extended and contracted.

As I stated, it is the details that determine results. The change of speed of a skater with a light body and four heavy arms would be noticeable. A skater with a heavy body and very lightweight arms not so much.

[eccentrically1]

well then, since bessler's wheels didn't vary in speed, the weights must have been extending and retracting (changing their own moment of inertia, a physical impossibility) unequal units in and out. since weights have no energy other than their position in a wheel, something else must have been doing it.
details, details.

[jim_mich]

well then, since bessler's wheels didn't vary in speed,

But they DID vary in speed. The last two wheels were given a light push start and accelerated up to running speed.

[eccentrically1]

but they accelerated smoothly up to speed. they didn't go 10 rpm, back to 5, up to 15, back to 10, etc.,or whatever details.
Anyway, it wasn't gravity, and it wasn't weights pumping in and out like a child on a swing.
It looked like magic, because no one could see what was really going on.