Mechanism for consideration

[jim_mich]

I dont think we can rule out the possibility that a wheel can turn with just gravity and common sense

but I believe a gravity wheel to be possible,

IMHO I can't see how anybody can exclude gravity in the actions of Bessler's wheel.

I don't think anyone doubts Besslers use of gravity in his wheels.

It seems most everyone except myself thinks Bessler's wheels were gravity powered. The problem with this type of thinking is that Bessler's last two wheels were balanced and they worked in either direction. Add to that the fact that gravity is conservative and thus cannot supply perpetual force/energy to the wheel.

Bessler never claimed his wheels to be gravity wheels. He said that weights caused his wheels to turn. Immediately everyone (including Wagner) imagined in their minds OOB wheels turned by gravity. Read Bessler own words as to what caused his wheels to rotate!

the inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement.

Bessler very plainly says that his wheel was turned by force which comes about from the movement of the weights that swing/move after the wheel is rotating.

[eccentrically1]

Jim, aren't AB and T79 saying gravity is what gets the wheels started, but something else keeps them going?
Geterdone and trevor seem to think nothing else is required.

The problem I have with his wheels is there isn't anything but gravity inside to "power" them; gravity gives the weights their initial movement and acceleration, but once they are moving in a circle, it takes another force to change their circular movement to Bessler's "structural position and arrangement". But there isn't one. It has to come from outside his wheels.

[jim_mich]

there isn't anything but gravity inside to "power" them;

Not true. As soon as a wheel starts rotating then its weights experience centrifugal forces.

gravity gives the weights their initial movement and acceleration,

Not true. Gravity did not start Bessler's bi-directional wheels. They required an initial push start.

it takes another force to change their circular movement to Bessler's "structural position and arrangement". But there isn't one.

Not true. There is always centrifugal force.

It [another force] has to come from outside his wheels.

Not True. Centrifugal force is inside the wheel. All it take is an initial rotational start and centrifugal force, like magic, manifests itself.


As soon as a wheel starts rotating then its weights experience centrifugal forces. And the centrifugal forces pump the swinging/moving of the weights. Gravity is not involved. Gravity simply makes the process more difficult.

[eccentrically1]

eccentrically1 wrote:
there isn't anything but gravity inside to "power" them;

Not true. As soon as a wheel starts rotating then its weights experience centrifugal forces.

Not true . Centrifugal force is not a real experience. It only feels like a force.

eccentrically1 wrote:
gravity gives the weights their initial movement and acceleration,

Not true. Gravity did not start Bessler's bi-directional wheels. They required an initial push start.

Not quite true. It's the only force they have inside the wheels to continue their acceleration. The two fingered push start was required to kick start that acceleration from their balanced orientation.

eccentrically1 wrote:
it takes another force to change their circular movement to Bessler's "structural position and arrangement". But there isn't one.

Not true. There is always centrifugal force.

Not true. Centrifugal force is not a force.

eccentrically1 wrote:
It [another force] has to come from outside his wheels.

Not True. Centrifugal force is inside the wheel. All it take is an initial rotational start and centrifugal force, like magic, manifests itself.


As soon as a wheel starts rotating then its weights experience centrifugal forces. And the centrifugal forces pump the swinging/moving of the weights. Gravity is not involved. Gravity simply makes the process more difficult.

Not true. Except for the magic part.
Since gravity is the only interior force, then he would have only gravity to force the weights to his "arrangement". The problem is gravity arranges, or centers things, one way.

As soon as a wheel starts rotating under gravitational acceleration, the wheel forces anything inside of it, out of its straight line motion, to a line 90 degrees to its preferred motion. The straight line motion is all anything inside the wheel has given to it, by gravity. Gravity is the only force inside the wheel that can cause them to move/swing/pump at all in the first place. Gravity doesn't make it more difficult, or easier. It neutralizes its force each rotation.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all, I do not see how centrifugal forces could take over to drive a wheel, if gravity is truly a conservative force (which I very much doubt it is ) then it would conserve the centrifugal forces, I think Jim has got it wrong, it is centrifugal force that is slowing the wheel and gravity is the force input.
My favourite theory is gravity provides a torque force on weighted lever and this winds springs that drive Bessler’s wheel, the duel rotating wheel would be possible using two ratchet drives one for each direction, it was not a out of balance wheel and needed kinetic energy storage and drive system.

[jim_mich]

Centrifugal force is not a force.

Read that again. Are you serious when you wrote that, "Centrifugal FORCE is not a FORCE"? You are saying that a force is not a force.

There are people who claim that centrifugal force is a "fictitious" force while centripetal force is a real force. And this leads people to think that centrifugal force is not a force. But that is false thinking. A weight on a rotating wheel, when moved outward due to centrifugal force, has the ability to do work. It has the ability, when inter-connected to other objects, to exert FORCE through the inter-connection to those other objects, and CF has the ability to forcefully move those other objects. So don't tell me that centrifugal force is not a real force.

A force is a force is a force. If CF is not a force then why is it labeled as centrifugal FORCE?

When a weight moves outward due to CF on a rotating wheel, then the weight is forced to accelerate, else it will not be able to keep up with the rotation of the wheel at the larger radius. Centrifugal force not only is able to forcefully accelerate the weight to its faster speed, but it can also move and accelerate other objects attached to the weight.

The force is as real as any force. We give this force the name "centrifugal force", which simply means "to flee from the center".

Just like all other force, CF requires certain conditions. When you change the conditions then CF is increased or decreased.

If you heat air, thus changing the conditions, then the air will expand and cause a force. Increased air pressure just magically happens when air is heated. Much of our energy needs are provided by heating air/gas thus causing it to magically expand and then harnessing the expansion pressure to do work.

