Gravity Wheel -or- Motion Wheel

[primemignonite]

Jim:

This following that you wrote comes as relief to my wearied mind -

" And Bessler wrote back that anyone who could make a lighter weight lift a heavier weight would be a really great craftsman. I don't think Bessler was talking about his own wheel."

And all this time I was laboring-so to do the very thing that I need not have. Never was i able to get the pound to fly up lightly by that quarter. Truly, I thank you.

But, this one comes as a thing rather curious because so incomplete -

"Simply look at spinning ice-skaters who can cause their rate of spin to increase by pulling their arms inward."

For which I thus endeavor for completeness' sake -

I have skated on the ice when much younger and done this very thing, and I can guarantee you that it requires much energy to pull-in, in order to "cause" an increase of spin speed.

In our Nature and Her mundane realm, what odd manner of energy tapping may be effected by either -fugal or -petal?

Truly.

James

[jim_mich]

Once you know the correct method, it becomes easier to move a weight back inward after it moves outward than it is to raise a weight back upward after it falls downward.

[primemignonite]

Now I understand.

Thanks.

Stay warm.

James

[justsomeone]

Jim, Bessler also said: one pound can cause the RAISING of more than one pound. And. : I don't want to go into details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to RISE .

[Grimer]

Once you know the correct method, it becomes easier to move a weight back inward after it moves outward than it is to raise a weight back upward after it falls downward.

I don't understand. The only way I can see to achieve this is to alter the rotational speed.

I can see that if you slow down a horizontal rotation then it is easier to pull the arms in - so by varying the rpm you vary the ease with which a weight can be moved in and out. Is this what you meant or is there some other method?

I find your initial posts and the ensuing discussing excellent, Jim. There was no need to apologise for the long description of the German influences in your childhood. It was most interesting and very relevant.

[Grimer]

Jim, Bessler also said: one pound can cause the RAISING of more than one pound. And. : I don't want to go into details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to RISE .

Presumably you mean that Bessler said, "I don't want to go into details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to RISE."

If so, can you give a link to where he said it.

[Andyb]

Hi Jim,now i am mighty confused i distinctly remember reading when you can cause 4oz to lift 16 ect then the motion will continue or something very similar,the point being that with out something to create the impetus to move the heavier weight it is not going any where,now i have great respect for you Jim but something is not right here too many clues add up to weights working in pairs and my experience has lead me to these conclusions and now i have developed a system that will lightly cause a 1/4 to lift a lb even a 1/5 so why do you not believe this to be so ,is it because it was interpreted by some one else and you disregard this please explain greatest respect Andy b

[jim_mich]

I went back and looked at the context of the writings. Why were they written?. Who was Bessler writing to? It soon became quite clear that many people, specially here on this forum, have been taking individual sentences out of context, which makes them have a different meaning than Bessler originally intended.

If you don't have John Collin's AP with its translation into English, then for heaven's sake order a copy from him. You can download it to computer. Then your computer can search Apologia Poetica for any word or phrase. Once you find where Bessler said something in Apologia Poetica, you can read the discussion leading up to what he said.

Also, go online and read John Collin's posting of Al Bacon's translation of Wagner's second critique, written by Wagner in 1715. Then read John Collin's posting of Al Bacon's translation of Wagner's first critique, written by Wagner in 1716, which actually makes it written second. Don't ask why the first is labeled the second, and the second is the labeled the first. I do not know why.

When I put the whole context together, some of what was being discussed it is not what I originally thought. The 4 lbs lifting 16 pound was Bessler mocking Wagner's concept of rising and falling weight as the source of the lifting power of Bessler's wheel. Bessler responded mockingly that a falling weight would need to lift 4 times its own weight for the wheel to be able to suddenly (quickly) cause the excess weight (the hundred weight) to rise (to the 2nd story) as Bessler's wheel was able to do.

[Andyb]

Thanks Jim, i have read through a bit of what you have put up for me ,i find it very disturbing ,i will disturb my self further and read the lot,it feels like a con which leaves a bad taste in my mouth,but thanks any way, blue.

[Gill Simo]

Jim.... Bessler, in having the advantage over the rest, was well able to play with words/ambiguity....and people.
The most glaring example is of course "apply it's weight to the axle which in its turn must also move".
Bessler said... These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle.
You say.... So let me put this very clear. Bessler said the weights move in and out. One weight moved in and one moved out, then they swap, and on and on they go.
Look again at what Bessler said & you'll see that what you state is actually very unclear, with respect.

How about .... These come in pairs, such that, as one of the pairs takes up an outer position, another pair takes up a position nearer the axle?

If you read Bessler's statement in this way then, assuming his grammar to be impecable, he is not only giving away that pairs move in whilst pairs move out....he is also, by way of the term `other` and not `others` revealing that there are just two pairs in total.

[cloud camper]

Don't get upset Andy. You are right, Jim is wrong.

Jim is just trying to make the clues fit his own pet CF theory.

JB clearly said “When they come to be placed together, and are so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, one or another of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move"

If neither of the weights fall, then this clue is false.

This means that when the weights come together one but not both of the weights do fall, then impacting beams normal to the rim.

If one weight falls, at least one other has to rise.

It is physically impossible to create a dynamic response with only an in and out motion of the weights. Physics requires a dynamic (rotating) instability to create a dynamic response (wheel rotation).

If the weights only move laterally without falling at some point, this creates only a static imbalance in the vertical plane. This creates only PE but never converts to KE therefore no motion.

Also JB said he found the solution in the same place that everyone else was looking. This means that overbalancing is the solution as this is where everyone was looking.

"For this concept, my 'principle of excess weight’, these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which
must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

"It’s well known that countless people throughout all ages have sought the secret of perpetual motion, but no one (part from myself) has
ever found it. All the wise ones were looking for the same principle (of excess weight) that I have described."

The problem then lies in how to maintain the excess weight through a full 360 degree cycle?

I have my answer.

[jim_mich]

Hi guys,

You will need to excuse me, I'll be off line for a day or so. My son (the computer whiz) is cloning the memories from my older computers into my new computer, and setting them up to run as virtual machines. I can read and reply only from my little laptop. All my Bessler documents are in the big new computer, which I don't have access to right now, and I don't feel comfortable working only from memory. You each ask good questions, and I would like to answer each by using Bessler's own words, and then explaining those words. Of course, if you refuse to look with fresh eyes, and maintain old assumptions, my explanation will be of no help to you.

[primemignonite]

Jim:

I am sure we'll all be standing by for news of the new upgrades and improvements, as well answers to those mind-preying and numbing questions swirling 'round and 'round in our oft too-ruminating minds, such as they may be, and for whatever the same.

Here, 'tiz "not a prob, man!" (Do I speak for the rest???)

James

[rlortie]

James,

You ask:(Do I speak for the rest???)

I cannot vouch for all, but I do like the phrase:

"if you refuse to look with fresh eyes, and maintain old assumptions, my explanation will be of no help to you."

An astute observation that even the author needs pay heed to. Old assumptions, if assumed long enough are taken for laws, laws that are only assumed to be correct.

I find hard to imagine a machine on a horizontal axis that is not effected in some way by gravity. A vertical axis motion machine maybe?

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Why do people assume that Bessler's wheel was turned by gravity? Why do people assume that a balanced wheel could magically become gravitationally unbalanced in either direction when rotation is started?