Can we all agree on one thing???

[sleepy]

John doe,
It is not that difficult to reach a general consensus that is incorrect.
The world is flat.
Man will never fly.
Sun revolves around the Earth.
These are all incorrect statements that were agreed to be correct by many people,both educated and not.Just saying that reaching a general consensus about something that cannot be proven or disproven is kinda useless.
What would be VERY helpful,would be for you to show us that wheel that you said would be up and running by Good Friday,or April first at the latest.You have obviously run into some difficulty with your design,and this forum is overflowing with knowledge and experience that could potentially be the difference between success and failure.

[eccentrically1]

*Bessler was a real person.
*Bessler showed a number of "wheels" performing work.
*We agree to disagree as to how he did it.
*At least two wheels contained weights.
*At least one wheel contained a spring.
*One wheel was observed to slow to a stop without a load.
*One wheel could restart after being slowed to 5ish rpm.

[John Collins]

I'm unaware of your last two items eccentrically1, can you point me to the reference?

JC

[ME]

At least one wheel contained a spring.

I think I'm excluding this one.

As we believe Bessler was a person, and he made a couple of wheels performing work, then we can assume he's not lying about his wheel while also circumventing the main question about the inner workings.
When Bessler claims that spring is not part of the working-principle, I tend to take his word for it. Perhaps it was a way to temporarily keep the wheel from keeling while inserting his weights: like some unicycle-stand.

While there might have been some spring present at some wheel, such statement makes as much sense as "Those wheels where made out of wood".

• Bessler was a real person.
• Bessler showed a number of "wheels" performing work.
• We agree to disagree as to how he did it.
• At least two wheels contained weights.
• His wheels were made out of wood..
• At least one wheel was observed to slow down under load.
• The uni-directional wheels were self starting.
• The bi-directional wheels needed a slight push (est. 5 RPM).

[rlortie]

I agree with John, were did you find:

*One wheel was observed to slow to a stop without a load.
*One wheel could restart after being slowed to 5ish rpm.

I rely on the written testaments and letters written by the eye witnesses who were allowed access to inspect and test Bessler's wheels. I no longer find interest or need in the alleged clues left by Bessler.

There are other means of gaining possible self-sustaining motion, not related to small weights and levers. I have acquired more knowledge on a molecular level than gained pursuing Bessler's small weights driving a twelve foot drum.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

The newspaper clippings thread dax started; for the restart after slow to 5 rpm observation.

I don't remember who, or where I read it, it was here somewhere, that one of the witnesses was standing there when the wheel slowed and stopped and Bessler said it must have rubbed on something. Was it in Wagner's critique maybe?

[eccentrically1]

I don't think Bessler said springs weren't a part of the working principle. I think he said they were used in the wheel, but not as his detractors suggested.

[jim_mich]

The newspaper clippings thread dax started; for the restart after slow to 5 rpm observation.

I don't remember who, or where I read it, it was here somewhere, that one of the witnesses was standing there when the wheel slowed and stopped and Bessler said it must have rubbed on something. Was it in Wagner's critique maybe?

This was a rumor that Wagner heard. Bessler replied to Wagner, IIRC asking him to supply the name of this witness.

I don't think this to be a credible fact

[ME]

The newspaper clippings thread dax started; for the restart after slow to 5 rpm observation.

I don't remember who, or where I read it, it was here somewhere, that one of the witnesses was standing there when the wheel slowed and stopped and Bessler said it must have rubbed on something. Was it in Wagner's critique maybe?

This one?
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6372

[jim_mich]

I don't think Bessler said springs weren't a part of the working principle. I think he said they were used in the wheel, but not as his detractors suggested.

It is highly probable that the springs were for elastic rebound. Bessler wrote that weights hitting against a wheel might bash the wheel to pieces. A spring would absorb the impact then transfer the impulse to the wheel. A wooden anvil on the spring would quiet the twang of metal against metal.

One witness heard the sound of a spring being released.

[agor95]

I would like to add to the thread, as together we can can build a foundation of agreed beliefs.

Can we agree the term PMM has two definitions?

The one 300 years ago and the definition today?

Todays definition for PMM requires no transfer of energy into the device from outside.

I think I can offer an idea for the process that would transfer energy/momentum into the device from outside.
I just need the forum to check it is correct.

A wheel today would be doing the above. So would not a PMM.
However we can honour Bessler by using the classical term.

Regards

[agor95]

There is a reason for recommending the Apologia Wheel should be with two white sectors in the lower half and one at the top.

The image is showing the phases of the wheel.

1. After the top white sector going CW is the OB drop phase.
2. After the second is the stress storage phase.
3. After the third is the do nothing phase until the released
at the top within the white sector.

[John doe]

John doe,
It is not that difficult to reach a general consensus that is incorrect.
The world is flat.
Man will never fly.
Sun revolves around the Earth.
These are all incorrect statements that were agreed to be correct by many people,both educated and not.Just saying that reaching a general consensus about something that cannot be proven or disproven is kinda useless.
What would be VERY helpful,would be for you to show us that wheel that you said would be up and running by Good Friday,or April first at the latest.You have obviously run into some difficulty with your design,and this forum is overflowing with knowledge and experience that could potentially be the difference between success and failure.

I agree that a consensus doesn't not and cannot guarantee a something is indeed fact. The more I study and contemplate things the less sure I am of even the most basic "facts". Perception being the flawed instruments they are are often easily confused optical illusions and magic tricks would fall into this category.
Even when things are viewed correctly they can be misunderstood. For example walking into a room a man sees a woman crying in front of another man he perceives the woman is very upset over something the man said or did but the woman could have been crying tears of joy because the man just proposed.
Perspective. One persons perspective is often very different from another's. Jihadists in parts of the Middle East could be looked at as brave Heroes but in most of the west are looked at as foolish ignorant cowards.
History is written from the observers perspective and is very rarely completely unbiased.
Lastly relativity. Hot or cold fast or slow are all relative terms and depend on the perspective of a persons environment relative to another.
In short it's amazing that we as a race can agree on anything really as factual.

As for my wheel yes I have obviously run into numerous problems I will likely fire the engineer for incompetence.lol
Seriously though I am confident in my principle design the implementation needs work.
Without getting into specifics my wheel has various mechanisms designed to generate a positive torque through 360's of motion. What I am chasing are let's say dead spots where a positive torque is not being generated.
Some of this I believe is do to design and some is from poor implementation as I am and modifying all parts myself. What I'm finding is that a small change in one system can and does make significant changes in other systems so often a change in the overall system to eliminate one Dead spot will likely create another problem elsewhere.

[eccentrically1]

✯ Bessler was a real person.
✯ He showed a number of "wheels" performing work.
✯ We agree to disagree as to how he did it.
✯ At least two wheels contained weights.
✯ At least one wheel contained a spring.
✯ One wheel could restart after being slowed to 5ish rpm.
✯ His wheels were made out of wood.
✯ At least one wheel was observed to slow down under load.
✯ The uni-directional wheels were self starting.
✯ The bi-directional wheels needed a slight push (est. 5 RPM).

[ME]

(Offtopic, but hard to resist)
When looking at that picture of the apologia wheel in this context, I can barely shake off the image of it being like a pirate flag proudly fluttering in the wind.
We could even add the motto provided by agor95:

As together we can can build a foundation of agreed beliefs

:-)

eccentrically1, looks ok.
Do we need to add a 'two to three rotations until coasting speed'?