Heat engines operate successfully because of increased gas pressure which causes an engine component to move in one direction and then decreased gas pressure allows the component to move back in the reverse direction. Thus heat engines operate successfully.

Is this any different than harnessing the outward force of an object on a rotating wheel? If you can move the weight back inward using less force than was produced while moving outward, then you have a simple engine powered by motion. In such a case, the weights gain force by moving, which is exactly as Bessler stated.

[ruggerodk]

Read Bessler own words as to what caused his wheels to rotate!

the inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement.

Bessler very plainly says that his wheel was turned by force which comes about from the movement of the weights that swing/move after the wheel is rotating.

So the weights are rotating....but this is not exactly the same as rotation of the wheel or even if the weights rotate with or along with the wheel.
That's a very interesting detail.

ruggero ;-)

[murilo]

Jim and eccentrically1,
for true, it's lovely to see arguments from a skeptical against to the other!

If I would bet, I would put my worthy fortune in NONE of you... 8[

Best!
M

[Tarsier79]

Bessler does say his wheels worked on different principles. He also likens his wheel to a peacocks tail, and says one side is empty, one side is full. This says to me: OB driven by prime mover. If you lift weight always from about 6 to about 12, then the difference between a single direction, and bi-direction wheel could just be the latching system.

As far as CF goes, my view, is again reference point. From a static frame, I agree with CF not being a force, but from a rotational reference frame from the axle, it does act like one. The big question is, "Is CF a conservative force?" The best tool I have seen that would enable us to answer this question is the milkovic oscillator... I personally can'see CF being able to provide us with gain, but haven't had time to experiment with that properly.

[eccentrically1]

Are you serious when you wrote that, "Centrifugal FORCE is not a FORCE"? You are saying that a force is not a force.

What should I have said?

Not true . Centrifugal force is not a real experience. It only feels like a force.

Better?

A force is a force is a force. If CF is not a force then why is it labeled as centrifugal FORCE?

Things only move when there is an imbalance of forces on them.

Say you have a wheel with one weight inside, placed on a radial support at 3 o'clock. The only force it is under the influence of is gravity. Release the wheel. Gravity forces the weight to a point directly under 3 o'clock. The wheel changes its direction in an arc, to 6 o'clock.

Imagine you are the weight. You feel the wheel pushing back against you. Why? Because the wheel is on the ground, transmitting the push back from the earth , which is supplying the other part of the force, between you and the earth. No mystery there. If you keep rotating, around to almost 9 o'oclock say, you feel your position in the field changing, your kinetic energy and potential energy swapping places, the fall and rise, the moment of transition where you feel motionless and weightless for an instant; the moment at the bottom of the sweep where your acceleration imparts a feeling of an extra "force".

Think of it this way.

If you fell from that height, you'd feel the ground suddenly. But you wouldn't say you were hurt from centrifugal force. In the wheel, the fall is spread out over an arc, and you'd feel the "ground",6 o'clock, gradually. But you wouldn't say you felt it gradually because of centrifugal force. You felt it gradually because of the wheel spreading out the gravitational fall over an arc.

[Fletcher]

Masses in motion obey Newton's Laws.

If moving in a straight line with forces in equilibrium then the motion & direction is constant.

Momentum is a more permanent property of mass than say energy.

Momentum is a combination of mass & velocity.

But the higher the mass proportion the larger the inertia - this is relevant when a force is applied to that body.

But ... momentum of a body is a force itself if it comes in contact with something else i.e. mv = force.

In the case of a mass moving in a circle then being unrestrained to move in a tangential straight line its force is its momentum.

Momentum is conserved.

[ovyyus]

Heat engines operate successfully because of increased gas pressure which causes an engine component to move in one direction and then decreased gas pressure allows the component to move back in the reverse direction. Thus heat engines operate successfully.

Is this any different than harnessing the outward force of an object on a rotating wheel?

Fundamentally different. Inertia is NOT a force.

[jim_mich]

Heat is not a force. But it causes heat engines to operate.

Inertia and momentum have very similar meanings in American English language.

INERTIA (Physics) That property of matter by which it tends when at rest to remain so, and when in motion to continue in motion, and in the same straight line or direction, unless acted on by some external force; -- sometimes called {vis inerti[ae]}.

MOMENTUM (Mech.) The quantity of motion in a moving body, being always proportioned to the quantity of matter multiplied into the velocity; impetus.

The only difference between the two words is momentum has measurement while inertia is more abstract.

I could continue to discuss the subtle differences between inertia and momentum, but I'll just bore people. My main point is simply that momentum and inertia have very similar meanings. Both words reflect the concept of force being needed to move objects and the concept of objects in motion having potential force.

Thus the inertia/momentum of a moving object has the ability to cause force.

So I take exception to Bill saying, "Inertia is not force." since clearly inertia is force, as can be demonstrated by any spinning flywheel.

[ovyyus]

Inertia is not a force. Inertia is resistance to change in motion. Force is not required to keep an object in motion. An object's inertia never changes.

Inertia and momentum have a similar meaning in American English? That explains a lot :D

[jim_mich]

Inertia is resistance to change in motion.

How do you expect to measure "resistance to change" except by measuring force?

Is not "resistance" simply force?

The bottom line is, inertia is the resistance to being moved and inertia is the resistance to being stopped.

The inertia of a moving object produces force when the object is stopped.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

For every force (such as stopping a moving weight) there is an equal and opposite force (the inertial force of the moving weight).

The only way to determine inertia is by measuring the force needed to start its motion or the force needed to stop its motion.

The attributes of inertia relates to force, time and distance. If you remove force from the attributes, then you no longer have inertia and are left with only velocity.